For some reason, this puts me in mind of my consulting days--one day in particular, actually, when I was working at a client with a network outage. The router had broken down, and we were waiting for a new one to arrive from the supplier. The know-nothing head of IT told a woman I was working with that they needed the internet back up right away.
"The router is broken," she explained. "We are waiting for a new one."
"But the traders can't trade," he said, as if we were perhaps just hiding the internet from him for fun.
"What would you like me to do?" she asked sweetly. "Get on the phone with the other router and start transmitting the data manually?"
"Take this down," she said to me. "One, zero, zero, zero, one, one, zero, one. Next byte . . . "
He left in a huff.
Anyway, apparently that's how Google does things too.
I don't know who looks worse in this story - the "know nothing head of IT" or the two consultants who insulted their client to the point he "walked away in a huff." Actually I do know and it is the two schmucks who might have lost their company a contract.
Wait, was that high-order first, or low-order? No wonder he got all huffy.
P.S. I offer you "She Left Me for Jesus" by Hayes Carll, via MYOKB.
"She says I should find him, and I'll know peace at last.
If I ever find Jesus I'm kicking his ass."
The bit at 4:11 was particularly delicious.
She was an employee. I was the consultant who sat there silently.
The bit at 4:11 was particularly delicious.
Sometimes the customer is wrong.
the two consultants who insulted their client...
As anyone who has worked in retail or customer service knows, the customer isn't always right. More than half the time, the customer is a hard-core #%$* idiot who needs to be smacked. It's not the best business plan, of course.
Wow, that's 6 and a half minutes of my life I'll never have back. Thanks, Megan!
Actually I do know and it is the two schmucks who might have lost their company a contract.
Careful. If you don't watch the insults, they might stop paying you to post here.
There is no excuse for a company, especially one employing traders, to have a single internet connection, let alone a single router. Of course, the responsibility for high availability generally falls on the head of IT and not individual network engineers.
That said, routers aren't that hard to find. Unless there was one literally on its way and it would be there within an hour, she should have been on the phone trying to locate one faster.
wow. i bet you're glad you don't consult any more...
Well, we don't know the context of the relationship between the IT head and the employee, and how much authority the IT head has delegated. I have, however, when asked a similar question to that posed by the employee, responded by saying, "I would like you to behave as if your life depended on getting the (needed piece of equipment) within the next two hours, and you had an unlimited budget to obtain it." On a couple of occasions, I have handed the phone to the person, and said "Use this to find one. Now.", and then picked up their car keys, and said, "Then use these to go get it."
On the other hand, most department heads have done such a fine job of discouraging intitiative and risk taking that inaction, or unacceptably slow action, in the face of an intolerable situation, is all too common.
It was literally on its way over. And yes, single point of failure--but I didn't design their network.
I have to agree with the previous commenters -- I'd have fired her and (unless you very obviously acted like you were just sitting in the room and had nothing to do with her) I'd have terminated your consulting firm's contract. People make mistakes all the time and that's forgivable in the corporate world. The only cardinal sin is insubordination.
Why are all Google offices decorated like KinderCare?
For all the people saying that they'd fire her... networks are a different breed. (I know, I am one.)
Frankly, most good techies are cocky. Because look, if you fire them, THEN what? You'd have to look for a new person, hire them, and then make sure they changed all access routes just in case the networker held a grudge.
Lots of customers think that communications specialists can perform magic, and refuse to listen to logic. I'm surprised that the customer wasn't told to purchase two Dixie cups and a really long string... lol
I've been on both sides of this one, as head of IT and as a consultant. I'd rather be a consultant (oh wait, I am). Those who are criticizing Megan's behavior based on an anecdote clearly have an agenda. Network outages are stressful times for everybody and I bet the IT manager was lousy at gathering information and setting expectations.
Everyone's a genius until they have to fix the problem themselves. I suspect the IT manager is one of these types, and I bet he helped design the network too. Single point of failure when your business depends on having those mythical "five nines"? What a numbskull.
I much prefer my current gig, writing code and solving problems from the comfort of my keyboard.
