Well, it’s simple and to the point. What does it mean if someone answers “I hope not”? Because I think that’s the answer I’d give.
And now I’m trying to remember if I’ve ever been asked that, on finding myself in a new context…
Heh, fair enough. I’ve been fortunate to have never really worked with idiots (they probably don’t last long in the field), but certainly some less-experienced developers, often fresh out of software boot camp. At least they were trainable.
“You have to better explain and document this, not just for the rest of us, but for yourself… both to double-check the code is doing what you think it’s doing, and as a reminder to yourself next year when you need to look at it again.”
That works on newcomers. Not so much on the superstar geniuses who think they’re infallible. Those guys are different. If you show them an algorithm that improves performance by 0.17%, they’ll spend hours analyzing it and trying to make it reach 0.172% instead. If you ask them to spend 3 seconds writing // a short explanatory comment, they’ll just chuckle and think you’re joking.
In our particular department we have a lot of years of experience in a facility where instruction for new hires on how to get things done is lacking. So we try to act as resources to get these people up and running and be as productive as possible.
The signs someone is going to be a problem is when they mistake “resource” for “someone who will do it for me”.
I’ll make time for anyone who approaches with “Can you help me” or “can you show me”. The one who ask “Can you do this for me” I learn to avoid.
One year our chairman decided he needed an office manager. The first person he got was obviously over-qualified. Effective, friendly, infinitely helpful; the office ran like a dream; everyone loved her. Then she decided to get a master’s in psychology and hang out a shingle. This had worked so well, the chairman replaced her. With someone from another dept who came highly recommended. The reason for the recommendation was that they were trying to get rid of her. Soon we were too. The first thing she did was lock the office door so that any professor wanting to get into the office had to get someone to let them in. Why the chairman allowed her to do this escapes me. She was unpleasant, unhelpful and worst of all, if you needed a paper typed you had to give it to her and she would assign the typist, although you might prefer someone already familiar with your work. Eventually, she left, saying the professors were very uncooperative. Wonder why. She was not replaced; the office ran better without her.
Oh yeah, being in academia I’m familiar with the type. Some people in administrative/support roles seem to bounce from department to department until their reputation precedes them enough that they run out of options. Really became a problem when budget crunches meant we were on hiring freezes, so internal moves were often the only way to fill needed positions.
To generalize, a good sign a coworker will be a problem is if they are making a lateral move with little or no increase in title, salary, or responsibilities.
The ‘Knowitall”. Jebus Kripes!
We just hired a new officer. He has an A.S. in Police Science, a B.A. in Criminal Justice, and a PHD in everything else. He just got out of the academy and is in his 3 month field training program. He’s driving his FTO’s nuts. He insists his way of doing everything are better than the way we’re trying to teach him. On top of that, he insists that everything be justified to him. WHY do we do it that way? WHY cant I do it this way? THIS is the way I used to do it at my old job working security 
. I’m not doing it your way until you prove to me its better than my way.
He’s already been hauled out on the rug before a Sgt and a Captain, and then before a Lieutenant and the Chief and told in no certain terms that unless something appears inherently dangerous to keep his mouth shut, do it as instructed, follow the SOP on things, and the time to make suggestions is in writing after he completes his 1 year probationary period.
Which I will shit if he passes.
Getting yanked in on a fact finding twice in 2 months into employment is a huge red flag this guy is a problem.
BTW, the way he wants to do things are inefficient, and some of them are dangerous. I’m thinking during his background check former employers kept their mouth shut about this goof.
Yes, this is obviously very field dependent. An incompetent or two (well not completely useless, just subpar) could be tolerated on my job because no lives were at stake. At worst it meant the person following them had to clean up their messes, which isn’t joyous but also usually wasn’t too onerous.
By contrast I’d rather have a difficult, shitty-attitude but brilliant surgeon than a genial, mediocre one 
.
Smokers. Smokers are a problem. They focus on feeding their addiction instead of working. You might as well put their desks in the parking lot, because that is where they spend the bulk of the working day.
In my previous life as a Cube Dweller, half the floor was out puffing away, for 10 minutes at a time, twice every hour. In rain, snow and heat. Left everyone else holding the bag. The nature of the job was processing finance applications in real-time. So, if there were 300 queued up for review, and half the people are flaking off, just made more work for everyone else.
A few of the managers were just as bad. They had to sign off on approvals. So they sat there until they could get their fix. Meanwhile, dealers are calling to ask where the loan applications stood. Kinda hard to tell them the manager was out smoking and will get to it in another 10 minutes.
And they stink.
Fortunately they are now kinda rare.
The only huge workplace sin I think is stealing lunches.
I’ve worked as an engineer my entire professional career. I could write a book on the good, bad, and ugly I’ve encountered over the past 33 years.
-
Employees, primarily those in supervisory roles, who don’t do any actual work, and simply take credit for work performed by others.
-
Employees who don’t do any actual work, and I mean none, and get away with it because they’re drinking buddies with management.
-
Employees where 100% of their “work” consists of No Value Added (NVA) tasks such as training, travel, conferences, seminars, symposiums, answering emails, talking, socializing, etc.
-
Employees who lie. I once had someone reporting to me who lied about damn near everything. But he was protected (see bullet #2), so I couldn’t fire him.
