New Work Trend - Quiet Quitting

[ChickenStash]

It's annual review season here and we have quite a few folks that fit in the quiet-quitting mold that are going to be unpleasantly surprised.  When we went full-time WFH, there were a bunch of people that seemed to just fall off the earth. They did OK with the structure of being in the office but without someone passing by their cubes to keep them from watching Wheel of Fortune (or porn) all day they just fell apart - don't answer phone calls, often inactive in chat or active but unresponsive (mouse jiggler).

We've cleaned house and finally replaced a number of the bad personalities so the slackers are the next on the block. HR and the top leaders are on board with getting rid of people that don't seem to want to work here anymore. That said, I have no issue with people setting appropriate work boundaries but people who don't do the agreed-upon job need to be canned and replaced.

We recently did an employee satisfaction survey and my corner of the company got both the greatest improvement and highest score across the organization. Our c-level told the other leaders to enjoy that now and not to expect scores that high again for some time. :)

[scottish]

That pendulum swung back pretty fast.  Just 6 months ago there was a big employee shortage and you're already whacking low performers!   

I don't understand the c-level's comment though...

[2Birds1Stone]

Our father who art in heaven.....let my name be on some magical QQ downsizing list......amen.

[FrugalToque]

I just fired a guy who was not working last week.  Not sure if it qualifies as quiet quitting, but I'd call it doing the bare minimum.

He would be assigned a task, then get stuck and email someone for a response . . . and then stop working entirely until he got a response back.  I was on vacation for a week, so he emailed me for a response on the Monday and took the rest of the week off while waiting for me to come back and answer his question.  The question could have been answered by any of a dozen other people he works with.

I'd say that's not evening doing the bare minimum.  I mean, he asked one person for help and skived off for four days?

You gotta ask at least TWO people before you call it a week.  Everyone knows that.

[Sibley]

It's annual review season here and we have quite a few folks that fit in the quiet-quitting mold that are going to be unpleasantly surprised.  When we went full-time WFH, there were a bunch of people that seemed to just fall off the earth. They did OK with the structure of being in the office but without someone passing by their cubes to keep them from watching Wheel of Fortune (or porn) all day they just fell apart - don't answer phone calls, often inactive in chat or active but unresponsive (mouse jiggler).

We've cleaned house and finally replaced a number of the bad personalities so the slackers are the next on the block. HR and the top leaders are on board with getting rid of people that don't seem to want to work here anymore. That said, I have no issue with people setting appropriate work boundaries but people who don't do the agreed-upon job need to be canned and replaced.

We recently did an employee satisfaction survey and my corner of the company got both the greatest improvement and highest score across the organization. Our c-level told the other leaders to enjoy that now and not to expect scores that high again for some time. :)

That's not quiet quitting. That's not doing your job. And they should face appropriate consequences.

[Sibley]

Well first, not all Millennials. Because I'm one and I don't think like that. Every generation has their shirkers and scammers.

But why would I do the job of 3 and half people? I'm one person. So, why are you doing the job of 3 and half people? Stop.

I didn't mean to suggest all the millennials.  The ones I work with are great.  Now that our company is growing, and it's harder to hire, we simply cannot have the same standards for new hires that we did for the first many years.

Ugh, I'm trying but I'm this hub of knowledge.  Like, I hired someone to work for me and I need to train him, but literally the week before he started, that changed.  So, I have a different boss and I'm not in charge of that "thing" anymore.  But...it's not like we replaced me in the old thing.  Because we didn't.  In fact, I said so when HR said "yay, you aren't doing 3 jobs anymore."  To which I said "um, doesn't exactly count until you hire someone to do the work, 'cuz it still needs to be done."

So...the new guy (who does not work for me) comes to me for training and we have weekly meetings because his "new boss" (my old boss) is unavailable.  And old boss is not trying to be a jerk, but he also got promoted and suddenly took on more responsibilities too.  We are just short handed, and people are quitting and retiring and ... sigh.  This is where training people is a massive time suck but it's SO WORTH IT in the long run.  I tend to end up doing a lot of this stuff.

There's a lot of room for improvement and efficiency, and this is where I'm getting stuck working extra - helping to get people to use our existing systems in an efficient manner.  Plus train a new boss.

And fundamentally, you're doing WAY more work that you should be. Stop. If the company isn't willing to devote the resources to training or hiring, then they deserve the pain. So, figure out a reasonable number of hours that you are willing to work in a week (and your max is 50, btw). Then do it. Prioritize what you do with those hours accordingly.

askamanger.org has various scripts for how to push back on too much work.

[Dictionary Time]

I wonder what will happen if we end up with a monster recession? Will this new found independent work life balance stand up?

The recessions and massive lay offs of the 80s and 90s had a big influence on corporate culture.  I don’t think it would be as shocking as there is no trust left to be lost, but it could still be traumatic.

Maybe the baby boomer exodus and closed boarders will preserve the rest of the work force. I certainly hope so. But I worry.

[LennStar]

It's annual review season here and we have quite a few folks that fit in the quiet-quitting mold that are going to be unpleasantly surprised.  When we went full-time WFH, there were a bunch of people that seemed to just fall off the earth. They did OK with the structure of being in the office but without someone passing by their cubes to keep them from watching Wheel of Fortune (or porn) all day they just fell apart - don't answer phone calls, often inactive in chat or active but unresponsive (mouse jiggler).

And what did you (company) do in that case? Did you talk to them? Did you find out the reason? Did you set up goals?

Everyone is different. Many people just struggle with a tiny point. Maybe all you need is one of those middle managers to ask in chat every morning how much they have done of X.
My personal WfH was the famous "Corona fat". Why did I take on 6kg in a bit more than 1 year? Because I had sweet stuff at home. Wasn't a problem before. But when I was working and thinking, I have the habit to stand up and walk around. You know, just stand up, walk five steps to the window, look out while thinking, go back and continue working. I have to stand up at least once an hour anyway to move my knee.
At home I did the same, but my steps lead me to the chocolade. It was basically unconscious behavior.
Since I took the emergency brake I lost half of that gain. It's slow, but I don't need to do anything big, I only made one single change: I only buy one item of sweets per week. That is all.

Low performance may hinge on that same level of choice. Put the phone in another room when you start working, maybe in a "locked chest". That may be all to bring back a low performer to average. Humans are strange. Or maybe they just need an official "coffee break" once a day where everyone they work together gets in an online meeting to chat for 10 minutes.

[lifeisshort123]

Demographically speaking, things would have to get quite bad for massive employment layoffs.  The baby boomers are quitting more and more every day.  I do worry about rising interest rates choking off liquidity and employers become too safe with their funds, but let’s be honest, over the past couple years everything was feeling a bit frothy, and things need to come back down to earth.

Workers will have power, especially as long as companies employing people at the bottom of the economic ladder have a strong floor.  Truckers earning $110k at Walmart, target starting salary being $15-25/hr depending on region/location.  As long as these types of wages are out there easily for an unskilled workforce, in most industries (maybe not government/education), they will have to compete with that reality.

[LaineyAZ]

The root cause is that we investors expect static industries like railroads, banks, hospitals, real estate, etc. to produce a stream of earnings that grows faster than inflation, even though such organizations cannot raise their prices or control their costs at a better rate than inflation.

If an organization cannot grow (e.g. railroads cannot build more tracks, hospitals have a fixed number of beds, vacancies will go up if you raise rents) then the only way such companies can deliver rising real earnings is to either "cut the fat" or raise leverage sky-high. Cutting of the fat must occur each and every year forever, or else the company's real earnings shrink and management gets fired. When leverage is maxed out, cutting expenses is such an organization's only option for earnings growth.

Yet, when companies cut back year after year after year, eventually something breaks.

Under-investment in training means new people stay in a less effective mode for longer. Under-investment in IT leads to security breaches, lagging productivity, and falling behind competitors. Under-investment in management leads to a negative corporate culture, under-supervised employees, morale problems, poorer top-down decision making, and challenges making changes. Under-investment in equipment leads to downtime and customer dissatisfaction. Under-investment in marketing eventually costs sales. Under-investment in R&D leads to technological obsolescence. People asked to do more in less time with less resources tend to cut quality. These negative results don't show up until several quarters or years down the road.

It goes on and on until a company like GE becomes what it is today, or an automaker has to spend billions on a recall, or a company like Sears is looted by its own executives. Now we're hearing about cost-cutting at tech companies like Apple, Tesla, and Google, just because their rate of growth is naturally slowing.

But what if investors and boards of directors were OK with mature corporations having zero or slightly negative earnings growth? Such companies could still be cash cows, paying massive dividends and stock buybacks. They'd still be worth the present value of their future income streams, even if those streams decline.

The reasons we investors can't accept these outcomes is because we have a cultural belief that management of any company should be compensated with options based on quarterly growth numbers, because boards are not necessarily elected by shareholders who are in the stocks for multiple years, and because we are more skeptical than we should be of companies' plans to reinvest in themselves.

Thanks for saying this.  I know it's probably heresy on a financial forum but it's the truth.  I've wondered about this for many years and now I'm wondering how long this whole scheme can continue. 

[Metalcat]

Thanks for saying this.  I know it's probably heresy on a financial forum but it's the truth.  I've wondered about this for many years and now I'm wondering how long this whole scheme can continue.

Not sure why it would be heresy on a financial forum.

Just because we use the market the way it works doesn't mean we agree with the foundational functions of it.

We all know that the our investment returns are powered by forces that horribly damage the world we live in.

I know I would personally happily trade in investment performance for a simply better world to live in. The whole point of FIRE is that we acknowledge that the way the world is is FUCKED UP. We're just trying to maneuver our way through the fucked up system as best we can.

I mean, we're an anti consumerism group with a solid environmental bent...our fundamental values run counter to those that drive our investments.

[RetiredAt63]

Just an aside comment/question/mini rant.

Boomers are classed as the group born between 1946 and 1964.  Now that we are in 2022, that puts us between 76 and 58.  So why do people say boomers are quitting when they are at either retirement or early retirement age?  Aren't they either retiring or early retiring, not quitting?

Plus after years about people complaining about boomers not retiring and therefore not opening up the job market, why is our increased retirement rate suddenly cause for complaining instead of rejoicing? Wasn't it expected? 

I feel like my age group can't win. We had to cope with schools that were not set up for our numbers, most of us graduated into tight job markets, and we get blamed for everything.   ;-(      ;-)

And American politicians - the America government isn't being run by boomers, they are older than us.  Bunch of old fogies.  At least my PM doesn't need to be watched for old-age onset senility.

[GuitarStv]

I just fired a guy who was not working last week.  Not sure if it qualifies as quiet quitting, but I'd call it doing the bare minimum.

He would be assigned a task, then get stuck and email someone for a response . . . and then stop working entirely until he got a response back.  I was on vacation for a week, so he emailed me for a response on the Monday and took the rest of the week off while waiting for me to come back and answer his question.  The question could have been answered by any of a dozen other people he works with.

