primeideal (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
primeideal) wrote2021-06-11 06:31 pm
primeideal) wrote2021-06-11 06:31 pm
Indispensable
"The graveyards are full of indispensable men" -- someone, probably not Charles De Gaulle
At work I occasionally see conversations that go something like this:
A: Our handling of issue foo is bad for us workers, we need to get this on management's radar.
B: Do you have any evidence for this beyond your own experience?
A: As a matter of fact, I do! Here are five exit interviews with people who left over the last year, complaining about foo.
B: Okay, but over that time frame, 100 people left. So it looks as if 95% of people don't have an issue with foo.
A usually takes one of two paths here. This is the useful way:
A: Okay, but only twenty of those 100 people submitted exit interviews at all. Of which, 5 mentioned foo. So really, it's more like "approximately 25% of people have an issue with foo"--that seems serious enough to raise to management.
This is a good point. Yeah, A is extrapolating. But when a lot of people don't say anything at all, the next best thing is to treat the opinions of the people who spoke up as representative of a much bigger group.
This doesn't always apply; for instance, say the company is doing a new initiative on wug. A few current employees are loudly and vocally in favor of this. A lot more think to themselves "I think this is silly, but I'm not going to complain about it, it's not hurting me either and I'm not being forced to participate," so they don't say anything. Maybe a few are offended on principle and complain loudly about it. Taking the loud voices as representative will not be an accurate summary. But, in the situation where people are leaving anyway, they have less to lose from bringing something up if they find it important, especially important enough to push them out the door.
But the other approach A sometimes takes is:
A: Okay, but those 5 people were M, N, O, P, and Q, and they're worth more than those other 95 put together! I mean, have you seen the kind of advocacy N did for others? And P was just the greatest mentor anyone has ever had! Their voices need to carry a lot of weight.
One problem with this is that this argument might carry less weight with management than the one above. However, I'm not going to pretend that all employees are created equal, the systems of promotions and awards and employee of the month writeups suggest otherwise. And goodness knows I'm not very useful in my current position yet, so I don't want to come across as entitled to more recognition than I deserve. But maybe, if the management actually does think MNOPQ were indispensable, hopefully they would have fixed the foo issue before all those superstars walked out the door.
The issue I have, though, is not so much with the efficacy of A's arguments (which are usually important arguments that actually do need to be made!) but with the effect on everyone else. If you're a newbie, hearing "these people were just the best and no one can ever live up to them" isn't a good message. Yeah, I might not be a superstar in my field, now or ever, but we collectively need to be able to reach new heights and achieve new things, otherwise why are we even here? If A really believes that the entire company has a bunch of single points of failure, why is A even here? Sometimes I feel like this pedestal-ization overlooks the fact that A can't know everyone at the organization, or what they do, or who they are as a person outside of work. Someone like N who does go the extra mile to support others might get better-known or be appreciated by more people, but that doesn't make them a uniquely irreplaceable individual.
(And I feel like I can't say this at work because then the A's will be like "no you just don't understand, you're not as cool or as important as MNOPQ, so shut up." And I don't want to be perceived as saying that I am, because again, I'm just a small minion! I just don't think you have the standing to proclaim anyone the greatest of all time. Nor do I want the B's to say "see, A, shut up about foo already, you're not helping." Because often that's a conversation that does need to happen!)
At work I occasionally see conversations that go something like this:
A: Our handling of issue foo is bad for us workers, we need to get this on management's radar.
B: Do you have any evidence for this beyond your own experience?
A: As a matter of fact, I do! Here are five exit interviews with people who left over the last year, complaining about foo.
B: Okay, but over that time frame, 100 people left. So it looks as if 95% of people don't have an issue with foo.
A usually takes one of two paths here. This is the useful way:
A: Okay, but only twenty of those 100 people submitted exit interviews at all. Of which, 5 mentioned foo. So really, it's more like "approximately 25% of people have an issue with foo"--that seems serious enough to raise to management.
This is a good point. Yeah, A is extrapolating. But when a lot of people don't say anything at all, the next best thing is to treat the opinions of the people who spoke up as representative of a much bigger group.
This doesn't always apply; for instance, say the company is doing a new initiative on wug. A few current employees are loudly and vocally in favor of this. A lot more think to themselves "I think this is silly, but I'm not going to complain about it, it's not hurting me either and I'm not being forced to participate," so they don't say anything. Maybe a few are offended on principle and complain loudly about it. Taking the loud voices as representative will not be an accurate summary. But, in the situation where people are leaving anyway, they have less to lose from bringing something up if they find it important, especially important enough to push them out the door.
But the other approach A sometimes takes is:
A: Okay, but those 5 people were M, N, O, P, and Q, and they're worth more than those other 95 put together! I mean, have you seen the kind of advocacy N did for others? And P was just the greatest mentor anyone has ever had! Their voices need to carry a lot of weight.
One problem with this is that this argument might carry less weight with management than the one above. However, I'm not going to pretend that all employees are created equal, the systems of promotions and awards and employee of the month writeups suggest otherwise. And goodness knows I'm not very useful in my current position yet, so I don't want to come across as entitled to more recognition than I deserve. But maybe, if the management actually does think MNOPQ were indispensable, hopefully they would have fixed the foo issue before all those superstars walked out the door.
The issue I have, though, is not so much with the efficacy of A's arguments (which are usually important arguments that actually do need to be made!) but with the effect on everyone else. If you're a newbie, hearing "these people were just the best and no one can ever live up to them" isn't a good message. Yeah, I might not be a superstar in my field, now or ever, but we collectively need to be able to reach new heights and achieve new things, otherwise why are we even here? If A really believes that the entire company has a bunch of single points of failure, why is A even here? Sometimes I feel like this pedestal-ization overlooks the fact that A can't know everyone at the organization, or what they do, or who they are as a person outside of work. Someone like N who does go the extra mile to support others might get better-known or be appreciated by more people, but that doesn't make them a uniquely irreplaceable individual.
(And I feel like I can't say this at work because then the A's will be like "no you just don't understand, you're not as cool or as important as MNOPQ, so shut up." And I don't want to be perceived as saying that I am, because again, I'm just a small minion! I just don't think you have the standing to proclaim anyone the greatest of all time. Nor do I want the B's to say "see, A, shut up about foo already, you're not helping." Because often that's a conversation that does need to happen!)