Quote from Alex on August 29, 2022, 9:57 am

Quote from John Freeman on August 29, 2022, 8:58 am

You don't want to work (joke)

My supervisor whom I love and respect a lot has this joke. When a patient misses his appointment he says: "You don't want to work!" as a joke.

At first, I liked this joke. However, now it became a joke that is cristalyzing a frame. I have let it go for too long. And he says it with my colleague as an accomplice who defended me with: "some weeks it happens to me as well".

However now I have to defend against this joke as it is cristallyzing whereas I'm working hard (actually harder than my colleague).

Our chief actually sometimes plays the 2 vs 1 by taking one of us taking turn as an accomplice towards the other to joke.

As he's a kind person and is of good will, I tolerated it so far.

However, I will not tolerate the reputation of a lazy person.

So I will use the broken record technique:

Patient does not come

Supervisor comes in my office with a smile: "You don't want to work!"

Me with a smile and warmth: "I love to work! I'm not responsible if patients miss their appointments". (smile all along and at the end: I take your humour but not the frame).

edit: it happened right now, I defended with “I love to work” (with a smile)

 

He will not like that I bomb his joke but I will have his respect.

Actually he has the jester kind of power and he's the boss.

This morning he said to me:

You're going to the army? (Me: I don't understand, look puzzled)

My colleague says: "it's the haircut". I  look in the mirror and my haircut is not military style at all. I went to the hairdresser on Saturday. So I ignore it.

I know my boss has some kind of envy towards us because we're young and he's close to retirement. So this fuels this kind of one-up jokes.

That means that I also have to build him up with his experience: "You who has so much experience, etc."

Also I'm highly motivated and every monday he says that he's not happy it's monday. And I've been hearing him looking for the retirement at least 10 times in 4 months. So there's a mismatch there.

Hi John,

If he is your boss then I wouldn't mind too much, you could acknowledge that his joke is funny while rejecting the assumption that you're not working. For example:

Haha, that was a funny one, and I wish it was true. Then I would not be so frustrated when the patient is wasting my time by not showing up.

I believe it's always better to not oppose the frame of higher-ups (or keep it for times where they really break your boundaries).

What I would have done in your other example: "You're going to the army?" I would have replied with a big smile: "Oh so you've noticed, I've been doing a lot of training lately" and then I could even flex my biceps in a goofy way if appropriate while leaving. This way you don't oppose his frame, but keep your face inside of it.

Quote from Transitioned on August 29, 2022, 10:20 am

How about 'I love to work'. We need patients who love to arrive.

Doesn't really make sense.  But most humour doesn't

When you can't think of anything to say catch his eye smile and look away

 

 

Quote from John Freeman on August 29, 2022, 8:12 pm

Thank you very much guys for your answers, very helpful! :)

I actually have another situation I'd love your opinion on:

I created this committee for the resident physicians in paediatrics. And there will be an announcement of the creation of the group. I'm the one leading it and who put in the more work. I recruited all members and therefore gave them this opportunity. However, there is one woman who's kind of challenging my authority again and again. I now understand she's a feminist. It's all good.

However, a communications person wrote the bit for the announcement of the committee to the hospital. This will be a huge boost in status for all of us. And we will also be able to do our work better as representative of the committee since we will have the official support of the big boss and the institution.

The article she wrote is not of the highest quality, to say the least. I don't think this woman was hired for her writing skills, but rather her political ones after I dealt with her.

Anyway, she put the order of the names of the committee like this: Dr John Freeman, Andrew Schmidt, Sandra Bullock, Amy Andrews, Sarah Jones.

So since it's a democratic group, I sent it to the group to tell them that the article is not that good, that I'm going to modify it and send it to them.

In the WhatsApp group, this is what she said:

Is it possible to put the names in alphabetical order rather than sex order :) It's an old habit, but it would be cool to change it if I can say a comment :)

Her demand is fair. However, I did not forcibly see it as a sex order. It's her view. Anyway she acknowledges that order has an importance.

So do I! The problem is that I created it, I worked the most and deserve the most credit, so I think I should be first. Enlightened collaborator approach.

The problem being that if we put it in order I appear last, she appears second and the first one would be a guy who did not invest as much as I did.

Two solutions:

1. Put it in inverse alphabetical order, so I appear first. Because I could say that alphabetical order is an old habit and that I always appear last.
2. Go with it and not care because the real issues are somewhere else. I could use it as a negotiation chip to be the one to write the email where we announce the creation of the group. I could say to myself: this is not important and let it go. I could also modify the text to say that I recruited them but this would be perceived as egotistic and putting myself above them and I would lose leadership capital.

It's not only an ego thing, but a fair recognition of my work. She pushes her frame and I don't want to go with it as she's very dominant woman.