I'd say that's not evening doing the bare minimum.  I mean, he asked one person for help and skived off for four days?

You gotta ask at least TWO people before you call it a week.  Everyone knows that.

You sound like one of those unreasonable high expectation people that he was complaining about in the exit interview.

[vand]

I just fired a guy who was not working last week.  Not sure if it qualifies as quiet quitting, but I'd call it doing the bare minimum.

He would be assigned a task, then get stuck and email someone for a response . . . and then stop working entirely until he got a response back.  I was on vacation for a week, so he emailed me for a response on the Monday and took the rest of the week off while waiting for me to come back and answer his question.  The question could have been answered by any of a dozen other people he works with.

I'd say that's not evening doing the bare minimum.  I mean, he asked one person for help and skived off for four days?

You gotta ask at least TWO people before you call it a week.  Everyone knows that.

You sound like one of those unreasonable high expectation people that he was complaining about in the exit interview.

You gotta earn the right to be able to QQ - become good enough at your job and difficult enough to replace that you can easily get away with doing the bare min.
Afraid it sounds like this doofus hadn't even made himself useful around the place - good riddance!

[ATtiny85]

I have been reading a book about the history of the GULAG and just read a section on tufta. Loosely translated as swindling the boss. Kept thinking about this thread throughout the whole chapter.

Cutting the brown end off of an already cut log so it looks fresh to get credit for it, classic stuff. I can claim credit for updating documentation just by fixing some grammatical errors and submitting, so not that far off.

[Metalcat]

This article just popped up for me, so I thought I would share it here.

Summary: it's all about a Gen Z job applicant who walked out of a interview process for a job because she felt the very structure of the ways the interviews were being done showed a lack of respect to the employees.

Most comments supported her, but some elder millenial types basically called her entitled and explained that what she was so offended by is just what they've experienced as a normal interview process and they see nothing wrong with it.

OP responds to her elder millenial critics with essentially "We're Gen Z, we're not willing to put up with the disrespect that you folks accepted as normal."

Her argument is that if a company shows you how little you matter to them when they are trying to woo you to work with them, then you should listen to what they are telling you.

And that there, in a nutshell is the workforce that the old guard need to learn how to manage. They don't even perceive interviewing for a job as being evaluated as to whether or not they are good enough, they see job interviews as an exchange, like dating, where each side is responsible for determining if the potential relationship is a good fit.

And companies that don't learn how to make these applicants feel respected not only won't get access to top talent, they risk going viral for their unimpressive hiring process.

Gen Z won't just take offense to not being treated with respect, they will engage their Gen Z army into collective offense on their behalf. Plus all of the millenials who actually agree with them.

These are not individuals standing their entitled ground, they're organized.

I genuinely pity any management that isn't equipped to handle them. I see first hand how profoundly it is stressing them out. I was at a professional networking event filled with clinic owners the other day and the epic frustration of dealing with Gen Z staff was a major topic of venting.

I can only imagine how challenging it is in larger organizations with entrenched management systems.

It's like watching a Molotov cocktail being thrown into an antiques store.

[neo von retorch]

And that there, in a nutshell is the workforce that the old guard need to learn how to manage. They don't even perceive interviewing for a job as being evaluated as to whether or not they are good enough, they see job interviews as an exchange, like dating, where each side is responsible for determining if the potential relationship is a good fit.

I'm 43, and I've been interviewing this way since I was maybe 28 or so.

To word this differently, I grew up with delusions of grandeur and power, and while they didn't kick in while job hopping immediately out of college (though it came close, being in software in the late '90s...), believing I had that power... pretty much gave me that power. Interviews where I directed a lot of the conversation (mostly about whether the company was a right fit for me) more often than not led to companies handing me offers (and me thinking about whether I wanted them.) But I've had interviews where I wanted the job, and questioned myself, and those went very poorly... the company had all the power, and they never resulted in offers.

[Metalcat]

And that there, in a nutshell is the workforce that the old guard need to learn how to manage. They don't even perceive interviewing for a job as being evaluated as to whether or not they are good enough, they see job interviews as an exchange, like dating, where each side is responsible for determining if the potential relationship is a good fit.

I'm 43, and I've been interviewing this way since I was maybe 28 or so.

To word this differently, I grew up with delusions of grandeur and power, and while they didn't kick in while job hopping immediately out of college (though it came close, being in software in the late '90s...), believing I had that power... pretty much gave me that power. Interviews where I directed a lot of the conversation (mostly about whether the company was a right fit for me) more often than not led to companies handing me offers (and me thinking about whether I wanted them.) But I've had interviews where I wanted the job, and questioned myself, and those went very poorly... the company had all the power, and they never resulted in offers.

Lol, same, but as a woman, many, many, many people along the way in positions of authority have sat me down and lectured me about my professional entitlement being "out of control" and how it's going to "seriously hurt me" in my career.

Until I ended up very successful and they all now try to take some credit for how they helped "shape me."

I mean, they did...they helped shape my serious and compulsive problems with authority figures. So, thanks??

[scottish]

And that there, in a nutshell is the workforce that the old guard need to learn how to manage. They don't even perceive interviewing for a job as being evaluated as to whether or not they are good enough, they see job interviews as an exchange, like dating, where each side is responsible for determining if the potential relationship is a good fit.

I'm 43, and I've been interviewing this way since I was maybe 28 or so.

To word this differently, I grew up with delusions of grandeur and power, and while they didn't kick in while job hopping immediately out of college (though it came close, being in software in the late '90s...), believing I had that power... pretty much gave me that power. Interviews where I directed a lot of the conversation (mostly about whether the company was a right fit for me) more often than not led to companies handing me offers (and me thinking about whether I wanted them.) But I've had interviews where I wanted the job, and questioned myself, and those went very poorly... the company had all the power, and they never resulted in offers.

Lol, same, but as a woman, many, many, many people along the way in positions of authority have sat me down and lectured me about my professional entitlement being "out of control" and how it's going to "seriously hurt me" in my career.

Until I ended up very successful and they all now try to take some credit for how they helped "shape me."

I mean, they did...they helped shape my serious and compulsive problems with authority figures. So, thanks??

I found this approach was often used by some of the best people.   In some ways it was an interview 'tell'.  If a candidate could both show how they could help the team, and learn what the team could do for them, this was a good indicator of a very strong candidate.

On the other hand, the automated coding tests many companies use are a bit disrespectful.     I get it - it's one way to weed out people who don't know anything about computer science.   But people aren't spam to be filtered by an automated system.

[Metalcat]

And that there, in a nutshell is the workforce that the old guard need to learn how to manage. They don't even perceive interviewing for a job as being evaluated as to whether or not they are good enough, they see job interviews as an exchange, like dating, where each side is responsible for determining if the potential relationship is a good fit.

I'm 43, and I've been interviewing this way since I was maybe 28 or so.

To word this differently, I grew up with delusions of grandeur and power, and while they didn't kick in while job hopping immediately out of college (though it came close, being in software in the late '90s...), believing I had that power... pretty much gave me that power. Interviews where I directed a lot of the conversation (mostly about whether the company was a right fit for me) more often than not led to companies handing me offers (and me thinking about whether I wanted them.) But I've had interviews where I wanted the job, and questioned myself, and those went very poorly... the company had all the power, and they never resulted in offers.

Lol, same, but as a woman, many, many, many people along the way in positions of authority have sat me down and lectured me about my professional entitlement being "out of control" and how it's going to "seriously hurt me" in my career.

Until I ended up very successful and they all now try to take some credit for how they helped "shape me."

I mean, they did...they helped shape my serious and compulsive problems with authority figures. So, thanks??

I found this approach was often used by some of the best people.   In some ways it was an interview 'tell'.  If a candidate could both show how they could help the team, and learn what the team could do for them, this was a good indicator of a very strong candidate.

On the other hand, the automated coding tests many companies use are a bit disrespectful.     I get it - it's one way to weed out people who don't know anything about computer science.   But people aren't spam to be filtered by an automated system.

True, I've typically had this approach received very well by interviewers. I'm often quite hard on interviewers and push them with a lot of difficult questions about their company management style, even to the point of giving them scenarios to answer.

I used to be a professional staffing industry interviewer, so I just reflect that right back at them. In my last interview, when asked if I had any questions by my new supervisor (they told me I had the job already), I respectfully grilled her about how comfortable she is with receiving criticism, how she handles conflict, and what indicators she looks for from her staff to perceive herself as having performed well as a manager.

She thought it was awesome, had she bristled, which would have been understandable, I would have rejected the job.

On the flip side, I have been the hiring manager who doesn't want someone like this for a role, which is also why I don't take it personally when someone doesn't react well to my approach. It might be that they are a weak manager, or it might be that the role would not be best filled by an ultra independent, assertive thinker who directly challenges authority.

I'm a square peg and a lot of jobs are round holes, but I'm not about to shave off my edges to fit them, I hold out for the roles and teams that fit *me*.

Funnily, I had one med school interview where they LOVED me. The interview was supposed to be 20 minutes and lasted 45 and involved me showing photos of puppies, and resulted in a deep and lasting friendship between me and the main faculty member who adored my ferocious commitment to my personal ethics in the face of administrative pressure to back down during my time working in a research facility.

A few days later I was barked at by a faculty member of another school that my conduct as described in my application essay demonstrated a fundamental disrespect for hierarchy and spit at me that "people like you in medicine get other people killed."

Guess which school I didn't want to go to after that???

[LennStar]

I so wish there wasn't all that Bommer/Gen Z oder term I can never remeber the time it means...

I think the "problem with hierarchy" is a core point. Youth have been (thankfully) grown up (at least in many cases) to think for themselves.
And then there is e.g. the climate catastrophy. For decades protest was done "the hierarchical way" and mostly ignored.
Most people underestimate how well children learn from the things they are shown, not what they are told. They still get told "First grow up, earn money, and then build something that changes" while nothing is done. That's why they show the middle finger.
"You have destroyed my future, don't dare to tell me how I should live, if you can't even do a little bit because it would be tiny bit uncomfortable to you."
That attitude is the sister of the job search attitude.

[ChickenStash]

It's annual review season here and we have quite a few folks that fit in the quiet-quitting mold that are going to be unpleasantly surprised.  When we went full-time WFH, there were a bunch of people that seemed to just fall off the earth. They did OK with the structure of being in the office but without someone passing by their cubes to keep them from watching Wheel of Fortune (or porn) all day they just fell apart - don't answer phone calls, often inactive in chat or active but unresponsive (mouse jiggler).

And what did you (company) do in that case? Did you talk to them? Did you find out the reason? Did you set up goals?

