Corporate Characters - The Jokester

He loves to enjoy a good laugh, especially when it's at your expense. No opportunity for humor should ever be wasted. The Corporate Jokester is always ready to jump into action.

I once worked with a guy who elevated office mischief to an art form - tasteless art, perhaps, but boldly creative.

One of his favorite pranks was to send anonymous text messages to team members on holidays. (This was in the era when we sent business alerts via pager; the sender's identity didn't appear in the text.)

"Urgent problem!" read the message. "Please call Mr Bear at your earliest convenience!" The words were followed by a telephone number. Call the number, and you reach the information hotline for the local zoo.

One time, my boss received one of these zoo pages. His first assumption was that *I* sent it - to this day, I don't know how or why he would have thought that. 

I received a call from the boss bright and early Monday morning asking me why I was sending him mischievous text messages. It wasn't until I showed him my pager and explained that I, too, had received a message from Mr Bear that he let me off of the hook. 

(Thanks a lot, Jokester! You almost got me fired!)

A slightly more devilish prank was deployed when co-workers left their computers unlocked, e.g. while going out to lunch or visiting the restroom. Mr. Joker would sit at their desk and compose an embarrassing email addressed to their boss. He would then leave the mouse positioned over the "Send" button. 

If the person clicked the mouse or pressed the 'Enter' key when they returned, off would go the email ... followed by a humiliating apology. 

The Jokester savored his exploits gleefully. The rest of us were astonished by the kinds of things that he would try to get away with. Eventually, some of the jokes caught up with him.

Our organization maintained a spreadsheet to keep track of vacation days. Whenever Mr. Prankster wanted to add an extra day to his annual allotment, he would erase one of the vacation days that he had taken earlier in the year. Eventually, his boss figured out what he was going and gave the guy a stern reprimand.

The Joker also enjoyed slipping out early on Friday afternoons - sometimes very early - but he didn't want to be seen leaving the office by himself. He would try to convince someone to leave with him. That way, it would look as though he were just going along with what others happened to be doing. 

One day, the prankster and a colleague walked out of the office with jackets on and briefcases in hand at 2:30 in the afternoon. Their mutual boss ran into them as he stepped off of the elevator. Let's just say that none of them had a good weekend. I felt particularly bad for the accomplice.

In addition to his many pranks, which included hiding keys and personal objects that were left on desks, the Jokester was also known for his outrageous and outspoken antics. 

He would criticize co-workers loudly if they didn't share his political views. He often played tawdry comedy clips on his computer at full volume, laughing along with glee and encouraging others to join in. (The Jokester was a big fan of then President George W. Bush. He adored Will Ferrell's Saturday Night Live impressions of Bush and replayed them often.)

One time, when we had to work over night on a big deployment, the Jokester tuned the office television to a soft porn channel. He watched it for about an hour while the rest of us worked and retired sleepily to his hotel room.

My most outrageous recollection of the Jokester, however, occurred one day when he wasn't even trying to be funny. We were having a conference call with a vendor to discuss a problem that we were experiencing with some software that they had developed. 

Mr. Jokester asked whether a particular lady still worked for the vendor's firm. They confirmed that she did. Jokey asked if they would have her join the call. He had worked with the lady before and felt that she had the skills to resolve the current issue.

A few minutes later, the woman joined the call. He said, "Hey! This is so and so! We worked together a few years ago."

The lady didn't seem to remember him, so he doubled down on his claim that they knew each other by making a remark about the kind of underwear that she preferred.

The conference call ended abruptly.

Copyright © 2015 www.corporateabsurdity.com 
All Rationality Reserved 

Temper Tantrum

There are recognizable patterns of behavior in the corporate world, unproductive behavior included. 

Projects are commonly delayed due to poor planning. Products fail due to an inadequate understanding of customer expectations. Organizations place a higher emphasis on avoiding culpability than on actual productivity. 

People make the same mistakes over and over again. Ineffective behavior is so common that we begin to accept and even expect it.

