![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
communication breakdown
So we have different bureaus in our Division that specialize in various programs. Some of these bureaus issue annual reports on the same day every year but can't manage their schedules, so everything hits my unit at the same time. Others have managers who don't review their written material before it comes to my unit, so we have to decipher unclear and poorly written language. And others have managers who are uncommunicative and resistant to suggested edits. These unfortunates are the Problem Children.
My unit is small--Senior Editor, who's been at State Agency for a decade or more; me; Junior Editor, who's been at the agency for four years and was a Word Processor when I hired on; Problematic WP, who isn't always tactful and sometimes leaves unhelpful comments when processing documents; New WP, who joined us in May; and our boss, who has technically been our Grand-Boss since she got promoted last year. State Agency wasn't immediately able to fill the direct-supervisor position for various bureaucratic reasons. Senior Editor is about a decade older than I am; I'm 45; Jr. Ed. just turned 30 in March; Problematic WP is in her 30s. I haven't met New WP in person because he's based in SoCal, but I think he's in his 30s too. Grand-Boss might be 40? I can't remember. Anyway, our unit is small, mostly female, and comparatively young. This is fine, but in May, Jr. Ed. was promoted into the direct supervisor position.
Boss/Jr. Ed. is great; I really like her, and we worked very well together when we were in the office. But since we've been working remotely, she hasn't managed to maintain the same standard of communication that we had when we were in our neighboring cubes. We've already had one discussion about how sometimes, when I send her a request for guidance, I don't hear back from her for an hour or more--by which point I usually find it necessary to take the exact action that I requested guidance on, because business interests don't support further delay, and then I just have to wait and hope that nothing will blow up. She said she understood; she apologized for not being available; and she promised to do better. She also promised that if she didn't have an immediate answer to a question, she would let me know that she was looking into the matter. That seemed like the perfect resolution to the situation!
Well, yesterday she reverted to her former non-communicative state. Annoyingly enough, it coincided with some bad behavior on the part of two different Problem Children.
Several months ago I returned a chapter to one of the Problem Children, asking for clarification on a confusing and poorly-written paragraph that talked about subordinating the public good for personal gain. "Subordinate" is one of those verbs that requires a direct object--in other words, something is subordinated to something else. When the draft came back to me for second version, the Problem Children had neglected to respond to these questions during their review. The only reason this was just mildly frustrating instead of being an insurmountable obstacle is that in the meantime several other projects took precedence.
Yesterday I was able to return to the chapter, and again came to a screeching halt on that meaningless paragraph. I finally realized that it was so poorly written that maybe it came from another source; I decided to do an internet search for "subordination of judgment" just in case. I found the AICPA's Code of Professional Conduct, which contained a definition of that term and several related principles. I enjoyed about 30 seconds of triumphant elation, because I had found a primary source! that defined special terms! and was searchable! After that, reality set in; the paragraph is so poorly written that I kept bouncing off it. I returned the chapter to the back burner.
Meanwhile I was reviewing two different reports that raised some questions. One report didn't include what seemed like an important recipient in the cc: list, so I emailed Boss/Jr. Ed. to ask for clarification. The other report changed some template language that we just updated and improved last year, so I sent her another email requesting background info. In the meantime I tried to find out what I could about the cc: list--I found enough to indicate that nobody was missing, so I returned that report to program. That done, I tried to continue reviewing the other report...but it's for another of the Problem Children, and this Problem Child rejected necessary edits.
These particular reports always discuss cost components, but in this case the cost component names are almost a sentence by themselves, and they were inserted into the narrative without consideration of fit or ease of reading. On top of that, the Problem Child didn't use consistent wording or title case for the cost component names--so it was a little difficult to separate the cost component from the enclosing sentence. I suggested short names, properly introduced in parens at the first usage of each cost component name, and rephrased for clarity.
