A newspaper's issues (in more ways than one)
May 19, 2011 6:45 PM Subscribe
High-school-drama-filter:
I've recently been named one of two new editors-in-chief of my high school newspaper. Less than one week into my tenure, I already have to deal with nasty issues involving next year's EIC candidates, editor successions, and angry staff threatening to quit. Long and complicated explanation inside.
First, some background. This is how succession usually goes: staff writer or artist (freshman), 1 year assistant section editor (sophomore), 1 year section editor (junior), and then possible EIC as a senior. If not, remain section editor as a senior. I'm a rising senior, and my school is very competitive, especially for leadership positions. There is one more issue of the newspaper in progress, to be published around June 8th.
There are four sections to the newspaper: News, Features, Opinions, and Sports. A sophomore girl (let's call her A) was accepted as assistant features editor at an unusually late time this year; as of now, she has only worked on one issue. A couple of features writers got upset over her acceptance because she had never written for us before, but we decided that writing talent trumped previous experience.
Before A's acceptance, there were three people, all sophomores, in the running for editor-in-chief: B and C, assistants in Opinions, and D, an assistant in News. A's addition marked a fourth candidate for EIC. If A worked hard over the next three issues and showed herself worthy of being a full section editor, we would promote her to full section to editor midyear. If she were not promoted, she would not be a candidate for EIC. However, B and C were very aggravated over our decision to possible promote her because it meant more competition for them as EIC.
My EIC counterpart (F) has recently informed me about several nasty rumors that have been spreading:
1. I have promised A the position of EIC, and that's why she's moving up so quickly and easily.
2. D is definitely EIC because his sister was EIC three years earlier.
3. A managed to get E (a former assistant features editor) removed from his position in order to facilitate her ascension. (...He actually requested to move to a lower position in a different section of his own accord.)
F has tried to deal with the situation by speaking with B and C, but B has been getting increasingly antagonistic (though not to our faces) and trying to get C on her side. C is more open-minded than B, but feels the same way. D, fortunately, has been mostly staying out of the fiasco.
Here's part of an email we sent to A, B, C, and D:
(This was after much discussion and after giving reasons for B's possible promotion, which I'll outline later)
"Frankly, each of you is doing yourself a great disservice by spreading and believing these false rumors in the first place. We had and still have high hopes for each of you - don't tarnish our opinion of you by putting your faith in baseless gossip. Don't choose this empty faith over what you know to be true of the two of us: that you can trust us to work for what's best for _____. Have more faith in your EICs. Because on our side, we trust each of you absolutely.
Most importantly, realize that your conduct now - your response to these rumors - reveals whether you would be an EIC who would build _____ up or tear it down. Realize, also, that we are taking note. A, B, C, and D: it's not too late to change. We hope this situation is a honest misunderstanding, because we are really upset and disappointed right now... especially in those who chose to believe in and perpetuate these rumors. You've really let down our trust in you. And you would do well to earn our trust, not to break it, as you are doing now. This fixation with the EIC position is only regressive. Keep in mind that our ultimate goal as an organization is to put out a quality newspaper, and not to better our own resumes. This talk has persisted for far too long, and it's time that we shifted the topic of discussion to debating how we can improve the newspaper for next year."
Here's part of B's response:
"There are many assistants and writers who are equally concerned about this seemingly-interminable saga. People all over _____ are doubting the integrity of our club and are considering quitting because of the unfavorable events that have recently transpired and the more-unfavorable events suggested by the rumors spreading all over the staff. I do not think that it was wrong of us to be concerned about these rumors, especially because little was done to assuage our concerns or to prove the rumors false. There is no mudslinging going on; people are only repeating facts (ex. A's accession in April, A's likely promotion in January) and making what they consider to be reasonable conjectures.
I think I speak for the three of us when I say we're not the only people who are annoyed about A's ability to get any position she chooses. Lots of Features writers feel scorned by A becoming an assistant when they had been working for almost a year and undoubtedly had more knowledge and experience vis-a-vis how to write a Features piece. Multiple writers in various departments have said that if A's promotions continue to occur, they will quit _____. (Of course, seeing A referred to as being "on equal footing" with the three of us and her being addressed as an "editor" will likely do little to ameliorate their morale.)
I believe the best way for you to help our club move forward is to adequately address our concerns instead of trying to silence them. Ms. [Principal] has requested updates on the situation early next week, so I hope we come to a solution before then. She has said before that she is aware of this problem existing in _____ long before today, and is committed to eradicating it.
We want to trust in you and will do so when you earn our trust. Until now, you have persisted in equivocations and refusals to make your intentions clear to everyone in _____. I will attend the meeting, but am certain that the three editors and one assistant you have invited are not the only ones interested in the outcome."
-------------------------------------
I don't know what to do, and I’m especially frustrated at B’s obstinacy. B seems to have a point, until you realize that we have repeatedly explained logical, clear reasons for A to have a chance to prove herself next year, which has nothing to do with an "ability to get any position she chooses" and everything to do with what is best for the newspaper. And the controversy that does exist has been carefully manufactured and exacerbated by B. I am, however, worried about her threats about writers quitting staff over A's positions. How should I explain this situation to the writers and mollify them, and debunk B’s accusations?
B does have one point: a conflict of interest on my part is that I am friends with A, though not very close. We traveled together every Saturday for an extracurricular, and other people in that extracurricular have noticed. This may have been the source of the rumors. Should I stop traveling with her next year to avoid any accusations of favoritism? It really sucks to lose a friendship over this; however, I am in no way biased toward her. A, B, C, and D, in my eyes, all have an equal shot at EIC because I don't know them that well as editors yet.
I feel it's not fair to A to deny her a chance to prove herself as a potential EIC, but the drama and discontent surrounding her accession have been extremely discomfiting: according to a previous EIC, there had never been so much discontent in previous years. Maybe I should give in and "sacrifice" A (i.e. keep her as assistant features editor until senior year without promotion) in order to appease the rest of the staff, but that doesn't seem a viable course of action. In addition to being unfair to her, that would weaken my own authority... and features itself will be in need of the leadership of full editor midyear, as its previous editor will be leaving. Promoting A seemed like the best solution at the time, but I'm willing to admit that I may have been wrong.
B has been the instigator of all this drama, and if she hadn't fanned the flames of rumor, this situation would not exist. She intentionally escalated the situation by gossiping with C and D and by even going to the principal alone (showing extreme disrespect for me and F by trying to subvert our authority) to protest what she sees as unfair treatment. She refuses to work together toward a solution, instead preferring to grab at the position of EIC by antagonizing the current EICs. Her behavior last year was similarly prickly and headstrong. I am strongly leaning toward removing her from staff, but she did accuse us of not "adequately addressing [her] concerns instead of silencing them," and removing her abruptly would only justify her accusation. Then she might do something even more drastic, causing the rest of the staff to see me and F as autocratic and inept leaders. Additionally, B's rash and rebellious behavior has characterized her as someone who would make a very bad editor-in-chief. But I'm afraid that if she doesn't obtain the position, she will do something extreme to bring us all down in flames. Have her insubordination and betrayal of our trust given sufficient reason to let her go? What would be the best way to do so, or should we just put her on probation?
Yes, it's just high school drama, I know. But the newspaper is extremely important to me, and I'll do whatever it takes to keep it running smoothly. Sometimes I just want to kick B out and say to the rest of the staff, "I KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR THIS ORGANIZATION! SHUT UP AND DO WHAT I SAY." But as a leader, I need to learn to deal with people and manage tough situations. I never thought there would be so much strife both in and dealing with the position of EIC.
tl;dr: How do I resolve a conflict with a rebellious subordinate?
Apologies for the extremely long and complicated explanation (though it was pretty cathartic). Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
First, some background. This is how succession usually goes: staff writer or artist (freshman), 1 year assistant section editor (sophomore), 1 year section editor (junior), and then possible EIC as a senior. If not, remain section editor as a senior. I'm a rising senior, and my school is very competitive, especially for leadership positions. There is one more issue of the newspaper in progress, to be published around June 8th.
