Coworker changes story, should I call bullshit?
December 12, 2010 7:28 PM Subscribe
Should I call out a discrepancy in a coworker's story? The discrepancy appears designed to gain priority on our queue of work.
I'm a new manager in a large company. I lead a small specialized team of high performers. Our time is in high demand, and I must be direct about our priorities.
A coworker (higher in the org chart) has slightly changed their story to try to jump priority. I don't like this. When I answer their latest inquiry, I would like to briefly (and privately) acknowledge this discrepancy. The two stories are conveniently documented in two emails.
My response wouldn't be a "gotcha! you lied!", but a "hey, last week you said this, now you say this, but either way my response is the same".
On one hand, this could show I notice and will call bullshit when needed. On the other, this may hurt my future relations with this person. They are not in my report structure, but parallel, and generally good to work with.
Thoughts?
I'm a new manager in a large company. I lead a small specialized team of high performers. Our time is in high demand, and I must be direct about our priorities.
A coworker (higher in the org chart) has slightly changed their story to try to jump priority. I don't like this. When I answer their latest inquiry, I would like to briefly (and privately) acknowledge this discrepancy. The two stories are conveniently documented in two emails.
My response wouldn't be a "gotcha! you lied!", but a "hey, last week you said this, now you say this, but either way my response is the same".
On one hand, this could show I notice and will call bullshit when needed. On the other, this may hurt my future relations with this person. They are not in my report structure, but parallel, and generally good to work with.
Thoughts?
Agreed with Sidhedevil. This is particularly true if it doesn't change your general response. Generally speaking the only time you should even consider doing something like this is when it materially impacts you or your department. Even then, I'd be inclined to find a way without saying "you lied".
I don't like people who game the system, but I tend to allow karma to do it's work.
posted by FlamingBore at 7:48 PM on December 12, 2010 [4 favorites]
I don't like people who game the system, but I tend to allow karma to do it's work.
posted by FlamingBore at 7:48 PM on December 12, 2010 [4 favorites]
don't do it but keep those emails.
posted by violetk at 7:51 PM on December 12, 2010 [11 favorites]
posted by violetk at 7:51 PM on December 12, 2010 [11 favorites]
This is so common as to be unremarkable. Drawing attention to it will most certainly not do you any good.
But violet is right - keep those emails.
posted by winna at 7:59 PM on December 12, 2010
But violet is right - keep those emails.
posted by winna at 7:59 PM on December 12, 2010
If you have control of the allocation of your team's resources, then clearly you've already planned your resources based on their original email.
It sounds like they're just doing their job - trying to get the resources they need for their project (and most people would do the same in their position...). So don't refuse simply because you don't like the fact that they changed their story - that will just come across as petty.
It might be worth explaining to them that your decision was based on their original email, but that as (based on their latest email) the situation is different now, you're happy to facilitate a meeting between them and the project lead on the project that your team have already been allocated to, in order to see what compromise can be reached.
That says (a) that's not what you said before, but (b) I'm willing to help you get the resources you need, but (c) you'll have to convince me (and the other project lead) that this is really a priority.
Good luck!
posted by finding.perdita at 8:01 PM on December 12, 2010 [3 favorites]
It sounds like they're just doing their job - trying to get the resources they need for their project (and most people would do the same in their position...). So don't refuse simply because you don't like the fact that they changed their story - that will just come across as petty.
It might be worth explaining to them that your decision was based on their original email, but that as (based on their latest email) the situation is different now, you're happy to facilitate a meeting between them and the project lead on the project that your team have already been allocated to, in order to see what compromise can be reached.
That says (a) that's not what you said before, but (b) I'm willing to help you get the resources you need, but (c) you'll have to convince me (and the other project lead) that this is really a priority.
Good luck!
posted by finding.perdita at 8:01 PM on December 12, 2010 [3 favorites]
I don't think the fact that someone is higher in the org chart necessarily means they have more political power or leverage. That said, it's always better to avoid alienating or antagonizing others unnecessarily.
If you're trying to assert yourself, you can do that by assigning them an appropriate spot in the queue. That's what's important, right? By calling them out you are attempting to do two things" 1) assert yourself as being in control of your work group's priorities and 2) identifying yourself as "someone who doesn't take bullshit".
Wouldn't it be easier to to just focus on one goal here?
Plus, by calling them out, it becomes a bit of a "he said, she said" scenario. It's a potential time sink with no easy resolution.