Everyone is different. Many people just struggle with a tiny point. Maybe all you need is one of those middle managers to ask in chat every morning how much they have done of X.
My personal WfH was the famous "Corona fat". Why did I take on 6kg in a bit more than 1 year? Because I had sweet stuff at home. Wasn't a problem before. But when I was working and thinking, I have the habit to stand up and walk around. You know, just stand up, walk five steps to the window, look out while thinking, go back and continue working. I have to stand up at least once an hour anyway to move my knee.
At home I did the same, but my steps lead me to the chocolade. It was basically unconscious behavior.
Since I took the emergency brake I lost half of that gain. It's slow, but I don't need to do anything big, I only made one single change: I only buy one item of sweets per week. That is all.

Low performance may hinge on that same level of choice. Put the phone in another room when you start working, maybe in a "locked chest". That may be all to bring back a low performer to average. Humans are strange. Or maybe they just need an official "coffee break" once a day where everyone they work together gets in an online meeting to chat for 10 minutes.

The managers usually go through a coaching process with the problem employee to see if they can do something to bring them back to the fold. I've seen some take off and attend counseling, others required the managers to do a bit more micro-managing to keep them on task, and some have been assigned to other areas that were a better fit.

Past that, they are fired. There's usually a lengthy period while all this coaching and whatnot takes place so the employee has plenty warning that something is coming.

[mm1970]

And fundamentally, you're doing WAY more work that you should be. Stop. If the company isn't willing to devote the resources to training or hiring, then they deserve the pain. So, figure out a reasonable number of hours that you are willing to work in a week (and your max is 50, btw). Then do it. Prioritize what you do with those hours accordingly.

askamanger.org has various scripts for how to push back on too much work.

My max is less than that, even.  I have some weeks where the first few days are LOOONNG.  Like, 11-12 hours.  But physically, mentally, I'm BURNT.  Shoot, I've got a husband, 2 kids at 2 schools, and a dog. And I'm old. So honestly, I rarely, if ever, make it to 50 hours.  Maybe 45 occasionally.  It just means that I'm doing 3.5 jobs, all of them half-assed, and I am never ever ever ever done.  Look, squirrel!

[FrugalToque]

I just fired a guy who was not working last week.  Not sure if it qualifies as quiet quitting, but I'd call it doing the bare minimum.

He would be assigned a task, then get stuck and email someone for a response . . . and then stop working entirely until he got a response back.  I was on vacation for a week, so he emailed me for a response on the Monday and took the rest of the week off while waiting for me to come back and answer his question.  The question could have been answered by any of a dozen other people he works with.

I'd say that's not evening doing the bare minimum.  I mean, he asked one person for help and skived off for four days?

You gotta ask at least TWO people before you call it a week.  Everyone knows that.

You sound like one of those unreasonable high expectation people that he was complaining about in the exit interview.

Mrs. Toque has faithfully provided me with a Cantonese phrase for people like this.
踢一腳，行一步
Roughly, it phonetically sounds like:
tek yu' guh, hawng yu' bo
Kick once (with your) foot, Walk one step.

I don't know what the English equivalent is, if we have a phrase like that.  It's basically a person you have to continuously force to take every step in their life.  Kick him once, he takes one step forward.  So you kick him again, he takes one more step.

Or you just say, "Meh" and fire him.

Toque.
(Edited: I found the Cantonese symbol)

[GuitarStv]

I just fired a guy who was not working last week.  Not sure if it qualifies as quiet quitting, but I'd call it doing the bare minimum.

He would be assigned a task, then get stuck and email someone for a response . . . and then stop working entirely until he got a response back.  I was on vacation for a week, so he emailed me for a response on the Monday and took the rest of the week off while waiting for me to come back and answer his question.  The question could have been answered by any of a dozen other people he works with.

I'd say that's not evening doing the bare minimum.  I mean, he asked one person for help and skived off for four days?

You gotta ask at least TWO people before you call it a week.  Everyone knows that.

You sound like one of those unreasonable high expectation people that he was complaining about in the exit interview.

Mrs. Toque has faithfully provided me with a Cantonese phrase for people like this.
踢一腳，走一步
Roughly, it phonetically sounds like:
tek yu' guh, hawng(wrong symbol because it's a Mandarin translation above) yu' bo
Kick once (with your) foot, Walk one step.

I don't know what the English equivalent is, if we have a phrase like that.  It's basically a person you have to continuously force to take every step in their life.  Kick him once, he takes one step forward.  So you kick him again, he takes one more step.

Or you just say, "Meh" and fire him.

Toque.

I like the Chinese approach.  Kicking them repeatedly sounds sorta cathartic.  I'll have to check with HR if we can implement something along these lines in the future . . .   :P

[Villanelle]

I just fired a guy who was not working last week.  Not sure if it qualifies as quiet quitting, but I'd call it doing the bare minimum.

He would be assigned a task, then get stuck and email someone for a response . . . and then stop working entirely until he got a response back.  I was on vacation for a week, so he emailed me for a response on the Monday and took the rest of the week off while waiting for me to come back and answer his question.  The question could have been answered by any of a dozen other people he works with.

I'd say that's not evening doing the bare minimum.  I mean, he asked one person for help and skived off for four days?

You gotta ask at least TWO people before you call it a week.  Everyone knows that.

You sound like one of those unreasonable high expectation people that he was complaining about in the exit interview.

Mrs. Toque has faithfully provided me with a Cantonese phrase for people like this.
踢一腳，走一步
Roughly, it phonetically sounds like:
tek yu' guh, hawng(wrong symbol because it's a Mandarin translation above) yu' bo
Kick once (with your) foot, Walk one step.

I don't know what the English equivalent is, if we have a phrase like that.  It's basically a person you have to continuously force to take every step in their life.  Kick him once, he takes one step forward.  So you kick him again, he takes one more step.

Or you just say, "Meh" and fire him.

Toque.

This is only in my household as far as I know, but in my family we sat someone "loves stick, hates carrots", for a similar concept.  IOW, the only thing that works with this person is punishment or restriction.  They just can't help themselves otherwise, even if there is a great, attainable reward." 

[FrugalToque]

This article just popped up for me, so I thought I would share it here.

Summary: it's all about a Gen Z job applicant who walked out of a interview process for a job because she felt the very structure of the ways the interviews were being done showed a lack of respect to the employees.

Most comments supported her, but some elder millenial types basically called her entitled and explained that what she was so offended by is just what they've experienced as a normal interview process and they see nothing wrong with it.

OP responds to her elder millenial critics with essentially "We're Gen Z, we're not willing to put up with the disrespect that you folks accepted as normal."

Her argument is that if a company shows you how little you matter to them when they are trying to woo you to work with them, then you should listen to what they are telling you.

In the early 90s, if you tried to interview with my first employer, you went through a multi-hour (3, 4, 5 hours?) interview process with some friend-of-the-CEO that no one liked.  (ETA:) This was before you even got to see the managers that wanted to hire you.

He'd sit you in an office and ask you endless stupid questions:
"How far away would you say that tree is?" [points out window]
"How much do you think the Great Pyramid weighs?"
"What's the speed of sound?" (this was a software/hardware position, not aerospace)
This would go on for hours before you actually got to the technical interviews with hiring managers.


Finally, he started doing this stupid shit to a high-value recruit that the company really wanted.  The kid got frustrated after half an hour and walked out.  He called the hiring manager and said something like, "I would never work for a company that employed an interviewer like this".


That was the end of buddy's "HR" job. He was moved off to something less consequential. By the time I was hired out of Uni in 97, the interview process was 30-60 min with HR, 30-60 with each potential hiring manager.


So, even back then, some people were demanding respect. But that interviewer was in that position for years before it happened.


Toque.

[Metalcat]

I read another article about Gen Z staff that totally hit the nail on the head of how this generation functions fundamentally differently.

A Gen Z staff member requests a meeting with their elder millenial supervisor. The supervisor agrees and later on sends a meeting invite.

The Gen Z staff member writes back saying that they've re-assessed their schedule and noted that they have a lot of intense back-to-back meetings that day, and would likely not be in optimal shape for the meeting with the supervisor and asks to reschedule it to avoid burnout.

The elder millenial agrees to reschedule and then posts on Tik Tok about hold "bold" their employee was to request to reschedule a meeting that they *asked* for. However, the elder millenial says they respect this boldness and wish they had been so bold as an employee.

Here's the kicker. A bunch of Gen Z pile on the elder millenial in the comments that the staff member's behaviour shouldn't be considered bold. They're just being honest with their supervisor about their capacity, using their self-assessment skills, and communicating to the supervisor that they made a mistake in requesting that meeting time because it won't be an effective use of either of their time.

They call out the fact that the elder millenial is labeling the behaviour as "bold" is part of the management culture problem. That it's not enough to respect the staff member's behaviour, that they should be normalizing it.

Self assessment and communication of limitations should not require being "bold," they should be skills that are specifically fostered and taught by managers.

This was the HARDEST thing for me to teach my staff to do, especially my older staff. I basically had to beg them to tell me when they were hitting their limits. I kept saying over and over that if they don't learn to complain, I will just keep dumping more work on them.

I had to single each one out on a daily basis, sit them down, and flat out put words into their mouths as to what I thought they were struggling with to get them to admit anything to me. It took me an entire year to train a new staff to openly admit their struggles to me and trust that I would work *with* them instead of using those admissions against them.

I also normalized people indicating their capacity for the day at morning meetings. It became totally normal for someone to say "I'm feeling shitty today, and could use a little less pressure and some extra support from the team."

Teaching my staff to normalize reasonable complaining and honest, human limitations was the most effective management tool I had. It took the guess work out of knowing how hard I could push them at any moment, what factors were affecting their motivation, and what their true strengths and weaknesses were.

This new generation are coming in with this skill built in to their normal function. The problem is their managers don't know how to harness it as a management super power.

You can't get sustainable, ultra high performance out of an employee who you can't understand because they won't be honest with you about their experience as your employee.

To get maximal, sustained performance out of a staff member, I need real time feedback on exactly what their capacity and motivation is. I need to know to the literal minute when they are ready and able to push and when they need to ease off the gas.

Now this granular detail was a necessity of the type of work we were doing, which was highly integrated and depended on minute to minute coordination of team members, but that just goes to show how effective the approach was.

I was able to squeeze quite literally double the production capacity out of my team compared to my colleagues while burning them out substantially less or not at all, making sure they got *more* down time, and ended each day energized instead of exhausted.

By training my staff to engage in effective self assessment and to freely complain, I could basically bend space and time with how much more production I could consistently and reliably wring out of us as a team. Performance capacity changes hour to hour or minute to minute, so if you can identify and harness those ultra performing minutes, you can afford the down time needed to generate more of them.

It's this expectation of constant baseline performance and pressure to constantly increase it that burns people out. Humans are not machines that generate the same output 8+ hrs a day.