There are four sections to the newspaper: News, Features, Opinions, and Sports. A sophomore girl (let's call her A) was accepted as assistant features editor at an unusually late time this year; as of now, she has only worked on one issue. A couple of features writers got upset over her acceptance because she had never written for us before, but we decided that writing talent trumped previous experience.
Before A's acceptance, there were three people, all sophomores, in the running for editor-in-chief: B and C, assistants in Opinions, and D, an assistant in News. A's addition marked a fourth candidate for EIC. If A worked hard over the next three issues and showed herself worthy of being a full section editor, we would promote her to full section to editor midyear. If she were not promoted, she would not be a candidate for EIC. However, B and C were very aggravated over our decision to possible promote her because it meant more competition for them as EIC.
My EIC counterpart (F) has recently informed me about several nasty rumors that have been spreading:
1. I have promised A the position of EIC, and that's why she's moving up so quickly and easily.
2. D is definitely EIC because his sister was EIC three years earlier.
3. A managed to get E (a former assistant features editor) removed from his position in order to facilitate her ascension. (...He actually requested to move to a lower position in a different section of his own accord.)
F has tried to deal with the situation by speaking with B and C, but B has been getting increasingly antagonistic (though not to our faces) and trying to get C on her side. C is more open-minded than B, but feels the same way. D, fortunately, has been mostly staying out of the fiasco.
Here's part of an email we sent to A, B, C, and D:
(This was after much discussion and after giving reasons for B's possible promotion, which I'll outline later)
"Frankly, each of you is doing yourself a great disservice by spreading and believing these false rumors in the first place. We had and still have high hopes for each of you - don't tarnish our opinion of you by putting your faith in baseless gossip. Don't choose this empty faith over what you know to be true of the two of us: that you can trust us to work for what's best for _____. Have more faith in your EICs. Because on our side, we trust each of you absolutely.
Most importantly, realize that your conduct now - your response to these rumors - reveals whether you would be an EIC who would build _____ up or tear it down. Realize, also, that we are taking note. A, B, C, and D: it's not too late to change. We hope this situation is a honest misunderstanding, because we are really upset and disappointed right now... especially in those who chose to believe in and perpetuate these rumors. You've really let down our trust in you. And you would do well to earn our trust, not to break it, as you are doing now. This fixation with the EIC position is only regressive. Keep in mind that our ultimate goal as an organization is to put out a quality newspaper, and not to better our own resumes. This talk has persisted for far too long, and it's time that we shifted the topic of discussion to debating how we can improve the newspaper for next year."
Here's part of B's response:
"There are many assistants and writers who are equally concerned about this seemingly-interminable saga. People all over _____ are doubting the integrity of our club and are considering quitting because of the unfavorable events that have recently transpired and the more-unfavorable events suggested by the rumors spreading all over the staff. I do not think that it was wrong of us to be concerned about these rumors, especially because little was done to assuage our concerns or to prove the rumors false. There is no mudslinging going on; people are only repeating facts (ex. A's accession in April, A's likely promotion in January) and making what they consider to be reasonable conjectures.
I think I speak for the three of us when I say we're not the only people who are annoyed about A's ability to get any position she chooses. Lots of Features writers feel scorned by A becoming an assistant when they had been working for almost a year and undoubtedly had more knowledge and experience vis-a-vis how to write a Features piece. Multiple writers in various departments have said that if A's promotions continue to occur, they will quit _____. (Of course, seeing A referred to as being "on equal footing" with the three of us and her being addressed as an "editor" will likely do little to ameliorate their morale.)
I believe the best way for you to help our club move forward is to adequately address our concerns instead of trying to silence them. Ms. [Principal] has requested updates on the situation early next week, so I hope we come to a solution before then. She has said before that she is aware of this problem existing in _____ long before today, and is committed to eradicating it.
We want to trust in you and will do so when you earn our trust. Until now, you have persisted in equivocations and refusals to make your intentions clear to everyone in _____. I will attend the meeting, but am certain that the three editors and one assistant you have invited are not the only ones interested in the outcome."
-------------------------------------
I don't know what to do, and I’m especially frustrated at B’s obstinacy. B seems to have a point, until you realize that we have repeatedly explained logical, clear reasons for A to have a chance to prove herself next year, which has nothing to do with an "ability to get any position she chooses" and everything to do with what is best for the newspaper. And the controversy that does exist has been carefully manufactured and exacerbated by B. I am, however, worried about her threats about writers quitting staff over A's positions. How should I explain this situation to the writers and mollify them, and debunk B’s accusations?
B does have one point: a conflict of interest on my part is that I am friends with A, though not very close. We traveled together every Saturday for an extracurricular, and other people in that extracurricular have noticed. This may have been the source of the rumors. Should I stop traveling with her next year to avoid any accusations of favoritism? It really sucks to lose a friendship over this; however, I am in no way biased toward her. A, B, C, and D, in my eyes, all have an equal shot at EIC because I don't know them that well as editors yet.
I feel it's not fair to A to deny her a chance to prove herself as a potential EIC, but the drama and discontent surrounding her accession have been extremely discomfiting: according to a previous EIC, there had never been so much discontent in previous years. Maybe I should give in and "sacrifice" A (i.e. keep her as assistant features editor until senior year without promotion) in order to appease the rest of the staff, but that doesn't seem a viable course of action. In addition to being unfair to her, that would weaken my own authority... and features itself will be in need of the leadership of full editor midyear, as its previous editor will be leaving. Promoting A seemed like the best solution at the time, but I'm willing to admit that I may have been wrong.
B has been the instigator of all this drama, and if she hadn't fanned the flames of rumor, this situation would not exist. She intentionally escalated the situation by gossiping with C and D and by even going to the principal alone (showing extreme disrespect for me and F by trying to subvert our authority) to protest what she sees as unfair treatment. She refuses to work together toward a solution, instead preferring to grab at the position of EIC by antagonizing the current EICs. Her behavior last year was similarly prickly and headstrong. I am strongly leaning toward removing her from staff, but she did accuse us of not "adequately addressing [her] concerns instead of silencing them," and removing her abruptly would only justify her accusation. Then she might do something even more drastic, causing the rest of the staff to see me and F as autocratic and inept leaders. Additionally, B's rash and rebellious behavior has characterized her as someone who would make a very bad editor-in-chief. But I'm afraid that if she doesn't obtain the position, she will do something extreme to bring us all down in flames. Have her insubordination and betrayal of our trust given sufficient reason to let her go? What would be the best way to do so, or should we just put her on probation?
Yes, it's just high school drama, I know. But the newspaper is extremely important to me, and I'll do whatever it takes to keep it running smoothly. Sometimes I just want to kick B out and say to the rest of the staff, "I KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR THIS ORGANIZATION! SHUT UP AND DO WHAT I SAY." But as a leader, I need to learn to deal with people and manage tough situations. I never thought there would be so much strife both in and dealing with the position of EIC.
tl;dr: How do I resolve a conflict with a rebellious subordinate?
Apologies for the extremely long and complicated explanation (though it was pretty cathartic). Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
A few thoughts:
- Welcome to the wonderful world of leadership. There are politics in every organization from a high school newspaper to a Fortune 100 company. You are getting the opportunity to deal with this stuff at a young age which is good practice for what you'll face throughout your career.
- In general, e-mail tends to inflame conflict, not reduce it. E-mails with distribution > 1 person even more so. If you are having a conflict, a private (you and the other person where you are not going to be overheard) discussion is the best way to resolve it.
- In resolving conflict, remember that even though you think you know the person's motivations, you really don't. Frankly, I think a lot of the time the person themselves doesn't fully understand their motivations. As unlikely as it might seem to you at the time, if you can imagine a positive motivation to a person's behavior and keep that in mind with the discussion, that is going to help resolve the conflict.
- Finally, even in cases where you do wield a carrot and a stick (i.e. you are the manager of a person you are paying to do the job and you can fire them or promote them), you can't just tell people to "shut up and do what you say" no matter how much you want to. [Well, you can, but it doesn't tend to result in good outcomes in my experience.]
