NationStates

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Dumb Ideologies wrote:Option 2 is preferable because it offers greater room for a conversation about the real reasons you are struggling and developing a plan that improves your performance.

I would rather deal with a patronising but broadly sympathetic assumption that is closer to the truth. It is also the less intentionally insulting of the two.

I see.

So you're saying, "if you're seen as stupid, then the company should think about helping you improve and learn despite the deficit" but "if you're seen as lazy, then your very loyalty to the company is put into question"?

is that right?

Sort of, but not quite, because you've suggested "you're stupid" as the "without bullshit" version of what the boss has said on Option 2, but conversation (like law!) is often somewhat of a matter of interpretation and since I am still me in your hypothetical I wouldn't interpret it that way.

To help you understand where I'm coming from a bit more, I have a mild neurological disorder that is not immediately obvious and which means I tend to struggle with a few things in a way that people wouldn't immediately expect from someone who is able to communicate themselves at the above-average level at which I generally operate. So I have had real-life conversations broadly along the lines of both 1 and 2 when someone has had a bit of "expectation whiplash" when suddenly I'm markedly below average in performance on a particular task.

I would, and have, chosen to take lines like 2 charitably as an opportunity to engage. It is far more difficult in my experience to find a way to turn option 1 into a mutually productive discussion because there's not a way in where you aren't already on the defensive because making an effort is the very least you can expect of a "good person".

In summary, 2 offers an opportunity for positive engagement which the assumption that 1 - you're "just lazy" - doesn't. As I say, I'm partly going off personal circumstances here, but it works with other difficulties too. It's a scenario where there's much more choice in how to interpret it and it's much easier to enter the conversation without being unavoidably on the defensive.

This whole scenario reads like the opening to a porno.

"I aim to please, she whispered, as she sank to her knees."

Such a stupid hypothecal. No creativity.

Lazy - this is more likely to be perceived as something changeable and I can more easily get a second chance. Intelligence is popularly considered fixed and inherent (though it's not), so being perceived as dumb means I could never be much of an asset.

Good to see your famous hypothetical threads are back. I was beginning to miss the nonsense.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Geneviev wrote:Option 2. It's not wrong, and they're not insulting my character. Also, following this conversation, I would actually try to work harder.

I see. You're such a good employee! =)

More power to you!

...

Btw I should hope no one ever has the misfortune of hearing both statements at a single job

That wouldn't be great. But you should always listen to the criticism anyway and try to learn from it.

I wouldn't have gone to law school just to be somebody's glorified peon. Therefore, if I ever took the job, it'd just have been to see how other law firms operate before opening my own.

I would end the experiment on the spot, and continue my plan to open my own law firm, now knowing a bit more about how not to run such a place.

I must pick option two as option one would be a lie. At least with option two, it means that my employers know I have room to improve rather than just a personality issue.

Though, I cannot imagine myself taking anything related to law in the first place, especially to have a career in what is basically paid internship. So, in the meantime, I'm gonna try and find a way to hop off this sinking ship of a career.

I'd rather be stupid, because work you can learn and develop, while being lazy shows a lack of work ethic.

firebomb the office that very night and flee by blimp to Cuba

Senkaku wrote:firebomb the office that very night and flee by blimp to Cuba

Can I take the coffee machine with me if I do this?

Victorious Decepticons wrote:I wouldn't have gone to law school just to be somebody's glorified peon. Therefore, if I ever took the job, it'd just have been to see how other law firms operate before opening my own.

I would end the experiment on the spot, and continue my plan to open my own law firm, now knowing a bit more about how not to run such a place.

Open a competing Law Firm across the street with a nicer sign and vastly better working environment.

I'd rather be perceived as lazy because it's easier to fix.

Easier to prove you were being lazy than it is to prove you were feigning stupidity.

I’ve had bosses who think nothing of unleashing a withering tongue-lashing to any perceived form of slackness, slowness, or inability to follow their exact instructions. It’s part of being in certain kinds of work environment. All of those times I really needed the job. I consider myself lucky that they contented themselves with criticism instead of firing me or docking my pay. In time I saw their criticism as a form of “tough love” for their employees instead of unwarranted malice. The verbal reprimands were enough to wake me up and motivate me to perform better instead of continuing to slack off or underperform in a particular area until further corrective action was needed.

I aimed to please, I worked hard. But that didn’t mean that I still couldn’t use improvement.