When others in the org engage in stupid pet tricks like your coworker, just ignore them, and stick your guns and your core focus. In this unspoken way you will identify yourself as someone who does not suffer bullshit.
posted by KokuRyu at 8:03 PM on December 12, 2010
If you're trying to assert yourself, you can do that by assigning them an appropriate spot in the queue. That's what's important, right? By calling them out you are attempting to do two things" 1) assert yourself as being in control of your work group's priorities and 2) identifying yourself as "someone who doesn't take bullshit".
Wouldn't it be easier to to just focus on one goal here?
Plus, by calling them out, it becomes a bit of a "he said, she said" scenario. It's a potential time sink with no easy resolution.
When others in the org engage in stupid pet tricks like your coworker, just ignore them, and stick your guns and your core focus. In this unspoken way you will identify yourself as someone who does not suffer bullshit.
posted by KokuRyu at 8:03 PM on December 12, 2010
I've been in this precise situation. A new project manager within my organization grossly misrepresented a deadline that her project was under. This misrepresentation resulted in half my team, including myself, having to work over a weekend building and installing thirty servers, whereas if this deadline was given to us honestly, we could have completed the work during any of the following three work weeks.
How I handled it: I didn't notice until about two weeks after the fact that the deadline was fudged. I did ask her why the servers we built that weekend were showing no activity whatsoever, and she admitted straight out that she misrepresented the deadline, since at her previous jobs, IT departments tended to miss her project deadlines. From then on out, though, I made a point of confirming by asking tons of questions whenever she asked for anything, no matter how trivial. I made it, though my actions and questioning, as clear as I could that her credibility with me and my team was absolutely shot. She still got her project work done, mind you - but she had to go through the third degree on her project and dependencies every time she asked for something.
In your situation, I would take a similar tack: I would definitely question her about the discrepancy in this person's emails, and would also look with a skeptic's eye at any future requests this person makes. You also mentioned that this person is "generally good to work with." I would submit that any co-worker that lies to you is NOT good to work with at all - that's just a classic example of manipulative behavior right there.
posted by deadmessenger at 8:04 PM on December 12, 2010 [13 favorites]
How I handled it: I didn't notice until about two weeks after the fact that the deadline was fudged. I did ask her why the servers we built that weekend were showing no activity whatsoever, and she admitted straight out that she misrepresented the deadline, since at her previous jobs, IT departments tended to miss her project deadlines. From then on out, though, I made a point of confirming by asking tons of questions whenever she asked for anything, no matter how trivial. I made it, though my actions and questioning, as clear as I could that her credibility with me and my team was absolutely shot. She still got her project work done, mind you - but she had to go through the third degree on her project and dependencies every time she asked for something.
In your situation, I would take a similar tack: I would definitely question her about the discrepancy in this person's emails, and would also look with a skeptic's eye at any future requests this person makes. You also mentioned that this person is "generally good to work with." I would submit that any co-worker that lies to you is NOT good to work with at all - that's just a classic example of manipulative behavior right there.
posted by deadmessenger at 8:04 PM on December 12, 2010 [13 favorites]
Calling someone higher up in the hierarchy than you on a lie will never, never work out to your benefit, no matter how often people use it as a great denouement in movie and TV scripts.
This is terrible advice. (No offense.) That's what leads to unhappiness and malaise.
Or, at least, to the extent that you just shut up and take it. Of course it shouldn't be an epic call out, but simply a request for clarification. "Hey boss, you told me that before and this now. Which should I go by? If I move you up, then XYZ project gets moved down. Are you sure your project really needs these resources at this time?"
Those higher up in the hierarchy have a responsibility to do their jobs correctly as it pertains to those below them. Peacefully correcting things makes you both happier and better workers.
posted by gjc at 8:43 PM on December 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
This is terrible advice. (No offense.) That's what leads to unhappiness and malaise.
Or, at least, to the extent that you just shut up and take it. Of course it shouldn't be an epic call out, but simply a request for clarification. "Hey boss, you told me that before and this now. Which should I go by? If I move you up, then XYZ project gets moved down. Are you sure your project really needs these resources at this time?"