Bottom line: I think it's great that you recognize this as a leadership issue and are asking for advice. If you're inclined to read, some of my favorite books on leadership and conflict are:
The Servant
Crucial Confrontations
[I linked to the Kindle versions -- you can read a bit for free to see if you think either of these would be useful to you.]
posted by elmay at 7:00 PM on May 19, 2011 [1 favorite]
- Welcome to the wonderful world of leadership. There are politics in every organization from a high school newspaper to a Fortune 100 company. You are getting the opportunity to deal with this stuff at a young age which is good practice for what you'll face throughout your career.
- In general, e-mail tends to inflame conflict, not reduce it. E-mails with distribution > 1 person even more so. If you are having a conflict, a private (you and the other person where you are not going to be overheard) discussion is the best way to resolve it.
- In resolving conflict, remember that even though you think you know the person's motivations, you really don't. Frankly, I think a lot of the time the person themselves doesn't fully understand their motivations. As unlikely as it might seem to you at the time, if you can imagine a positive motivation to a person's behavior and keep that in mind with the discussion, that is going to help resolve the conflict.
- Finally, even in cases where you do wield a carrot and a stick (i.e. you are the manager of a person you are paying to do the job and you can fire them or promote them), you can't just tell people to "shut up and do what you say" no matter how much you want to. [Well, you can, but it doesn't tend to result in good outcomes in my experience.]
Bottom line: I think it's great that you recognize this as a leadership issue and are asking for advice. If you're inclined to read, some of my favorite books on leadership and conflict are:
The Servant
Crucial Confrontations
[I linked to the Kindle versions -- you can read a bit for free to see if you think either of these would be useful to you.]
posted by elmay at 7:00 PM on May 19, 2011 [1 favorite]
Also, don't borrow trouble.
But I'm afraid that if she doesn't obtain the position, she will do something extreme to bring us all down in flames.
At that point you'll be about to graduate right? And whatever college application mojo the EIC position is meant to deliver will have worked it's magic already, right? Who gets EIC after you is going to have exactly zero effect on your life - once you understand that, maybe you'll be better able to communicate that to the other kids.
posted by moxiedoll at 7:05 PM on May 19, 2011 [2 favorites]
But I'm afraid that if she doesn't obtain the position, she will do something extreme to bring us all down in flames.
At that point you'll be about to graduate right? And whatever college application mojo the EIC position is meant to deliver will have worked it's magic already, right? Who gets EIC after you is going to have exactly zero effect on your life - once you understand that, maybe you'll be better able to communicate that to the other kids.
posted by moxiedoll at 7:05 PM on May 19, 2011 [2 favorites]
causing the rest of the staff to see me and F as autocratic and inept leaders.
I wouldn't know about inept, but you DO come across as autocratic. Lines like this:
Realize, also, that we are taking note. A, B, C, and D: it's not too late to change.
and:
And you would do well to earn our trust, not to break it, as you are doing now.
sound like threats. That tone is only going to alienate the students who are questioning your actions. (I would have been annoyed to get an email like that from my college paper editor.)
Also, if you read back over your post, note how many times you mention maintaining your authority and so on. I do not think that a high school newspaper staff requires quite that level of a boss-employee dynamic. Most of what you do will be done as a team, anyway (as I'm sure you know). It's really important to promote and maintain the spirit of a team. I'm willing to believe B started this drama, but you are continuing it.
Have a meeting and tell the other staff they can ask any questions they want. Say you're an open book as far as your arrangements with A are concerned. Say you want to do the right thing by everyone. Say your only concern is moving past this contretemps so the staff can work together and be productive.
posted by torticat at 7:06 PM on May 19, 2011 [9 favorites]
I wouldn't know about inept, but you DO come across as autocratic. Lines like this:
Realize, also, that we are taking note. A, B, C, and D: it's not too late to change.
and:
And you would do well to earn our trust, not to break it, as you are doing now.
sound like threats. That tone is only going to alienate the students who are questioning your actions. (I would have been annoyed to get an email like that from my college paper editor.)
Also, if you read back over your post, note how many times you mention maintaining your authority and so on. I do not think that a high school newspaper staff requires quite that level of a boss-employee dynamic. Most of what you do will be done as a team, anyway (as I'm sure you know). It's really important to promote and maintain the spirit of a team. I'm willing to believe B started this drama, but you are continuing it.
Have a meeting and tell the other staff they can ask any questions they want. Say you're an open book as far as your arrangements with A are concerned. Say you want to do the right thing by everyone. Say your only concern is moving past this contretemps so the staff can work together and be productive.
posted by torticat at 7:06 PM on May 19, 2011 [9 favorites]
I would tell all candidates the following: Talent trumps everything. If A is moving up quickly, it is because she is a good writer and it shows. It would be unfair and unmanageable to promote people to the head of the paper simply because they managed to stay around the longest. That isn't how jobs work, and it isn't how the real world works. If they want to become EiC, they need to show they can write well enough, and frankly, they need to show that they can behave like mature individuals that can manage a group of people. So far, you aren't seeing that and are disappointed in all potential replacements. If this issue causes people to quit the paper, those candidates are making an easy decision for us as we clearly wouldn't want such an individual running our cherished school institution.
Frankly, this whole situation sucks for you, but they are showing you who would/would not make a good incoming Editor in Chief.
posted by Nightman at 7:06 PM on May 19, 2011 [4 favorites]
Frankly, this whole situation sucks for you, but they are showing you who would/would not make a good incoming Editor in Chief.
posted by Nightman at 7:06 PM on May 19, 2011 [4 favorites]
Having been party to high school power grabs in my salad days, and having worked as a newspaper reporter and editor since, I have this to say, to you and to your friend B, who reminds me a bit of a younger, more volatile version of myself:
Calm down. Not just you. Everyone. You all need to sit down and have a civilized discussion about the following:
1. A newspaper is the sum of its parts. It requires, to function, not only an editor-in-chief, but good editors, writers, designers, and ad sales reps. Every position on a newspaper editorial board is important. Every position on a newspaper staff is important.
2. Make the best of what you have, and build toward what you want. If you're news editor, great. Produce a fantastic news section every week for a year. That will be a thousand times more rewarding than fighting over who's in charge. If you're an assistant features editor, good. Prove your loyalty, your talent, your willingness to work hard and get shit done.
3. Newspaper folks are a chatty, even gossipy, breed. Every newsroom I've ever worked in has been rife with gossip. Miss Scarlet is getting laid off; Colonel Mustard got a promotion he didn't deserve; Professor Plum is making a terrible mess of his beat. To some extent, you as a leader need to accept that kids in general and journalists in particular are going to gossip. You also need to address that gossip at ed board meetings or in private before it gets out of hand. If people have problems, they should bring them directly to you, or to the people with whom they have problems. If they can't do that, they may not have a place in the organization.
4. Someone always, always, without exception, goes off in a huff at the end of the year. Every year someone is unhappy with the selection of the new ed board. It happens in high school, it happens in college. It's stressful and not fun, but the best thing you and the other students on the newspaper can do is focus on the task at hand. You still have a newspaper to publish. Do that. If people can't deal with who got what position or why, they are off-task. Get them back on task.
5. Be nice to each other as much as you can. Try to say, instead of, "I'm disappointed in you because you did X instead of Y," something more along the lines of, "It would be better for the organization and for you if you did Y next time, instead of X."
6 - 10. Relax. Seriously. Have a party. Write something satirical and call it a day. If you don't like what you're doing, you're not doing it right. If you can't have fun as the most kickass features writer X publication has ever had, you obviously haven't heard of Hunter S. Thompson. Go read some Hunter S. Thompson. On the beach.
posted by brina at 7:21 PM on May 19, 2011 [1 favorite]
Calm down. Not just you. Everyone. You all need to sit down and have a civilized discussion about the following:
1. A newspaper is the sum of its parts. It requires, to function, not only an editor-in-chief, but good editors, writers, designers, and ad sales reps. Every position on a newspaper editorial board is important. Every position on a newspaper staff is important.
