I can usually pass for fairly normal if I keep my comments fairly bland. I’m talking about in the gen pop. I know I’m a weirdo, but I am always finding new ways in which I’m the outlier.
For example, there was a question on Ask A Manager today in which the letter writer (LW) had in enteraction with their colleague that left a sour taste in the LW’s mouth. The way they wrote the question made it seem like it was a matter of business jargon of their company (and they were new). Alison and most of the commenters fixated on this. Alison did address another part of the question (the colleague said he wished the LW treated their colleagues the way they did external customers. When the LW gave an admittedly terrible answer about learning about using a customer voice at business school (sigh), the colleauge said to think of them as internal customers. The LW got stuck on the term, saying they learned ‘internal stakeholders’ and replied, “I’m good, thanks.”
Which, ouch. They go on to say their boss had overheard the whole exchange and how could they make sure their boss didn’t think they were entitled? They added they had gone to college and their boss and colleauges hadn’t (as a reason they think their boss might think they’re entitled). They also said at the beginning of their letter that all their colleagues and boss had worked at the same company together prior to this job.
As I said, Alison focused on the terminology and the fact that the LW was a new person trying to school her colleagues. And the LW got excoriated in the comments. Which surprised the hell out of me.
Now, let me be clear. I don’t think the LW handled the situation well, but I had a radically different interpretation of the events. A few people touched on it in the comments, but they were ignored or shouted down.
First, I will admit that I had no idea about internal customers and internal stakeholders (which I kept thinking was ‘shareholders’ as a German commenter said in the comments–I mean that she kept thinking that, too), so the whole letter was hard to follow. But once I wrapped my head around that, this was my thoughts.
Oh, by the way, it’s amusing to me how mnay people in the comments were so quick to decry college (and higher education) while simultaneously making it very clear that they had the same degrees. But it meant nothing! It didn’t help them at all! Which is probably true for some of them, but they still made sure to mention they had the education.
Side tangent: It’s like in the letters about people getting colleagues to interview their kids for jobs. The people making these comments are so careful to point out that all they do is tell their colleagues about their kids, but their kids do everything else so it’s not that huge a leg up!
Sure. If that’s the case, then don’t do it. I mean, if it’s not really a privilege, then you can take it away with no problem, right? I’m not saying they shouldn’t give their kids a leg up. Why the hell wouldn’t you? I just hate that they’re being disingenuous about it. Same with the college thing. Oh, it doesn’t mean you’re better or that it’s worth anything–but let me be very clear that I, too, have it!
Someone in the comments pointed out that this rise of ‘it’s not a big deal’ has coincided with more disadvantaged people getting their degrees. Oh, people were not happy about that comment. It’s true, though. It’s also interesting that this claim that a college degree does not matter is so fervent, and yet, you have to have a college degree to get so many jobs–including admin assist jobs.
Anyway. This was my reaction to this question. The LW was feeling left out because they are new, but also beacuse everyone else knew each thore from a previous job. They are the only one who went to college. In other words, they are clearly the other. I know that so well.
And, I will be honest, when they said that their colleauge said he wished the LW talked to their colleagues the way they did to external customers, I bristled. Because to me, that means they are looking to be treated with deference and servitude. Oh, the LW said they were friendly and respectful to colleagues but admitted they were ‘nicer’ to clients. The commentariat took that to mean that they weren’t friendly and respectful to their colleagues. I took it to mean that the male colleague wanted to be treated like a superior when he wasn’t.
There were a few people pointing out that it could be either interpretation. The LW might be not nice to their colleauges or the colleague might be expecting more from them because they are in a minority group. But most people dismissed the latter by poniting to what they said as evidence of the former. To me, that’s a circular argument because the LW responded the way they did to what their colleague said first. So context matters.
In reading the comments, I really felt like I was missing something. I mean, I knew the comments would take the letter writer to task, but I wasn’t expecting it to be as bad as it was. It was the perfect storm of different issues, I think, but it’s also that the LW was pretty blunt in their writing. They didn’t gussy up what they said at all. In addition, they said they wanted to make sure their boss didn’t think they were entitled and came up with a cringeworthy way to deal with the issue.
I would have asked them if they felt comfortable at their job before this incident. I have a hunch that they don’t. I also wonder if they are a woman or a man of color. Or even the fact that they are much younger could be why the colleague felt comfortable making the comment he did. Most people in the comments took it to mean that the LW must be really mean to their colleagues if the colleague would actually say that. Those people talked about how they would be mortified to be told they weren’t being nice to their colleagues.
What they seem to forget is that AAM has had mnay letters from people who have been told to be nicer to their colleagues for egregious reasons. Many times for being female and having the audacity to be forthright. And I was getting those vibes from this lettel. We’re supposed to take writers at their word, but nearly everyone dismissed that the LW was friendly and respectful to their colleagues.
This was a fascinating letter. I can see why everyone else had the reaction they did, butI just didn’t see it that way. Again, the LW reacted poorly, but I thought it was more out of being defensive and maybe already getting shit for being the youngest and having gone to business school.
This is one of the letters I wish would be updated, but I highly doubt it will be as the letter writer got such a drubbing in the comments.