why are employers so petty?

[jmantra]

I am always reading on different forums about how people are getting sacked or getting bad reviews because of "bad interpersonal or communication skills" that don't involve customer service. What ever happened to just showing and doing your job?? Personally I wouldn't want to interact with my co-workers in an office environment, can't trust anyone these days with office politics and backstabbing. So why do they place so much emphasis when really all it does in the long run is cause problems??

[AwdreeHpburn]

jman - because most often, if people have good communication and good interpersonal skills, it DOESN'T cause problems........

[HellFrost666]

This hits home for me. I just got let go from my job because of "not comunicating well with other employees."

 

What I did there really didn't require a lot of comunication. I am a quiet person and I didn't really have much a reson to talk to my co-workers. I didn't really socialize with them because we didn't have much in common and not much to talk about. But I never even realised this was a problem until I got called to the office and chewed out for it.

[FCTex]

Because the business/corporate world today is all about buzzwords and inter-department crosslinking..

 

Basically, an employer sees the benefit of two or more people getting along just fine, and being able to effectively communicate and work together. Along the same lines that someone can move from one department to another, and be just as effective because their personal skills.

 

It's not always about the politics and the backstabbing. Sometimes people go to work, to work- and while there, you have to work together and get it all done..

 

Just like in my case. I fired a guy because he couldn't work in a department in my plant, so I moved him to another.. He got along TOO well, and didn't get any work done, he was busy talking and arguing with others.. I got rid of him immediately..

 

It's about being well rounded and getting along on the playground, not just showing up and doing the basic tasks.

[jmantra]

jman - because most often, if people have good communication and good interpersonal skills, it DOESN'T cause problems........

 

Oh so if you're shy and/or just a little eccentric this causes problems?

[annie24]

oh, it's not petty at all. I mean, you have to work together with your coworkers, and if someone is disruptive, or is not open to communicating with others, it can breed a bunch of mistrust and resentment.

 

you can interact with your coworkers without falling victim to gossip and backstabbing. you can discuss very general things, like the last episode of LOST, or who won the football game last night. smile, say hi, goodbye, etc...

[HellFrost666]

It wasn't that I wouldn't talk at all. If someone spoke to me I always answered them. If I needed to talk to somone there I always did. I always said "hi, bye..." to everyone. I just never got caught up in the social conversations. But my job got done every day and got done well. And if it was such a problem my boss could have comunicated with me about finding some resolution before outright firing me.

 

Just my opinion though. Don't mind me...

[jmantra]

It wasn't that I wouldn't talk at all. If someone spoke to me I always answered them. If I needed to talk to somone there I always did. I always said "hi, bye..." to everyone. I just never got caught up in the social conversations. But my job got done every day and got done well. And if it was such a problem my boss could have comunicated with me about finding some resolution before outright firing me.

 

Just my opinion though. Don't mind me...

 

 

See this what I am talking about, corporations picking something as petty as not talking enough, then acting passive-aggressively by just outright firing you.

 

*scoff* The world we live in

[FCTex]

It's a competative environment..

 

I can't speak for why, or what they did. It sounds petty in my opionion... But most places atleast have some probable cause.. Generally speaking.

[Batya33]

Part of my job is delegating to others and it is very important that those people have good communication and interpersonal skills. It is not easy to give other people work to do and if they have an unpleasant manner or attitude it makes it even harder and that hurts productivity. I do my best to work with people of all different personality types but work gets done so much better and easier if I am working with people who make an effort to establish rapport with me. If someone is difficult to talk to or interact with then I am reluctant to give them more responsibility - because if I let them call people on my behalf, for example, they are representing me and I have to be sure I can trust them to be helpful and pleasant to others.

 

I do not think it is in the least bit petty, so I disagree.

[jmantra]

because if I let them call people on my behalf, for example, they are representing me and I have to be sure I can trust them to be helpful and pleasant to others.

 

So a person who is shy and/or eccentric is untrustworthy and won't be as pleasent as your average extrovert???

[Lilu]

I think it all depends on the job. I mean, if it involves customer service, then, deft there will be a problem if you don't act it. But, if your job does not need it, then it shouldnt be a bid deal if the person is shy, or doesnt want to mingle with the co-workers. As for the person who got fired because he/she wasn't socializing with others, that is just outrageous. WHat kind of company is this???

 

Aslong as there's respect, and we do our job, they shouldnt be a reason to force us into socializing with others, if we don't wish to. And that is that!

 

-Lilu

[Batya33]

So a person who is shy and/or eccentric is untrustworthy and won't be as pleasent as your average extrovert???

 

Nope - please do not twist my words - never said that. A person who is shy and/or eccentric is not a problem unless that person's way of communicating with his colleagues or in business conversations with people outside the company is ineffective or makes others uncomfortable. If your job requires communicating with others in working on a project or task, it is part of your job to learn effective communication and interpersonal skills. If that is not possible because of your shyness/eccentricities your choices are to either develop and work on better communication skills or get a job where communicating with others is a minimum part of the job. There are jobs like that - working with numbers, in a lab, behind the scenes.