I even trained my staff to give me hand signals that they could flash right in front of patients to tell me to "fuck off." A flash of 3 fingers literally meant "FUCK OFF! SHUT THE FUCK UP! AND GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY ROOM NOW!"

Giving them a way to vent their frustration with me all day long and prompt me that I was fucking with their ability to function because we had different pressures on our time was the best thing I ever did. And you bet your ass I jumped and got the fuck out ASAP when I saw that signal. I would relocate the patient to my private office if I had to. Whatever it took to respect that person's need for me to get the hell out of their space is what I would do.

[LennStar]

lol who managed who?
But that is the key, there is nobody who knows your condition better than you. (Though many people are really bad a that or have un-learned that ability.)

Yeah, some days you have just slept shitty for no aparant reason and can't put out high power. Two days later you might just put in an hour more on high mode just because you have the capacity.

[Metalcat]

lol who managed who?
But that is the key, there is nobody who knows your condition better than you. (Though many people are really bad a that or have un-learned that ability.)

Yeah, some days you have just slept shitty for no aparant reason and can't put out high power. Two days later you might just put in an hour more on high mode just because you have the capacity.

Oh, make no mistake, I was the boss, and 100% in charge. I could be described as being rather authoritative actually, and completely intolerant of insubordination. They could tell me to fuck off only because I gave them permission and a system within which to tell me to fuck off.

I didn't work this way because I'm kind and carin, I worked this way because it was efficient. I happen to be kind and caring, which helped me reject dominant management approaches and develop one that worked better.

My goal is to make my staff feel safe, and you can't do that unless you can command a position of authority wherein they feel like you have the power to keep them safe.

I instilled in them the faith that I could meet their needs.

[mm1970]

This was the HARDEST thing for me to teach my staff to do, especially my older staff. I basically had to beg them to tell me when they were hitting their limits. I kept saying over and over that if they don't learn to complain, I will just keep dumping more work on them.

This is amazing.  I have had more and more work piled on me the last 5 years...to which I actually got a bonus because "she just smiles and does it".  Literally yesterday I sent an email to my old boss (with whom I've had this discussion MULTIPLE times, because he's as overwhelmed as I) and my new boss to say "I want to make sure that we have solid plans for hiring and training in areas 1, 2 and 3 because I cannot maintain this level of work. I am half-assing everything. Help."

I didn't work this way because I'm kind and carin, I worked this way because it was efficient.

We know you love efficiency!

He'd sit you in an office and ask you endless stupid questions:
"How far away would you say that tree is?" [points out window]
"How much do you think the Great Pyramid weighs?"
"What's the speed of sound?" (this was a software/hardware position, not aerospace)
This would go on for hours before you actually got to the technical interviews with hiring managers.

This reminds me a tiny bit of some of the old-time stories of interviews that ADM Rickover used to give potential nuke officers in the Navy.

[Captain FIRE]

Ha, I do not think anyone here doubts that Malcat was in charge.

My goal is to make my staff feel safe, and you can't do that unless you can command a position of authority wherein they feel like you have the power to keep them safe.

I instilled in them the faith that I could meet their needs.

This...is simple but profound.  Probably goes to Maslow's hierarchy of needs except I never read that.  I am currently dealing with this at my work.  Due to [recent circumstances] a vast majority of my workplace suddenly feels unsafe, and more importantly, that the people in charge who are telling them that everything will be fine and they will keep the employees safe despite [recent circumstances created by person in charge] are bullshitting them.  (And in fairness, I think that's an accurate assessment.)  Now employees won't believe anything the people in charge say.  We're in for a really rough ride.

[StarBright]

The elder millenial agrees to reschedule and then posts on Tik Tok about hold "bold" their employee was to request to reschedule a meeting that they *asked* for. However, the elder millenial says they respect this boldness and wish they had been so bold as an employee.

Here's the kicker. A bunch of Gen Z pile on the elder millenial in the comments that the staff member's behaviour shouldn't be considered bold. They're just being honest with their supervisor about their capacity, using their self-assessment skills, and communicating to the supervisor that they made a mistake in requesting that meeting time because it won't be an effective use of either of their time.

They call out the fact that the elder millenial is labeling the behaviour as "bold" is part of the management culture problem. That it's not enough to respect the staff member's behaviour, that they should be normalizing it.

Self assessment and communication of limitations should not require being "bold," they should be skills that are specifically fostered and taught by managers.

I feel like it is sort of a bummer that they piled on though! And it really seems like it is over semantics? Absolutely we should normalize excellent boundaries.

But us elder millennials are just trying to do the work, be the middle middle management and mentors that don't really exist anymore, and support our younger colleagues in creating the work/life balance that we haven't had. Sometimes I'm too tired to express the sentiment perfectly but I feel like "I wish I had been like that" makes it pretty clear.

I love my younger colleagues and work my hardest to encourage balance and boundaries - but I'm not going to lie, I do roll my eyes sometimes :) I also occasionally find some of them insulting - I've had someone tell me point blank they don't want to end up like me. I was like damn, social skills please! But also, part of what I burned myself out on was getting policies instituted that make their jobs better.

I feel like I know what second waive feminists feel like now :) Elder erasure at 40 is real!

[Metalcat]

Ha, I do not think anyone here doubts that Malcat was in charge.

My goal is to make my staff feel safe, and you can't do that unless you can command a position of authority wherein they feel like you have the power to keep them safe.

I instilled in them the faith that I could meet their needs.

This...is simple but profound.  Probably goes to Maslow's hierarchy of needs except I never read that.  I am currently dealing with this at my work.  Due to [recent circumstances] a vast majority of my workplace suddenly feels unsafe, and more importantly, that the people in charge who are telling them that everything will be fine and they will keep the employees safe despite [recent circumstances created by person in charge] are bullshitting them.  (And in fairness, I think that's an accurate assessment.)  Now employees won't believe anything the people in charge say.  We're in for a really rough ride.

Yep, several times the ground has crumbled beneath me when the owner has undermined my ability to protect the staff, usually because I've had to step back a bit for health reasons.

Pretty much every fucking time I step back a bit, I give owners enough rope to hang themselves. It's extremely annoying. It's why I rarely do consulting anymore. I don't have the stomach for building trust among staff only to watch it be violated in the end.

Fucking infuriating.

[Metalcat]

The elder millenial agrees to reschedule and then posts on Tik Tok about hold "bold" their employee was to request to reschedule a meeting that they *asked* for. However, the elder millenial says they respect this boldness and wish they had been so bold as an employee.

Here's the kicker. A bunch of Gen Z pile on the elder millenial in the comments that the staff member's behaviour shouldn't be considered bold. They're just being honest with their supervisor about their capacity, using their self-assessment skills, and communicating to the supervisor that they made a mistake in requesting that meeting time because it won't be an effective use of either of their time.

They call out the fact that the elder millenial is labeling the behaviour as "bold" is part of the management culture problem. That it's not enough to respect the staff member's behaviour, that they should be normalizing it.

Self assessment and communication of limitations should not require being "bold," they should be skills that are specifically fostered and taught by managers.

I feel like it is sort of a bummer that they piled on though! And it really seems like it is over semantics? Absolutely we should normalize excellent boundaries.

But us elder millennials are just trying to do the work, be the middle middle management and mentors that don't really exist anymore, and support our younger colleagues in creating the work/life balance that we haven't had. Sometimes I'm too tired to express the sentiment perfectly but I feel like "I wish I had been like that" makes it pretty clear.

I love my younger colleagues and work my hardest to encourage balance and boundaries - but I'm not going to lie, I do roll my eyes sometimes :) I also occasionally find some of them insulting - I've had someone tell me point blank they don't want to end up like me. I was like damn, social skills please! But also, part of what I burned myself out on was getting policies instituted that make their jobs better.

I feel like I know what second waive feminists feel like now :) Elder erasure at 40 is real!

I mean...it's the internet, piling on is what people do.

The point is not that she was piled on, the point is that the younger generation genuinely doesn't understand why the behaviour would be considered "bold."

If managers can't anticipate that, they're kind of fucked.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

The elder millenial agrees to reschedule and then posts on Tik Tok about hold "bold" their employee was to request to reschedule a meeting that they *asked* for. However, the elder millenial says they respect this boldness and wish they had been so bold as an employee.

Here's the kicker. A bunch of Gen Z pile on the elder millenial in the comments that the staff member's behaviour shouldn't be considered bold. They're just being honest with their supervisor about their capacity, using their self-assessment skills, and communicating to the supervisor that they made a mistake in requesting that meeting time because it won't be an effective use of either of their time.

They call out the fact that the elder millenial is labeling the behaviour as "bold" is part of the management culture problem. That it's not enough to respect the staff member's behaviour, that they should be normalizing it.

Self assessment and communication of limitations should not require being "bold," they should be skills that are specifically fostered and taught by managers.

I feel like it is sort of a bummer that they piled on though! And it really seems like it is over semantics? Absolutely we should normalize excellent boundaries.

But us elder millennials are just trying to do the work, be the middle middle management and mentors that don't really exist anymore, and support our younger colleagues in creating the work/life balance that we haven't had. Sometimes I'm too tired to express the sentiment perfectly but I feel like "I wish I had been like that" makes it pretty clear.

I love my younger colleagues and work my hardest to encourage balance and boundaries - but I'm not going to lie, I do roll my eyes sometimes :) I also occasionally find some of them insulting - I've had someone tell me point blank they don't want to end up like me. I was like damn, social skills please! But also, part of what I burned myself out on was getting policies instituted that make their jobs better.

I feel like I know what second waive feminists feel like now :) Elder erasure at 40 is real!

I mean...it's the internet, piling on is what people do.

The point is not that she was piled on, the point is that the younger generation genuinely doesn't understand why the behaviour would be considered "bold."

If managers can't anticipate that, they're kind of fucked.

Maybe I'm a too old (older millennial here :-) ), but it feels like the pendulum has swung a little bit too far if this is the perspective worthy of piling on to a manager about. I do see it as a little bold. Let me explain.

A boss giving you an assignment and you pushing back with having too much on your plate or asking for them to prioritize things because you can't do it all at once - not bold at all, just being a good employee.

Scheduling a meeting with your boss and then rescheduling it not because something changed - there was an emergency that took priority or whatever, but because you didn't realize you had another couple of meetings that day and you might be tired......yeah, that's worth a little bit of embarrassment on your end or of the manager calling the request bold or whatever you'd like. You scheduled the meeting. With your boss. If they're anything like my managers, they have a ton of meetings and meetings have to be scheduled around their meeting heavy schedule, so you've blocked off an hour or what have you that could have been used to schedule a different meeting for them. Unless you rescheduled it virtually immediately saying, oh my bad, I sent it on the wrong day or something like that - you kind of have a little egg on your face. Especially when the only reason is you have some other meetings too and would be tired and just didn't notice it.