The Problem Child insisted that the audited entity knows what the terminology means and isn't familiar with the new terms, and asked me to restore the full cost component names. This was really odd, because we've used short names for cost components before. In fact, the Children usually coin the short names themselves, and throw them into the narrative without introduction. We're left to pick up the pieces, figure out whether they're talking about a cost component, and if so, which one, and then introduce the short name properly. And our house style has always been to ensure that the general public--not just the audited entities--can read and understand our reports; the "entity already knows what we mean" argument doesn't hold water.
Some days I would just insist that no, for clarity and transparency we need to use these short names. But yesterday I didn't have the spoons to deal with a potential argument with Problem Children, so I emailed Boss/Jr. Ed. requesting her advice just after noon.
Also related to the lack of spoons, yesterday morning was very trying. To have to keep jumping between three different documents, and being unable to finish reviewing them, was incredibly frustrating. It was much easier to respond to a question about Italian grammar on Reddit. I'd spend five minutes or so on a document, hit a wall, type a little on Reddit, and go back to the document for another ten minutes.
After lunch, I hadn't received anything new to work on, and there was nothing more I could do with what I already had...so I ended up writing yesterday's post.
Boss/Jr. Ed. responded to the email about the cc: list in mid-afternoon, and her response raised other questions that led to an hour or so of trying to determine how many reports had been sent out without an essential recipient included in the cc: list (three, it turns out). After that was dealt with, I emailed her to ask if she'd had a chance to consider my question on the short names. She didn't get back to me before COB.
This morning I still hadn't received any new reports, nor had I received a response from Boss/Jr. Ed., so I went back to the chapter. The badly-written paragraph was still meaningless, so I searched the Code more closely. I found that the paragraph had been lifted wholesale from two specific paragraphs in the "Integrity" section. I added the necessary introductions and provenance to the chapter, left a comment explaining plagiarism to the Problem Children, and spent the next hour ironing.
Look, I was beyond frustrated with the Problem Chidren; the report I'm working on is on hold until I receive guidance from Boss/Jr. Ed.; and ironing was a heck of a lot more constructive than spending more time on Reddit.
While I was ironing, Boss/Jr. Ed. emailed to say that she was looking into the short names issue and the changed language. That was four hours ago...nothing since.
If I don't hear from her by 2:30 I'm just going to have to email her and ask her to respond ASAP if I shouldn't do as usual and insist on the short names. I'm beginning to regret that I ever sent the email requesting guidance!
My unit is small--Senior Editor, who's been at State Agency for a decade or more; me; Junior Editor, who's been at the agency for four years and was a Word Processor when I hired on; Problematic WP, who isn't always tactful and sometimes leaves unhelpful comments when processing documents; New WP, who joined us in May; and our boss, who has technically been our Grand-Boss since she got promoted last year. State Agency wasn't immediately able to fill the direct-supervisor position for various bureaucratic reasons. Senior Editor is about a decade older than I am; I'm 45; Jr. Ed. just turned 30 in March; Problematic WP is in her 30s. I haven't met New WP in person because he's based in SoCal, but I think he's in his 30s too. Grand-Boss might be 40? I can't remember. Anyway, our unit is small, mostly female, and comparatively young. This is fine, but in May, Jr. Ed. was promoted into the direct supervisor position.
Boss/Jr. Ed. is great; I really like her, and we worked very well together when we were in the office. But since we've been working remotely, she hasn't managed to maintain the same standard of communication that we had when we were in our neighboring cubes. We've already had one discussion about how sometimes, when I send her a request for guidance, I don't hear back from her for an hour or more--by which point I usually find it necessary to take the exact action that I requested guidance on, because business interests don't support further delay, and then I just have to wait and hope that nothing will blow up. She said she understood; she apologized for not being available; and she promised to do better. She also promised that if she didn't have an immediate answer to a question, she would let me know that she was looking into the matter. That seemed like the perfect resolution to the situation!
Well, yesterday she reverted to her former non-communicative state. Annoyingly enough, it coincided with some bad behavior on the part of two different Problem Children.
Several months ago I returned a chapter to one of the Problem Children, asking for clarification on a confusing and poorly-written paragraph that talked about subordinating the public good for personal gain. "Subordinate" is one of those verbs that requires a direct object--in other words, something is subordinated to something else. When the draft came back to me for second version, the Problem Children had neglected to respond to these questions during their review. The only reason this was just mildly frustrating instead of being an insurmountable obstacle is that in the meantime several other projects took precedence.