Mushroom, your interpretation of each of those commentaries you listed in your OP is extremely harsh. If either has happened to you hypothetically please remember that your relationship with your boss is a professional rather than a personal one. And on the work floor, nothing is ever personal.

If either hypothetical dialogue came to me from a hypothetical boss, I would ask for suggestions in specific areas I could improve in and work tirelessly in those areas to do better. Whether the boss thinks I’ve been underperforming in those areas due to genuine laziness or stupidity is irrelevant as long as I can improve.

The boss will notice my initiative, whether they acknowledge it or not, and nine times out of ten no further action occurs. If I’m just not cut out for this job and continue to underperform, I’ll get fired. That’s not so bad, I’ll just get back to work doing something else. At least I know it wasn’t for me.

Infected Mushroom wrote:Please consider the following hypothetical:

You are employed at a law firm

My suspension of disbelief has already exceeded its limits.

Firebomb the office.

Imagine not being able to hack it at Biglaw.

I'd go with option 2, but I think you're conflating lack of experience with stupidity. My university education prepared me for a lot of little bits and pieces of how to do things in my field, and even gave me the tools I needed to breeze through a job interview. On my starting day, I was totally lost when it came to actually working on a real team creating something customers and clients actually needed working, contending with a large organization, and even finding who to go to for direction. It's not really expected of trainees, and no one really sees this as idiotic or stupid.
It's been a long time since I was in that position and I'm now on the other side of things, I'd rather the problem be option 2. Option 2 can usually be fixed with a little experience and education. Laziness I find is at best a hard to break habit, or worse, a personality trait that's never going away. At my too big to fail organization, with its web of recruiters, third-party contractors, regulation brought on by numerous scandals (being brought onboard, I seriously had to sign two forms confirming I never tried to bribe royalty or gave gifts to Iranian or North Korean officials and submit to background checks to prove this) it can cost $5000 to $10000 just to bring on a new employee, so we're not going to get rid of you for not knowing something you're probably going to pick up anyway. Laziness can cost us a lot over time though and it may just be better to get rid of that person if things don't change.

Well this isn’t me. For one I’d have already quit, well in the first place I’d never do corporate work so... Secondly I’d never be a lawyer and if I was one I’d work for the government instead of some corporation. And finally I’m a dude which changes the entire scenario.

Oh and I’d never get an office job, they are too depressing

Dogmeat wrote:This whole scenario reads like the opening to a porno.

"I aim to please, she whispered, as she sank to her knees."

Nope nope nope

Kernen wrote:Imagine not being able to hack it at Biglaw.

Imagine being a cube farm drone

Thermodolia wrote:Well this isn’t me. For one I’d have already quit, well in the first place I’d never do corporate work so... Secondly I’d never be a lawyer and if I was one I’d work for the government instead of some corporation. And finally I’m a dude which changes the entire scenario.

Oh and I’d never get an office job, they are too depressing

How does your gender matter? Literally all it changes is whether your boss calls you a woman or not.

Cekoviu wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Well this isn’t me. For one I’d have already quit, well in the first place I’d never do corporate work so... Secondly I’d never be a lawyer and if I was one I’d work for the government instead of some corporation. And finally I’m a dude which changes the entire scenario.

Oh and I’d never get an office job, they are too depressing

How does your gender matter? Literally all it changes is whether your boss calls you a woman or not.

Because unfortunately men are treated differently than women in the workplace. In many areas women are looked down upon and everything they do is criticized and scrutinized. Meaning that as a dude one can skate by and cut corners without repercussions unlike what would happen if a woman did the same

Thermodolia wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:How does your gender matter? Literally all it changes is whether your boss calls you a woman or not.

Because unfortunately men are treated differently than women in the workplace. In many areas women are looked down upon and everything they do is criticized and scrutinized. Meaning that as a dude one can skate by and cut corners without repercussions unlike what would happen if a woman did the same

That isn't universal. This situation can easily occur regardless of one's gender.

Cekoviu wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Because unfortunately men are treated differently than women in the workplace. In many areas women are looked down upon and everything they do is criticized and scrutinized. Meaning that as a dude one can skate by and cut corners without repercussions unlike what would happen if a woman did the same

That isn't universal. This situation can easily occur regardless of one's gender.

No but it can and does happen more often than you think. Especially in situations where the industry is dominated by good ole boys like law