2. Make the best of what you have, and build toward what you want. If you're news editor, great. Produce a fantastic news section every week for a year. That will be a thousand times more rewarding than fighting over who's in charge. If you're an assistant features editor, good. Prove your loyalty, your talent, your willingness to work hard and get shit done.
3. Newspaper folks are a chatty, even gossipy, breed. Every newsroom I've ever worked in has been rife with gossip. Miss Scarlet is getting laid off; Colonel Mustard got a promotion he didn't deserve; Professor Plum is making a terrible mess of his beat. To some extent, you as a leader need to accept that kids in general and journalists in particular are going to gossip. You also need to address that gossip at ed board meetings or in private before it gets out of hand. If people have problems, they should bring them directly to you, or to the people with whom they have problems. If they can't do that, they may not have a place in the organization.
4. Someone always, always, without exception, goes off in a huff at the end of the year. Every year someone is unhappy with the selection of the new ed board. It happens in high school, it happens in college. It's stressful and not fun, but the best thing you and the other students on the newspaper can do is focus on the task at hand. You still have a newspaper to publish. Do that. If people can't deal with who got what position or why, they are off-task. Get them back on task.
5. Be nice to each other as much as you can. Try to say, instead of, "I'm disappointed in you because you did X instead of Y," something more along the lines of, "It would be better for the organization and for you if you did Y next time, instead of X."
6 - 10. Relax. Seriously. Have a party. Write something satirical and call it a day. If you don't like what you're doing, you're not doing it right. If you can't have fun as the most kickass features writer X publication has ever had, you obviously haven't heard of Hunter S. Thompson. Go read some Hunter S. Thompson. On the beach.
posted by brina at 7:21 PM on May 19, 2011 [1 favorite]
Throw out the titles. The only real point to the titles is to give students something impressive sounding to put on their college applications. Since you're a newspaper and not an agent of college admissions offices, get rid of them to the greatest extent possible. This might help disentangle some of the actual feelings of being snubbed from petty squabbling over who winds up with the best title.
For example, you could do something like this. Let's say there's still the Editor in Chief position if one person needs to be in charge to keep things on track, though maybe you call that something a little less lofty. Then you have committees or departments for each section: news committee, features committee, etc... Anyone who wants can be on a committee by showing up at the scheduled meetings and taking on assignments as they arise. For every issue, the committee designates a chair from among its membership to serve as the point person for that section in the upcoming issue. That person is responsible for coordinating everyone's work and liaising with the EIC as needed. Each committee can make decisions through consensus, take a more formal vote if necessary, or bring more substantial issues to the EIC and/or faculty adviser for further discussion.
This way, occasional contributors can call themselves staff writers, everyone who regularly takes part in a committee's work can call themselves section editors, and those who have served as a committee chair can call themselves senior section editors or executive section editors or whatnot. Everyone gets a decent sounding title, and you can actually work on putting out a newspaper instead of fighting over who has what job. Good luck!
posted by zachlipton at 7:21 PM on May 19, 2011 [1 favorite]
For example, you could do something like this. Let's say there's still the Editor in Chief position if one person needs to be in charge to keep things on track, though maybe you call that something a little less lofty. Then you have committees or departments for each section: news committee, features committee, etc... Anyone who wants can be on a committee by showing up at the scheduled meetings and taking on assignments as they arise. For every issue, the committee designates a chair from among its membership to serve as the point person for that section in the upcoming issue. That person is responsible for coordinating everyone's work and liaising with the EIC as needed. Each committee can make decisions through consensus, take a more formal vote if necessary, or bring more substantial issues to the EIC and/or faculty adviser for further discussion.
This way, occasional contributors can call themselves staff writers, everyone who regularly takes part in a committee's work can call themselves section editors, and those who have served as a committee chair can call themselves senior section editors or executive section editors or whatnot. Everyone gets a decent sounding title, and you can actually work on putting out a newspaper instead of fighting over who has what job. Good luck!
posted by zachlipton at 7:21 PM on May 19, 2011 [1 favorite]
At my high school newspaper, we just had sex with each other and smoked dope. What's up with you kids today? (Real world application: yes, that's what we did at the adult newspapers too.)
Seconding the wise comments above. Yes, relax! I think what you can deal with in this situation is you. What I heard most from reading the email you got was this: people felt like they weren't heard, and they felt like they didn't have the situation explained to them in a way that makes sense to them. So they're up in arms, and confused. This is on you. And you made an interesting choice! You picked someone who seemed best for the job, even though it was untraditional. That sounds like a good thing.
And? Your hackles are so far up, too! While it sounds like some of your paper coworkers are being real drama queens and dingbats, I suspect that you made this mess messy.
This drama will pass in a week. Nothing is going to go down in flames. Keep talking to people, keep making shared decisions, and listen. Get the heck off email and get together.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 7:34 PM on May 19, 2011 [7 favorites]
Seconding the wise comments above. Yes, relax! I think what you can deal with in this situation is you. What I heard most from reading the email you got was this: people felt like they weren't heard, and they felt like they didn't have the situation explained to them in a way that makes sense to them. So they're up in arms, and confused. This is on you. And you made an interesting choice! You picked someone who seemed best for the job, even though it was untraditional. That sounds like a good thing.
And? Your hackles are so far up, too! While it sounds like some of your paper coworkers are being real drama queens and dingbats, I suspect that you made this mess messy.
This drama will pass in a week. Nothing is going to go down in flames. Keep talking to people, keep making shared decisions, and listen. Get the heck off email and get together.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 7:34 PM on May 19, 2011 [7 favorites]
Do you have a journalism teacher who is ultimately in charge (or at least a faculty advisor) aside from the principal? I'm sort of surprised that you (both as an editor and as a club in general) have this level of autonomy... back in my day (when we set type by hand, uphill both ways in the snow, etc.) the final say for a lot of this stuff wasn't ultimately in the students' hands.
In any case, your email strikes me as pretty... well... parental-sounding, which is unlikely to go over well with kids who are essentially your peers, and it will generally continue not to go over well into college and beyond, unless and until you're really in a position of meaningful authority (at which point others will still resent it, but they'll be less able to push back).
Here's the thing: even if you really are in the right about all this, it doesn't actually matter at this point. I think you need to find a way to deal with this more constructively than throwing your weight around as the EIC, as much as you think Being Right and Saying It Repeatedly is going to be the solution here. If it hasn't worked yet, it's not going to work any better tomorrow or next week or next month.
So call a meeting. In that meeting, say that you are open to discussing about what problems exist -- and that for each problem that someone identifies, you would like to hear a constructive potential solution as well. Let B and the rest of them have a voice -- but that's only meaningful if you really, truly listen, and if you can concede (if just to yourself!) that you might have made some mistakes, too (both in terms of your decisions and in your approach). People want to be heard. So hear them.
Don't expect that this will magically make them come around to your point of view immediately; don't expect that even if you keep your cool, they won't get all huffy about it anyway. But just keep in mind that one of the marks of true leadership is to know when to escalate, and when to deescalate.
This is deescalation time.
posted by scody at 7:58 PM on May 19, 2011 [8 favorites]
In any case, your email strikes me as pretty... well... parental-sounding, which is unlikely to go over well with kids who are essentially your peers, and it will generally continue not to go over well into college and beyond, unless and until you're really in a position of meaningful authority (at which point others will still resent it, but they'll be less able to push back).
Here's the thing: even if you really are in the right about all this, it doesn't actually matter at this point. I think you need to find a way to deal with this more constructively than throwing your weight around as the EIC, as much as you think Being Right and Saying It Repeatedly is going to be the solution here. If it hasn't worked yet, it's not going to work any better tomorrow or next week or next month.
So call a meeting. In that meeting, say that you are open to discussing about what problems exist -- and that for each problem that someone identifies, you would like to hear a constructive potential solution as well. Let B and the rest of them have a voice -- but that's only meaningful if you really, truly listen, and if you can concede (if just to yourself!) that you might have made some mistakes, too (both in terms of your decisions and in your approach). People want to be heard. So hear them.