As I look back at this, I can't believe I am defending Megan. Time for a beer.
If there's one thing I've learned in over 3 decades in IT, it's that DRB is right. Anyone who would put up with that sort of insubordination is a fool. No amount of technical talent is worth the aggravation.
A good consultant would have sold him a redundant network connection and management services to go with it.
Hey, insubordination is a perfectly reasonable response to gross incompetence; it helps transmit information as to the intolerable nature of the manager's performance. A good company commander in a combat situation, for instance, when observing insubordination towards a junior officer by enlisted men, certainly might severely penalize those engaged in the insubordinate behavior, depending on it's nature. However, it's far more important to discover WHY the insubordinate behavior occurred. Not infrequently, it is because the junior officer is simply inadequate to combat command, and it is imperative that the junior officer be relieved, if possible, to prevent people from getting needlessly killed. Chronic incompetence is far for more intolerable than insubordination, especially when automatic adherence to orders is NOT imperative, as it is in combat.
Frankly, most good techies are cocky.
So are most good petroleum engineers. Most good traders. Most geologists. Most geophysicists. Most negotiators. Most M&A transaction specialists. Most project finance guys. Most heads of accounting policy.
Basically, anyone who's good at what they do starts to feel pretty cocky and irreplaceable. But if you get insubordinate, you need to pack up your desk and collect your last paycheck because that type of behavior cannot be tolerated in the corporate world. You want to call the shots? Start your own business or earn your stripes and get promoted to CEO. Otherwise, shut the f**k up and obey orders. There is always -- ALWAYS -- someone to take your place -- especially in the incredibly oversupplied world of IT.
that type of behavior cannot be tolerated in the corporate world.
Out of curiosity, why not? I can see why the major doesn't want an extended discussion with the lance corporal about whether or not charging the active machine gun nest is a good idea, but quality leaders--military or corporate--accept criticism from subordinates. No lives are one the line here, and the IT head was being a bit of a fool.
and the IT head was being a bit of a fool
... but not half as much a fool as the staffer who used a consultant to make a fool of him.
ndm, fools with management responsibilities are far more intolerable than fools without management responsibilities. Yes, everyone's replaceable. If the insubornination was in reaction to chronically bad management, I damn well know who needs to be replaced first.
For those saying that the IT staffer should have been fired, I'll suggest that you are missing a key fact about the work environment. It was a company that hired traders. Aggression isn't merely encouraged in those environments, it's demanded, for good business reasons. That means that sarcasm, abuse, and vulgarity are part of the standard working environment. The response the women in question gave wouldn't raise an eyebrow in any trading company I worked at. You start firing people for being sarcastic to assholes, and pretty soon everyone will be gone but the janitors. Hell, I've seen fistfights break out that didn't even result in management intervention.
(Note: I'm not saying that's how it should be. I'm quite happy to have left those work environments.)
The head of IT can feel free to fire the techie... but given the seeming lack of knowledge the IT head had, I doubt that he 1) feels secure enough to fire the person most likely actually running the network and 2) would know what to look for if he were to hire a new one.
Besides, is there any doubt that this person would've said this behind the IT Head's back if she didnt in front of him? The IT head seemed to be overexaggerating to a comical answer in response to a (seemingly) silly question.
I have to agree with the previous commenters -- I'd have fired her and (unless you very obviously acted like you were just sitting in the room and had nothing to do with her) I'd have terminated your consulting firm's contract. People make mistakes all the time and that's forgivable in the corporate world. The only cardinal sin is insubordination.
Yeah...in The SIMS, assuming you had the Cisco CCNE expansion pack, and remembered to set the Situational Humor option to 0.5% or less before commencing play.
Otherwise, in real life that's just pointy-haired boss talk, and I'll bet your subordinates have a secret voodoo effigy of you in the supply closet. Probably sacrifice a goat to Scott Adams every morning, too.
quality leaders--military or corporate--accept criticism from subordinates
Absolutely. Which is why I said insubordination is unacceptable, as opposed to criticism.