But despite these patterns, the truly remarkable instances of bad behavior tend to be singularities, uniquely ridiculous combinations of action and circumstance that even an infinite universe can create only one time.


Limited Space

I once worked on a large scale project with a staff of over a hundred programmers, analysts, and administrators. The team inhabited an entire floor of a relatively large office building, but even that didn't provide enough desk space. Many workers were crammed into makeshift work spaces (a parallel absurdity that we may explore in future writings).

I was given a seat in a large conference room with glass walls. Everyone referred to this room as the fish bowl. There were not desks in the fish bowl, only long tables supporting multiple computer workstations. I shared a phone (including voice mail) with the fellow who sat beside me.

I need to mention at this point that about half of the project's workforce was staffed by a Big Name management consulting agency. Most of the Big Name staff were in their early twenties, well-dressed, and conspicuously tight-lipped due to Big Name's strict anti-fraternization policy.

Note: I'll have more to say about Big Name in future installments. Much more.


Cast of Characters

I shared the fish bowl with three independent contractors and four kids from Big Name. (I've taken the liberty of giving them fictitious names to make the story easier to follow.)

Adam - Claimed to be a project manager because he managed one programmer.

Ed - A tall athletic kid and a skilled programmer.

Napoleon - The apparent pack leader. 

Josephine - Documentation specialist and Napoleon's girlfriend.


The Big Name kids were jovial and good-natured for the most part. Ed and Napoleon shared a table and bantered constantly in a dialog punctuated with quotes from famous movies. 

Adam was given a seat in the fish bowl about two weeks after I arrived. He's the one who ended up sharing my phone. We developed a cordial relationship primarily out of necessity.

Josephine was quiet. She rarely spoke with anyone other than Napoleon. 

Over time, the Big Namers became more open with the other residents of the fish bowl. On a couple of occasions, they asked me to join them for drinks after work. I had to decline, but I let them know that I appreciated their gesture. It certainly wasn't in line with their company's policy. 


Trouble In Paradise

Since Josephine's job was documentation, she printed and handled a lot of paper. She also disposed of a lot of paper, but instead of using the dedicated bins for paper recycling, she always threw her papers into the trash. I noticed her doing this week after week, month after month. Finally, one day as she was throwing paper into the trash (for what seemed like the five-hundredth time), I decided to speak to her about it.

I was calm and polite and respectful. I reminded her that the floor had several dedicated recycling bins. She could use these, and that would prevent mixing clean paper with trash that was destined for the landfill. 

Josephine didn't say a word. Her body language telegraphed embarrassment, her eyes gazed at the floor. I conclude with a "Thanks!" and went back to my chair.


Revenge

Apparently, Napoleon didn't approve of me speaking to his girlfriend. Either that, or he was staunchly anti-recycling.

He stormed out of the fish bowl and returned in a few minutes with a large stack of papers in his hand, the equivalent of three or four large telephone books. He then slammed the papers forcefully into the fish bowl's large garbage can using a motion like an athlete spiking a football. Slam!

Napoleon left the room and returned a few minutes later with another large stack of papers. Slam! Right into the garbage can!

A few minutes later, he returned with more paper. Slam!

This behavior continued for about a half an hour. The garbage can was now filled and overflowing with paper. A single person could not have lifted the can. It was that full.

But Napoleon wasn't finished. His final act of defiance was to bring two full pots of coffee from the cafeteria and pour them into the can, thus saturating a hundred pounds of clean paper and rendering it unfit for recycling.

Then he returned silently to his desk and continued to work.


Epilogue

Well, I'll give Napoleon credit. He made his point. His actions said:

"How dare you correct my girlfriend's behavior? I am going to punish you now by doing something a hundred times worse! A-ha-ha-haaaa!"

Or, to paraphrase: 

"Don't push me, Jack! I'm a fucking psychopath! A-ha-ha-haaa!"

At the time, I let the incident go. I wasn't going to reward childish behavior by giving it more attention that it deserved. 