Don't expect that this will magically make them come around to your point of view immediately; don't expect that even if you keep your cool, they won't get all huffy about it anyway. But just keep in mind that one of the marks of true leadership is to know when to escalate, and when to deescalate.
This is deescalation time.
posted by scody at 7:58 PM on May 19, 2011 [8 favorites]
I agree that talking about (and framing it to yourself in terms of) insubordination is just going to make things worse. It smacks of "how dare you?" and pistols at dawn, which is not what you want.
(It also sounds like you and B are both writers who enjoyed, in a writerly way, composing those emails and spelling out your indignance over what's going on. Not trying to be dismissive. I do that kind of thing myself. I find it is very satisfying but it doesn't usually result in the parties coming together - since the fun of the writing is a sort of "getting the last word" kind of pleasure, if you know what I mean, and it just leaves the writer even more convinced of their own rightness.)
In general:
Be scrupulously fair (be certain you are really not playing favorites)
Be honest with everyone on staff so people know where they stand (so gossip and conspiracy theories can't take hold)
Listen to what the staff says (try to find what's reasonable in their concerns even if you dislike them personally)
Be transparent about your decision-making (explain your rationale/criteria in plain factual terms, explain what's decided and what's not yet decided, etc).
Be as discreet and kind as possible if you have to say something negative or humiliating to someone
In this situation:
In-person meeting with you, your co-EIC, and the major players. Maybe have your faculty advisor there too if you think it will get heated. Try to de-escalate as scody says. Let B lay out her concerns, and the others too. Then lay out your understanding of the situation, and what you foresee happening in the future; for example, what criteria are you using in making these promotion decisions? Take responsibility for things you may have done wrong or communicated badly, acknowledge if their concerns are reasonable/understandable, etc. Once you've cleared the air, then make a list of the core problems they still feel are unresolved, and possible solutions.
posted by LobsterMitten at 9:33 PM on May 19, 2011 [1 favorite]
(It also sounds like you and B are both writers who enjoyed, in a writerly way, composing those emails and spelling out your indignance over what's going on. Not trying to be dismissive. I do that kind of thing myself. I find it is very satisfying but it doesn't usually result in the parties coming together - since the fun of the writing is a sort of "getting the last word" kind of pleasure, if you know what I mean, and it just leaves the writer even more convinced of their own rightness.)
In general:
Be scrupulously fair (be certain you are really not playing favorites)
Be honest with everyone on staff so people know where they stand (so gossip and conspiracy theories can't take hold)
Listen to what the staff says (try to find what's reasonable in their concerns even if you dislike them personally)
Be transparent about your decision-making (explain your rationale/criteria in plain factual terms, explain what's decided and what's not yet decided, etc).
Be as discreet and kind as possible if you have to say something negative or humiliating to someone
In this situation:
In-person meeting with you, your co-EIC, and the major players. Maybe have your faculty advisor there too if you think it will get heated. Try to de-escalate as scody says. Let B lay out her concerns, and the others too. Then lay out your understanding of the situation, and what you foresee happening in the future; for example, what criteria are you using in making these promotion decisions? Take responsibility for things you may have done wrong or communicated badly, acknowledge if their concerns are reasonable/understandable, etc. Once you've cleared the air, then make a list of the core problems they still feel are unresolved, and possible solutions.
posted by LobsterMitten at 9:33 PM on May 19, 2011 [1 favorite]
There are four sections to the newspaper: News, Features, Opinions, and Sports. A sophomore girl (let's call her A) was accepted as assistant features editor at an unusually late time this year; as of now, she has only worked on one issue.
You've only been in your position for a week, and A is a friend of yours, right? Did you suggest A come on as an assistant features editor, campaign for her, etc.? You use a very passive, "was accepted" when you talk about how she got her position and obviously there is a process in place that she has bypassed to some degree.
Yes, B is being contentious. But she may also have reason to feel that way--you say you are not favoring A, that they all have an equal chance, but then you mention that you do travel with A, and not B, C, and D. Also, in the memo you treat all four as if they are on equal footing, and I can see why the others feel that A has not paid her dues yet--you yourself say that she needs to prove herself in the next 3 issues if she wants to be promoted.
You also mention that F has been talking to B and C (which suggests you haven't been) but then say, "we have repeatedly explained logical, clear reasons for A to have a chance to prove herself next year." And this seems to contradict what B indicates in her response to your memo; the reason conjecture is rife is because they have few facts to go on and are drawing conclusions from them.
You also say B is inceasingly antagonistic "but not to our faces." How, then, are you aware of this antagonism? Have you been listening to rumors, while asking the others not to pay any attention to this kind of thing? Has A been telling you this? Or are you just going by that response to the memo? Because the tone of that memo came across (to me, at least) as very authoritarian and condescending, especially for someone who has only been in her position as EIC for a week.
It just seems as if communication is a real problem here. You have a couple people at a time talking to each other, and everyone gets a different version of what is going on, and you seem to feel the problem is all with B. But then you and F deal with this by sending out a unilateral memo basically shaming all of your subordinates at once. And D, according to you, hasn't even really been involved in the controversy! Why would you write something that says you are disappointed in all four of them?
I really feel that you and F together need to speak to everyone, all at once, with a united front, not to point fingers or be confrontational, but to address concerns. I would say that you are worried about morale and rumors and want to set the record straight. Then explain exactly what A would need to do to be considered for EIC, and why you are not short-changing the others in including her as a potential candidate (I'm a little surprised that you feel she has equal footing, myself, as she has only joined a month ago--how long have B, C and D been there, and how many more issues have they worked on? If they've had a hand in several, than you had better have really good reasons for putting A on the same footing as the other candidates). And since A had not written for you before this ("A couple of features writers got upset over her acceptance because she had never written for us before, but we decided that writing talent trumped previous experience"), the others need to know what work you had seen of A's that made you and F feel A deserved this opportunity, so it is clear she is not being favorited simply out of your friendship for her.
And then, once you have explained the situation, ask if any of the four have any questions. Be prepared to talk abut your prior relationship with A. Set aside a specific time period for them to air their concerns, like 15 minutes.
And then move on and make it clear that you and F consider the discussion closed.
posted by misha at 10:44 PM on May 19, 2011
You've only been in your position for a week, and A is a friend of yours, right? Did you suggest A come on as an assistant features editor, campaign for her, etc.? You use a very passive, "was accepted" when you talk about how she got her position and obviously there is a process in place that she has bypassed to some degree.
Yes, B is being contentious. But she may also have reason to feel that way--you say you are not favoring A, that they all have an equal chance, but then you mention that you do travel with A, and not B, C, and D. Also, in the memo you treat all four as if they are on equal footing, and I can see why the others feel that A has not paid her dues yet--you yourself say that she needs to prove herself in the next 3 issues if she wants to be promoted.
You also mention that F has been talking to B and C (which suggests you haven't been) but then say, "we have repeatedly explained logical, clear reasons for A to have a chance to prove herself next year." And this seems to contradict what B indicates in her response to your memo; the reason conjecture is rife is because they have few facts to go on and are drawing conclusions from them.
You also say B is inceasingly antagonistic "but not to our faces." How, then, are you aware of this antagonism? Have you been listening to rumors, while asking the others not to pay any attention to this kind of thing? Has A been telling you this? Or are you just going by that response to the memo? Because the tone of that memo came across (to me, at least) as very authoritarian and condescending, especially for someone who has only been in her position as EIC for a week.
It just seems as if communication is a real problem here. You have a couple people at a time talking to each other, and everyone gets a different version of what is going on, and you seem to feel the problem is all with B. But then you and F deal with this by sending out a unilateral memo basically shaming all of your subordinates at once. And D, according to you, hasn't even really been involved in the controversy! Why would you write something that says you are disappointed in all four of them?
