A quick check: has he actually, in writing, accused you of falsifying - not just misinterpreting - the data? Because that is an accusation of gross professional misconduct, a very serious offence. And a false accusation is itself a serious offence. This is something that will follow you staining your professional career if not fixed. If you have the data to back up your results you should gather your data, prepare yourself, and go to his boss and brief her. I would expect this person to be fired pretty much immediately.
And make copies of everything so you can sue the company if you get fired.
But right now, sit back and make yourself a cup of tea and compose yourself.
I’m all for a restrained, diplomatic response, but I don’t think RF should gloss over the fact that his colleague has leveled a very serious accusation of misconduct at RF and/or his team. If I were in RF’s shoes, I don’t think I’d pretend to be happy about walking Bob through it all.
Roderick Femm, you said your colleague identified some inconsistencies:
“Falsification” is the inclusion of incorrect information with intent to deceive. Did he present any evidence to support his accusation that these inconsistencies were intentional?
If I were you, and I was (were?) sure no deliberate falsification took place by me or my team members, my reply to Bob (and the others he cc’d) might look something like this:
“Bob, suggesting that we falsified anything is a serious accusation. Simply put, no falsification took place. The source material that went into our report is attached to this email. If after reviewing this you still have concerns, please stop by my office and we can discuss.”
This has happened to me before, so it’s definitely a possibility.
No offense, but don’t cry - it makes you look weak, not sympathetic.
Treat it like a hostile request of “Cite?” Pull together the documentation proving your data. Don’t handle this via email.
At your next meeting, without referencing him or his email, simply say “there have been some concerns raised about our (the “our” is important - this shouldn’t be about you) points A, B, and C. Here are the documents that back it up. If anyone ever has questions about our methodology, please don’t hesitate to bring it up.”
And then DROP IT. You don’t need an apology, you don’t need to know why he said it, nobody else needs to know that he said it, just “somebody raised the question, here’s the answer, now that that’s cleared up let’s move on to the next item of business”.
A considered, level headed rebuttal is of course good advice, but this is too circuitous an approach IMHO. No one’s ‘raised the question’ or made some negative inferences, the guy has made a serious allegation on the OP’s integrity, directly to him by email. That’s not something you take the high ground on, it needs shitting all over from 60,000 feet. In a calm way
It depends on the personal dynamic a bit, nature of the voluntary work I guess. If the guy is just a tit who lacks credibility then you wouldn’t need to make a federal case out of it, but if it’s someone serious who has said this then it needs a direct and forceful response.
For what it’s worth, I think this is a work situation, and that the OP volunteered to be on this committee creating this additional report It’s still a workplace issue. OP, could you clarify?
Don’t take/make it personal. Your sole interest should be in getting a response on the record, in at least a prominent manner as the “accusation.” The impersonal “questions have been raised” and the communal “our methodology” are great suggestions.
My preference would be to respond in the same manner as the accusation was made. The e-mail will continue to exist long after your refutation during a meeting. A Reply all with added addressees would be my choice - as if it ever arises again, you have the added position of saying, “If you would continue through that same e-mail string…”
Then just move on. Is this the first time some numbnuts at work has questioned some aspect of your job in ways you KNOW are unfounded and unfair? It is just work, and doesn’t really matter so long as the paychecks keep coming and future opportunities for advancement are not irreparably harmed. Yeah, it sucks when it happens. But you have to make sure that you do not make it a lot worse by the way you respond.
Thanks for some very good advice. I have slept some and am now ready to consider the measured and rational approaches that many of you have suggested.
To clarify:
[ul]
[li]This is not work-related, but it is a volunteer organization with serious legal underpinnings. [/li][li]Yes, I believe based on context in the message that I was copied by mistake. [/li][li]I am not and never have been a scientist. [/li][li]I take it personally because the accusation was against our entire small group of which I am a member. We would all have had to have been complicit for this to be true. The others will probably take it personally too. [/li][li]There is a tiny amount of mostly implausible deniability that he is accusing us of falsifying data. He never used those words. He started out using the word “mistake.” But at the end he said “I have had 40 years of experience as a data jockey, don’t try to pull a fast one on me.” I believe, from context, that he was using this to express his attitude and not addressing me or us directly. [/li]I agree that the accusation is a very serious matter. How to address that is the most difficult for me to parse. [/ul]Anyway, I appreciate all the good advice. I am going to put this away for another 24 hours, while I go and spend some money on new furniture. Then I believe I will be able to focus and decide rationally what to do. I appreciate your help more than I can say.
