Being called love in a senior position - Mod warning post 1; read if you posted here

Squatter

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

A good officer doesn't put 'popular with their colleagues' on top of their priority list.

No. But an intelligent one does.

Squatter

B0jangles wrote: »

I think you've missed my point - AH is the equivalent of a casual setting and Work&Jobs has a totally different set of standards - and just like the OPs situation, what is an acceptable style of posting or way of addressing someone in a casual setting is completely unacceptable in a more formal or professional one.

The people who apparently can't understand this fact when it relates to the OP's situation seem to be well able to recognise it when there's a chance of getting carded for failing to do so here.

An alternative interpretation is that it's a bit naive of someone suffering from bad haemorrhoids to go to a shoe shop in search of a cure.


I concur 100%.

AndrewJRenko

Squatter wrote: »

No. But an intelligent one does.

I'd have included intelligent within my definition of good, so my point stands.


A good/intelligent officer needs their respect. He /she doesn't need to be their popular drinking buddy.

beauf

engiweirdo wrote: »

. .
Some animals ARE more equal than others? Got it.

Yeah that's not it at all. ...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_etiquette

engiweirdo

beauf wrote: »

engiweirdo wrote: »

. .
Some animals ARE more equal than others? Got it.

Yeah that's not it at all. ...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_etiquette

Absolutely nothing there about deferring to or treating anybody in a heightened fashion due to them holding a very senior position.

If anything it comes across as someone not comfortable in their own skin and demanding not yet earned respect vased on a title. "Respect My Authority!".

beauf

Like I said that's not what it's about. Despite being told that you insist on making it about inequality.

You can't get past that entrenched mindset.

You don't use the same language in a business meeting on a building site. The opposite is also true.

You don't use the same language in a high level meeting as casual team meeting. Its all about context.

engiweirdo

beauf wrote: »

Like I said that's not what it's about. Despite being told that you insist on making it about inequality.

You can't get past that entrenched mindset.

You don't use the same language in a business meeting on a building site. The opposite is also true.

You don't use the same language in a high level meeting as casual team meeting. Its all about context.

I would honestly read it as the male colleague has always spoke this way, inside and outside of work. It's never been a problem up to now. The OP has taken issue with it. He still does so - old habits die hard - and the eye roll is more "whoops I did it again" rather than anything sinister.

Again level of seniority has no place here. She doesnt like being referred to by that term. Thats grand and it is anyones right to take issue with it. The very senior part and associated comments are just pure "How dare he do that to someone as important as me" type tripe.

Maybe it is a case of the op being a bit high and mighty in the office and being brought down a peg. Who knows. You'd think if the position was that senior she could sort it herself though.

Anyway, I didnt know generation snowflake had reached senior positions so soon. We're all doomed.

Squatter

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

He /she doesn't need to be their popular drinking buddy.

And Andy pulls the straw man out from behind the settee!


So who, other than those seductive voices inside your head, suggested that he/she did?

AndrewJRenko

Squatter wrote: »

And Andy pulls the straw man out from behind the settee!


So who, other than those seductive voices inside your head, suggested that he/she did?

That would be you, when you said:

No prizes for guessing which sort of officers are more popular with their colleagues!

Squatter

engiweirdo wrote: »

You'd think if the position was that senior she could sort it herself though.

You would.

But evidently she can't. And it's annoying her so much that she started a thread about it at exactly 21.00 hours on a Saturday evening - when she should either have been watching the excellent France - South Africa rugby match or snuggling on the couch with her significant other (or her cat).

Evidently, she badly needs advice and we are the only people in the entire world to whom she can turn in this crisis.

So I think that we should try to help her rather than focusing on her inadequacies.

Goodshape

Squatter wrote: »

And Andy pulls the straw man out from behind the settee!

The straw man was trying to equate workplace etiquette among equals with military tradition regarding promoted colleagues.

AndrewJRenko

Goodshape wrote: »

The straw man was trying to equate workplace etiquette among equals with military tradition regarding promoted colleagues.

I didn't bring up the military tradition issue. I simply corrected the error that 'popularity' would be a priority for a military officer.

blackbox

I personally wouldn't be too concerned about how I was being addressed. I'd be focussing more on making a success of my new role.

Goodshape

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I didn't bring up the military tradition issue. I simply corrected the error that 'popularity' would be a priority for a military officer.

Squatter brought it up for some reason, then continued to suggest it was relevant. I was replying to them

Squatter

Goodshape wrote: »

The straw man was trying to equate workplace etiquette among equals with military tradition regarding promoted colleagues.

Yes sir. Whatever you say, sir.

Goodshape

Squatter wrote: »

Yes sir. Whatever you say, sir.

Thanks kid.

Squatter

Goodshape wrote: »

Squatter brought it up for some reason, then continued to suggest it was relevant. I was replying to them

Squatter brought it up because Squatter believes that it was - and is - a relevant analogy.


You don't - and that's just fine.

Goodshape

Squatter wrote: »

Squatter brought it up because Squatter believes that it was - and is - a relevant analogy.


You don't - and that's just fine.

It isn't though. It's a textbook straw man.

beauf

Just because people are only interpreting one use of a word doesn't mean it isn't being used in an entirely different way.

Nody

Mod:
Thread locked for some heavy duty carding and banning; you were warned and expect the thread to come back in a very much more yellow and red state than before.