Granted, a portion of one tree was unable to be recycled due to some nitwit throwing a temper tantrum. That's not the worst thing in the world. The person that I really felt most sorry for after that day was Josephine. Can you imagine dating a jerk with a temper like that? It must have been terrifying.


Reflecting back on this incident, I wish that I could remember Napoleon's name. I would gladly publish it if I could recall it. Unfortunately, too many years have passed. I do recall that he was Indian, short, and of an average build. He would have been about 24 or 25 at the time (1993-4). 

Big Name was Andersen Consulting. After the Orange Country bankruptcy debacle, they rebranded themselves as Accenture. Accenture received its own share of bad press due to their decision to incorporate in Bermuda, a known tax haven. Is anyone surprised?

Be careful who you let into your company. And if you see someone flagrantly ignoring your recycling policy, get Human Resources involved. It's not worth taking on a potential psycho by yourself.









Copyright © 2015 www.corporateabsurdity.com 
All Rationality Reserved 

Life Is Too Short To Work For Idiots

Life is too short to work for idiots, except for any idiots who might happen to be paying us today. Those idiots are "grandfathered in." 





Copyright © 2015 www.corporateabsurdity.com 
All Rationality Reserved 

The Best And The Brightest

I remember marveling at the knowledge and qualifications of my college professors. They seemed brighter and more accomplished than even the best of my high school teachers. Over time, the depth and breadth of their understand became even more impressive. 

Even in the upper level classes, students sometimes asked for an explanation of a problem over which they had struggled for hours or even days. The professor would walk up to the blackboard and solve the problem in a few minutes. Then they would throw in a comment about how simple the problem was and how we should have been able to solve it. We'd walk out of the classroom feeling like idiots.

I was naïve enough to expect something similar when I entered the corporate world. I expected management to comprise the best and brightest individuals in the company, people who had worked hard to develop an impressive knowledge of the operations of the firm and the underlying processes and technologies that support those operations. The truth was rather disappointing.

Of people for whom I have worked over the years, very few could have done my job, even poorly. This might make sense in cases where I was brought in as a subject matter expert later in my career. But even as an inexperience newbie straight out of college, I was amazed at how little my bosses understood about what they were asking me to do. 

When your boss doesn't understand what you do, they won't understand the challenges that you face, either. Their ability to support you and to give you a fair assessment at the end of the year is compromised. And forget training and mentoring. Even in my first job, I found myself explaining things to the bosses more often than they explained things to me. 

Over the years, I did work for very good managers. Some were technically proficient. Some were organized and knew how keep a project on schedule. Some were good at attracting and developing personnel. Some had a knack for coming up with creative ideas. 

But a surprising number of my bosses were organizationally ineffective, technically challenged, or both. I remember wondering how some of these folks came to hold positions of responsibility. 

Was it a matter of being in the right place at the right time? Had an unexpected vacancy forced the department to fill a role with whomever was available? Had they relied on contacts, perhaps in the ranks of upper management? Did they present themselves impressively in an interview despite their apparent lack of ability and qualifications?

I still don't know. Promotion of people into and up through the ranks of corporate management is one of human society's great mysteries, like Stonehenge or crop circles. 

Perhaps those aren't fair comparisons. Stonehenge was an impressively engineered astronomical calendar. Crop circles are hoaxes brilliantly coordinated by skilled pranksters. Corporate management is neither impressively engineered nor brilliantly coordinated, although it does make use of calendars, its budgets can be astronomical, and it could be perceived as a hoax - just not one that's perpetrated by skilled practitioners.





Copyright © 2015 www.corporateabsurdity.com 
All Rationality Reserved 

What Your Boss Hates The Most

Bosses hate to have their hypocrisy exposed, especially by an employee. Think twice before calling the boss out on an unfair practice. They probably won't take is well and could consider whether to get rid of you.

But if you have exhausted all other options, and if you have the capacity to handle a sudden job change, it's possible that the organization will benefit from a frank conversation about unfair practices by a manger.

For a while, I worked for a guy who was chronically late. At least three days a week, he staggered into the office at 10:30 am or later. Upon his arrival, he would waste more time complaining to the staff about how poorly he was feeling, how difficult his commute had been, or whatever the excuse of the day might have been. He didn't begin any actual work until well past eleven.

However, on the occasional days when this guy showed up on time - as when he had to attend an early meeting - he was absolutely intolerant of tardiness by anyone else on the team. 

If someone arrived at 9:05, he would confront them in the hallway and bellow "Good Afternoon!" or "Glad you could make it!" He had a booming voice that carried throughout the office suite. This initial confrontation could be embarrassing and demoralizing, but it got even worse.

Throughout the day, the boss would ask staff members to join him in a conference room. Then, behind closed doors, he would rant at length about the person who had arrived late. 

"I don't know where Fred's head is these days. He seems so unfocused. I tried to give him a chance, I try to give him responsibility, but now I don't know whether he's got what it takes to do this job."

On and on, the rant would rage, sometimes for thirty minutes or longer.

Don't forget. This guy commonly staggered in late, sometimes looking as though he was coming down from a major bender. But when one of his employees arrived five minutes late, it was perceived as a major problem. It was ridiculously unfair.


Exposing Hypocrisy 

One day, I decided to go out for a morning coffee break at about 10:40. As I was leaving the building, I spied the boss walking in through the turnstiles with a worried, guilty look on his face.

I couldn't help myself. I yelled "Hey! Good Afternoon!" I mocked the tone of his voice for effect.

He was not pleased.

Later that day, Mr. Tardy called me into a conference room. He looked me in the eye, and with a pricelessly earnest expression on his face, explained, "we shouldn't say things like that in the office. It makes a bad impression." 

A whole bunch of thoughts raced through my mind in that moment. 

Bad impression? Really? If the guy was concerned about impressions, why did he stagger in late more often than not?

We shouldn't say things like this in the office? Really? I heard him direct those very same comments toward others on dozens of occasions.

Perhaps it's not really hypocrisy if you're completely ignorant of your own shortcomings. Perhaps it's just pathetic.

Finally, Mr. Suck Up betrayed his real concern: "What if someone from senior management heard you say that?"

For the record, no one from "senior management" was in the lobby when I made my comment - just me, him, and one lonely security guard. I wouldn't have made the comment if influential people had been present. I wasn't trying to be cruel to the guy, just bluntly honest. 

This guy lived in a world of his own creation where he was the ultimate authority and could do no wrong, and where the employees took constant criticism. It was a miserable experience. 

Eventually, the guy laid me off. I am forever in his gratitude for releasing me from that toxic situation.


An Expectation Of Fairness

Human beings aren't perfect. It's unreasonable to expect our management to act with flawless integrity at all times. But it's not unreasonable to expect fairness in their dealings with employees.

Business is built on a concept called an "arm's length transaction," the idea that deals should be based on terms that are mutually beneficial for all parties involved. No party should be coerced or duped into accepting an agreement that doesn't serve their best interests.

Employees have the right to expect fair treatment from their management. This is critical, because bosses have the power to make decisions that impact the employee's livelihood, including compensation, promotion, and the term and location of employment.

When a manager or a series of managers treats employees unfairly, the employee is in an uncomfortable and potentially perilous position. If they raise concerns about fair treatment, management can punish them.


Examples Of Unfair Management

- Managers who chastise employees (especially women) for taking time off to tend to their families, but who freely decide to take time off or "work from home" whenever they have to deal with their own personal demands.

- Bosses who hound employees to complete tasks on time, but who let their own deadlines slip. We see this behavior during the annual review process. The employee is expected to complete their self-review promptly, while the boss delays adding his or her own comments to the last possible minute...or beyond.

- Bosses who don't permit employees to select their choice of vacation days, but who schedule their own vacation time without any input from the team. 

It's important to realize that inequitable management is common. If you find yourself dealing with one of the problems discussed above, or something similar, you're not alone. The lopsided power structure between management and employee permits it. 

Your job shouldn't drive your crazy or make you sick. Every employee should be respected and valued. That can't happen when employer hypocrisy has to be tolerated for long periods of time. 

If your relationship with management seems unfair or inequitable, communicate. Let others know what you're going through and receive support openly. Hypocrisy cannot thrive the cold light of day. Ultimately, you may need to move on. Hypocrites aren't likely to change. If they're forced to change, there's a chance that they could become bitter and resentful toward their staff.

To reiterate, don't expect your management to be perfect, but DO expect them to be fair. If your situation is irreconcilable, make a plan move on as soon as possible. Life is too short to put up with an inequitable work relationship.




Copyright © 2015 www.corporateabsurdity.com 
All Rationality Reserved 

Rewarding Poor Performance

Daft Universal Media and Broadcasting Corporation (DUMB) has two divisions headed by their executive vice presidents, Tom and Jerry.

Tom's division enjoys consistently high levels of customer satisfaction. Jerry's division receives customer complaints nearly every day.

When Tom's division brings out a new or updated product, it's almost always launched on time and within the predicted budget. 

Jerry's product releases are often delayed, sometimes extensively. Delays result in budget overruns and customer frustration.

The customer service department for Tom's division adds value by helping customers to understand the advanced features of the product.

Jerry's division has a customer service department, but they're swamped with phone calls all day long as they try to offer quick fixes to problems with the products.

Tom's division is highly organized. Everyone understands their role and what they need to deliver and by when their part is due.

Jerry's division is less organized. Activity is often frenzied as the team scrambles to appease customers after missed deliverables or faulty products. 

Tom's team works late on occasion, but typically they leave the office on time every day. Some team members participate in the company softball and bowling leagues. Many are dedicated to attending the extra-curricular activities of their children.

Jerry's team spends a lot of nights and weekends in the office or working from home on the phone. They keep an intense 24x7 schedule going throughout most of the year.  


Bonus Implications

When Tom and his team receive their annual bonuses, they are disappointed. Most feel that the bonus amounts dropped significantly since the previous year. To, calls the COO, Mr. Myopic, and requests an impromptu meeting to discuss the compensation figures.

Tom: Hi, Fred. Thanks for meeting with me.

COO: Sure thing, Tom! What can I do for you?

Tom: Well, I have to tell you, Fred. My people aren't happy with their bonus numbers this year. 

COO: I understand that, Tom. You have a great crew. We appreciate the work that they do, very much.

Tom: I thought the company was doing well this year.

COO: We did do well. We gained market share and brought in record revenues.

Tom: Well, then why aren't my people being rewarded?

COO: Well, we want to reward everybody, Tom, but look at this realistically. We need to focus on our top performers. 

Tom: What do you mean by "top performers," Fred? My people meet every delivery on schedule, and we get excellent feedback from the customers.

COO: That's great, Tom. And again, we appreciate everything that you and your crew do. But look at Jerry's people. They work around the clock and on weekends while your crew is out at a bowling tournament. 


Bottom Line

Yes, this grossly unfair, short-sighted bullshit happens in the corporate world. And yes, bullshit is the appropriate word in this context, because no other word to describe the act of giving higher rewards for lower productivity.

Jerry's people aren't working harder than Tom's team. They're working a lot of hours because they're disorganized and undisciplined, and they constantly have to play catch up and put out fires, so to speak.

But as the old saying goes, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease." Hyperactivity can look like extreme performance to upper level management that's too busy to notice and too opaque to care. At the same time, a well-run division full of effective and disciplined people can give the impression of being slackers.

When in doubt, look busy.


Copyright © 2015 www.corporateabsurdity.com 
All Rationality Reserved 

Poor Grammar Makes A Bad Impression

I attended a business presentation a couple of weeks ago. The speaker welcomed everyone warmly and began her speech with the following sentence.

"This presentation is comprised of three topics."

It might not be obvious - the verb "to comprise" is not used widely in daily conversation - but the speaker made a glaring grammatical error. 

Imagine your child coming home from school one day and saying, "My homework is included of three assignments." You would recognize immediately that this isn't proper English, and you would correct them immediately. 

