The Goat Pen

No, it's not workplace safety, but is is very unprofessional and a tick mark from insubordination.

I spent a lifetime managing professionals and middle managers. It never ceased to amaze me how much it could be like dealing with kids at times.

E.F.Z.

The manager is now stewing...(slightly) mad at me for not "backing" her. I told her that I support her right to go to HR. I also have to give her my honest feedback. I respect her feelings, there is no way I would ever tell her that her feelings of safety are not real, but I can tell her that I don't think her feelings, in this instance, are accurate. She'll get over it with respect to me but no way I can have these people working together.

Until I can figure out the new configuration, I now have to be a part of every meeting and non-digital interaction between the two. That is exhausting for me...and not something I have any real interest of spending my time on. It is my job, though, albeit not what is supposed to be the majority of my days.

Just fire them both.

Smart bombs (in the Asteroids video game sense) aren't all bad.

Funny enough...firing the analyst would probably send the other analysts into a bit of a resentment fit against me and the firm. He's decently liked. The manager is not...and the analysts are well aware of the dynamics and personalities of all the parties involved.

And I would tell her that I support her with regard to being mad that he stormed off with clenched teeth, but that you didn't equate that with some kinda threat to her person. Further, I would tell her that until she improved her communication, dust-ups like this will continue to happen.

It's been my experience that an occasional strategic firing will often pay dividends with others.

AlabamAlum wrote:It's been my experience that an occasional strategic firing will often pay dividends with others.

I've reached my strategic firing limit for the next 18 mos, or so.

...and yeah, this particular dust up is already #4 with her team. I've done this dance before with her...it's just that this time is the first one where she stated that she felt unsafe and threatened.

#4?

Did you side against her with the other three? If so, fire her.

I sided with her in #1 (which was with an outside firm). For #2 I asked for both manager and analyst to do some things in order to get to the uneasy peace they've now maintained the past 8 months (which I affectionately, and only to myself, call "Israel and Egypt"). Actually, until a couple of days ago I didn't know #3 happened, at all. I was told by HR (they had to keep it confi for reasons I won't bore you with) after I had this conversation about #4.

She needs work and maybe I'm too patient, but she's good. If anything, I may have to have her in a role where her technical skills are leveraged but her people interaction minimized. Right now, this "safety" claim is making it hard to address these other issues without it looking like I'm being punitive when she is feeling vulnerable and (probably a bit) isolated.

Read him the riot act, put a reprimand in his personnel file and send him back to work. Unless he's had this in the past, then no need to be fired. If she feels he needs counseling, tell her to recommend it to HR (in writing and why). That's publicly. Were there any witnesses?

Privately, you explain to her that while you support her, it takes more than one incident before you let go of a valued employee, unless he physically or verbally threatens (you'll probably have to explain to her what a threat is, because slamming a hand or tablet on the table is not a threat. Then tell her she needs to watch a the "Horrible Bosses" video.

By the way, the sandwich approach with her. She is a great technical worker and an asset to the company. But this blowup can end up being a negative issue for the employee as well as her. He'll get the reprimand and that you support her as she continues to improve her leadership skills. If she does that, she can rise high in the workplace.

Better to walk away than say something you will regret later.

I need an update on the nomenclature.

If you are a transgender man, does that mean that you are genetically a female that thinks he/she's a man or a man that he/she thinks is a female?

Yes. A transgender man is a biological women who identifies as male psychosociosexually.

Thanks

Where does the biological line fall? Dick or pussy? Can you be born with a dick and still have female organs and thus be considered a female biologically?

Do old ladies with chin beards count as men?

Saint wrote:Where does the biological line fall? Dick or pussy? Can you be born with a dick and still have female organs and thus be considered a female biologically?

Those folks usually identify as "intersex".

So the speaker at the DNC was a transgender woman who was the widow of a transgender man.

Why get the surgery?

Jungle Rat wrote:Better to walk away than say something you will regret later.

I was about to say that's rich coming from you, then I realized you've never regretted anything you've ever said. In here, anyway...