“loads of legal files” =/= “agenda item sent via IM”
A difference of degree, not of kind. Either it’s appropriate to format your information in the manner to which the receiver is accustomed and that everyone else follows, or it’s not.
I really don’t know why you keep insisting on portraying it this way. I’ve tried to give clear reasoning: it’s about respecting the coworker you’re trying to get to do something for you outside the norm.
You can be as snide as you want but it’s not really substantive.
The whole lot of you are awful employees. The point of teamwork is to get more than the sum of the parts out of the whole. You think jobs are cogwheels in a machine and as a result your employers get nothing more than anyone else could provide in that position. I’m very happy I work for a company where everybody has each other’s back.
Degree matters. I go into city hall to pay my water bill and it’s $135.37. They take cash, so I pull out 6 $20s, a $10, a $5 and 37 cents. My asshole alter ego takes out 13,537 pennies. They take cash, they take coins, it’s a difference of degree.
Giving someone an agenda item on Friday via IM vs Monday via Email is a minor issue, one that is trivially worked around by a competent employee. Degree matters because a one time variation to a process is different than wholesale process avoidance. Maintaining enough flexibility to deal with one offs is just as important as maintaining the integrity of your process.
In this case, the degree is so small that it is irrelevant.
I am going to say exactly what you said here, but in support of Melanie. It’s the OP who is failing to behave reasonably, work as a team, and have Melanie’s back.
I’ll actually agree with this. But it’s important to watch one-offs. Special requests on occasion are totally fine, but when those special requests start becoming commonplace there needs to be a line drawn.
And with some people, if you give them an inch they’ll take a mile, so I think it’s well worth considering whether or not to give them that inch in the first place.
I can certainly see that in some of what’s written in the OP. But not in the actual message exchange. Asking a fellow employee for a favor is not a lack of teamwork. Refusing to do that favor is a lack of teamwork. But I’ll admit both of them could have handled it better.
“Keep on insisting on portraying you this way”? That was the first time I made mentioned of you being into head games, and that’s because you just said you see things as Melanie being on some kind of ego trip in this situation. Dude, how? Because she didn’t send info precisely the way you want it, and then didn’t send you a reminder on how to do your assignment? Yeah, because it’s someone else’s job to make sure you can remember to do your own shit. Sorry, but “I cannot retain information” is no excuse for incompetence. But bah, I’ve worked in offices with useless, inflexible people before, and you people will always be lazy and bad at your jobs, and it’ll always be somebody else’s fault. So I’ll treat this discussion the way I did my last gig in Corporate American Hell. I quit; We’re done here.
The problem with this situation, as I’ve been alluding to, is that this applies both ways. Melanie was asking the OP for a favor by adding the item to the agenda right then and there, and the OP refused. The OP asked Melanie for a favor by going back on Monday and doing it the usual way, and Melanie refused.
I explained how. And I’m not the first one to accuse someone of an ego trip. I turned it around on Sleeps because, as I say above to TriPolar, it’s kind of a mirror situation, but I lean more toward the OP than Melanie, since the OP had custom on her side.
“Head games” and “power trip” and “ego trip” are all the same; you keep treating it as the OP and the people supporting her as engaging in meaningless domination games, while the OP and the people supporting her are just trying to ensure she’s not treated like a fucking doormat.
The bolded part is where I keep getting hung up. The agenda item is not the OP’s thing, it’s Melanie’s. Melanie wants it on the agenda. Until it is, it’s her shit to deal with. If it won’t get on the agenda unless she goes through the right channels, that’s not on anyone but her. The OP isn’t making Melanie jump hoops for her own sick amusement; the hoops were there and established ahead of time. Melanie knew where they were and chose to go around them.
The OP did not refuse.
In the sense that she basically said “I can’t add it right now, please go through the correct process,” she did.
Just adding an item to the agenda was totally the OP’s responsibility. Adding it outside of the customary timeframe is what pushed it into favor country.
ETA: Yes, I realize just how bureaucratic I sound right now. That’s office politics for you.
How cute that you assume it’s just going to happen the one time.
Oh noes, I might have to remember something AGAIN the next time I do the agenda? Gee Whiz, how am I ever going to get through my day with all this remembering I have to do?
Cutting and pasting an agenda item into a document is just SO hard, if people don’t follow the exact process, and lay out each addition exactly the same way every time, my poor widdle brain will explode from all that effort.
Nothing like that was said.
The OP agreed to the original request to add an item to the agenda with “No worries”. She then politely asked for some backup. The only thing more she could have done was indicate a reason she couldn’t take care of it immediately. Melanie’s response was rude and clearly indicated her intent not to cooperate.
I do agree with this in that there is a clear advantage to email over IM. Maybe Melanie doesn’t realize that the IMs aren’t saved like email. I would request to her that in the future important info like agenda items are sent via email and not IM and explain why. That said, the info was already given to the OP and it’s silly to send it twice.
Um, no. The “no worries” is meaningless babble. There would be no reason to need a reminder on Monday to add the agenda item if the OP intended to add the agenda item right away on Friday. If that’s really what she meant she would have said something like: “No worries, but please next time save your item for the normal Monday email.”
If ‘no worries’ is meaningless babble then I would have complaints about a lot of people. I take it as a positive acknowledgement. It was not the refusal to cooperate that Melanie responded with.
I don’t think you’re taking the full statement into context.
Typical procedure is to email on Monday.
Melanie IMs on Friday to get the item added.
OP says, “No worries, but please send an email on Monday.”
In other words, “No worries, but please follow the typical procedure.” The implication is that it won’t get added otherwise.
OP has not actually done anything for Melanie other than to remind her to do the usual thing.
I should have said “meaningless babble in this instance” since I usually take it as positive acknowledgement, too. Just not when it’s followed by language indicating the opposite.
Wife: “Here, I’ve bagged up the trash for you to take out when you leave.”
Hubby: “No worries! I’ll take this trash out Monday, can you remind me to do it?”
Wife: :dubious: