Getting to No

The duties of knowledge workers, in and out of universities, are regularly negotiated between workers and their supervisors. To some 'requests' you might want to say, "No, thank you."

Outright refusal, however, is a card to be played rarely — assuming you like your job. So, then, how do you get to, "No."

• Avoid "maybe," it's foreplay for yes.
• Be prepared to 'horse trade.' Undertaking two responsibilities that you like and do well is better than one responsibility you dislike or do badly.
• "Can't" is preferable to "won't." But to claim "can't," you must be prepared to explain why. Have real reasons.
• Always negotiate to avoid what doesn't utilize your strengths.
• Never negotiate to avoid your fair-share of the load.
• Don't negotiate yourself into a rut (or redundancy), but
• unless you're prepared for a permanent change, don't move to tasks outside what you were hired to do.
  
• Be an asset, so that your good will is valuable to the person with whom you're negotiating.
• Be prepared to lose some, if you're winning most.
• Never advertise your wins.

I recognize that there's some overlap between some of these. It's not a perfect world.

It was beautiful and simple as all truly great swindles are.

—O. Henry (William Sydney Porter 1862-1910)

Plain speaking

I like plain speaking. I learned from bitter experience, however, that my proclivity for candor isn't universally shared.

To avoid the unhappy fallout from plain speaking, at work I've taken up weasel words. Not the "weasel words" described by Don Watson (in his book and website); but words and phrases that supplant declarations of fact or the attribution of motives.

Instead of saying, for example, "the food is bad," I might say, "the food seems bad to me." Switching fact for perception.

Instead of saying that someone is a "bottleneck," I might say, "These recurring disparities of views, therefore, appear to me to serve as an impediment to progress."

I dislike circumlocution. But on the job I'm obliged to prevent the focus being moved away from the issues and onto my choice of words. (And, few things move the focus like writs for defamation.)

My second example notwithstanding, it's not helpful to be too clever. Say only what needs to be said. The "cover" of weasel words shouldn't be used to suggest anything that's irrelevant, or anything for which you don't have a reasonable purpose.

One of the most striking differences between a cat and a lie
is that a cat only has nine lives.
—Mark Twain (Samuel Langhorne Clemens 1835-1910)

Your signature

Recently, seemingly trying to diminish the effect of a university officer's signature, it was suggested to me that the officer was merely "signing off," and that this was done by virtue of role rather than actual involvement.

That's contrary to my understanding. I say that if it's your job to sign it, it's your job to understand it.

Your signature demarcates what you recognize as your responsibility. If you fail to realize this, it's only a matter of time until that failing catches up to you.

Never sign solely by "virtue of role." If you're signing only to indicate receipt, append, "indicates receipt only." If some part is contrary to your view, strike out the offending words. If it needs further explanation, add the words that are required.

Absent such adjustments, your readers (they become "your readers" when you sign a document) are expected to accept your signature as marking the document as your own. It's precisely for this reason that forgery is a serious crime. And, so too, when a signature is obtained by deception, it's a fraud.

If you don't understand it, if you don't believe it, if it's misleading: don't sign it.

An empty head is not really empty; it is stuffed with rubbish.
Hence the difficulty of forcing anything in to an empty head.
—Eric Hoffer (1902-1983)

Humor at work

I once sent a colleague a cartoon, hoping to provide a light moment. It seemed funny when I sent it, but on looking carefully I began to worry that I might be taken to be sending a "message." So, I decided to make a phone call to clarify that there was no "message." But then, it dawned on me that my call might be taken to mean that there could be a message. Damn.

I called and all was well, but I learned a lesson. Effective communication is such a fragile commodity.

I feel like a killjoy counseling people to rein in their attempts at humor. But, long before political correctness became a phrase, advertising guru John Caples (1900-1990) observed that, "What is funny to you is likely to be either idiotic or insulting to many others...."

"Idiotic or insulting." Neither of these should be risked in a work email, memo or meeting. (Tutorials and lectures may be a different matter, but that may be a topic for another day.)

I'm still certain that I have a sense of humor, but I've come to grips with the fact that I'm Billy Danby, not Billy Connolly.

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity;
and I'm not sure about the the universe.
—Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

The idea of the University

John Henry Newman described the University as, "...a seat of wisdom, a light of the world, a minister of the faith, an Alma Mater of the rising generation. It is this and a great deal more...."

Yet, some Vice-Chancellors/Presidents seem to revel in the alternative title of CEO. And, daily, I hear the vernacular of industry injected into university policy and discussion. Deans have become "Executive Deans" and Heads of Departments are "cost-center managers."

No one denies that the efficient and effective management of the University is a worthy endeavor. The necessity to count beans, therefore, does not a "bean counter" make. But I'm not writing here to preach to Vice-Chancellors and Presidents.

My message is that it falls to those who love the University, to defend it. And, firstly therefore, we mustn't lose the language of the University. Students are neither customers nor clients, and a University is not just a local outlet of the tertiary education industry. Our language should reflect our vision.

"A light of the world." Imagine that.

You can lead a horse to water,
but you can't make him taste like hamburger.
—Yllib Ybnad (b.1948)

Natural justice

In a 2002 address entitled, "Contemporary Decision-Making – Courts and Universities," the Chief Justice of Queensland, The Honourable P de Jersey AC, remarked,

"Courts of law and tertiary educational institutions have features in common – they are often large, complex and intellectually based. They demand fairness and impartiality grace their hallowed halls."

Is that how it is? Do fairness and impartiality grace your halls, hallowed or otherwise? Where they do not, the tools of choice are Natural Justice and Administrative Fairness.

As with many things, these principles will rust before they wear out. Expect them, and demand them where they're absent or lacking. Do not accept being left in the dark, and do not be denied your opportunity to put your case.

Although Natural Justice and Administrative Fairness feature in the codes of conduct of every public university in Queensland they often seem to be overlooked. Faced with such a situation, it's a small burden to point out that, "it seems to me that fairness requires that I/we be given the details and a reasonable opportunity for reply." (And even if that point isn't made at the time, a prompt, follow-up email can do the job.)

Once you've explained, however, there shouldn't be any blank looks or dissembling replies.

Having lost sight of our objectives, we redoubled our efforts.
— Walt Kelly (1913-1973) U.S. cartoonist

Surreptitious recording

I'm asked, increasingly, about the utility of the surreptitious recording of conversations.

The technology of recording has become almost seductive. Digital recorders effortlessly absorb a workday of conversations—all without inconvenient clicking, tape changes, or hurried efforts to activate or deactivate. And, those who are tempted, are often encouraged by the laws (which vary) that address such recording.

This essay, however, is about neither the technical nor the legal. This is about whether it's a good or bad idea—and recording is usually a bad idea.

At the pointy end of someone else's stick, it's natural for the poked to think there's no trust left in a relationship. But surreptitious recording is a scorched-earth "solution." It can easily become the classic case of the cure that's worse than the disease.

Recording is only for intractable and otherwise concealed cases of victimization, abuse, or sustained, intentional harassment. And even then, recording must be—and must be seen to be—the last available option.

I have every sympathy for the argument that no one should have to endure unfairness or improper treatment. Addressing that plea is part and parcel of my work. But you have to think through where such tactics will lead.

Let's hope such circumstances don't arise for you. But, if they do, contact your union.

There are few things more disturbing than to find,
in somebody we detest, a moral quality which seems to us
demonstrably superior to anything we ourselves possess.
—Pamela Hansford Johnson (1912-1981)

Breaking the rules

Unhappy with my initial advice to refrain from some activity or other, people often ask, "what if I do it anyway?"

There's some dispute about who coined the aphorism, "It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission," but a front runner for the honor is the late, amazing Grace Hopper (1906–1992). But I digress.

I believe too much credence is lent to that Hopper dictum, and to counter any rush of blood I raise the following, rhetorical, self-evidently relevant questions:

• Is there much (or any) ambiguity in the rule or direction?
• Has an application for a waiver already been made, and with what result?
• Has management in some way condoned the activity?
• Have others "successfully" done what you propose, and if so, would you be free to refer to those occasions as  "precedents"?
• Will the outcome be (or be seen to be) self-serving?
• Will the outcome challenge, hurt or embarrass anyone else?
• Are you familiar with the jailhouse adage, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime?"

Finally, for those still planning to follow that different drum, if caught (sorry, discovered) don't make the subsequent, "Presidential" mistake (e.g. Nixon, Clinton) of compounding a "sin" with a cover-up.

I have a theory that the truth is never told
during the nine-to-five hours.
—Hunter S Thompson (1937-2005)

Avoid getting fired

There are five processes that, at the instigation of the employer, may lead to the sidewalk:

1. Misconduct;
2. Unsatisfactory Performance;
3. Termination on the Grounds of Ill Health;
4. Redundancy/Retrenchment, and
5. Failure of a probation.

Although it's awful to see any of these on the horizon, most large organizations have processes that afford employees some procedural fairness. To maximize the protections that each affords, it's essential to get specialist advice as soon as possible. And, until then, refrain from any discussions, statements or submissions. And, no, "buts" as excuses to deviate from this advice:

• But, I didn't do it;
• but, my uncle's a lawyer;
• but, my head of school likes me;
• but, they don't understand;
• but, they need me.

From a cursory reading of a contract or agreement, each process may seem straight-forward. But the effective use of any of these processes requires experience. If you have a union, use it.

How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?
Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
—Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) 16th US President

Follow-up emails

It’s only too human to sit up in bed and think, "I should have said..."

But it's probably not too late. I suggest a follow-on email saying, for example, "Thank you for your comments at yesterday's meeting. It's occurred to me, however, that...."

But remember:

• Don't delay, previously aired issues have a shelf life;
• no sarcasm or humor;
• no "Cc" or "Bcc" recipients (such broadcasting is seen as one-upmanship); and
• don't expect a "follow-on" to move a matter in an entirely new direction.

Follow-on emails may also make concrete those otherwise undocumented, ad hoc discussions. For example, "I was pleased to hear your comment in the hall yesterday that my application for conference leave has been approved. Unless there's some other reason to wait, I'll make reservations...."

I've had members to whom I've suggested this strategy ask, "but what if the response is a denial?" The answer is simple: At least you'll know. And, in the future, it's likely that more care will be taken in off-hand comments.

Clarity, certainty, and (bless us all) transparency are all to be valued — and actively sought.

"I'd have you lot up in front of the University authorities
first thing in the morning,
if it wasn't for the fact that you are the University authorities..."
—Terry Pratchett (b.1948) English Writer

Avoiding discipline

Increasingly, I see supervisors and heads threatening disciplinary proceedings in memos and meetings. Not just about a particular person in a particular matter (although that too) but in general terms: "Staff are hereby advised that...." (You can always tell there's trouble when they use, "hereby advised.")

Threats, of course, make for poor communication, and they're usually the opposite of leadership. But also, unfortunately, threats are too often bait for the unwary.

I admire the spunk that gives rise to the exclamation, "They can’t threaten me!" But the fact is, they usually can—just don't take the bait.

I blame too many evenings of Law & Order—I’m a Rumpole fan myself. Any idea that either disobedience or the resulting misconduct processes can be transfigured into a platform for redress is misplaced. It’s playing their game, in their field, with their ball.

In a disciplinary process you will be flat-out with defense. Even if there's a fair disciplinary procedure it should never be the process of choice.

If a matter requires redress (and you have the evidence or witnesses), then you have arrows in your quiver. Decide a process with advantages to you.

I am the punishment of God...
If you had not committed great sins,
God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.
—Genghis Khan (1162?-1227)

Avoiding negative material

I recall assisting a member in a meeting with his Department Head. The Head had asked for the meeting to make known his unhappiness about several performance matters. No sooner was the Head into his first item, than the member piped up saying, "I want this in writing."

I try not to contradict members in front of management, but my immediate interjection was, "No need for that, I’m taking notes!"

So, here’s the moral: Never seek to formalize negative material.

I am completely unimpressed by a rejoinder that, "I have nothing to worry about, I didn't do anything wrong." Innocence is no reason to make your life harder.

This isn't an isolated example. Maybe it’s something to do with university staff being at ease with the written word, but I suspect it’s also to do with the ubiquitous lawyer programs on television—truth will out, etc. The idea that forcing a matter to greater formality will result in capitulation, is usually misplaced.

Often it’s fine to ask for a copy of something already in writing; although, sometimes it’s better to refuse material that's incomplete or anonymous.

These aren't parlor games. If you need help or advice, get professional assistance. If you have a union, use it.

In writing, I shall always confine myself
strictly to the truth,
except when it is attended with inconvenience.
—Mark Twain (Samuel Langhorne Clemens 1835-1910)

Timely action

Our industrial discussions are awash with talk about agreements, contracts, the law, policies, past practices, dispute processes, and the likelihood of success using those processes. But when looking back at poor outcomes, the most common, negative factor is about none of these.

Time (or, more particularly, its lack) is the principal villain.

My head of department won’t grant my vacation request. She knows she’s supposed to, but refuses. What can we do?

When do you want to go?

Monday.

This Monday?

Yes, the contract says….

It sounds like heresy, but it may not matter what the “contract says” about “this Monday” if the tools for remedy take weeks or months rather than days.

In rising to the defense of an imperiled employee I can bring improved analysis and tactics. But tactics need “sea room;” you can’t manoeuvre in a bathtub.

To conclude with that same nautical metaphor, contact your elected officer or local representative as soon as problems appear on the horizon. ▪

Unlike fine wines, disputes do not improve with age.
—Willard Z. Estey, (former Supreme Court of Canada Justice)