Those higher up in the hierarchy have a responsibility to do their jobs correctly as it pertains to those below them. Peacefully correcting things makes you both happier and better workers.
posted by gjc at 8:43 PM on December 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
If your workload is the same regardless of priority, this is just jockeying among your internal customers. I don't really see a benefit from sticking your nose into it.
posted by rhizome at 9:10 PM on December 12, 2010
posted by rhizome at 9:10 PM on December 12, 2010
"Hey Bill, just checking - did you say {A} or {B}?"
posted by obiwanwasabi at 9:15 PM on December 12, 2010 [5 favorites]
posted by obiwanwasabi at 9:15 PM on December 12, 2010 [5 favorites]
I face this a lot as client deadlines change almost daily. When I find someone has deliberately fudged their timings just to get better priority for their job, I do call them on it as it affects our ability to service all our clients.
When doing so though, I do make sure that I want to help them as much as I can, but point out the strain it puts on the rest of the team.
I'd politely query it, rather than direct calling BS. Better to ask what changed in the project to make the timing/priority change. Understanding their motivation might explain it.
posted by arcticseal at 9:20 PM on December 12, 2010
When doing so though, I do make sure that I want to help them as much as I can, but point out the strain it puts on the rest of the team.
I'd politely query it, rather than direct calling BS. Better to ask what changed in the project to make the timing/priority change. Understanding their motivation might explain it.
posted by arcticseal at 9:20 PM on December 12, 2010
If this person is higher on the org chart than you, but not someone to whom you directly report, then your real boss (as opposed to your internal company clients, all of them "bosses" in the same way that customers are a store's bosses) does need to know. If it's up to you to assign priorities based on what you're told, then you should do a "Bob, Bill wants to jump the queue, but I don't see a good reason to let him, so I'm keeping him behind Betty and Barb. If Bill wants to make something of it, have you got my back?" Alternatively, you could make it Bob's call, even if it's normally yours, because Bob is the one who might catch shit at the next Bob-level staff meeting.
Anyway, if you've had any customer service training, which in your role you should have, this is basic expectations management. You shouldn't open yourself and your team up to manipulation, because it's showing someone a weakness they'll then exploit again and again. Just find ways to honestly tell Bill something like "We already set the resource allocation for that week and you're right behind Barb." (A carrot approach could involve "...if we finish Barb's stuff early we'll start your stuff early too.") It could be important to Bill to know who else is actually ahead of him, so he could go to Barb's boss, or even bargain directly with Barb about the queue position. Basically try to put the awkwardness back on him, but without directly confronting him about his "lie".
posted by dhartung at 9:28 PM on December 12, 2010
Anyway, if you've had any customer service training, which in your role you should have, this is basic expectations management. You shouldn't open yourself and your team up to manipulation, because it's showing someone a weakness they'll then exploit again and again. Just find ways to honestly tell Bill something like "We already set the resource allocation for that week and you're right behind Barb." (A carrot approach could involve "...if we finish Barb's stuff early we'll start your stuff early too.") It could be important to Bill to know who else is actually ahead of him, so he could go to Barb's boss, or even bargain directly with Barb about the queue position. Basically try to put the awkwardness back on him, but without directly confronting him about his "lie".
posted by dhartung at 9:28 PM on December 12, 2010
Since it won't change your answer and you're still building relationships in your current role, I don't think it's worth it to call out the discrepancy. Being generally good to work with is worth some "benefit of the doubt" currency. (Stuff happens. Maybe the discrepancy was someone else's, maybe it was an error, maybe they were given new info or subjected to messy internal pressure, whatever.)
But yeah, keep the emails.
posted by desuetude at 9:30 PM on December 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
But yeah, keep the emails.
posted by desuetude at 9:30 PM on December 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
You talk about it with YOUR boss. Explain the situation, show both emails, ask your boss how he/she thinks you should assign priority to this (internal) customer. It could be the latest email is based on a slight change in circumstances, and is now correct. It could be, as you suspect, an attempt to cheat on the priority.
In any case, you should cut your boss in on what you're thinking and have a say in what you decide to do. That way your boss can have your back when this other person starts telling fibs in upper management meetings you aren't attending. Also, your boss might know more of the political and factual big-picture story than you do.
If you and your boss decide to extend benefit of the doubt to this person (and that's what I'd do, unless it were a chronic ploy with them), then you cheerfully take the latest email at face value.
(3rd-ing "save the emails" anyway. This could turn chronic if it works for them this time.)
posted by ctmf at 9:57 PM on December 12, 2010
In any case, you should cut your boss in on what you're thinking and have a say in what you decide to do. That way your boss can have your back when this other person starts telling fibs in upper management meetings you aren't attending. Also, your boss might know more of the political and factual big-picture story than you do.