Yesterday I was able to return to the chapter, and again came to a screeching halt on that meaningless paragraph. I finally realized that it was so poorly written that maybe it came from another source; I decided to do an internet search for "subordination of judgment" just in case. I found the AICPA's Code of Professional Conduct, which contained a definition of that term and several related principles. I enjoyed about 30 seconds of triumphant elation, because I had found a primary source! that defined special terms! and was searchable! After that, reality set in; the paragraph is so poorly written that I kept bouncing off it. I returned the chapter to the back burner.
Meanwhile I was reviewing two different reports that raised some questions. One report didn't include what seemed like an important recipient in the cc: list, so I emailed Boss/Jr. Ed. to ask for clarification. The other report changed some template language that we just updated and improved last year, so I sent her another email requesting background info. In the meantime I tried to find out what I could about the cc: list--I found enough to indicate that nobody was missing, so I returned that report to program. That done, I tried to continue reviewing the other report...but it's for another of the Problem Children, and this Problem Child rejected necessary edits.
These particular reports always discuss cost components, but in this case the cost component names are almost a sentence by themselves, and they were inserted into the narrative without consideration of fit or ease of reading. On top of that, the Problem Child didn't use consistent wording or title case for the cost component names--so it was a little difficult to separate the cost component from the enclosing sentence. I suggested short names, properly introduced in parens at the first usage of each cost component name, and rephrased for clarity.
The Problem Child insisted that the audited entity knows what the terminology means and isn't familiar with the new terms, and asked me to restore the full cost component names. This was really odd, because we've used short names for cost components before. In fact, the Children usually coin the short names themselves, and throw them into the narrative without introduction. We're left to pick up the pieces, figure out whether they're talking about a cost component, and if so, which one, and then introduce the short name properly. And our house style has always been to ensure that the general public--not just the audited entities--can read and understand our reports; the "entity already knows what we mean" argument doesn't hold water.
Some days I would just insist that no, for clarity and transparency we need to use these short names. But yesterday I didn't have the spoons to deal with a potential argument with Problem Children, so I emailed Boss/Jr. Ed. requesting her advice just after noon.
Also related to the lack of spoons, yesterday morning was very trying. To have to keep jumping between three different documents, and being unable to finish reviewing them, was incredibly frustrating. It was much easier to respond to a question about Italian grammar on Reddit. I'd spend five minutes or so on a document, hit a wall, type a little on Reddit, and go back to the document for another ten minutes.
After lunch, I hadn't received anything new to work on, and there was nothing more I could do with what I already had...so I ended up writing yesterday's post.
Boss/Jr. Ed. responded to the email about the cc: list in mid-afternoon, and her response raised other questions that led to an hour or so of trying to determine how many reports had been sent out without an essential recipient included in the cc: list (three, it turns out). After that was dealt with, I emailed her to ask if she'd had a chance to consider my question on the short names. She didn't get back to me before COB.
This morning I still hadn't received any new reports, nor had I received a response from Boss/Jr. Ed., so I went back to the chapter. The badly-written paragraph was still meaningless, so I searched the Code more closely. I found that the paragraph had been lifted wholesale from two specific paragraphs in the "Integrity" section. I added the necessary introductions and provenance to the chapter, left a comment explaining plagiarism to the Problem Children, and spent the next hour ironing.
Look, I was beyond frustrated with the Problem Chidren; the report I'm working on is on hold until I receive guidance from Boss/Jr. Ed.; and ironing was a heck of a lot more constructive than spending more time on Reddit.
While I was ironing, Boss/Jr. Ed. emailed to say that she was looking into the short names issue and the changed language. That was four hours ago...nothing since.
If I don't hear from her by 2:30 I'm just going to have to email her and ask her to respond ASAP if I shouldn't do as usual and insist on the short names. I'm beginning to regret that I ever sent the email requesting guidance!