I cannot pretend to an official higher status in the group because then the whole democratic thing would fly off. However, I think I should get the recognition for putting this together.

The problem I see is that woman is always angry about something and that's how she obtains what she wants. So I have a social challenge here.

Status is at stake here and people are going crazy! That's what it does to people (including me, see this post?)

I'm going to sleep on it. In the end, this is not the main issue. But I'm tired of people who are demanding and not grateful of the opportunity I gave them.

Once again, recruiting is 90% of the game. She's a good recruit in terms of ideas and stuff, but she clearly wants to be the boss.

So that's a good lesson for me: not recruiting individuals in a group who are too dominant and will challenge my authority.

I should have taken more time to think about the recruiting: who could be a threat to me in terms of career, who could challenge me, etc.

I went for 3 criteria:

• People I get along with
• People not afraid of saying what they think
• Critical thinkers

Lesson learned. I should have learned it from previous experience. But I did not think this group in terms of inner power dynamics. I thought about it in terms of abilities. I can still roll with it, but this woman is becoming a pain in the ass as she's quite confrontational. High-power but confrontational.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on August 29, 2022, 10:12 pm

I wouldn't have liked that comment.

It's illogical, since "sex order" is no real order, divisive, and makes up a non-existing, time-wasting issue out of nothing -and a possible thorny issue for you-.

I think you're falling for the knee-jerk trap of "having to provide a reply" and instead I'd ignore first, and see if she comes up with it again.

That way, if she pursues it again, it's she who seems hung up on this issue.

If I'd reply to that, I'd say something like:

"all names are there and it's good for all of us (<- focus on the positive, and indirectly slightly shames her for focusing on negatives). About the order, I don't see it as sex-driven (<- clearly disagree) and personally think it's fine (<- state your opinion openly and clearly)".

Close it there, then add:

"anyway, I'll work on the higher prio issues in the article and send it back to you guys if you wanna check it".

Now you changed topic, so if she goes back to it, it's her who's making a big deal about it.

If she still cannot let go, reply something like:

"hmmm, I think it's fine as it is. But if it's truly a huge issue for you, let's talk about that in person next time we meet".

Ideally, you meet after you send the article (fait-accompli), so that if she brings it up again, then she looks like an annoying idiot who can't let go.

If you meet before, then you want to keep your name first but need to very careful there.
She's taking the side of the current public and political opinion.
You may want to frame it as "order based on who worked on it the most". I haven't yet thought it through well though, so glad to read what you or others would come up with in that scenario.

Quote from John Freeman on August 29, 2022, 11:56 pm

Thank you very much Lucio, yeah I'm getting more and more in the advanced power dynamics so this is very helpful.

With your answer, I realize that I need to go to the next level to deal with the people I deal with now.

 

Quote from John Freeman on August 30, 2022, 2:09 am

I realized that I'm too transparent with people, at work and my friends.

After having worked a lot on machiavellianism, the story with JB made me realize that I had to go back to more authenticity.

And now that I switched back this way, I see that I'm too transparent for my environment. I give all the information and this then gets back to me. Wether in the committee I created or at work.

I learned to be more strategic, for instance answering every email (works wonders) and saying that I'm great even if I'm tired, whatever. Also, I learned not to talk about work in social environments. You can do it sometimes, but it has to be with the right crowd, either interested in the topic or wanting to go deep. If people want to have fun, then you become a party pooper, just by bringing a serious topic that reminds people of their (most often hated/not liked) work.

You can talk about your work with people who are also passionate about their work as for them it's an enjoyable topic. For people who don't like their work or are just working to make a living, it's a drag.

So I have to go back to being more machiavellian now. I earned the trust of people with being more authentic and I will still be authentic. However, I have to dial it down at work and in the committee or I will not achieve my goals.

You're right Lucio about not answering and also about being machiavellian about it. I'll bring some correction and send it back directly to the lady. I will not submit it to the committee as I see that it does not bring good things. Either people don't give me feed-back on it or they give me shit. I have to be strategic about what I ask feed-back on. If I share too much of the power (which was my intention), it will fire back at me.

For instance, we got a proposition from a chief physician to participate in a new committee as we're supposed to send someone from our committee for monthly meetings. What did I do? I answered the guy and forwarded the email to the committee. What did this woman said (not explaining the whole context now) in an email:

Her: Since none of us is working in the emergency right now, it's an easy answer no?

Me: Yes, I'm aware of that. It still asks for a group meeting discussion.

We have to decide whom is going to go and if one of us is going to go (we could have one of them come to us) so it's not an easy answer.

I wanted to make this group all transparent and all democratic. I now think that it's a utopia. It works with selected environments with selected people if you can impose it on people to be transparent and authentic as a norm. Like what they did with Bridgewater.