 

For example, in my social life I love to joke around, banter - but in my work life I have to be aware and conscious of whether that style works with whoever I am working with or speaking with. Typically I am far more reserved in my work life and keep most of the jokes/banter to myself. I am paid to behave in a professional manner and in my line of work, that is what is considered professional. I am also paid to develop rapport with various types of people and to make judgments constantly on how to approach people effectively, whether it is my boss, someone I am delegating to, a peer or a potential networking opportunity. I cannot let my hair down, so to speak and that is why it is called "work."

 

As I mentioned before, I disagree that communication and interpersonal skills are not a "real" or valid concern that an employer has - in most fields they are as essential as intelligence. It's great to be bright but if you cannot convey your knowledge to others effectively the fact that you are bright becomes almost irrelevant to the employer.

[CaptainPlanet]

Sounds like crud to me. Absolute rubbish, interpersonal/communication is code for we've really got no reason to tell you off but we will anyway, or it simply means we don't like you. Unless you're totaly disruptive or outride rude or barely can speak I cannot for the life of me see what bad interpersonal skills are. It is petty if someone is fired for not being liked. Of course you need to be able to communicate effectively it depends on what job you do. If you are a business proffesion who is hired to build rappart with customers, then der. That ones a no brainer. But if you simply work in an office, yes you do need to be able to communicate effectively but I do not see how this is grounds for firing anyone.

 

Do bosses actually cite cases of poor communication or is it some poor sod just being slammed with the label because someone didn't like the look.

 

Funnily enough, my current boss can't string two sentences together, basically as soon as he started half of the staff left, we've been through most of our people and the new guys keep leaving. Most of the guys who were there when I started had been there for 3+ years min, now we've got most of us with less than 3 months experience. I'm telling this story because there is a difference between someone who is an outright disruptive communicator and someone who just isn't that good at sucking up to ppl in the office. He has the worst interpersonal skills of anyone on the planet, I could cite at least 20 cases.

 

Fair enough if an employee does not communicate well, it needs to be dealt with. But there is a difference between, not liking something about someone, and actual poor communication. Unless your job involves making people like you, such as a sales man or business proffesional building rappart w/e, your job should not be dictated by whether your boss likes you.

 

Inevitably it likely is, but as professionals isn't it part of the job to get on with the people you work with whether you like them or not. That socialization builds productivity sounds like a load of wank to me, sounds like a group of inividuals forming a boys club, or so to speak, which as we know decreases productivity.

 

I don't know if this behaviour is indicative of a corporate environment, i've never worked in one. It really gets under my skin when people try to justify it.

 

Socially cohesive well interpersonal company, wouldn't have to exclude/fire someone because they didn't fit in. That person would fit in if the company was actually a friendly/accepting one. In my opinion anyway, football/cricket teams where the new guy has trouble fitting in or some poor guy gets dropped b/c he isn't liked. These are generally the clubs that have the cohesion problems, that don't operate as a group that fail in efficiency because they have a culture of non acceptance. Where there is division, generally the coach says " I don't care if you kill each other off the field, on the field you are all best mates". Same as for the workplace it seems, but the point I am trying to make is if the organisation is having problems with someone, then it probably is a reflection of the company itself as much as it might be the individual not fitting in.

 

"As I mentioned before, I disagree that communication and interpersonal skills are not a "real" or valid concern that an employer has - in most fields they are as essential as intelligence. It's great to be bright but if you cannot convey your knowledge to others effectively the fact that you are bright becomes almost irrelevant to the employer."

 

Definently agree, but how can you measure these skills, where do you draw the line between someone who is lacking and someone who is being descriminated against or treated poorly and communication and interpersonal skills used sort of like a scape goat. Because is seems really easy to pin that on someone.

[Batya33]

I do not judge the person by whether I "like" him or her - I judge all of the skills required to perform the job. If communication and interpersonal skills are required to perform the job, those get evaluated. For example, there is a mailroom clerk I think is a terrific guy - what a personality. Of course that is only a "plus" in my general impression of his work. But, if I were asked to judge his work, I would be specific about his work and then probably at the end right "and in addition, he is a pleasure to work with."

 

It is unavoidable that whether you are "liked" is going to effect to some degree your evaluation. But whether I like someone professionally is different from socially. I like certain of my co-workers very much - but I couldn't see us having much in common socially, so I don't pursue a social relationship with them. You can definitely get along on a professional level even if you don't "click" on a personal level.

[CaptainPlanet]

"I think is a terrific guy - what a personality. Of course that is only a "plus" in my general impression of his work"

 

You think is a terrific guy, o wait, you like him ? Have actually examined the way he communicates ? or are just generalising ? Yes, you like the mail room man.