Update: Thank you to the posters who updated their posts; the amount of cards and deleted posts were greatly reduced from what I expected to have to deal with. I've unlocked the thread and multiple users have been carded (some which you may not see due to their posts being deleted as well). I remind everyone that your posts should help the OP and focus more on the situation rather than OP's personality/position per say even though they may have brought it up in context.

dartboardio

I’ve never been on a thread where there was a mod warning before, can you explain why this happened? Is it due to people kind of attacking the op rather than the situation like the last comment? Or?

Nody

dartboardio wrote: »

I’ve never been on a thread where there was a mod warning before, can you explain why this happened? Is it due to people kind of attacking the op rather than the situation like the last comment? Or?

On thread warnings vary between mods and forums; hence don't take this as the only way it's used. In this case there were multiple posts that was not up to the standard of this forum (most likely driven by the fact that the original thread was in AH which has a different posting standard than most of boards). I could have simply started issuing cards directly but instead of doing so I wished people to reign themselves in and in the process save me some time as well which is why there was a mod warning (copied to the first post and header to make it more visible) asking for people to review their posts again before I'd do an "official" review in my role as moderator.

In the end it saved me from having to issue multiple cards/bans and for people to take a step back and review their posts. Since issuing cards/bans has no self value (it's used to guide discussion) it worked out better for me and the users who reviewed their own previous posts as it had the desired value on improving the post quality required for this forum (where as if it was in AH some would argue it worsened the thread quality).

OMM 0000

Personally I would make a joke out of it and call him pet.

My relationship with my colleagues is too important to create conflict over something small like this.

I spend most of my life working, so I try to keep things smooth.

phildin

I'm amazed at most of the responses here, I thought it would be pretty universal that calling someone "love" in the workplace would be unacceptable. Even if someone doesn't know this, they certainly shouldn't have to be told a second time.

I can't think of much by way of a solution beyond explaining the situation to HR, including the fact that you have already asked him to stop. I definitely don't recommend the approach of descending to his level either by ignoring him or responding in kind; you can control how professional you are, not how professional he is (I suspect you know that anyway).

I hope it all gets sorted out to your satisfaction.

1hnr79jr65

Squatter wrote: »

Isn't it genuinely amazing that a self-declared senior manager couldn't have thought of that all by herself?


But perhaps she's still on probation and doesn't want to rock the boat.

Not speaking directly of the OP, in my experience i have seen througout my working time, alot of folks who were promoted into various levels of management that were not suitable for the position.

2 varying issues i have observed are as follows:

1. Some who are promoted are often in place due to connections rather than ability/knowledge and generally through time are proven to be ineffective and should not have been promoted. However these folks are often in cases protected, as the people that hired them can't or won't accept being seen to have made a mistake.

2. Others who have been promoted lack a certain emotional or psychological intelligence to manage staff or communicate effectively with peers, reporting managers or clients. Alot of these managers fail due to the stresses of trying to manage situations they are out of their depth for and generally end up being super agressive and having actions brought against them or end up being super passive and get treated poorly by peers, managers or in some extreme circumstances, their own staff and leave due to stress.

In terms of rocking the boat because of probation, there is no excuse for treating someone in less than professional manner and being in a probation period should not deter someone for standing up for themselves to be treated respectfully. If a company cannot enforce fair and equitable ethics at work and target the injured party instead of the person who is causing issues, then that company is not worth working for.

beauf

phildin wrote: »

I'm amazed at most of the responses here, I thought it would be pretty universal that calling someone "love" in the workplace would be unacceptable. Even if someone doesn't know this, they certainly shouldn't have to be told a second time.
....

Some people might work in more earthy places where it's not that unusual. I certainly have. It would be very unusual and unprofessional in senior role. You'd have to assume based on the comments some have no idea what that means.

beauf

Sour Lemonz wrote: »

... there is no excuse for treating someone in less than professional manner and being in a probation period should not deter someone for standing up for themselves to be treated respectfully.

If a company cannot enforce fair and equitable ethics at work and target the injured party instead of the person who is causing issues, then that company is not worth working for.

Hard to know without more context from the op. Of course more information might make them too easy to identify.

BBFAN

beauf wrote: »

Hard to know without more context from the op. Of course more information might make them too easy to identify.

Yes, I am in a probationary period so don't want to rock the boat too much but on the other hand leaving it go until the end of my probation and then bringing it up would be ridiculous so I thought it best to say it to him directly.

We'll see if he continues I suppose, he wasn't in today so no update.

ForestFire

BBFAN,

I don't think you have answered or clarified some important questions raised, especially regarding the point:-

- If the persons use of the word "Love" is directed only at you, or just part of the way this person speaks in general.

The canteen lady in work calls me, and others, "Love"...Should I report her?
(I believe there is also a more senior lady that also does this, but I cannot place her at the moment)

The Continental and Asian colleagues I work with, have a habit of more physical contact (Men to Men), like hands on shoulder, hands on back, when talking (Part of a affectionate thing that comes naturally to them)...Report?

The Guy from Manchester (I checked, he is okay with "Guy"), always addresses people as "Mate"....Okay Mate, Thanks Mate etc.. Should I be upset?

People from Waterford add "Boy", and Cork "Like" to the end of every sentence....

If someone breaks their sentences with "am" a lot, is this unprofessional?? to be highlighted to them??

My point is there are many different personality, Culture, Traditions and habits that we encounter and unless this behavior is targeted specifically at you I don't see your issue.

Also the rolling eyes might be a nervous reaction now, as maybe he did not realise he did it till now, and is trying to cover this habit now another way (As in, how stupid of me).

beauf

Senior position is not the same an elderly canteen lady. Just saying....

This thread kinda explains why some people act so inappropriately in interviews.

A canteen lady lady calling anyone love is entirely different context. Is that not obvious?