Otherwise, the individual playing power games and hiding information will win. So it's a delicate balance: when to be totally open and transparent and when to hide information and intention. It's about being selectively authentic and it's an art.

I have the power by having created this group. I must keep it or I won't attain my goals. The idea is to keep this group democratic enough for people to go along with what I propose. But I cannot make it as open and transparent as I would have. Every time I shared information with a member, I realized that I was empowering them a lot.

So by wanting to share the power, I actually give it away for free. It goes back to me not valuing my effort enough. I must value what I acquired.

Especially when I noticed that when you share information, people won't automatically do the same. So it's a balancing act.

Quote from John Freeman on August 30, 2022, 7:21 am

@lucio: I’m afraid that I will lose her goodwill if I don’t do what she proposes. Don’t you think?

I’m thinking of putting the name in reverse alphabetical order so I won’t be labeled as a “domineering macho”.

There will be other decisions to be made so I still want her goodwill.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on August 30, 2022, 10:26 am

Yeah, you said it, too democratic can be... Too much.

Some decisions are only for the leadership team, or for the leader.
Not even just for a power thing, but also from an effectiveness point of view.
Leadership also serves to take time off the people who are not leaders, and to do what the leader knows how to execute better than the rest -imagine if prime ministers had to send around memo to all the nation to see and agree on, it wouldn't be good for anyone. Best case instead people trust the leader to take many decisions in everyone's interest, and ping the ministers or, in extreme cases, referendum back to the population for some others-.

But there isn't a one-size fit all and one has to find the balance.

With game players and power mover (like this lady), then higher power and Machiavellianism and strategic approach is best.
If one has the luxury of a great team who respects the leader and supports him and focuses on delivering value for all, then more democratic is generally better for all as you get more inputs, more ideas, more contributions, and generally more value for all.

Quote from John Freeman on August 30, 2022, 7:21 am

@lucio: I’m afraid that I will lose her goodwill if I don’t do what she proposes. Don’t you think?

I’m thinking of putting the name in reverse alphabetical order so I won’t be labeled as a “domineering macho”.

There will be other decisions to be made so I still want her goodwill.

It's possible.

Personally, it's a risk I'd take.

One, I wouldn't want to relinquish the order because it's fair you're first and a good leader people want to trust goes for what's fair -what makes it thorny here is that what's fair is what's good for you, and that's always a risk as it might be read as you being too selfish: that's the risk here. It's the same position I was in here with banning someone that had answered out of line to me personally: it might come across as me being thin-skinned. But in the end, it was fair he was banned, so that's what I did-.

And F you think that her request is nonsense BS,I wouldn't want to send the message that you may acquiesce to all types of nonsense BS (I do think so in this case as I'd totally disagree with her. BUT if you partially agree with her, than it's very different).

As the leader, you also want to shape the environment with your vision, values, and beliefs -otherwise, you're just an administrator/facilitator, not a leader-.

Finally, I'd also worry that by making too many concessions, you may come across as not high-power enough.
You want stand behind something you believe in until you see it through, also because of leadership power dynamics.

But that's only me, from the outside.
And you're right: it is a real possibility that when you defend the order it can come across the wrong way, and/or that she's overly touchy, and you burn bridges with her.
You know her and the situation better, so you're best placed to make that decision (and I'm curious to see what you decide and how it goes).

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on August 30, 2022, 11:23 am

Here's a potentially good question to open the discussion with her:

You: Is there a good reason beyond simple genders why you think John first is not fair?

You may even add: "that wasn't my priority, but if it's important to you, is there.... "

Think about that frame and what it does:

1. Fairness takes center stage: it frames the discourse around fairness, as it should be. If she pushes the gender agenda, you can be politically savvy and say "gender issues are important, and to address them at the root cause, I believe we can use contribution as a measure of fairness, independently of gender"
2. Gender issue is not as important or, at least, not as important as fairness
3. The current list is fair (at least for the first name). That's the best status quo to start from, otherwise, you'd be always defending. Let her me in the underdog position, don't allow her to put you in the defensive position
4. She must put in effort now to properly explain why, not you. With her question, you were on the defensive, trying to come up with good reasons why gender order wasn't a good idea. By asking her why, she has to come with valid reasons
5. Puts her in a difficult spot to explain why now it's not fair, a power move, but it's fair here
6. You're the judge, she has to prove herself and her proposal with a good reason, and you are in the power position to accept or reject

Now to validate the change, she has to come up with a reason why your name first is NOT fair, which would make her come across as nasty.

If you defend your name first, you can easily come across as too selfish and self-interested for defending your name first.
But if you ask her why it's not fair, she can easily come across as nasty for attacking your name as first.

Even if she comes up with soli reasons, you're still in the power position of judging and deciding, while she's expending most of the effort (law of least social effort is on your side).