I guess it just seems to me if you can't say this is at least a little bold or whatever then you've elevated being burnt out to a trump card that can be to mask simple poor planning.

All of this is in the context of my project engineering background where planning is very important, and I may be misreading or misunderstanding aspects of the original situation, as well.

[Metalcat]

The elder millenial agrees to reschedule and then posts on Tik Tok about hold "bold" their employee was to request to reschedule a meeting that they *asked* for. However, the elder millenial says they respect this boldness and wish they had been so bold as an employee.

Here's the kicker. A bunch of Gen Z pile on the elder millenial in the comments that the staff member's behaviour shouldn't be considered bold. They're just being honest with their supervisor about their capacity, using their self-assessment skills, and communicating to the supervisor that they made a mistake in requesting that meeting time because it won't be an effective use of either of their time.

They call out the fact that the elder millenial is labeling the behaviour as "bold" is part of the management culture problem. That it's not enough to respect the staff member's behaviour, that they should be normalizing it.

Self assessment and communication of limitations should not require being "bold," they should be skills that are specifically fostered and taught by managers.

I feel like it is sort of a bummer that they piled on though! And it really seems like it is over semantics? Absolutely we should normalize excellent boundaries.

But us elder millennials are just trying to do the work, be the middle middle management and mentors that don't really exist anymore, and support our younger colleagues in creating the work/life balance that we haven't had. Sometimes I'm too tired to express the sentiment perfectly but I feel like "I wish I had been like that" makes it pretty clear.

I love my younger colleagues and work my hardest to encourage balance and boundaries - but I'm not going to lie, I do roll my eyes sometimes :) I also occasionally find some of them insulting - I've had someone tell me point blank they don't want to end up like me. I was like damn, social skills please! But also, part of what I burned myself out on was getting policies instituted that make their jobs better.

I feel like I know what second waive feminists feel like now :) Elder erasure at 40 is real!

I mean...it's the internet, piling on is what people do.

The point is not that she was piled on, the point is that the younger generation genuinely doesn't understand why the behaviour would be considered "bold."

If managers can't anticipate that, they're kind of fucked.

Maybe I'm a too old (older millennial here :-) ), but it feels like the pendulum has swung a little bit too far if this is the perspective worthy of piling on to a manager about. I do see it as a little bold. Let me explain.

A boss giving you an assignment and you pushing back with having too much on your plate or asking for them to prioritize things because you can't do it all at once - not bold at all, just being a good employee.

Scheduling a meeting with your boss and then rescheduling it not because something changed - there was an emergency that took priority or whatever, but because you didn't realize you had another couple of meetings that day and you might be tired......yeah, that's worth a little bit of embarrassment on your end or of the manager calling the request bold or whatever you'd like. You scheduled the meeting. With your boss. If they're anything like my managers, they have a ton of meetings and meetings have to be scheduled around their meeting heavy schedule, so you've blocked off an hour or what have you that could have been used to schedule a different meeting for them. Unless you rescheduled it virtually immediately saying, oh my bad, I sent it on the wrong day or something like that - you kind of have a little egg on your face. Especially when the only reason is you have some other meetings too and would be tired and just didn't notice it.

I guess it just seems to me if you can't say this is at least a little bold or whatever then you've elevated being burnt out to a trump card that can be to mask simple poor planning.

All of this is in the context of my project engineering background where planning is very important, and I may be misreading or misunderstanding aspects of the original situation, as well.

I have exactly zero interest in litigating the validity of piling on on the internet, or even whether or not the act should be categorized as "bold" or not.

The point is the need to understand a population that doesn't respond well to having that act referred to as bold.

Understanding people doesn't mean always giving in to their interpretation of things. It means understanding them.

A management system that fails to understand the response that this manager got on the internet is a management system that will fail to effectively manage their incoming young staff.

I can work with a staff member who takes offense to that behaviour being called "bold," because I can understand and anticipate that that might be their reaction. If I can't do that, I'm fucked and will never be able to earn their trust, and if I can't earn their trust, I cannot access their motivation, 'cuz that's just how they work, whether I like it or not.

In my professional experience, if you understand them, it's a lot easier to reign-in an over sensitive Gen Z than it is to get a grizzled and beaten-down elder millenial/Gen X/boomer to open up and complain effectively.

[Sibley]

Another aspect that does matter is the ability to work with other people. This generation coming in, yeah they may think that way and whatever and that's fine. But if they're going to act in a way that reads as disrespectful, rude, arrogant, or whatever then that is going to have consequences to their relationships with other people. So they have to figure out how to work with people who have different viewpoints, different experiences. Just as much as older people need to work with them. Just because someone is operating in a very different way doesn't mean there isn't value there. Alienating the person who's got the breadth and depth of technical knowledge that you want to learn has consequences.

[Metalcat]

Another aspect that does matter is the ability to work with other people. This generation coming in, yeah they may think that way and whatever and that's fine. But if they're going to act in a way that reads as disrespectful, rude, arrogant, or whatever then that is going to have consequences to their relationships with other people. So they have to figure out how to work with people who have different viewpoints, different experiences. Just as much as older people need to work with them. Just because someone is operating in a very different way doesn't mean there isn't value there. Alienating the person who's got the breadth and depth of technical knowledge that you want to learn has consequences.

I've personally never had a problem garnering respect for my authority and experience from this population. In fact I find it easier because they don't pretend to offer platitudes of respect.

Again, this manager was piled on by strangers on the internet, not by the staff who work for her. The reaction of the people on the internet just reveals a truth of that population's perspectives.

Perfectly deferential staff makes horrible private comments about their bosses all the time and we don't generalize that they aren't capable of getting along with their superiors.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

The elder millenial agrees to reschedule and then posts on Tik Tok about hold "bold" their employee was to request to reschedule a meeting that they *asked* for. However, the elder millenial says they respect this boldness and wish they had been so bold as an employee.

Here's the kicker. A bunch of Gen Z pile on the elder millenial in the comments that the staff member's behaviour shouldn't be considered bold. They're just being honest with their supervisor about their capacity, using their self-assessment skills, and communicating to the supervisor that they made a mistake in requesting that meeting time because it won't be an effective use of either of their time.

They call out the fact that the elder millenial is labeling the behaviour as "bold" is part of the management culture problem. That it's not enough to respect the staff member's behaviour, that they should be normalizing it.

Self assessment and communication of limitations should not require being "bold," they should be skills that are specifically fostered and taught by managers.

I feel like it is sort of a bummer that they piled on though! And it really seems like it is over semantics? Absolutely we should normalize excellent boundaries.

But us elder millennials are just trying to do the work, be the middle middle management and mentors that don't really exist anymore, and support our younger colleagues in creating the work/life balance that we haven't had. Sometimes I'm too tired to express the sentiment perfectly but I feel like "I wish I had been like that" makes it pretty clear.

I love my younger colleagues and work my hardest to encourage balance and boundaries - but I'm not going to lie, I do roll my eyes sometimes :) I also occasionally find some of them insulting - I've had someone tell me point blank they don't want to end up like me. I was like damn, social skills please! But also, part of what I burned myself out on was getting policies instituted that make their jobs better.

I feel like I know what second waive feminists feel like now :) Elder erasure at 40 is real!

I mean...it's the internet, piling on is what people do.

The point is not that she was piled on, the point is that the younger generation genuinely doesn't understand why the behaviour would be considered "bold."

If managers can't anticipate that, they're kind of fucked.

Maybe I'm a too old (older millennial here :-) ), but it feels like the pendulum has swung a little bit too far if this is the perspective worthy of piling on to a manager about. I do see it as a little bold. Let me explain.

A boss giving you an assignment and you pushing back with having too much on your plate or asking for them to prioritize things because you can't do it all at once - not bold at all, just being a good employee.

Scheduling a meeting with your boss and then rescheduling it not because something changed - there was an emergency that took priority or whatever, but because you didn't realize you had another couple of meetings that day and you might be tired......yeah, that's worth a little bit of embarrassment on your end or of the manager calling the request bold or whatever you'd like. You scheduled the meeting. With your boss. If they're anything like my managers, they have a ton of meetings and meetings have to be scheduled around their meeting heavy schedule, so you've blocked off an hour or what have you that could have been used to schedule a different meeting for them. Unless you rescheduled it virtually immediately saying, oh my bad, I sent it on the wrong day or something like that - you kind of have a little egg on your face. Especially when the only reason is you have some other meetings too and would be tired and just didn't notice it.

I guess it just seems to me if you can't say this is at least a little bold or whatever then you've elevated being burnt out to a trump card that can be to mask simple poor planning.

All of this is in the context of my project engineering background where planning is very important, and I may be misreading or misunderstanding aspects of the original situation, as well.

I have exactly zero interest in litigating the validity of piling on on the internet, or even whether or not the act should be categorized as "bold" or not.

The point is the need to understand a population that doesn't respond well to having that act referred to as bold.

Understanding people doesn't mean always giving in to their interpretation of things. It means understanding them.

A management system that fails to understand the response that this manager got on the internet is a management system that will fail to effectively manage their incoming young staff.

I can work with a staff member who takes offense to that behaviour being called "bold," because I can understand and anticipate that that might be their reaction. If I can't do that, I'm fucked and will never be able to earn their trust, and if I can't earn their trust, I cannot access their motivation, 'cuz that's just how they work, whether I like it or not.

In my professional experience, if you understand them, it's a lot easier to reign-in an over sensitive Gen Z than it is to get a grizzled and beaten-down elder millenial/Gen X/boomer to open up and complain effectively.

Fair enough. I'm not so much concerned about people "piling on" the person on the internet or whether or not the world "bold" is used. It seems that you are saying that Gen Z'ers see doing what was described by the manager is not a problem under their perspective, and if that's the case, I would say, they're being ridiculous.

My response is, that doing that is objectively rude. By way of example, if I were to invite a friend over to hang out at my house on Saturday night and then call them back a couple of day later and say, "Oh yeah, before I asked you to come over, I'd also asked this other couple to come over Friday night, and this other couple to come over Saturday morning, and I'm pretty sure I'm going to be too tired by Saturday night, so let's do it some other time"....I would be acting rude. Note, I'm not saying this is the same as saying, "Wow, I had a much harder week than I thought, and I'm tired. Let's try it again later." The person asked for a meeting...already had other things scheduled and then retroactively decided that it would be too much for them after getting the other person to commit their time. The manager's time is valuable too, which has nothing to do with deference...it's just common respect.

I don't tend to have a problem dealing with people younger than me. I actually agree that the way people younger than me view things has some serious perks and agree with a lot of it - emphasis on work life balance, not being willing to be screweed over by employers, etc. etc. Which is kind of why I was surprised that this was presented as a general "Gen Z" perspective when I think it's a reasonably inconsiderate thing to do.