I really feel that you and F together need to speak to everyone, all at once, with a united front, not to point fingers or be confrontational, but to address concerns. I would say that you are worried about morale and rumors and want to set the record straight. Then explain exactly what A would need to do to be considered for EIC, and why you are not short-changing the others in including her as a potential candidate (I'm a little surprised that you feel she has equal footing, myself, as she has only joined a month ago--how long have B, C and D been there, and how many more issues have they worked on? If they've had a hand in several, than you had better have really good reasons for putting A on the same footing as the other candidates). And since A had not written for you before this ("A couple of features writers got upset over her acceptance because she had never written for us before, but we decided that writing talent trumped previous experience"), the others need to know what work you had seen of A's that made you and F feel A deserved this opportunity, so it is clear she is not being favorited simply out of your friendship for her.
And then, once you have explained the situation, ask if any of the four have any questions. Be prepared to talk abut your prior relationship with A. Set aside a specific time period for them to air their concerns, like 15 minutes.
And then move on and make it clear that you and F consider the discussion closed.
posted by misha at 10:44 PM on May 19, 2011
I've been an EIC, co-EIC, and managing editor, respectively, in high school, university and professionally, for a city magazine... and I have to say that your email to the other staffers doesn't come off well at all, and it makes me suspect that your attitude may well have contributed a great deal to the contretemps. In that email, you sound very self-important and authoritarian, and I would have been angered and upset by such a notice... even if I hadn't been upset before.
Don't tarnish our opinion of you ... we are taking note ... A, B, C, and D: it's not too late to change ... you would do well to earn our trust. Yikes. Don't you see that this is threatening and just about as heavy-handed as you can get?
I think the first thing you need to do is curb yourself, step back, gain a smidge of humility, and understand that this approach is making things worse.
Regarding the dilemma at hand (though the problem seems perhaps more systemic than this single issue), I'm not really understanding the appointment of A, either. You say she had never written for the paper, yet gained the position over existing feature writers because talent trumps experience, but you don't say how you were in a position to judge her skill if she had never contributed before. It's also unclear how much of a radical departure this is in terms of how appointments are usually managed; the ensuing kerfuffle suggests that it's unusual or even unprecedented.
If a personal friend of yours with no experience who has never contributed to the paper is unexpectedly appointed to a coveted position over existing staffers, it's not surprising there was blowback... responding to those concerns with overt threats is not likely to settle the waters. It seems like you've declared yourself ultimate dictator at least twice now: We appoint whomever we wish because we have The Power. Don't you forget, every one of you, that that all your hopes and ambitions rest in us... and you are displeasing us now.
You also say that "B and C were very aggravated over our decision to possible promote her because it meant more competition for them as EIC." Presumably, someone would have that position anyway, right? You aren't going to have a editorless Features section, right? So the field of candidates should remain static. If true, misrepresenting your critics as merely self-serving probably isn't helping your cause, either.
I'd say that at this point maybe the best thing to do would be to have a meeting of department heads, plus your teacher-advisor and/or principal and hash it out. I'd admit that it wasn't initially handled well in the sense that the reasons for your choice weren't made clear enough, then make your case for why you thought it was the best course, and ask for input.
posted by taz at 12:36 AM on May 20, 2011 [3 favorites]
Don't tarnish our opinion of you ... we are taking note ... A, B, C, and D: it's not too late to change ... you would do well to earn our trust. Yikes. Don't you see that this is threatening and just about as heavy-handed as you can get?
I think the first thing you need to do is curb yourself, step back, gain a smidge of humility, and understand that this approach is making things worse.
Regarding the dilemma at hand (though the problem seems perhaps more systemic than this single issue), I'm not really understanding the appointment of A, either. You say she had never written for the paper, yet gained the position over existing feature writers because talent trumps experience, but you don't say how you were in a position to judge her skill if she had never contributed before. It's also unclear how much of a radical departure this is in terms of how appointments are usually managed; the ensuing kerfuffle suggests that it's unusual or even unprecedented.
If a personal friend of yours with no experience who has never contributed to the paper is unexpectedly appointed to a coveted position over existing staffers, it's not surprising there was blowback... responding to those concerns with overt threats is not likely to settle the waters. It seems like you've declared yourself ultimate dictator at least twice now: We appoint whomever we wish because we have The Power. Don't you forget, every one of you, that that all your hopes and ambitions rest in us... and you are displeasing us now.
You also say that "B and C were very aggravated over our decision to possible promote her because it meant more competition for them as EIC." Presumably, someone would have that position anyway, right? You aren't going to have a editorless Features section, right? So the field of candidates should remain static. If true, misrepresenting your critics as merely self-serving probably isn't helping your cause, either.
I'd say that at this point maybe the best thing to do would be to have a meeting of department heads, plus your teacher-advisor and/or principal and hash it out. I'd admit that it wasn't initially handled well in the sense that the reasons for your choice weren't made clear enough, then make your case for why you thought it was the best course, and ask for input.
posted by taz at 12:36 AM on May 20, 2011 [3 favorites]
First, tell B the discussion is over and that you have made an executive decision. Explain calmly that you will not be discussing it again. If she persists in bringing it up, issue a warning letter for insubordination. Third time, she's removed from staff.
posted by Ironmouth at 6:48 AM on May 20, 2011
posted by Ironmouth at 6:48 AM on May 20, 2011
On reread, remove her now. She claims to speak for more than her. An obvious lie.
posted by Ironmouth at 6:51 AM on May 20, 2011
posted by Ironmouth at 6:51 AM on May 20, 2011
I agree with a lot of what others have said. You need to sit down and have a talk face-to-face with each, and then afterward as a group with all the people involved. It concerns me that a lot of this has taken place over email; in my experience, that usually leads people to be more inflammatory than they would be otherwise.
However, in preparing for those conversations, you need to decide - is your leadership going to be authoritarian or collaborative? That decision shapes what you do and how this plays out. Do you WANT to go the "insubordination" route? Do you want this to be a discussion or a reprimand?
IANYT...but...after years of working with high school students, I've found that collaborative leadership is harder at the start, but WAY better in the long run. Establish procedures that guide how you communicate, do meetings and deal with conflict within the staff. Treat this as a character building exercise - how can we learn to work together in the most productive way? Sadly, this sounds a lot like every work environment I've been in (teachers are often WORSE than their students in handling rumours and conflict!) and this is a great chance for you to figure out how you will respond. Decide how you want to be remembered and how you want to remember your leadership - will it be for capitulating to petty drama or will it be for pursuing talent and building community?
And as a high school English teacher, I want to add that if I had students who wrote as well as you (and based on the emails you quoted, your peers too), I'd be thrilled. I'm still teaching there/their/they're...sigh...
posted by guster4lovers at 8:31 AM on May 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
However, in preparing for those conversations, you need to decide - is your leadership going to be authoritarian or collaborative? That decision shapes what you do and how this plays out. Do you WANT to go the "insubordination" route? Do you want this to be a discussion or a reprimand?
IANYT...but...after years of working with high school students, I've found that collaborative leadership is harder at the start, but WAY better in the long run. Establish procedures that guide how you communicate, do meetings and deal with conflict within the staff. Treat this as a character building exercise - how can we learn to work together in the most productive way? Sadly, this sounds a lot like every work environment I've been in (teachers are often WORSE than their students in handling rumours and conflict!) and this is a great chance for you to figure out how you will respond. Decide how you want to be remembered and how you want to remember your leadership - will it be for capitulating to petty drama or will it be for pursuing talent and building community?
And as a high school English teacher, I want to add that if I had students who wrote as well as you (and based on the emails you quoted, your peers too), I'd be thrilled. I'm still teaching there/their/they're...sigh...
posted by guster4lovers at 8:31 AM on May 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
Yes, it's just high school drama, I know.
It's worth noting that you've started and ended your post with this phrase. So, I think there's a little voice in the back of your mind asking you questions like - "are we -- am I -- behaving maturely?" "Is this petty?" "Am I focusing on -- or ignoring -- what really matters here?" "Do I lack perspective?"
But it's easy for that voice to be pushed to the background by a lot of other things, especially when you have strong emotions and strong beliefs, and less life experience. I actually remember the year I became mature, a few years after college. I don't know why I suddenly became mature, no particularly noteworthy events happened in my life. It just happened on its own. That voice just came to the forefront instead of the background, and it just started overpowering everything else. I had always known the mature thing to do, it's just that when I was younger, other ways of behaving were stronger draws.
