Office politics are the pettiest of such. Even pettier than student council politics. People who buy into that sort of thing kneel at the altar of “org charts” and have righteous apoplexy if anyone dares to go to their direct report before going to them.
Eighty percent of middle managers are unnecessary, and they know it. The only way to preserve their own relevance is to defend their reporting prerogatives like Disney defends their trademarks. Your convenience is irrelevant to them…the org chart says you go to them, so you go to them. I’d imagine that he’s treating Chuck even worse than he’s treating you right now. It’s definitely no picnic to be a subordinate to someone like this if they feel lese majeste has been committed…
I shouldn’t laugh at the jokes at Ed’s expense, even though I threatened to smother him.
He’s a very nice guy, and very competent. And he’s usually extremely easygoing, so this kerfuffle is out of character. We’re a small office, so often many of us know the answer to any particular question, so asking whoever might be handy is pretty common here.
Lord knows I don’t mind if those little questions get answered by someone else before they get to my desk, but it sounds like maybe that’s not universal.
I’m baffled at your continuing efforts to make Ed feel better. He’s obviously being just a little baby about Chuck handling some questions for him.
I’d be going right back to Chuck for whatever questions I asked him before Ed’s little snit. If Ed doesn’t like it, he can talk to Chuck and Chuck will tell you go to move over one cube. Or Ed can go directly to you, like an adult, and ask that you go to him with these questions.
Ed has a set of formerly annually-prize-winning orchids at home and they just aren’t acting right. Everything he tries to do fails. The flower show is next week! It’s not right that he brings his personal anguish to the job, but please cut him some slack.
One way to deal with such situations is to ask the question via email, sent to both Ed & Chuck. Then take the response from whomever answers first (sounds like that would be Chuck).
Eventually, if it becomes clear that certain questions are better answered by Ed, email those to Ed with a cc: to Chuck. And vice-versa for questions Chuck is best able to answer. This is better; it makes it clear who you expect to answer, but keeps the other person in the loop about this.
This is the first problem. People who work in Personnel are all wankers*. There’s something about that department that attracts the wankers in any company.
This is your second problem - Chuck told you to come to him, not Ed. If Ed had suggested it, it would be a-okay. If that was Chuck’s decision to make, then Ed’s being an ass.
It really sounds like the problem is between Ed and Chuck, and you’re just getting hit with fallout. I say call Ed on his bad attitude, in an assertive, non-threatening way. He doesn’t have the right to be a sullen crab at work and take his bad attitude out on you. I’m also getting a vibe that Chuck might not be easy to supervise - he might be stepping on Ed’s toes.
*Except Dopers and family and friends of Dopers, of course.
No, but he thinks that you guys are “jumping him”. He may also think that you guys think he’s not doing his job right (his job doesn’t consist of knowing every detail of payroll!).
It’s one of those common conflicts between the Control and Expediency. I’m betting that the Big Boss didn’t ask Chuck because he thought Chuck would be the best person to ask; Chuck simply happened to be handy. If the Big Boss has asked Chuck and Chuck hadn’t known the answer, Chuck would have told the Big Boss to ask Ed (or whomever Chuck thought might have the answer).
Ed has problems both delegating and understanding that when people ask his subordinates for whatever info the subordinate is likely to have, it’s actually a Good Thing.
So Chuck, the “subordinate” told you to go to him instead of Ed, his Boss, for certain things because Ed, the Boss, was just going to have to ask Chuck, the subordinate, anyway. I’m assuming that Ed, the Boss, had no idea that Chuck, the subordinate, had directed people to go directly to him and to leave Ed out of the loop. Then twice in one day, people go to Chuck without Ed’s knowledge and one of those times it’s Ed’s Boss.
And you’re not seeing the problem here?