You can, of course, dialogue or not on this as you see fit. If you're interested in further explanation, I'd be glad to hear it, but if not, that's fine too. I'm just going to call out something that's objectively rude, as being objectively rude. Whether or not it's a prevailing attitude of a group of people as you say, I can't speak to, but if it is, it's a pretty inconsiderate perspective.

[Metalcat]

The elder millenial agrees to reschedule and then posts on Tik Tok about hold "bold" their employee was to request to reschedule a meeting that they *asked* for. However, the elder millenial says they respect this boldness and wish they had been so bold as an employee.

Here's the kicker. A bunch of Gen Z pile on the elder millenial in the comments that the staff member's behaviour shouldn't be considered bold. They're just being honest with their supervisor about their capacity, using their self-assessment skills, and communicating to the supervisor that they made a mistake in requesting that meeting time because it won't be an effective use of either of their time.

They call out the fact that the elder millenial is labeling the behaviour as "bold" is part of the management culture problem. That it's not enough to respect the staff member's behaviour, that they should be normalizing it.

Self assessment and communication of limitations should not require being "bold," they should be skills that are specifically fostered and taught by managers.

I feel like it is sort of a bummer that they piled on though! And it really seems like it is over semantics? Absolutely we should normalize excellent boundaries.

But us elder millennials are just trying to do the work, be the middle middle management and mentors that don't really exist anymore, and support our younger colleagues in creating the work/life balance that we haven't had. Sometimes I'm too tired to express the sentiment perfectly but I feel like "I wish I had been like that" makes it pretty clear.

I love my younger colleagues and work my hardest to encourage balance and boundaries - but I'm not going to lie, I do roll my eyes sometimes :) I also occasionally find some of them insulting - I've had someone tell me point blank they don't want to end up like me. I was like damn, social skills please! But also, part of what I burned myself out on was getting policies instituted that make their jobs better.

I feel like I know what second waive feminists feel like now :) Elder erasure at 40 is real!

I mean...it's the internet, piling on is what people do.

The point is not that she was piled on, the point is that the younger generation genuinely doesn't understand why the behaviour would be considered "bold."

If managers can't anticipate that, they're kind of fucked.

Maybe I'm a too old (older millennial here :-) ), but it feels like the pendulum has swung a little bit too far if this is the perspective worthy of piling on to a manager about. I do see it as a little bold. Let me explain.

A boss giving you an assignment and you pushing back with having too much on your plate or asking for them to prioritize things because you can't do it all at once - not bold at all, just being a good employee.

Scheduling a meeting with your boss and then rescheduling it not because something changed - there was an emergency that took priority or whatever, but because you didn't realize you had another couple of meetings that day and you might be tired......yeah, that's worth a little bit of embarrassment on your end or of the manager calling the request bold or whatever you'd like. You scheduled the meeting. With your boss. If they're anything like my managers, they have a ton of meetings and meetings have to be scheduled around their meeting heavy schedule, so you've blocked off an hour or what have you that could have been used to schedule a different meeting for them. Unless you rescheduled it virtually immediately saying, oh my bad, I sent it on the wrong day or something like that - you kind of have a little egg on your face. Especially when the only reason is you have some other meetings too and would be tired and just didn't notice it.

I guess it just seems to me if you can't say this is at least a little bold or whatever then you've elevated being burnt out to a trump card that can be to mask simple poor planning.

All of this is in the context of my project engineering background where planning is very important, and I may be misreading or misunderstanding aspects of the original situation, as well.

I have exactly zero interest in litigating the validity of piling on on the internet, or even whether or not the act should be categorized as "bold" or not.

The point is the need to understand a population that doesn't respond well to having that act referred to as bold.

Understanding people doesn't mean always giving in to their interpretation of things. It means understanding them.

A management system that fails to understand the response that this manager got on the internet is a management system that will fail to effectively manage their incoming young staff.

I can work with a staff member who takes offense to that behaviour being called "bold," because I can understand and anticipate that that might be their reaction. If I can't do that, I'm fucked and will never be able to earn their trust, and if I can't earn their trust, I cannot access their motivation, 'cuz that's just how they work, whether I like it or not.

In my professional experience, if you understand them, it's a lot easier to reign-in an over sensitive Gen Z than it is to get a grizzled and beaten-down elder millenial/Gen X/boomer to open up and complain effectively.

Fair enough. I'm not so much concerned about people "piling on" the person on the internet or whether or not the world "bold" is used. It seems that you are saying that Gen Z'ers see doing what was described by the manager is not a problem under their perspective, and if that's the case, I would say, they're being ridiculous.

My response is, that doing that is objectively rude. By way of example, if I were to invite a friend over to hang out at my house on Saturday night and then call them back a couple of day later and say, "Oh yeah, before I asked you to come over, I'd also asked this other couple to come over Friday night, and this other couple to come over Saturday morning, and I'm pretty sure I'm going to be too tired by Saturday night, so let's do it some other time"....I would be acting rude. Note, I'm not saying this is the same as saying, "Wow, I had a much harder week than I thought, and I'm tired. Let's try it again later." The person asked for a meeting...already had other things scheduled and then retroactively decided that it would be too much for them after getting the other person to commit their time. The manager's time is valuable too, which has nothing to do with deference...it's just common respect.

I don't tend to have a problem dealing with people younger than me. I actually agree that the way people younger than me view things has some serious perks and agree with a lot of it - emphasis on work life balance, not being willing to be screweed over by employers, etc. etc. Which is kind of why I was surprised that this was presented as a general "Gen Z" perspective when I think it's a reasonably inconsiderate thing to do.

You can, of course, dialogue or not on this as you see fit. If you're interested in further explanation, I'd be glad to hear it, but if not, that's fine too. I'm just going to call out something that's objectively rude, as being objectively rude. Whether or not it's a prevailing attitude of a group of people as you say, I can't speak to, but if it is, it's a pretty inconsiderate perspective.

I'm sorry, I literally can't parse what it is you think is ridiculous.

The staff member asked for a meeting, and then later on asked for that meeting to be moved because for whatever reason they realized they won't be in the best condition for the meeting they asked for. It's unclear whether something changed or they just didn't realize how stacked their schedule was when they requested the original date.

By the manager's own account, the staff member was not rude about the request to move the meeting they requested, just honest about why they reconsidered the specific time they requested.

The manager posted publicly that she respected the move and found it bold. A bunch of Gen Z responses expressed that they couldn't understand why the manager was calling it "bold" when from their perspective, the staff member was just being responsible.

The term "piling on" was used by me, not the manager.

I'm not getting how anyone in this scenario is unreasonable or ridiculous.

I just thought it was an amazing example of how the frame is shifting and how the young people might behave in ways that the older generations find aggressive or demanding, when it's more that they fundamentally perceive things differently.

The story is not about defining anyone as being in the wrong, it's about how groups can fundamentally not understand each other, and how this can pose a problem when the management is on one group and the staff another.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

The elder millenial agrees to reschedule and then posts on Tik Tok about hold "bold" their employee was to request to reschedule a meeting that they *asked* for. However, the elder millenial says they respect this boldness and wish they had been so bold as an employee.

Here's the kicker. A bunch of Gen Z pile on the elder millenial in the comments that the staff member's behaviour shouldn't be considered bold. They're just being honest with their supervisor about their capacity, using their self-assessment skills, and communicating to the supervisor that they made a mistake in requesting that meeting time because it won't be an effective use of either of their time.

They call out the fact that the elder millenial is labeling the behaviour as "bold" is part of the management culture problem. That it's not enough to respect the staff member's behaviour, that they should be normalizing it.

Self assessment and communication of limitations should not require being "bold," they should be skills that are specifically fostered and taught by managers.

I feel like it is sort of a bummer that they piled on though! And it really seems like it is over semantics? Absolutely we should normalize excellent boundaries.

But us elder millennials are just trying to do the work, be the middle middle management and mentors that don't really exist anymore, and support our younger colleagues in creating the work/life balance that we haven't had. Sometimes I'm too tired to express the sentiment perfectly but I feel like "I wish I had been like that" makes it pretty clear.

I love my younger colleagues and work my hardest to encourage balance and boundaries - but I'm not going to lie, I do roll my eyes sometimes :) I also occasionally find some of them insulting - I've had someone tell me point blank they don't want to end up like me. I was like damn, social skills please! But also, part of what I burned myself out on was getting policies instituted that make their jobs better.

I feel like I know what second waive feminists feel like now :) Elder erasure at 40 is real!

I mean...it's the internet, piling on is what people do.

The point is not that she was piled on, the point is that the younger generation genuinely doesn't understand why the behaviour would be considered "bold."

If managers can't anticipate that, they're kind of fucked.

Maybe I'm a too old (older millennial here :-) ), but it feels like the pendulum has swung a little bit too far if this is the perspective worthy of piling on to a manager about. I do see it as a little bold. Let me explain.

A boss giving you an assignment and you pushing back with having too much on your plate or asking for them to prioritize things because you can't do it all at once - not bold at all, just being a good employee.

Scheduling a meeting with your boss and then rescheduling it not because something changed - there was an emergency that took priority or whatever, but because you didn't realize you had another couple of meetings that day and you might be tired......yeah, that's worth a little bit of embarrassment on your end or of the manager calling the request bold or whatever you'd like. You scheduled the meeting. With your boss. If they're anything like my managers, they have a ton of meetings and meetings have to be scheduled around their meeting heavy schedule, so you've blocked off an hour or what have you that could have been used to schedule a different meeting for them. Unless you rescheduled it virtually immediately saying, oh my bad, I sent it on the wrong day or something like that - you kind of have a little egg on your face. Especially when the only reason is you have some other meetings too and would be tired and just didn't notice it.

I guess it just seems to me if you can't say this is at least a little bold or whatever then you've elevated being burnt out to a trump card that can be to mask simple poor planning.

All of this is in the context of my project engineering background where planning is very important, and I may be misreading or misunderstanding aspects of the original situation, as well.

I have exactly zero interest in litigating the validity of piling on on the internet, or even whether or not the act should be categorized as "bold" or not.

The point is the need to understand a population that doesn't respond well to having that act referred to as bold.

Understanding people doesn't mean always giving in to their interpretation of things. It means understanding them.

A management system that fails to understand the response that this manager got on the internet is a management system that will fail to effectively manage their incoming young staff.

I can work with a staff member who takes offense to that behaviour being called "bold," because I can understand and anticipate that that might be their reaction. If I can't do that, I'm fucked and will never be able to earn their trust, and if I can't earn their trust, I cannot access their motivation, 'cuz that's just how they work, whether I like it or not.

In my professional experience, if you understand them, it's a lot easier to reign-in an over sensitive Gen Z than it is to get a grizzled and beaten-down elder millenial/Gen X/boomer to open up and complain effectively.