If you and your boss decide to extend benefit of the doubt to this person (and that's what I'd do, unless it were a chronic ploy with them), then you cheerfully take the latest email at face value.
(3rd-ing "save the emails" anyway. This could turn chronic if it works for them this time.)
posted by ctmf at 9:57 PM on December 12, 2010
Presumably, they're advocating for their team just like you're advocating for yours. What you do wholly depends on the company culture.. if its super camp-y, to the point that it's actually antagonistic, your best bet is probably to raise it with someone on the same level as he is and have them duke it out. If it's collaborative, explain your reasoning for not wanting to go along with the change, which should probably be that your team has X as a higher priority for the company's good.
Basically, as with all negotiations, the ideal way to handle the situation is to put the other person in a position where agreeing with you is in his interest. There are brutal ways to do it (his boss telling him its the right thing to do), or nice ways to do it (making him realize that his interests are in the company's success, and that you doing X does that best).
posted by devilsbrigade at 10:20 PM on December 12, 2010
Basically, as with all negotiations, the ideal way to handle the situation is to put the other person in a position where agreeing with you is in his interest. There are brutal ways to do it (his boss telling him its the right thing to do), or nice ways to do it (making him realize that his interests are in the company's success, and that you doing X does that best).
posted by devilsbrigade at 10:20 PM on December 12, 2010
The discrepancy appears designed to gain priority on our queue of work.
Any chance this is just a miscommunication? My vote is to assume the best, and respond with "I'm confused. Friday you said X, but now you are saying Y. Did I miss something?" Like articseal said, a polite query or as gjc said, a request for clarification.
I'm not sure there's enough here to merit talking to your own boss - that seems like a pretty dramatic response. Responding with a friendly question acknowledges the two different stories but gives them an out ("Oh, no, what I meant was..." or "Yeah, X and Y changed, so...") and also makes it clear that you are paying attention.
posted by lvanshima at 10:22 PM on December 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
Any chance this is just a miscommunication? My vote is to assume the best, and respond with "I'm confused. Friday you said X, but now you are saying Y. Did I miss something?" Like articseal said, a polite query or as gjc said, a request for clarification.
I'm not sure there's enough here to merit talking to your own boss - that seems like a pretty dramatic response. Responding with a friendly question acknowledges the two different stories but gives them an out ("Oh, no, what I meant was..." or "Yeah, X and Y changed, so...") and also makes it clear that you are paying attention.
posted by lvanshima at 10:22 PM on December 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
I like deadmessenger's response, however, is it possible that the new story in the second email is actually the truth? Having been a scheduler in a large plant, I can tell you that sometimes the clients needs do indeed change (there was a recall on their product, so they need the next order pronto; new marketplaces have made the product needed quicker... etc.) Not knowing what type of work you do, it's hard to say for sure, but it could be the truth. If you call the person on it, and I would, I wouldn't let it come across as "calling them on a lie"... just ask them, in person preferably, if there's been a change in the clients needs; the answer should give you a better direction.
posted by Laura in Canada at 5:06 AM on December 13, 2010
posted by Laura in Canada at 5:06 AM on December 13, 2010
This is terrible advice. (No offense.) That's what leads to unhappiness and malaise.
Or, at least, to the extent that you just shut up and take it. Of course it shouldn't be an epic call out, but simply a request for clarification. "Hey boss, you told me that before and this now. Which should I go by? If I move you up, then XYZ project gets moved down. Are you sure your project really needs these resources at this time?"
I absolutely agree with you that there are quite possibly useful ways to reopen the question without drawing attention to the other party's lie! I was simply advising them to take "calling them on the lie" off the table entirely, which I still think is excellent advice.
Your suggestion is also excellent advice.
posted by Sidhedevil at 7:47 AM on December 13, 2010
Or, at least, to the extent that you just shut up and take it. Of course it shouldn't be an epic call out, but simply a request for clarification. "Hey boss, you told me that before and this now. Which should I go by? If I move you up, then XYZ project gets moved down. Are you sure your project really needs these resources at this time?"
I absolutely agree with you that there are quite possibly useful ways to reopen the question without drawing attention to the other party's lie! I was simply advising them to take "calling them on the lie" off the table entirely, which I still think is excellent advice.
Your suggestion is also excellent advice.
posted by Sidhedevil at 7:47 AM on December 13, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Sidhedevil at 7:44 PM on December 12, 2010 [4 favorites]