Back when I was a practicing pharmacist, we had a few untouchable technicians who could be chronically insubordinate and get away with it. :mad: :smack: One would, if I asked her to do something, would say “Make me, bitch” :eek: or deliberately do it wrong, EVERY.SINGLE.TIME. How she managed to keep working there was never explained, and no, I wasn’t the only person she did that to. The only thing I can think of is that she must have, ahem, known someone, because she did not belong to any kind of protected class. Several years ago, after I left the job I got after that nightmare of a place, I was asked by an job interviewer why I left Hospital X after 4 months. I hemmed and hawed a bit, and was told, “You can tell me the truth. I’ve been told many times that Hospital X is a very difficult place to work at.” She wasn’t the only reason, but was one of them.
At another job, there was another tech who was written up, more than once, for insubordination. One memorable incident was when I handed her a bag of stat Anzemet (an anti-nausea drug that the patient needed immediately) and she refused to put it in the pneumatic tube, which she was standing right next to, because she was “too busy”. Yeah, she didn’t get away with that. I should add that a couple years after I left that place, two of her children died in a horrific car accident, and in all the condolence messages I saw, I never saw the word “friend” in reference to her or her husband.
Yet another time at the same job, there was a 20-something tech who was copping a major attitude with everybody, and gave it up really fast when I said “First/middle/last name, you look at me when I’m talking to you!”. Several other people who witnessed it or heard about it thanked me.
Lots of wiggle room for the boss, eh? I (incompletely) described it because I don’t know all the details. But since several other people have been fired recently, I have a hard time believing they’ve all been insubordinate. This is a fairly posh private high school in a big city on the east coast. And no, AFAIK the CEO didn’t lock up the strawberries.
Whether he was actually insubordinate or not is one issue, and whether what he is accused of is properly described as “insubordination” is another.
Let’s say , for example, that the clashes have been over changes in policies or procedures. And every time there is a change, your friend says something to the effect of “That’s a stupid policy. I’ve been doing it this way for the last 40 years and I’m not going to change.” And then he doesn’t change. That would be insubordination.
Now , it is entirely possible that your friend did no such thing, and the CEO is lying when he says he did - maybe all your friend did was express disagreement with the policy but did comply with it . In that case your friend was not actually insubordinate, but the behavior he is accused of is still properly described as insubordination
And the “wiggle room” is that there is no shortage of people in the world who will say
“That’s a stupid policy. I’ve been doing it this way for the last 40 years and I’m not going to change.” and describe to to their friends and coworkers as “dissent”. They may even truly believe that all they did was dissent. People shade events when they are describing them to others and even to themselves.
…except your assigned tasks are not “requested of you”
In precise language, you are fulfilling your duties as outlined by your job description under the direction of your supervisor for which you are awarded your salary. This is the contract you agreed to when you accepted the position.
I supervise a large staff and although I may politely “request” that they complete an assignment, in reality, I’m telling them what to do , not asking. At times I may have to remind people that while I appreciate their input, I am not soliciting for a debate.
At my previous job in Japan I managed a group of ten people. One woman refused to take directions from a foriegner (me) because it was beneath her or some shit, so we let her go. Same reasons, insubordination - it sounds a bit militaristic, but I think it’s an appropriate term in this case.
And that differs from how the military operates, how? Do you think every superior officer in the military can “fire” any subordinate at will for “disobeying an order”? You think there are no procedures to be followed before the subordinate can be kicked out of the military?
Sorry, but you are tying yourself up in semantic knots just because you don’t like the sound of the word “insubordination”.
well, it’s dumbass and abusive to me; the reason for insubordination in the military is if you don’t do your job people may die. Plus, it’s not an 8-hour shift pattern
People are less likely to die if you don’t complete filling a shelf or the photocopying: asking gets the same response as demanding - except the latter makes you a cockhead no one respects.
People are less likely to die (in most jobs), but the job still needs to be done. The difference between asking vs. demanding is a matter of style vs. substance. As a civilian, you won’t be thrown in the brig for refusing to do your job but you’ll still be fired - and you’ll be fired for insubordination regardless of whether your boss “asked” or “ordered” you to do it.
tbh, this reminds me a little of the US preference for “I need ‘x’” when pretty well everywhere else, at least until very recently, it is “I would like’x’”.
It’s hard to offer an opinion without being there. But a lot of it has to do with the manner in which one offers their criticism. On one of my recent consulting engagements, the client had a VP who was constantly bitching and complaining about every aspect of the project. Now she had some valid criticism if you filter out the noise. But her tone and constant repetition was starting to become, if not insubordinate, certainly bordering on inappropriate.
Sometimes there is a time to provide constructive feedback on a new initiative or policy. Sometimes you just have to shut up and do what you’re told. After all, it’s just some stupid corporate job. No one is asking you to go over the top at The Somme.
Abusive to do what? Insist that you actually do the job someone is paying you to do?
That’s sort of not the point. If your manager asks you to stock the shelf and you refuse, that’s being insubordinate. Sure, it’s not life or death. But you also won’t get sent to Leavenworth either.
If you are that person’s employer, you can do just that. That is what at-will employment means. Unless you have a contract, or you are being fired for reasons protected by law (race, relgion, sex, etc.) you could be punished by being fired for not dropping and giving your boss fifty.
Is this a dumb move? Yes, absolutely. Is this legal? Yes, absolutely.
Any manager will have had to let someone go for some reason or not, but insubordination is refusing to follow proper directions and it happens rarely. Thinking back about it, I’ve had fire someone for that one time.
More about that assistant. We had had problems prior to that and her refusal to follow directions was the final straw. She thought that she was a better judge than her boss of what was a good corporate image. The company felt differently. She didn’t back down. She needed to look for a new job.
I don’t understand your instance both that the precise language is important while maintaining that you can assign words meanings independently of the rest of the world.
In my several decades of managing people, I never once worried what their internal conversation was. I only cared if they did their job, which included following directions. It’s irrelevant if they were telling themselves that they were following orders, doing what they were requested or following the divine commandments of a demigod – although to the best of my knowledge I was never mistaken for a demigod.
However, it was a problem if the exterior showed a lack of enthusiasm or worse insubordination. If you followed directions enthusiastically *and *your internal dialogue was that you were doing me a favor, I would never know, nor would I care. If your internal dialogue was that following orders and you were a consistently a smart ass about it, you would find yourself not working for me any more.
A boss should have no need to “order” people to do things. But that is what a directive is. Even in the military, subordinates are able to question their superiors, but there is a stage where the person in charge ends the conversation and says it’s been decided and the subordinate needs to get on board.
In the military, they may say, “This is an order.” In corporate speak, they may say, “This is policy.” Failure to comply will result in discipline, up to criminal charges in the military or termination in the civilian world.
Attempt to pretend they aren’t the same is simply silly.
There has been a tread by someone in the military who says that would be really uncommon even in the military to be required to state, “This is an order.” The superior tells the subordinate to do something and the de facto assumption is that it’s an order. It would take a piss-poor leader inside or outside the military to have to state something that obvious all the time.
Yes, and why would companies allow employees to pick and chose which rules they follow? Following proper instructions if part of any job.
Why on Earth would you assume that companies allow bosses to decide that entirely on their own, any more than companies would allow pure democracy in their ranks?
How do you prove anything? How do you prove someone didn’t do their job? You document.