Fair enough. I'm not so much concerned about people "piling on" the person on the internet or whether or not the world "bold" is used. It seems that you are saying that Gen Z'ers see doing what was described by the manager is not a problem under their perspective, and if that's the case, I would say, they're being ridiculous.

My response is, that doing that is objectively rude. By way of example, if I were to invite a friend over to hang out at my house on Saturday night and then call them back a couple of day later and say, "Oh yeah, before I asked you to come over, I'd also asked this other couple to come over Friday night, and this other couple to come over Saturday morning, and I'm pretty sure I'm going to be too tired by Saturday night, so let's do it some other time"....I would be acting rude. Note, I'm not saying this is the same as saying, "Wow, I had a much harder week than I thought, and I'm tired. Let's try it again later." The person asked for a meeting...already had other things scheduled and then retroactively decided that it would be too much for them after getting the other person to commit their time. The manager's time is valuable too, which has nothing to do with deference...it's just common respect.

I don't tend to have a problem dealing with people younger than me. I actually agree that the way people younger than me view things has some serious perks and agree with a lot of it - emphasis on work life balance, not being willing to be screweed over by employers, etc. etc. Which is kind of why I was surprised that this was presented as a general "Gen Z" perspective when I think it's a reasonably inconsiderate thing to do.

You can, of course, dialogue or not on this as you see fit. If you're interested in further explanation, I'd be glad to hear it, but if not, that's fine too. I'm just going to call out something that's objectively rude, as being objectively rude. Whether or not it's a prevailing attitude of a group of people as you say, I can't speak to, but if it is, it's a pretty inconsiderate perspective.

I'm sorry, I literally can't parse what it is you think is ridiculous.

The staff member asked for a meeting, and then later on asked for that meeting to be moved because for whatever reason they realized they won't be in the best condition for the meeting they asked for. It's unclear whether something changed or they just didn't realize how stacked their schedule was when they requested the original date.

By the manager's own account, the staff member was not rude about the request to move the meeting they requested, just honest about why they reconsidered the specific time they requested.

The manager posted publicly that she respected the move and found it bold. A bunch of Gen Z responses expressed that they couldn't understand why the manager was calling it "bold" when from their perspective, the staff member was just being responsible.

The term "piling on" was used by me, not the manager.

I'm not getting how anyone in this scenario is unreasonable or ridiculous.

I just thought it was an amazing example of how the frame is shifting and how the young people might behave in ways that the older generations find aggressive or demanding, when it's more that they fundamentally perceive things differently.

The story is not about defining anyone as being in the wrong, it's about how groups can fundamentally not understand each other, and how this can pose a problem when the management is on one group and the staff another.

Ah...I found the problem. It's due to my poor reading skills apparently :-). I thought that the employee had scheduled a meeting, time included, themselves, and not paid enough attention to realize what they'd already committed to. You clearly said the manager scheduled the time, not the employee - all the employee had asked for was a meeting sometime. If I had only read more carefully, I would have not been nearly this confused! Sigh....

[Sibley]

Another aspect that does matter is the ability to work with other people. This generation coming in, yeah they may think that way and whatever and that's fine. But if they're going to act in a way that reads as disrespectful, rude, arrogant, or whatever then that is going to have consequences to their relationships with other people. So they have to figure out how to work with people who have different viewpoints, different experiences. Just as much as older people need to work with them. Just because someone is operating in a very different way doesn't mean there isn't value there. Alienating the person who's got the breadth and depth of technical knowledge that you want to learn has consequences.

I've personally never had a problem garnering respect for my authority and experience from this population. In fact I find it easier because they don't pretend to offer platitudes of respect.

Again, this manager was piled on by strangers on the internet, not by the staff who work for her. The reaction of the people on the internet just reveals a truth of that population's perspectives.

Perfectly deferential staff makes horrible private comments about their bosses all the time and we don't generalize that they aren't capable of getting along with their superiors.

I think you misinterpreted my meaning, or more likely, I didn't express my thought clearly.

Some of the people who I have worked with from this age group have been pretty unpleasant to work with. Not many, but some. And it has been in consistent ways.

You don't get to say that you'll only email, not call someone. Every method of communication is on the table, and taking something off the table is a work problem. It's even more of a work problem if you're going to act disdainful towards your coworkers because they use the phone or prefer the phone to email. Yes, I know phone anxiety is a thing, and I'm sympathetic but if you're going to be a jerk then nope.

If you're an auditor going to a client's office, then you need to dress appropriately. And "appropriately" is highly influenced by the client's dress code. Young auditor showing up in jeans and a tshirt to go into a client who, right or wrong, has a business professional dress code is going to get sent home. And they had been specifically told about the dress code, because the entire team disliked it and would grumble about having to pull out the suits. I understand that you're more comfortable in jeans and tshirt, so am I, but I've got no control over the dress code AND you flaunting it is causing a work problem. The young auditor who didn't have a suit, had to go to a client where a suit or similar was expected, and talked to someone about the issue I was fine with, because a solution was figured out.

That sort of thing. Maybe my experience is atypical, maybe all this was the individuals. And yes, every generation has their idiots and so on. But that's why I say that you have to figure out how to work with others. 

[Metalcat]

Ah...I found the problem. It's due to my poor reading skills apparently :-). I thought that the employee had scheduled a meeting, time included, themselves, and not paid enough attention to realize what they'd already committed to. You clearly said the manager scheduled the time, not the employee - all the employee had asked for was a meeting sometime. If I had only read more carefully, I would have not been nearly this confused! Sigh....

???

Now I'm confused.

The staff member requested the meeting time and then later asked to change the meeting time. The manager agreed, but called the request "bold."

[Metalcat]

Another aspect that does matter is the ability to work with other people. This generation coming in, yeah they may think that way and whatever and that's fine. But if they're going to act in a way that reads as disrespectful, rude, arrogant, or whatever then that is going to have consequences to their relationships with other people. So they have to figure out how to work with people who have different viewpoints, different experiences. Just as much as older people need to work with them. Just because someone is operating in a very different way doesn't mean there isn't value there. Alienating the person who's got the breadth and depth of technical knowledge that you want to learn has consequences.

I've personally never had a problem garnering respect for my authority and experience from this population. In fact I find it easier because they don't pretend to offer platitudes of respect.

Again, this manager was piled on by strangers on the internet, not by the staff who work for her. The reaction of the people on the internet just reveals a truth of that population's perspectives.

Perfectly deferential staff makes horrible private comments about their bosses all the time and we don't generalize that they aren't capable of getting along with their superiors.

I think you misinterpreted my meaning, or more likely, I didn't express my thought clearly.

Some of the people who I have worked with from this age group have been pretty unpleasant to work with. Not many, but some. And it has been in consistent ways.

You don't get to say that you'll only email, not call someone. Every method of communication is on the table, and taking something off the table is a work problem. It's even more of a work problem if you're going to act disdainful towards your coworkers because they use the phone or prefer the phone to email. Yes, I know phone anxiety is a thing, and I'm sympathetic but if you're going to be a jerk then nope.

If you're an auditor going to a client's office, then you need to dress appropriately. And "appropriately" is highly influenced by the client's dress code. Young auditor showing up in jeans and a tshirt to go into a client who, right or wrong, has a business professional dress code is going to get sent home. And they had been specifically told about the dress code, because the entire team disliked it and would grumble about having to pull out the suits. I understand that you're more comfortable in jeans and tshirt, so am I, but I've got no control over the dress code AND you flaunting it is causing a work problem. The young auditor who didn't have a suit, had to go to a client where a suit or similar was expected, and talked to someone about the issue I was fine with, because a solution was figured out.

That sort of thing. Maybe my experience is atypical, maybe all this was the individuals. And yes, every generation has their idiots and so on. But that's why I say that you have to figure out how to work with others.

Lol, yes, they can be utterly miserable to manage. Never have I said otherwise.

I said that *I* personally don't have a hard time wrangling them and have consulted with business owners in training them how to manage this population that they don't know how to motivated because old school strategies for motivating staff don't work with them.

If you don't understand them, they are fucking IMPOSSIBLE to manage and will make the employers life hell.

[Sibley]

Another aspect that does matter is the ability to work with other people. This generation coming in, yeah they may think that way and whatever and that's fine. But if they're going to act in a way that reads as disrespectful, rude, arrogant, or whatever then that is going to have consequences to their relationships with other people. So they have to figure out how to work with people who have different viewpoints, different experiences. Just as much as older people need to work with them. Just because someone is operating in a very different way doesn't mean there isn't value there. Alienating the person who's got the breadth and depth of technical knowledge that you want to learn has consequences.

I've personally never had a problem garnering respect for my authority and experience from this population. In fact I find it easier because they don't pretend to offer platitudes of respect.

Again, this manager was piled on by strangers on the internet, not by the staff who work for her. The reaction of the people on the internet just reveals a truth of that population's perspectives.

Perfectly deferential staff makes horrible private comments about their bosses all the time and we don't generalize that they aren't capable of getting along with their superiors.

I think you misinterpreted my meaning, or more likely, I didn't express my thought clearly.

Some of the people who I have worked with from this age group have been pretty unpleasant to work with. Not many, but some. And it has been in consistent ways.

You don't get to say that you'll only email, not call someone. Every method of communication is on the table, and taking something off the table is a work problem. It's even more of a work problem if you're going to act disdainful towards your coworkers because they use the phone or prefer the phone to email. Yes, I know phone anxiety is a thing, and I'm sympathetic but if you're going to be a jerk then nope.

If you're an auditor going to a client's office, then you need to dress appropriately. And "appropriately" is highly influenced by the client's dress code. Young auditor showing up in jeans and a tshirt to go into a client who, right or wrong, has a business professional dress code is going to get sent home. And they had been specifically told about the dress code, because the entire team disliked it and would grumble about having to pull out the suits. I understand that you're more comfortable in jeans and tshirt, so am I, but I've got no control over the dress code AND you flaunting it is causing a work problem. The young auditor who didn't have a suit, had to go to a client where a suit or similar was expected, and talked to someone about the issue I was fine with, because a solution was figured out.

That sort of thing. Maybe my experience is atypical, maybe all this was the individuals. And yes, every generation has their idiots and so on. But that's why I say that you have to figure out how to work with others.

Lol, yes, they can be utterly miserable to manage. Never have I said otherwise.

I said that *I* personally don't have a hard time wrangling them and have consulted with business owners in training them how to manage this population that they don't know how to motivated because old school strategies for motivating staff don't work with them.

If you don't understand them, they are fucking IMPOSSIBLE to manage and will make the employers life hell.

Them being roughly early 20s in age doesn't help. A lot of teens/early 20s are just assholes and it takes time to grow out of it. I can hope at least. And ffs, figure out how to handle talking on the phone.

[Metalcat]

Them being roughly early 20s in age doesn't help. A lot of teens/early 20s are just assholes and it takes time to grow out of it. I can hope at least. And ffs, figure out how to handle talking on the phone.