A proper response from the employee would have been to explain the router is down, one's on the way and (here's the constructive criticism part) they probably ought to make sure there is a back-up in place in the future.
Ridiculing the boss in front of a consultant as this person did is simply insubordination. There isn't even any constructive criticism, just snark.
Besides, is there any doubt that this person would've said this behind the IT Head's back if she didnt in front of him?
Sure, but who cares? Employees will and should engage in a bit of snarking behind the boss' back -- it's a useful way of blowing off steam and harmless as long as it's done in moderation. Doing it to the boss' face however is a very different thing that demands a response.
Funny, DRB, that's what we thought "The router's broken" and "we're waiting for the new one" was all about. She only went into snark territory after he either did not understand what was his job to understand or chose to ignore what she said initially.
"More than half the time, the customer is a hard-core #%$* idiot who needs to be smacked. It's not the best business plan, of course."
It's a good plan if you're a dominatrix.
She only went into snark territory after he either did not understand what was his job to understand or chose to ignore what she said initially.
Doesn't matter why she went into snark territory. You ridicule the boss to his face, you get fired -- regardless of the myriad of reasons you have that make you *sure* he's an idiot.
Otherwise, in real life that's just pointy-haired boss talk, and I'll bet your subordinates have a secret voodoo effigy of you in the supply closet.
Could be and that's entirely their business as long as they're discrete about it. They also do what I tell them to, and when they disagree with me they do so constructively, bringing proposed solutions and a path forward instead of just a disagreement.
Which is why I said insubordination is unacceptable
Nobody has explained why this is yet. I can understand that an officer in combad needs his troops to shut up and follow orders, no matter what, to keep people from getting killed. I understand that this level of discipline extends to non-combat situations so that it is also there in combat.
What I can't understand--forgive my naiveté--is why somebody who will never lead anyone into a life-threatening situation (or, for that matter, a time-critical, team-oriented, money-threatening situation) needs that level of obedience.
Rob,
My customer has the right to remove any of our employees from this contract at whim. They also have the right to cancel the contract. It's their money and their rules. My team and I follow them, period.
The boss might be clueless. Educate him. The boss might be a jerk. Empathize and explain what you are doing to solve his problem.
If nothing else, consider it an exercise in self preservation. Most companies, sooner or later, hit hard times and need to reduce staff. Would you rather have a reservoir of goodwill, or the reputation of being a sarcastic jerk?
Rob,
First, I'll remind you again that there's a difference between insubordination and criticism or constructive differences of opinion.
In the combat situation you keep referencing, not only is there no room for insubordination, there is no room for criticism or constructive differences of opinion. In combat, people need to follow orders immediately and without question, because stopping to debate gets people killed.
In the business world, there's plenty of room for debate. There is no room for insubordination. Insubordination undermines the boss and creates an environment such that other employees are unlikely to follow the boss' directions. It won't matter how brilliant the boss' ideas are -- if he allows an environment where employees feel free to openly ridicule him, they will also feel free to openly ignore him and his directives. That makes him ineffective.
An ineffective manager who can't get his employees to obey his directives should be fired. He's useless, a paycheck that delivers nothing. So managers have a choice -- they can either allow themselves to be fired for being ineffective, or they can fire employees who try to make them so.
Hope this helps.
Look, if an IT head is told that internet access is down, because a router is broken, and a router is on the way, there are two possible, and actually likely zero, competent responses. He can schedule a meeting to improve the design, so as to prevent a single router failure from having this effect, or he can ask why the system was designed in such a way. Now, unless he just took the job, those two responses are actually implicit admissions of intolerably bad management. The scenario Megan, outlined, however, is indicative of a towering incompetence that should always be met with withering ridicule, all the better to drive towering incompetents to the far reaches of hell.
If the towering incompetent wishes to fire the ridiculer, fine, but a good organization always investigates a termination thoroughly, and once the facts surrounding this termination were known, the only rational response it to fire the IT head as well, and maybe invite the fired employee back, with appropriate warnings to avoid insubordinate language.