[Batya33]

I think he is a terrific guy to work with because of the way he communicates - he is approachable, warm, all while doing his job efficiently and correctly. The approachable and warm part is a "plus" but not essential to his particular job. It will make me remember him though if he ever needs a reference as opposed to the person who doesn't make the effort to be pleasant. Then I would probably have a harder time remembering whether he got our mail on time - would still give a good reference but not a "wow - and what a great guy to work with!"

[charley]

Socializing with others is important if a person has a management job, or a job working directly with customers.

 

Other than the above, it should not matter, as long as the person is not fighting with others.

 

Socializing in positive ways does not cause problems. Socializing in negative ways (gossiping and backstabbing) does cause problems.

 

One reason socializing in positive ways, even when it's not part of your job, helps you, is that your fellow employees will then want to look out for you and help you. That has to be mutual. Then you have a support group and a networking group. When it comes time for promotions, management should give the management position to someone who socializes well with other employees. This way management can avoid creating a boss who employees don't like. At least that's how it is both places where I work.

 

I've worked other places in the past where management promoted without regard to interpersonal skills. Then we ended up with managers who were complete aholes in some cases and in other cases they were just so emotionally distant that the employees received no guidance. I've observed that this often happens in government. I used to work for a state computer lab and I observed these problems occurring often because socialization skills were often not considered when promoting. The private sector is smarter about these things, IMO. In the private sector, socialization skills are more important because they have to be nice to the customers and be socially competant to gain promotions.

 

A good manager must be part cheerleader and part leader as well as knowing the actual job skills (accounting or whatever) and working hard. thereforeeee, people who socialize well, do their jobs well, are competant, and work hard have the ideal combination of skills needed for management. Since socialization is a key element of leadership, it is thereforeeee also a key element of getting promoted, at least in the private sector in most cases. Some large corporations lose sight of this because management and promotion decisions are sometimes made by people not present on-site. i.e. - "orders from headquarters" just like the government.

 

Take a good look at your boss wherever you work. If she or he is an @ss, or is emotionally unavailable, that indicates she/he was likely promoted to that position without regard to social skills. If your boss is nice to deal with and an effective leader, that indicates that socialization and leadership skills were probably considered by whoever hired or promoted that boss to their position, or maybe you just got lucky.

[Momene]

I find when I visit colleagues in other countries or work with customers I'm fine (more than fine, actually). In my immediate group at work, there is a clique of 6 people who rule the roost. If you are not accepted as one of them then your life varies from OK-ish to intolerable. It is just like the "Popular Group" at schools like the plastics in Mean Girls.

 

To survive, I only really talk to one colleague that I can really trust and interact as little as possible with the rest.

 

I find this sort of environment very destructive and this group has done a lot of bullying in the past. Fortunately, I've been spared the worst of it.

 

So before a boss penalizes someone for not getting on, perhaps they should look more closely at the co-workers!

[Batya33]

I find when I visit colleagues in other countries or work with customers I'm fine (more than fine, actually). In my immediate group at work, there is a clique of 6 people who rule the roost. If you are not accepted as one of them then your life varies from OK-ish to intolerable. It is just like the "Popular Group" at schools like the plastics in Mean Girls.

 

To survive, I only really talk to one colleague that I can really trust and interact as little as possible with the rest.

 

I find this sort of environment very destructive and this group has done a lot of bullying in the past. Fortunately, I've been spared the worst of it.

 

So before a boss penalizes someone for not getting on, perhaps they should look more closely at the co-workers!

 

When I review people, it is not on the basis of whether they are in a so-called "popular group" (I have worked for one company like that) but whether they are personable and can establish rapport with those who are in lesser positions, with customers, clients, or any third parties with which they deal on behalf of the company. I would hope that a "popular" group part that acted in a cliquey way would get negative points for establishing rapport and the other important work-related social skills.

[Momene]

In our company, the popular groups are the ones that get rewarded and it happens in offices in the USA as well.

 

These groups can do a serious amount of damage.

[CaptainPlanet]

Same, manager loves the clicky group. Rest of us get scraps.

[charley]

I was referring to positive socialization. What you describe is negative. Cliques are almost always negative because they are based on exclusion.

 

I find when I visit colleagues in other countries or work with customers I'm fine (more than fine, actually). In my immediate group at work, there is a clique of 6 people who rule the roost. If you are not accepted as one of them then your life varies from OK-ish to intolerable. It is just like the "Popular Group" at schools like the plastics in Mean Girls.

 

To survive, I only really talk to one colleague that I can really trust and interact as little as possible with the rest.

 

I find this sort of environment very destructive and this group has done a lot of bullying in the past. Fortunately, I've been spared the worst of it.

 

So before a boss penalizes someone for not getting on, perhaps they should look more closely at the co-workers!