Anyway, I think it's very much worth listening to in this situation.
1. This fixation with the EIC position is only regressive. Keep in mind that our ultimate goal as an organization is to put out a quality newspaper, and not to better our own resumes.
Fair enough. If you take that position, the fair thing is for you to do is pledge to leave your work on the paper (and especially your position as the EIC) off all of your college applications and resumes.
Did you balk at that? Then what you said above is kind of bullshit. It's kind of trying to control people with false righteousness in a way -- guilt-tripping people that their perfectly legitimate interests aren't righteous enough, are too self-interested, so that they go along with what you want ... meanwhile, you have the same interests yourself! And it's intentional obtuseness - acting as if you don't know perfectly well, in a highly competitive school, one of the primary reasons that people participate in this club.
Controlling people with false righteousness and intentional obtuseness are two things that completely destroy trust. You can't demand trust. You have to earn it. You can't engage in trust-harming behaviors and then hold people at fault for not trusting you.
2. B does have one point: a conflict of interest on my part is that I am friends with A, though not very close. We traveled together every Saturday for an extracurricular, and other people in that extracurricular have noticed.
Here's another way to destroy trust - not recusing yourself when you have a conflict of interest. And honestly, to this outsider, the whole thing with A's rapid shepherding through the ranks does sound a little weird on your part. Honestly, I wonder if A is a girl you're attracted to. If it comes off that way to me, an outsider, it probably comes off doubly that way to the members of your club.
So, the two things I think you really must do here.
2b. Recuse yourself from decisions where you have a conflict of interest. In this specific situation it's probably best if you recuse yourself from decisions involving any further promotions to A.
1b. You have to accept that everyone is self-interested. This doesn't have to be a bad thing. It's just reality. Figure out what everyone's interest is in this situation. What is each person's goal? What do they care about? People will trust you if they believe that you know what their interests are and you will do your best to protect those interests. People will NOT trust you if they've been led to believe they can get their interests met through a certain process, and then you suddenly step in one day and change the rules in the middle of a game. People will not trust you if you act like their interests aren't righteous enough, or you pretend that they don't know what they are.
This doesn't mean you have to make everyone editor-in-chief. But if someone is trying to achieve something that will help them get into college, do your best to help them get that. If you know people believe that there is a certain order of succession, a certain process they have to go through to meet their goals, which has been a tradition for a long time, don't just suddenly pull the rug out from under them, change the rules in midstream. If you don't like the tradition, make crystal clear to the new members from day one that it's no longer in effect. Don't just change it suddenly and then browbeat longtime people for assuming things.
3. Lose the authoritarian language and condescension. That sort of thing is the mark of petty tyrants, not of people who are capable leaders. Referring to someone as your "subordinate," at a high school newspaper no less, is extremely immature.
Language like this is so condescending as to be irritating: Frankly, each of you is doing yourself a great disservice by spreading and believing these false rumors in the first place. We had and still have high hopes for each of you - don't tarnish our opinion of you by putting your faith in baseless gossip.
Language like this is frankly obnoxious: You've really let down our trust in you. And you would do well to earn our trust, not to break it, as you are doing now.
Petty tyrant stuff. Treat people with respect. Even if you are in a place of decision making power with someone, speak to them eye-to-eye, not above-to-below.
3b. But the newspaper is extremely important to me, and I'll do whatever it takes to keep it running smoothly.
You'll do whatever it takes? Does that include completely checking your ego at the door? I'm dead serious with that question.
4. But the newspaper is extremely important to me, and I'll do whatever it takes to keep it running smoothly.
Ask yourself - why is the newspaper so important to you? What is it about THIS newspaper?
Is it that you believe it's important that communities be informed of events going on around them? Or even the loftier ideal of a free press? If so, it's ASTONISHING that you'd say something like this: Frankly, each of you is doing yourself a great disservice by spreading and believing these false rumors in the first place.
You want to control not only what others say, but what they *believe?* Check yourself. I'm serious. Take a step back and understand the contradiction there.
And whatever it is about this newspaper that's important to you, check your other values. Isn't it also important to learn to treat people with integrity, to learn to act without ego, to learn when to recuse oneself? To learn compromise? To learn to protect the interests of others? To learn to create *genuine harmony* with difficult people? Is it worth this newspaper being 100% of what it could be when it means many of those other things will have to be 25%?
5. A couple of features writers got upset over her acceptance because she had never written for us before, but we decided that writing talent trumped previous experience.
"I KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR THIS ORGANIZATION! SHUT UP AND DO WHAT I SAY."
Consider for a moment that maybe you do NOT know what's best for an organization, if you balance the benefit of hiring someone from outside who is marginally better at the job than others on the inside who've been working towards the position, against the benefit of not upsetting and alienating many of your staff members, and conclude that the former provides the largest benefit to the organization overall.
Your organization will be much more effective if everyone is happy, feels cared-for, respected, and does their job well -- as opposed to a situation where people feel disrespected, deceived, and bossed around, and a couple of them do their job marginally better.
I know this was a little blunt, but I hope it gives you another perspective. Good luck.
posted by Ashley801 at 10:49 AM on May 20, 2011 [4 favorites]
It's worth noting that you've started and ended your post with this phrase. So, I think there's a little voice in the back of your mind asking you questions like - "are we -- am I -- behaving maturely?" "Is this petty?" "Am I focusing on -- or ignoring -- what really matters here?" "Do I lack perspective?"
But it's easy for that voice to be pushed to the background by a lot of other things, especially when you have strong emotions and strong beliefs, and less life experience. I actually remember the year I became mature, a few years after college. I don't know why I suddenly became mature, no particularly noteworthy events happened in my life. It just happened on its own. That voice just came to the forefront instead of the background, and it just started overpowering everything else. I had always known the mature thing to do, it's just that when I was younger, other ways of behaving were stronger draws.
Anyway, I think it's very much worth listening to in this situation.
1. This fixation with the EIC position is only regressive. Keep in mind that our ultimate goal as an organization is to put out a quality newspaper, and not to better our own resumes.
Fair enough. If you take that position, the fair thing is for you to do is pledge to leave your work on the paper (and especially your position as the EIC) off all of your college applications and resumes.
Did you balk at that? Then what you said above is kind of bullshit. It's kind of trying to control people with false righteousness in a way -- guilt-tripping people that their perfectly legitimate interests aren't righteous enough, are too self-interested, so that they go along with what you want ... meanwhile, you have the same interests yourself! And it's intentional obtuseness - acting as if you don't know perfectly well, in a highly competitive school, one of the primary reasons that people participate in this club.
Controlling people with false righteousness and intentional obtuseness are two things that completely destroy trust. You can't demand trust. You have to earn it. You can't engage in trust-harming behaviors and then hold people at fault for not trusting you.
2. B does have one point: a conflict of interest on my part is that I am friends with A, though not very close. We traveled together every Saturday for an extracurricular, and other people in that extracurricular have noticed.
Here's another way to destroy trust - not recusing yourself when you have a conflict of interest. And honestly, to this outsider, the whole thing with A's rapid shepherding through the ranks does sound a little weird on your part. Honestly, I wonder if A is a girl you're attracted to. If it comes off that way to me, an outsider, it probably comes off doubly that way to the members of your club.
So, the two things I think you really must do here.
2b. Recuse yourself from decisions where you have a conflict of interest. In this specific situation it's probably best if you recuse yourself from decisions involving any further promotions to A.
1b. You have to accept that everyone is self-interested. This doesn't have to be a bad thing. It's just reality. Figure out what everyone's interest is in this situation. What is each person's goal? What do they care about? People will trust you if they believe that you know what their interests are and you will do your best to protect those interests. People will NOT trust you if they've been led to believe they can get their interests met through a certain process, and then you suddenly step in one day and change the rules in the middle of a game. People will not trust you if you act like their interests aren't righteous enough, or you pretend that they don't know what they are.
