Quote from John Freeman on August 30, 2022, 8:22 pm

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.

Yes I thought I had to provide an answer. I know better now

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

Smart.

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".

Smart and high power. However, there is the risk of going into an argument. I'll rather use the "fait accompli" technique. So I'll learn something from that.

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

Yes.

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.

Smart. I will send the corrected text directly to the communications person without them checking it. I'll use the "effectiveness" frame. I'll say that I wanted to make things move forward, which is true.

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.

I could do that, but then I could be challenged on the "who do you think you are" frame. So this would remove some legitimacy from me.

What I'll do: I'll use the reverse alphabetical order as my name will still appear first and I will have gone with her request of not having two males first. So if someone challenges me I'll say: "Well, I went for reverse alphabetical order to change. It's a habit to use alphabetical order but we don't have to." mirroring her frame of "sex first is a habit, we can change it". And I'll move on the high priority issues. Since it will be fait accompli and the work will be done there might be some groaning but no one can accuse me of not having done the work. They will know what I did (put myself first) but will not be able to challenge the fairness of it. In case they push (since I might run into the risk of having the whole group disagree, but small probability since she's the only one who manifested herself), I'll say: "Well, I don't see any problem that my name would be the first, since I did most of the work". I won't say that it is because I recruited them because I would risk them ganging up on me.

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?

With her, there's a high risk of an argument and us smart Alecing one-another since we are 2 smart people (she might even be smarter than me or at least she portrays herself as such).

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.

What you wrote here, guided me to correct it myself and not ask for their feed-back as it would take too long. I will blame it on effectiveness and it's true. Some situations demand group decisions, other not.

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-.

Great example

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.

Aha!

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.

I am willing as well. First for the learning experience as it is outside my comfort zone. Second because in 2 months she'll be away from the city for 2 years so she won't be able to contribute anyway.

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.

Definitely! That's the business case 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-.

Yes you 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).

I totally disagree with her, she's making an issue out of nothing. I did notice that the 2 males were first but I did not see it as an attack on females or whatever. It's a 40-50ish female who wrote the text. So if she's fine with it, even if she's following some social construct, why should I care?

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-.

That's a powerful lesson that I will remember. That was my mistake in terms of frame. I love the facilitator role. However, I think you showed me what the next level is: a leader. And a leader decides as well when deciding is called for.

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.

Definitely. That is the risk, especially with a power mover like her.

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).

Since there won't be 2 males at the first place, issue is solved. I cannot be attacked for male chauvinism.

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"

Boom!

1. Gender issue is not as important or, at least, not as important as fairness

Boom again! And if you care about gender issue, ergo you care about justice and fairness.

1. 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

Yes, we go back to the fundamentals.

1. 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

Yes.

1. Puts her in a difficult spot to explain why now it's not fair, a power move, but it's fair here

It is.

1. 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

Definitely. I will use this dynamics in case of further challenge. In this group, I was too open and free flowing. I'll be more aware of power dynamics.

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.

True, but this could be validated by others as doctors are status-hungry. And in a way they profit from having been recruited by me but at the same time they resent me for being "in charge". So there is a resentment as I recruited them, so there is a power dynamics in there.

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.

Yes, but the majority of the group is female. So the gender argument could win.

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).

True.

To sum up: I'll use the reverse alphabetical order to have my name first and appease her by not having 2 males first. Other people won't care as much or might tease me lightly. Anyway I'll change subjects by saying we should focus on the priorities.

I'll use the "fait accompli" and send the text before review. They won't mind that much as they did not even answer to my email (out of this woman). So they cannot complain since they did not give any input. Again I will have done most of the work and we must get moving (true, our meeting with the big boss has been postponed by 1 month, so we have to get moving).

Many many lessons in leadership here from you. I think these will also be valuable both in terms of mindset and techniques to other forum members. Golden nuggets in here!

Quote from John Freeman on August 30, 2022, 8:29 pm

As a side note, the text this communications person sent me is of poor quality. 50% is copy-pasted from my presentation and the rest is not very exciting nor informative. It does show that my organization is very political as this person is clearly not skilled at writing. And it's supposed to be her living!