-
Employees with inflated egos who are incapable of saying “I don’t know” when asked a technical question (that they don’t know the answer to) in their field. Instead, they will give a B.S./wrong answer, because their ego won’t let them admit that they don’t know something. They also won’t ask for help from anyone else on the team, because it would imply that they ignorant about something. I once worked with someone like this, and he was so insufferable that it got to the point where I couldn’t tolerate being in the same room as him.
-
Unethical employees who waste resources, e.g. going on travel/TDY when it is completely unnecessary; essentially a paid vacation for them. These folks are constantly trying to figure out how to game the system and get away with stuff.
-
Employees, primarily those in supervision, who are completely obsessed with getting awards, accolades, letters of appreciation, etc.
I could go on and on, but I had better stop.
Training most certainly adds value.
While it’s true this can be problematic in some forms, I’m generally sympathetic to the why questions. I think it’s a sign of a toxic workplace if the people there are unable or unwilling to answer the why questions. It sometimes means they are too entrenched, there’s too much organizational inertia and nobody is trying to improve.
If I’m a veteran employee I should be able to explain why we do things a certain way. If a new person asks me that kind of question in good faith, great. And if I’m new at a company and people seem to take offense at an occasional why question, I start thinking it’s not a good place to be.
We do.
But this guy refuses to do some things unless you beat him in the argument that the way it’s done is better than the way he wants to do it. Doing this out in the field is a sure ticket out the door. It’s not the time or place for debates.
It really depends on the reason for the “why?” question.
If the new person wants to be sure they understand procedures, asking "why? is great. It means they’re wanting to understand, not just do things by rote, and so on. Having an open mind and wanting to learn is important.
But if every “why?” question is framed as a “justify this to me!” that’s not great. It may be a mindset that unless they are personally satisfied with a procedure, they will feel free to deviate from it.
In some areas, like policing, following the established procedure is important.
-
It means that all encounters with drunk drivers, for instance, are handled by the officers the same way, reducing the chance of arguments about favoritism, racism, and similar things.
-
It may be that a particular procedure is required by statute or internal regulation.
-
It may be necessary to comply with a court case on the exercise of police powers.
Sometimes a trainee just has to accept that “this is the way we do it”, and only gradually start raising questions about the established procedures. They shouldn’t come into it with an attitude that they get to decide, if they don’t think there’s a reason for a particular procedure.
And sometimes, the response from a mentor may be: “You went to police college. There’s a reason we do it this way. Can’t you figure it out?” Not to dismiss or to condescend, but to challenge the trainee to apply the law and process that they’re been taught about in theory, but now on the streets.
I’m thinking the former is more interesting (read, challenging) than the latter.
I read a history of the Manhattan Project and it mentioned when the Oak Ridge facility got rolling young women just out of high school were hired to run the controls of the calutrons separating U-235 from U-238. They were told nothing about what they or the machinery was doing beyond, “If this meter goes this way turn this knob that way until this other meter reaches here.” Their production consistently was higher than the technicians and scientists who would constantly tweak things to see if they could coax a little more out.
It looks like you somehow attributed a quote from @Reply to me, there.
Reminds me of a psychology experiment, done with humans and rats. There was an apparatus with a couple of lights and a couple of buttons. Every so often, a bell would ring, the operator (of whatever species) would push a button, and a light would go on. If the button matched the light, the operator would get a reward.
The rats outperformed the humans. The actual pattern was that, every round, there was a 1 in 6 chance that the left light would go on, and a 5 in 6 chance that the right one would. Rats quickly figured out that the percentage play was to always press the right button, because that’s the one that usually worked. Humans, though, kept on trying to find patterns like “if it’s right 4 times in a row, the next one is left”.
Which reminds me: Probably the most promising resident we had at my old hospital, knowledge-wise, was arrested for and convicted of domestic violence. He was also, as a result, kicked out of the program.
He was Middle Eastern, so who knows what name he used legally, but I haven’t been able to find any evidence of him practicing in the U.S.
That depends. It’s also possible that the coworker is escaping ANOTHER problem employee in that department. I’ve personally seen it.
Oh, yes. I worked for a large company, and “person recommended from way over there where we barely know anyone” was often a warning. When that did happen, I think the recommender often told themselves that this person had a good skill set and would work out better in a different situation. I’m pretty sure it never did.
They also tended to soft-pedal the person’s issues in their performance reviews.
I do recall one time where someone privately let me know what happened later, and I grilled the former manager, and then I got HR on both sides involved. I was seriously pissed.
For me the three big ones are: complains, gossips, and facilitates workplace drama.
In ten years at this agency I have seen so much drama, discord and general chaos. I’ve gotten through it by keeping my mouth shut. People talk at me all day long about coworkers they have problems with, people in leadership they have problems with, impending disasters they’ve spotted, and I listen, and occasionally say something diplomatic, and I don’t contribute to any of it, even when I agree with them.
Part of my job as I see it is contributing positively to group cohesion. This is very important in my field. I’m not the most socially adept person but I make up for it in being generally good-natured and having positive regard for my coworkers.
I complain to my husband and you guys all the time though. There’s gotta be some place to sort out the bullshit.