When you inform me about some apparently pointless rule or regulation or policy and I ask you “Why?”, the correct answer might be any of the following:
“Because if we don’t do it this way, thousands, perhaps millions of people will die a lingering painful death, probably involving boils.”
“Because we have learned over the years that this is the most effective method of controlling your minds and your behavior and making you bend to our will so that we can breed you and eat you without you ever noticing.”
“Because the President of our fine institution has a direct line to God Almighty, and He wants us to make you do it like this and given His Mighty Will and the whole smiting thing, we don’t argue.”
Or even:
“I have no clue whatsoever. That’s what they tell me the rule is, they pay me $10 bucks an hour to tell YOU that’s what the rule is and if you want to know more you’re going to have to talk to someone making more money than I am.”
However, the correct answer to the question “Why?” is NEVER to repeat exactly what you just said, to say the same thing in different words, or to in any other way respond in a manner that suggests that, rather than seeking a purpose or reason behind what you’ve told me, I have led you to believe I didn’t hear you correctly or didn’t understand all the words you used.
My ex’s family were like this. When they asserted an opinion, the only possible reason for you not to agree with their PoV was that you weren’t listening properly to what they said. The number of times I said “I heard you, I just disagree with you” I can’t begin to count.
“I have no interest in explaining the rationale behind the rule to you, and I suspect that if I say anything–anything–beyond repeating the rule to you, you’ll use it as an opening for an argument. So I’ll put on my mask-face and repeat the rule until you give up and go away.”
Maybe they’re wrong, and maybe you’re the sort of person who would hear an explanation and, no matter what it was, say, “Okay,” and move on in life. But there are enough jerks out there who try to argue with front-end employees, the sort with no power to change or modify the rules, that the repetition-of-the-rule is a rational response to a question like, “Why?”
My husband went to the doctor yesterday (he had been to the same doctor just 6 months ago). She wanted him to fill out The Form again. He had to ask her three times why she needed another form when none of the information had changed in the last 6 months. THREE TIMES! He finally told her to put a piece of paper over the date, copy it, change the date, and file it.
Because you wouldn’t believe how many people insist that “nothing’s changed” only to later hear from them that this really wasn’t the case. I even had a patient tell me she was on zero medication/pills/supplements/anything for months, only to (much later) leave me a message on my voicemail saying “actually I was on a (OTC supplement) when I was last in and it seems to affect my vision - but I’m not at home and don’t remember the name…” and her callback number doesn’t work. :smack: I understand, it sucks, but sometimes even on-the-ball people need something like a form to fill out again in order to trigger their memory.
I agree with this as a strong possibility. Any wavering would get you tied up in arguments. Any suggestion that the worker/organization would get in deep job/legal trouble could be treated with glee by some jerks.
Sometimes when you are in charge of people, you actually do get sick of low-level peons who are so smart they think they know everything about everything (other than how to move above being a peon) seeking to engage you in a debate over every rule, regulation or policy. No one is asking you to exterminate Jews, Gypsys and homosexuals. Just fill out the stupid form or whatever because some bureaucrat somewhere thinks it required for the continued success of the organization. It would have been done by now if you had just done it instead of argued with me for ten minutes.
In my job I have to enforce a particular policy that I don’t like and don’t think is fair. If people don’t follow this policy to the letter it can cost them money, sometimes serious money, and I have absolutely no discretion in the matter or power to make exceptions. It’s imposed on our company by an inflexible third party (a very large and powerful company) for reasons that to me seem little more than “rules is rules.”
So I’m not trying to be a jerk and I don’t think you’re a bitch, but all I’m really able to say is, “That’s the policy.” Sucks to be both of us at that point.
Another possiblity is that she gave you a perfectly rational explanation, and you didn’t listen. I’ve seen enough threads where that happened to at least consider it.
I had something almost the opposite in a meeting with somebody two days ago. I understood the rule she needed to bring up and it shocked the person that I wasn’t going to require a long explanation to correct my dull mind. She continued too explain the the rule like she’s needed to do for many other people that never got it. I would say yes I understand that. It added about three extra minutes to the meeting. It’s a shame she has to deal with so many people that purposely play stupid, that she doesn’t know how to handle when somebody does not need 50 alternative explanations for the same rule. She’s a very nice lady. I just surprised her, and she didn’t know what to do.
When the directive is “No one is allowed in the break room between 3:30 and 4:00 because we’re fumigating it”, that’s one thing. When the directive is “No blister fanny banana pack break room ice cream fargle fargle WHEEE! nomicrom zip zip Moo!”, simply repeating those words louder will not get the point across any better. And I hear as much of the latter as much as I hear the former.