To be fair, I think she's one of the university people who studied the why and the how of communication without the what (the craft). So I'm sure she has a high view of communication and is good at that. But come on! Writing a text.

Once again, she looks more like a gatekeeper than anything else. What she does is send regularly emails to the departments to know if they have some news to announce.

Aha! I realize that the power mover actually was not happy with her being 4th out of 5 people. So she pulled this power move to end up 2nd. Well, with my trick she's still 4th out of 5.

Quote from Transitioned on August 31, 2022, 10:39 pm

We call these people process monkeys in the IT game.  Basically they don't pay much attention to their work because they are bureaucrats/courtiers.  Maintaining their connections is more important to their survival than doing good work.

 

 

Quote from John Freeman on September 4, 2022, 10:55 pm

I see your post now, Transitioned. Hahaha, I love it. That's exactly it. She was more concerned about not pissing off inadvertently higher up and getting juicy info (which I provided) than doing a good job apparently. Finally I wrote the text myself, keeping only the structure.

Big fish in a small pond trap

I almost fell for this one recently. I was at a party with colleagues and a nurse told me that I was ready to be an attending physician (next step on the hospital ladder) in the paediatric emergency. I thanked him for the compliment and told him it opened my mind to new possibilities. He told me it would look good on the CV as well.

I told him that I could see my former peer who's now an attending physician and how much progress he made. That meant to me it was tempting.

Today, I realize it's an ego trap. Being an attending physician at paediatric emergency:

• Schedule: the schedule is shit (nights, week-ends, nights of week-ends) as he told me himself that if you don't have children you get even a worse schedule
• Nurse team: only a minority are straight shooters, most are game players with big egos. We work constantly with the nursing team.
• Mindset/culture: the mindset culture is not yet of a growth mindset, they made real progress but it's not yet enough
• Challenge/Progress: this would be a new step in my skillset as a physician
• Exciting: emergency is exciting

Of course, I would get higher status and salary. This is the temptation of external reward. However, if I do work at the emergency department, I'd rather do it in another hospital.

To sum up: when you see a peer climbing the ladder, it's tempting to do the same. As you can see the progress, skills, boost in status. Also boost in status from the small group you're part of. But is it worth having a shit social life? In my mind no. Also the flattery got to me I must admit.

I'm not ditching this challenge right now, I keep it as a last resort. I'll try other options first.

Dealing with game players

Where I am, you already know the "Perfect" power play. It's prevalent and it is annoying to me.

However, since I learned from Lucio that it's more important to have real power (getting what you want) than the games itself, I'm more detached. So I actually ignore more often their games. Because to check them, I would have to play the same game back on them with the risk of the turkey spiral (of "perfects" for instance). Especially when it's not public/high stake situation.

So I'm in the process of finding a new way to deal with game players. A more nuanced one. That means: in certain situations to check them and in others to ignore them. Because now it does not affect me emotionally as it used to be. I see the game and if it's someone who's supposed to give a service to me, I make a mental note.

Aha, I see. I think that before ignoring, you want to send the message that you see their games.

Photographer (supposed to make picture for my CV, played "busy game" and "not available" game on me): "Perfect!" (after my own "Perfect" just above in the WhatsApp chat)

Me (new approach: I see you): Yeah, it's Perfect :)

This is not good. I won't say that. Ah shit, I'm afraid I'll still have to check them even if it sounds stupid to me and I'm getting tired of checking insecure people's games. There is no way out of it. I'll have to make it a habit to check them. Well, that was worth a mental try.

Because ignoring in these situations sends a bad message: "I allow you to play these little games on me". Food for thoughts.

I thought about something else: I'll create a new thread for it.

Quote from John Freeman on September 7, 2022, 8:43 pm

Thanks to recent feed-back from @kavalier, I had a realization today.

When you talked about authority frame, it made me think today about a way I could unwillingly trigger my friends to one-up me.

Sharing my knowledge

As you guys know, I love to learn. I also love to share my knowledge. When I do it with my friends, I do my best to share my sources, etc. I give it as it's one of the ways I know how to give value.