"To comprise" means "to include" - the two words are synonyms - so saying "is comprised of" makes no more sense than saying "is included of." 

Apparently, the speaker didn't realize this. She used a word that she didn't understand and lost credibility when she used it improperly.

Any of the following sentences would have been acceptable.

    1. This presentation comprises three topics.

    2. This presentation includes three topics.

    3. This presentation is composed of three topics.

I prefer the first one. Here, the word "comprise" is used elegantly and effectively. It would have set a good tone for the presentation. I might have listened with actual interest.

Instead, I listened in shock as the speaker made repeated grammatical errors. The presentation was meant to be informational, but I began to doubt how thoroughly she understood the subject. I certainly would not have chosen her to manage in important project or program.


Subjects and Objects

The speaker struggled with proper usage of personal pronouns. To be fair, this is a common problem among English-speaking people. I don't know why the rest of the world understands pronouns more thoroughly than Americans do. Perhaps it underscores a weakness in our educational system.

"You can direct your questions to Paul or I," the speaker offered near the end of her presentation.

The pronoun "I" is always a subject. The subject is the person or thing that performs the action described by the verb. The person or thing that receives the action is the object.

"I will contact Dave." I am doing the contacting (subject), and Dave is being contacted (object). The grammar here is clear and simple.

"Mary or I will contact Dave." Mary and I are the subjects. Dave is the object.

"Mary will contact me." Mary is the subject. I am the object. But because I am the object in this sentence, I need to use the object form of the first person pronoun ("me"). 

We can't say: "Mary will contact I." This is clearly incorrect. Every able-minded English speaker over the age of four understands this implicitly.

But here is where the personal pronouns become tricky for so many people.

"Mary will contact Dave or me."

This is absolutely correct. Mary, the subject, is doing the contacting. Dave and I are objects. But when I refer to myself as an object, I have to use the word "me." There are NO EXCEPTIONS. (The fact that Dave is also an object makes no difference.)

Many people would say: "Mary will contact Dave or I." But "I" doesn't belong in this sentence, because it's not an object. 

"I" is never an object. Never. You can't call I. You can't shake hands with I. You can't have lunch with Mary and I. All of these sentences require the personal pronoun "me".

During the presentation, the speaker should have said: 

"You can direct your questions to Paul or me." 

It's simple, clean, elegant, accurate, and absolutely correct.

To her credit, the speaker did refer to herself with the correct object pronoun once during the presentation. Once. I was so proud of her in that moment. I can't help it; I love to root for the underdog.


Misuse of Reflexive Pronouns

Unfortunately, an ambiguous comprehension of subjects and objects leads some speakers to make an even sillier grammatical faux pas - misuse of reflexive pronouns. Here's an example, again from the same presentation.

"You can contact Mary or myself if you need a copy of the presentation."
The word "myself" has absolutely no business being in this sentence - NONE - and its usage here is beyond idiotic.

Myself is a reflexive pronoun; its use is reserved for two special cases.

Case 1 - When you are both the subject and the object of the verb:

"I cut myself." - I did the cutting (subject), and I also received the action of cutting (object).

Case 2 - For emphasis of your own preference or opinion:

"I myself prefer wine over beer."

Those are only two times when you can use the word "myself" properly. You cannot ask other people to "contact myself." 

Think about it. The only person who can do anything to "yourself" is YOU.

"I treated myself to a massage."

No one else can do this.

"My sister cooked myself dinner." 

Again, clearly, no one can do anything to "yourself" except you. So please stop asking people to contact yourself, unless you want yourself to sound foolish and inept.


Bottom Line

People in positions of responsibility, people who give presentations as part of their careers, and people with upper middle class incomes should understand the fundamentals of English grammar. If you don't have the ability to communicate effectively, people will question your abilities in other areas. If you're wondering why you didn't get that big promotion or the project that you wanted, check your pronouns.

Copyright © 2015 www.corporateabsurdity.com 
All Rationality Reserved