This doesn't mean you have to make everyone editor-in-chief. But if someone is trying to achieve something that will help them get into college, do your best to help them get that. If you know people believe that there is a certain order of succession, a certain process they have to go through to meet their goals, which has been a tradition for a long time, don't just suddenly pull the rug out from under them, change the rules in midstream. If you don't like the tradition, make crystal clear to the new members from day one that it's no longer in effect. Don't just change it suddenly and then browbeat longtime people for assuming things.
3. Lose the authoritarian language and condescension. That sort of thing is the mark of petty tyrants, not of people who are capable leaders. Referring to someone as your "subordinate," at a high school newspaper no less, is extremely immature.
Language like this is so condescending as to be irritating: Frankly, each of you is doing yourself a great disservice by spreading and believing these false rumors in the first place. We had and still have high hopes for each of you - don't tarnish our opinion of you by putting your faith in baseless gossip.
Language like this is frankly obnoxious: You've really let down our trust in you. And you would do well to earn our trust, not to break it, as you are doing now.
Petty tyrant stuff. Treat people with respect. Even if you are in a place of decision making power with someone, speak to them eye-to-eye, not above-to-below.
3b. But the newspaper is extremely important to me, and I'll do whatever it takes to keep it running smoothly.
You'll do whatever it takes? Does that include completely checking your ego at the door? I'm dead serious with that question.
4. But the newspaper is extremely important to me, and I'll do whatever it takes to keep it running smoothly.
Ask yourself - why is the newspaper so important to you? What is it about THIS newspaper?
Is it that you believe it's important that communities be informed of events going on around them? Or even the loftier ideal of a free press? If so, it's ASTONISHING that you'd say something like this: Frankly, each of you is doing yourself a great disservice by spreading and believing these false rumors in the first place.
You want to control not only what others say, but what they *believe?* Check yourself. I'm serious. Take a step back and understand the contradiction there.
And whatever it is about this newspaper that's important to you, check your other values. Isn't it also important to learn to treat people with integrity, to learn to act without ego, to learn when to recuse oneself? To learn compromise? To learn to protect the interests of others? To learn to create *genuine harmony* with difficult people? Is it worth this newspaper being 100% of what it could be when it means many of those other things will have to be 25%?
5. A couple of features writers got upset over her acceptance because she had never written for us before, but we decided that writing talent trumped previous experience.
"I KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR THIS ORGANIZATION! SHUT UP AND DO WHAT I SAY."
Consider for a moment that maybe you do NOT know what's best for an organization, if you balance the benefit of hiring someone from outside who is marginally better at the job than others on the inside who've been working towards the position, against the benefit of not upsetting and alienating many of your staff members, and conclude that the former provides the largest benefit to the organization overall.
Your organization will be much more effective if everyone is happy, feels cared-for, respected, and does their job well -- as opposed to a situation where people feel disrespected, deceived, and bossed around, and a couple of them do their job marginally better.
I know this was a little blunt, but I hope it gives you another perspective. Good luck.
posted by Ashley801 at 10:49 AM on May 20, 2011 [4 favorites]
Two more points:
F has tried to deal with the situation by speaking with B and C, but B has been getting increasingly antagonistic (though not to our faces).
Misha is exactly right that if she hasn’t been doing this “to your faces” the only way you could know about it is if you, yourself, listen to rumors. You can’t listen to rumors and hearsay yourself while you expect others not to do so.
A sophomore girl (let's call her A) was accepted as assistant features editor at an unusually late time this year; as of now, she has only worked on one issue. A couple of features writers got upset over her acceptance because she had never written for us before, but we decided that writing talent trumped previous experience.
I am in no way biased toward her.
Maybe you mean you’re not biased in your judgment of her writing skill, but that’s not the only way to engage in bias here. She had never written for the paper before she “was accepted” as an assistant editor? There is no possible way this could have happened without special treatment.
The only way you could have known about her writing skill, if she’d never written for the paper, is by knowing her outside of the paper. She had the chance to be judged on her other writing only because you knew her. People who you don’t know in the school didn’t get that chance. She had the chance to come on as assistant editor because you were friends. People in the school who are great writers, but aren’t friends with you, didn’t get that chance.
If you wanted to open a wild-card assistant editor spot to other great writers in your school who weren’t part of the newspaper, you should have done it in a fair, equal-opportunity way. You should have made an open call for anonymous submissions of writing to the entire school.
You really fucked up by doing things the way you did. It was highly, highly biased and nepotistic. You need to acknowledge that the people who have problems with what you did are justified, instead of just making appeals to your power and authority. You need to come to a consensus with the staff as to a fair way of rectifying your mistake.
posted by Ashley801 at 12:24 PM on May 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
F has tried to deal with the situation by speaking with B and C, but B has been getting increasingly antagonistic (though not to our faces).
Misha is exactly right that if she hasn’t been doing this “to your faces” the only way you could know about it is if you, yourself, listen to rumors. You can’t listen to rumors and hearsay yourself while you expect others not to do so.
A sophomore girl (let's call her A) was accepted as assistant features editor at an unusually late time this year; as of now, she has only worked on one issue. A couple of features writers got upset over her acceptance because she had never written for us before, but we decided that writing talent trumped previous experience.
I am in no way biased toward her.
Maybe you mean you’re not biased in your judgment of her writing skill, but that’s not the only way to engage in bias here. She had never written for the paper before she “was accepted” as an assistant editor? There is no possible way this could have happened without special treatment.
The only way you could have known about her writing skill, if she’d never written for the paper, is by knowing her outside of the paper. She had the chance to be judged on her other writing only because you knew her. People who you don’t know in the school didn’t get that chance. She had the chance to come on as assistant editor because you were friends. People in the school who are great writers, but aren’t friends with you, didn’t get that chance.
If you wanted to open a wild-card assistant editor spot to other great writers in your school who weren’t part of the newspaper, you should have done it in a fair, equal-opportunity way. You should have made an open call for anonymous submissions of writing to the entire school.
You really fucked up by doing things the way you did. It was highly, highly biased and nepotistic. You need to acknowledge that the people who have problems with what you did are justified, instead of just making appeals to your power and authority. You need to come to a consensus with the staff as to a fair way of rectifying your mistake.
posted by Ashley801 at 12:24 PM on May 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
You've got some spot-on advice here - namely, chill out, communicate and don't be a dictator.
On a personal note, speaking as a former high school overachiever, I want to say that you will be absolutely astonished at how quickly all of this will cease to matter. Reading your post, I was reminded of how fiercely stuff like this mattered to me in high school (oh my god if I can't be Honors Society president then I'm going to die!), and I smile ruefully because I wish that I'd devoted half of my grades/resume energy to just relaxing and making friends and enjoying myself.
This was a hard-learned lesson for me. I mistakenly believed that my experiences would best be measured in GPA and quantitative extracurricular achievements. Really, I look back and measure my experiences by the friends that I've kept in touch with. Five years from now, I hope you look back and measure your newspaper experience through your friendships with A, B, C, D, and F, and everyone else in the club.
posted by pluot at 5:00 PM on May 20, 2011 [2 favorites]
On a personal note, speaking as a former high school overachiever, I want to say that you will be absolutely astonished at how quickly all of this will cease to matter. Reading your post, I was reminded of how fiercely stuff like this mattered to me in high school (oh my god if I can't be Honors Society president then I'm going to die!), and I smile ruefully because I wish that I'd devoted half of my grades/resume energy to just relaxing and making friends and enjoying myself.
This was a hard-learned lesson for me. I mistakenly believed that my experiences would best be measured in GPA and quantitative extracurricular achievements. Really, I look back and measure my experiences by the friends that I've kept in touch with. Five years from now, I hope you look back and measure your newspaper experience through your friendships with A, B, C, D, and F, and everyone else in the club.
posted by pluot at 5:00 PM on May 20, 2011 [2 favorites]
« Older Help me figure out where else to go on my Thailand... | A song/poem/etc. with an intense emotional... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by moxiedoll at 6:58 PM on May 19, 2011 [1 favorite]