However, I can imagine that if you have a friend who's often telling you: "I learned this, I learned that" in a conversation, it can annoy some people for different reasons.

I'll give an example.

I was talking about pick-up with a new friend on a balcony. I was talking about my day game experience and saying that I had only 1 lay from day game based on all my other intimate encounters. The topic was: day game has a low ROI in terms of time and energy. I was saying that when travelling abroad, I did not do it because I was not feeling confident enough to do it abroad.

Bernard was inside, and he sticks his head out on the balcony:

"Yeah, and he's a doctor and he's been doing this and that... Hahahaha (loud laugh)"

(I don't remember as I was half listening because he was definitely disempowering me and making fun of me in front of the group)

As he was harping to make fun by talking over me as I was talking, I could not focus anymore on my conversation. After a few moments,  I turned to him and decided to throw him under the bus (go strong), I said with lots of energy and emphasis, sarcastically:

I introduce you to Bernard, he's a really good friend: loving, supportive!

He recoiled in shame and I continued my conversation. I almost apologised later but I did not. I could have talked about what happened but he understood exactly what happened. We moved on and had a great night. He did not talk about it.

I'm someone who's not boasting. Actually what I was saying was quite negative about my day game skills. I was sharing my experience. However, he saw me talking and teaching what I know to new people he did not know, so he intervened.

So in the same spirit as when people ask me how I am, I say: "great!" and focus on the positive. From now on, I'll think before sharing what I know if people don't ask me.

However, I won't be ashamed of my life. I don't boast about it but it's my life. I'm not going to tell stories that did not happen.

So to him, maybe I was taking an "authority frame" and he did not like it. However, we were sharing with my new friend our experiences and he asked for my advice/opinion because he knew I had some experience in pick-up. So I said what I had to say.

What I could tweak in these situations, it's that instead of going for a 2 minute monologue, I could speak less. However the way I currently think, I need to talk quite a lot to express my thoughts and experiences.

That being said, I'll be more sensitive and maybe shut my mouth when I know something and the other person don't. Even if said respectfully and in a spirit of sharing, maybe the person does not view it this way and think I'm a "know-it-all" and takes it as a smart alecing move.

I'll experiment, thanks a lot Kavalier!

For more context: it's actually Bernard who says oftentimes about himself: "I'm good at such and such skill". I don't talk like that. For me and the culture I was brought in, it's quite arrogant. In my culture, it's the other people who are supposed to say if you're good, not you. There are things that are "naturally" easier for me than for some people, I would not say I'm good at them. I would say I have strengths and weaknesses as some things are "naturally" harder for me than for other people. As for the skills, a learner would never say he's good. A learner is an eternal student by definition and is quite cautious about thinking of himself as an expert (risk of fixed mindset). My pride is in being a learner and the effort I put in (meta: positive self-reinforcement).

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on September 7, 2022, 9:43 pm

Wow, great move, John!

That was perfect, mixing the boundaries' defense with one-up back and good humor.

Beside the fact that your answer was great, if we look at the social effects only, then I wouldn't see that as heavily disempowering though.
Yes, not cool of him, but not so disempowering to you.

That you were bragging is only 1/3 of the sub-communication, and the full 3 are:

1. He was bragging (wasn't he)?
2. He's great
3. I'm jealous / he's above me

So it's one negative for you, and 2 positives.

Once you one-upped back you removed the first, and were only left with 2 positives.

Quote from John Freeman on September 7, 2022, 9:52 pm

My turn to say: Wow! What an analysis! Much to learn I still have.

Thank you very much! I would have let it go and ignore it if he did not insist so obnoxiously. At some point I thought: "That's enough!", turned my head and launch the counter-attack.

I love to learn what we learn here, it's so empowering!

Quote from John Freeman on September 8, 2022, 9:37 am

Success success! I passed my practical exam! Now I need to do a couple more courses to get the diploma but this is a formality. I’m basically a pediatrician.

What an adventure!

I’ll write more as I have plenty of secrets to share.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on September 8, 2022, 1:42 pm

BOOM, happy to read that, congratulations John!