1 - if not work related, less - um - serious IMO. You are arguing about positions/philosophy/values rather than your paycheck.
There are all kinds of volunteer organizations, and I don’t know what you mean about “serious legal underpinnings.” IME, in many instances volunteers get pissy and unreasonable over petty shit. Astonishing the amount of grief well-intentioned volunteers so often have to put up with. Enough experiences like this, and you might decide the best approach is to not volunteer…
4 - you are sounding petty, and taking personally something that was not directed personally. Groups make mistakes all the time. And are charged with making mistakes whether or not they made one. Goes with the territory. Interpret this as a charge that the group as a whole was mistaken, rather than a personal attack on you.
5 - this is the best point for you. The accuser has chosen to start off unprofessionally. This “40 years experience” line is BS. His choice to be unprofessional and to get HIS ego involved, makes it all the more appropriate for YOU to be all the more professional, and keep your ego out of it. If you do not have the ability to see and do this, you should try to develop it.
6 - without knowing more, I’m unable to agree whether or not this is a serious matter at all. And I’ll bet any number of folk associated with the process/situation may differ in their interpretations.
It’s a matter of personal taste, I guess. I prefer the devastating counter, delivered with icy calm, to any amount of sympathy. I find “mess with me and you draw back a bloody stump” to work better than an appeal for sympathy, but YMMV.
I might go a little step further than this. Maybe as far as saying that you were “hurt and offended” by the accusation. Basically making it clear that the accusation of falsifying data has real consequences and is not something that should be bandied around lightly.
While the accusation of deliberately falsifying data is more serious than a simple error, I think the best approach is as follows, regardless:
Since the OP was cced on the message, so he/she is now “in the loop”. I think it is perfectly reasonable to respond, looping in his/her manager and calming say something like:
“You indicated you have some concerns over the accuracy of our data. I suggest we set up some time to go over the details…”
And then you go over the details proving your data (hopefully) isn’t shit.
I would be cautious about taking any corporate IP out of the office that you aren’t entitled to.
However you respond, you should certainly include something about “had you reached out to me before sending this email I could have walked you through the data sources to put your mind at ease.”
You absolutely DO handle this by email. Because email has become the de-facto permanent record of business. The OP needs to respond directly (but politely) to everyone on that email.
First, calm yourself down. Get your self in a clear state of mind. Then, with care and deliberation refute the claims of this guy, explain without prejudice the reasons his analysis is fault, and question why he violated protocol in sending this email in the first place. Do not directly insult him or accuse him of anything, leave that to the mind of the reader. Do not express your feelings in any way, quite the opposite, be cold and dispassionate and logical. End with a summary of your ongoing work that indicates you are proceeding as if this never happened.
I think I’d be violating board rules if I told you the next steps you should take.
I’ll play devil’s advocate here and remind you to consider the possibility that he’s right. He didn’t say you personally falsified date; he said your group did. You may know that you’re innocent but can you be absolutely sure that somebody else in the group didn’t, in fact, submit false data?
It’s something you need to keep in mind. If you initiate any action against this guy (like notifying the other members of your group) and it develops that he actually does have evidence to support his allegation, you might be putting yourself in a position of interfering with a legitimate investigation of somebody else’s wrong-doings.
This, except also do it by e-mail. Don’t just include the people on your original, but everyone on the project team, and any “higher-ups” they may have informed. If there is a grant involved with all of this, consider providing your response to the grant administrator. This being charitable work, control of future grant money is the most likely motivation.
No, absolutely not. No emotion, no personalities, no comparing relative education or experience levels. A question about the data is answered with data. If you can see an obvious flaw in his methodology then answer as if he had asked you to check the methodology. Not to him, or about him, in any way; just identify the flaw and the correction to the methodology.
No. As a separate e-mail, perhaps. This is not a personal discussion, it is a data discussion.
The reasoning here is simple: Those who do not understand the data (or trouble themselves to read it) will choose a side based upon personality. You don’t want to give them the tiniest finger-hold. Anyone who wants to involve themselves in the discussion should be forced to look through the data and respond accordingly.
Same goes for his methodology. If you must address it, keep your discussion on data crunching strategies and why one (which incidentally is the one he used) doesn’t work.
Explain everything as if to a kindergartner, but entirely without snark or condescension.
In short, be gracious, data-driven, and solution oriented.*