Lol, as I said, I find them easier to manage than older staff. Their particular world view is highly compatible with my management style.

My whole point is that while everyone finds them frustrating, I actually prefer working with them. Why? Because I figured out how to rev their engines. This is why people try to hire me to teach them how to manage Gen Z staff.

I'm none too fond of working with the population that tries to hire me though, so I usually decline the work, but will typically just give them free advice that helps when they actually listen.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Ah...I found the problem. It's due to my poor reading skills apparently :-). I thought that the employee had scheduled a meeting, time included, themselves, and not paid enough attention to realize what they'd already committed to. You clearly said the manager scheduled the time, not the employee - all the employee had asked for was a meeting sometime. If I had only read more carefully, I would have not been nearly this confused! Sigh....

???

Now I'm confused.

The staff member requested the meeting time and then later asked to change the meeting time. The manager agreed, but called the request "bold."

Ok, then I'm back to thinking it's rude, lol.

Your initial quote was:

"A Gen Z staff member requests a meeting with their elder millenial supervisor. The supervisor agrees and later on sends a meeting invite.

The Gen Z staff member writes back saying that they've re-assessed their schedule and noted that they have a lot of intense back-to-back meetings that day, and would likely not be in optimal shape for the meeting with the supervisor and asks to reschedule it to avoid burnout."

The second time I read it, I thought that the underlined meant the Gen Z staff member said, "Hey boss, I need to meet with you because I need to talk about x, y, z." Boss then says, "Sure I'll schedule a meeting and does so on Friday at 3:00." Gen Z staff member says, "Oh, yeah, I've got two meetings on Friday. I don't think that'll work. I'll be burnt out."

If it's that situation - no problem.

Originally, I thought it was Gen Z staff member said, "Hey boss, I need to meet with you on Friday at 3:00 PM because I need to talk about x, y, z." Boss then says, "Sure I'll schedule a meeting and does so on Friday at 3:00." Gen Z staff member says, "Oh, yeah, I've got two meetings on Friday. I don't think that'll work. I'll be burnt out."

If it's that situation - which is what it now seems like it was - then Gen Z staffer is being at least a little rude. The rudeness comes from not thoroughly checking whether or not you could keep a time commitment before you book someone else's time. Ultimately the manager might not have minded, and that's fine. I probably wouldn't have minded much if it didn't inconvenience me - make scheduling some other meeting harder because I had this one scheduled...or in some way keeping me from making some plan because I thought I had this meeting scheduled. Also, the longer the meeting has stayed on there, the ruder, in my mind, it becomes. If I asked for a Friday, 3:00 meeting on Monday at 3:00 PM and rescheduled it first thing Tuesday morning - not too big of a problem. If I asked on Monday and rescheduled it Thursday at 4:30 PM - more rude. Perhaps it was much closer to the Monday/Tuesday situation and nothing was negatively impacted since the manager thought it wasn't a big deal at all. I dunno.

I think it's pretty straightforward that it's rude to book someone's time up for a Friday at 3:00 meeting when you had a doctor's appointment on Friday at 3:00 already scheduled. You couldn't do it. You should have known you couldn't do it. The situation didn't change - you just didn't take the time to look before you scheduled a meeting. That's not valuing someone else's time. This is the same in both situations.

It always frustrates me when I feel like someone throws out a buzzword as "a trump card," which, I think, is why this one frustrated me. It's rude not to value someone else's time in this way in general, but if you throw out the phrase "burnout" then it becomes something different - not in my mind.

After thinking on it myself, this is why I was frustrated by the situation, I believe.

[Metalcat]

Ah...I found the problem. It's due to my poor reading skills apparently :-). I thought that the employee had scheduled a meeting, time included, themselves, and not paid enough attention to realize what they'd already committed to. You clearly said the manager scheduled the time, not the employee - all the employee had asked for was a meeting sometime. If I had only read more carefully, I would have not been nearly this confused! Sigh....

???

Now I'm confused.

The staff member requested the meeting time and then later asked to change the meeting time. The manager agreed, but called the request "bold."

Ok, then I'm back to thinking it's rude, lol.

Your initial quote was:

"A Gen Z staff member requests a meeting with their elder millenial supervisor. The supervisor agrees and later on sends a meeting invite.

The Gen Z staff member writes back saying that they've re-assessed their schedule and noted that they have a lot of intense back-to-back meetings that day, and would likely not be in optimal shape for the meeting with the supervisor and asks to reschedule it to avoid burnout."

The second time I read it, I thought that the underlined meant the Gen Z staff member said, "Hey boss, I need to meet with you because I need to talk about x, y, z." Boss then says, "Sure I'll schedule a meeting and does so on Friday at 3:00." Gen Z staff member says, "Oh, yeah, I've got two meetings on Friday. I don't think that'll work. I'll be burnt out."

If it's that situation - no problem.

Originally, I thought it was Gen Z staff member said, "Hey boss, I need to meet with you on Friday at 3:00 PM because I need to talk about x, y, z." Boss then says, "Sure I'll schedule a meeting and does so on Friday at 3:00." Gen Z staff member says, "Oh, yeah, I've got two meetings on Friday. I don't think that'll work. I'll be burnt out."

If it's that situation - which is what it now seems like it was - then Gen Z staffer is being at least a little rude. The rudeness comes from not thoroughly checking whether or not you could keep a time commitment before you book someone else's time. Ultimately the manager might not have minded, and that's fine. I probably wouldn't have minded much if it didn't inconvenience me - make scheduling some other meeting harder because I had this one scheduled...or in some way keeping me from making some plan because I thought I had this meeting scheduled. Also, the longer the meeting has stayed on there, the ruder, in my mind, it becomes. If I asked for a Friday, 3:00 meeting on Monday at 3:00 PM and rescheduled it first thing Tuesday morning - not too big of a problem. If I asked on Monday and rescheduled it Thursday at 4:30 PM - more rude. Perhaps it was much closer to the Monday/Tuesday situation and nothing was negatively impacted since the manager thought it wasn't a big deal at all. I dunno.

I think it's pretty straightforward that it's rude to book someone's time up for a Friday at 3:00 meeting when you had a doctor's appointment on Friday at 3:00 already scheduled. You couldn't do it. You should have known you couldn't do it. The situation didn't change - you just didn't take the time to look before you scheduled a meeting. That's not valuing someone else's time. This is the same in both situations.

It always frustrates me when I feel like someone throws out a buzzword as "a trump card," which, I think, is why this one frustrated me. It's rude not to value someone else's time in this way in general, but if you throw out the phrase "burnout" then it becomes something different - not in my mind.

After thinking on it myself, this is why I was frustrated by the situation, I believe.

You only think it's rude because you're thinking about it from a certain perspective.

Now think of it with a different frame.

I request a meeting with you for 3pm, you agree and send a meeting invite. I realize I've made a mistake requesting the meeting at that time and I know I'm not going to be in great shape for the meeting because of the other things I have on my plate.

I can
a) suck it up and go to the meeting anyway because I requested it, and corporate culture rules dictate that it's rude to request a change

b) just be honest with my manager like they're a human being who might be totally okay with moving the meeting, because it might not actually be a big deal, and if it is a big deal to move the meeting, she can just say "no" because she's the one in charge.


Plus I'm just explaining the objective fact that I won't be in great shape for the initial meeting time I requested. As my manager, it's sort of her job to care if I'm overloaded, so if she can easily accommodate it, then there really shouldn't be anything wrong with just being honest and *asking*.

For me as a manager, I would want my staff to feel free to request time with me, and I would want them to feel free to ask for meeting changes even if the reason is just "Ugh, I realized I have XYZ procedures right before and I'm going to be cranky."

It's not rude to me because I'm the one with all of the power to grant or deny their requests. They're just giving me more information to work with to make wise managerial decisions.

As the person in charge of them, I am the custodian of their well being every single day. So yeah, if someone schedules a meeting with me at the end of Thursday and then later on realizes they have 3 patients from hell scheduled right before and volunteers that they made a mistake with their meeting time request, then OF COURSE I want to know that.

At the very least, if I can't move the meeting, I want to be aware that the staff member coming into that meeting is going to be totally fried and not want to be there. That's useful information to me.

If you aren't conditioned to see the scenario through the existing corporate culture lens, then it truly doesn't make sense to call the behaviour bold.

I've quite literally had staff do *exactly* this same thing to me, often for performance reviews. Performance reviews are stressful and I've had staff request to reschedule them just 10 minutes before.

I don't want a miserable, exhausted, burnt out staff member in a performance review! Of course I'll reschedule if there's any way to do so, or I'll let them switch with someone. Caring about their state of being makes a HUGE difference to their experience as my staff member.

I won't always grant requests, but I will always want to hear them, and if I deny them, I will give a reasonable explanation why. From my perspective, if a staff member asks me for something, the onus is on me to justify why I won't give it to them. The onus is on me to make them feel like what they want and need from me matters to me.

So no, I don't find anything about the situation rude at all. You can't impose on someone who has all of the power in the dyad, you can only request and explain your requests and hope that their priorities will align with yours.

[exterous]

https://www.resumebuilder.com/1-in-3-managers-respond-to-quiet-quitting-with-quiet-firing/

Interesting (but not fascinating) article.  I don't think anyone here will be surprised.....

Key findings include:

98% of managers of ‘quiet quitters’ say it’s important their reports do more than the bare minimum
91% of managers have taken some action against ‘quiet quitters,’ including taking steps to terminate them and denying promotions/raises
1 in 3 managers admit to ‘quiet firing’ reports
64% of managers say ‘quiet quitters’ are unlikely to have a successful career
75% of managers say it’s justifiable to fire someone only doing the bare minimum

lol it would seem the minimum is in fact not the minimum, then!

It seems a lot of people don't understand phrases like Minimum Expectations and Meeting Expectations. I've had conversations with peers about what minimum means when they complain someone is only meeting minimum expectations or when writing job posting descriptions. And I've had conversations with direct reports who think Meeting Expectations is a negative review.

As an aside I have some slight problems with how some of the answers to that survey were cast. For example "91% of managers have action against quiet quitters" but one of those actions in the survey is a "formal discussion with the report about their level of effort." I built and maintain a talent pipeline in my team and it's one that can take them beyond my team. At any level if someone is doing the bare minimum I'll have a formal conversation with them to understand what their goals and motivations are (I mean I do with everyone regardless but this is how I would answer this question). If they want to stay in their position, get standard raises, and are ok with other less-time in position staff being promoted instead of them I have no problem with that. But I just want to make sure the staffer and I are on the same page about the role we see for them in the company. And I'll document it in a shared space not because its an action against the person but so there is a reminder should it be needed at review time or there is any concern about another staffer getting a promotion. I'll check occasionally to see if we're still aligned on their role and if they ever decide to they want to go a different route they know I'm here to help them through that growth path