That's fine Will. The guy clearly didn't fire the person who ridiculed him ("He left in a huff" according to Megan).
So it's obvious that he can't manage for shit; I can't say I'm surprised that he couldn't build a decent IT system either. People who don't have the sense to fire a subordinate who insults them to their face probably aren't delivering on other fronts as well.
Will Allen reads Megan McArdle's comment and concludes:
There is a lot of assumption in that sentence. I wonder if he could read "Of man's first disobedience" and write Paradise Lost.
Exactly my point. Focusing on the insubordination, while not aggressively attacking what the insubordination was in response to, is like treating a hacking cough with an inhaler, while ignoring a grapefruit-sized malignant tumor which is bulging from patient's chest.
Will, I'm willing to stipulate that the IT head was incompetent and that his techie should be fired for insubordination. As I said, anyone who don't have the sense to fire a subordinate who insults them to their face probably isn't delivering on other fronts as well, so I'm not surprised the IT system sucks.
You down with that, or are you still looking for a way to defend the insubordinate employee?
And one of my mom's friends has a story about a particular (obnoxious) customer. This guy, it seems, did not want advice or information from a female and tended to ask for someone who would then play Telephone to relay the lady's words to the customer. This happened up until the day that there wasn't anyone around to play 'interpreter' and the guy demanded "Give the phone to a MAN. I want to talk to a MAN about this." To which she replied, "The only man here is mopping the floor, but if you think he'll help you with this, I'll be glad to hand him my phone."
This was much more insulting, but most people found the story funny, for the same reason they liked the one above. People who are doing their job as best they can don't appreciate being belittled. "What do you want me to do?" is the perfect opening if there was anything she hadn't done. "You're fat, dumb, and only managed to find the IT department in the morning because it sounds like it's spelled" is insulting and insubordiate and grounds for being fired.
No DRB, I'm merely noting that it is odd to focus on the secondary effect, while ignoring, as you intitial post did, the festering, eventually fatal wound which produces the secondary effect.
In the vast majority of cases in which I've observed an employee ridiculing a manager to his face, it is the manager's poor performance which is critical to address. Yes, there are exceptions, especially when dealing with entrenched unions. When talking about highly intelligent employees who are expected to work with a fair amount of independence, however, it is more likely that the insubordinate behavior occurs because the manager has been stinking the joint out for an extended period of time.
In the vast majority of cases in which I've observed an employee ridiculing a manager to his face, it is the manager's poor performance which is critical to address.
I don't even remotely agree with this. In my experience, too many employees have too many personal reasons why they think their manager is a jerk. Most of them have to do with the fact that the manager fails to recognize the employee's incredible intelligence and senior leadership potential.
The notion that the manager is somehow impairing shareholder value and therefore the employee is speaking truth to power doesn't come up very often. But, if you've seen otherwise, I will not argue. To each his own.
As to primary/secondary festering wounds and their knock-on effects -- look man, it's Megan's blog. I'm not responding to a Harvard Business School case here, so pardon if I'm not grokking all of its deep primary/secondary "festering" implications. Simply put, I'd have fired one of my employees if they'd given me the kind of lip that Megan's friend/colleague supposedly did in this post.
Perhaps if I was a deeply incompetent head of IT who was hiding my failings behind my employees I wouldn't. But I'm not, so...I don't know, sorry or something.
DRB, I've managed hundreds of people through the years. I've never once had a problem with someone I'm managing addressing me in an insubordinate or ridicule-tinged tone, and the people I've managed have included that most difficult species of employee; the salesperson who is outproducing nearly all of the other salespeople. If you manage intelligent people competently, insubordination rarely becomes an issue, so when I observe insubordination I tend to think it likely that it is a management problem, as most business problems are.
DRB, as long as you are firing people for insubordination it would behoove you to learn what that is. The staff member was FLIPPANT, not insubordinate.
Insubordinate would have been "Go get the bleeping thing yourself."
The subordinate was doing everything requested, as far as I can tell you just want to fire her because you can not tolerate people that express their frustration.