Been a few days since my last instalment - if that one was difficult to write, this one is even worse..
On one of the very last days of December 2005 - 29th or 30th I guess - I came into the EP forums to work, and saw a thread Doris had started in there. She asked us what was left to be done with the project - completely ignoring what Therese had said only days earlier about that - and posted a short list herself. One of the items on that list was about making something that was completely unknown to me. It later proved to be about the fancy (and I do not mean that in any sarcastic kind of way) roll-down Scribbulus menu to be posted on the main site, but Doris called it something I had never heard of and did not understand - I am not all that computer or website construction savvy.
I can still remember my utter confusion and terrible sense of foreboding while reading that thread. Perhaps this is difficult to understand, and I told myself back then too that I was being silly. But my first thought was - what is this, where is Therese? What is happening?
Shortly after this, on the 30th of December, Therese sent an email to all the members of the Essay Project staff, where she announced her resignment from Leaky, meaning both the EP project and her modding job. She sent the message by pms to the rest of the staff as well.
I still have her mail. She said her reason for leaving was negative talk behind her back and breach of agreements ... I was dumbstruck.
At this point, Doris had already been made an admin. I do not remember the exact date when this happened - but I think it was some time in October or November that year. It was not as if the site could not use more people on the admin side, so nothing strange about that. Doris had always worked very hard with every assignment she was given, and was involved all over the place. As far as I can remember from back then, she was generally liked and thought of as a nice and friendly person. Lilly and I talked to each other about how happy we were having her among the admins. Bel had been given access to the admin control panel of the Lounge too, so now there were four people under Melissa who had some expanded responsibility concerning things in the Lounge compared to the rest of the staff: Nick, Sue, Bel and Doris. We had been in contact with all of them about the Essay Project in various ways, and none of them had done anything other than encouraging us or giving helpful suggestions and input. And I had never heard anyone badmouthing Therese in any way whatsoever.
Then Therese contacted me to explain and say goodbye more thoroughly. We had worked very close, met in person - I was a guest in her parent's home in the summer - and appreciated each other very much. That was why she wanted me to know a bit more about the background for her decision to leave. She forwarded me communications she had had with the admins concerning the Essay Project during the last week of December.
I have thought a lot about this, about how much I should post of the chats and mails I have kept still. They were never meant for me in the first place. I do not hold it against Therese that she showed them to me, though. She felt convinced already that the admins were talking about her behind her back and campaigning against her, and was therefore concerned that I as her friend should know what was going on. I can't blame her.
In order to make sense of this story, I will quote some of this material - but I will try and keep the quotes, especially of negative things, on an absolute minimum. As the story unfolds, I hope it will be clear why I thought it was necessary to publish things that was originally never meant for the public in the first place.
I have no qualms in quoting from the first chat I was shown, though, as nothing harmful or bad was said in that one at all. It is between Nick and Therese - scabbersakapeterpettigrew is one of Nick's YIM names, and paperflowergirl is Therese's. "The Review" Nick talks about here refers to the then working title of the Essay Journal: The Floo Review. You may think the now name "Scribbulus" is a much better title, and I am not going to argue with you on that one! This chat happened on the 23d of December 2005:
scabbersakapeterpettigrew: I also wanted to let you know that Doris' new role on for TLC is that she's the sitewide project coordinator, so she may ask you about setting deadlines for various things to get done with the Review
scabbersakapeterpettigrew: She's inviting us both to a chat now, in fact
paperflowergirl: oh, ok
scabbersakapeterpettigrew: So that she can take notes on where we are with the project
scabbersakapeterpettigrew: and give input, of course
paperflowergirl: yes, she is great
paperflowergirl: hehe, I was hoping to get her in the beginning, but now she's with us anyway!
As you can see, Therese had nothing whatsoever against the idea of Doris as a Project Coordinator, taking notes and asking for the setting of dates to be finished with various things. On the contrary, she was happy to have a chance to work with Doris to finish the Essay Project.
The chat between the three of them that followed, seems perfectly friendly and nice to me. They talk about a lot of technical things. Doris voices some very valid and reasonable concerns we on the EP staff had also been discussing, about training the editor staff to judge the essays after the same standards etc., and they discuss the need for more staff. Doris asks if the project can be ready to launch by the first couple of weeks of January. Therese thinks this is too early, with the need for hiring more staff etc. Doris says it's ok if not everything is finished, but they can try....
What starts something that looks like a disagreement, though, is when Doris is showing them some technical programme I have to admit I do not quite understand. In a later email to the admins (see below), Therese calls this iTeamwork. Apparemtly it is about listing assignments and finishing dates for all staff involved in all Leaky's projects, but people will only see the project they are part of. Therese says it looks really neat and helpful, and agrees that she does not need to see anything of what is going on with other projects. But as the appointed head of the Essay Project, she thinks she should be given access to the EP part of it. Doris says she cannot give her that. Melissa has decided that access is only for Senior Staff. But she will ask Melissa if Therese can be given the limited access she asks for anyway.
I will state again, in reading this chat, I did not quite understand what kind of programme they were talking about, and I may have misunderstood some things here. For the same reason, I cannot say whether it was reasonable or not for Therese to ask being given access to the programme.
Therese voices her concerns in a following chat with Nick, though. It seems she is beginning to feel a bit uncertain about what Doris' role actually means. How much say is Doris as a project coordinator for the whole site supposed to have over her, as compared with the agreement Therese originally had with Melissa? Therese goes to Melissa to get some clarifications.
I have read these clarification mails between Melissa and Therese on the 28th, 29th and 30th of December, that were also forwarded to Nick and Doris. They are all rather long. I will not cite them (see above about my qualms with citing originally private mails) but will try and describe the essence of them.
Therese cites her original agreement with Melissa, and asks for clarifications as to how things have changed now. Melissa underlines that things are now changing everywhere at Leaky, and Doris is brought in to pick up the organisational slack that is happening all over the place. She says she is not blaming Therese for any such slack, because that has been more the rule than the exception at Leaky, but it needs to be fixed now. If Doris sees that something is getting off track with the Essay Project, it will be her right - with Melissa's urging - to go in and see to it that it gets back on track. But Melissa still wants Therese to head the project. She will give Therese the limited access to the iTeamwork she wants, and as for hiring staff, Doris will read applications (they talk about running ads on Leaky main) and pick out those that fit Leaky's needs, then hand them over to Therese and the EP staff to do the final picking.
Therese comes back saying very clearly that she understands things are changing, is glad for the clarifications, they were what she wanted - and also states more than once that she has no problems working with Doris, whom she thinks is great. But she also says that she wishes she had been told about the changes more clearly right away, without having to ask. She also hopes that if things go off track, admin will talk to her about it before stepping in to overrule her.
She does protest organisational problems with the EP, though. Deadlines have been pushed, but that is because they were unrealistic the way the project has grown. Whenever she has gone to Nick with her concerns over this, he has been nothing but understanding and soothing, and let her believe there was no rush and no problem. How can there be organisational problems when a project of this size (we had plans about a real online journal at that time) is now almost ready to launch?
Melissa states that the pushing of deadlines is an organisational problem, no matter what - and that there is not a question of what to do when the EP has gone off track, because it has done that already. There is no point of having a fantstic castle in the air if it never goes online, and there seems to be no light in the tunnel with the EP project, and no idea of when it will be finished. But - if this is not right and the project is close to finish - then Therese can just bring a list of what is left to do, and they will work from there and all will be fine......
- The "atmosphere" in the last couple of mails is a bit tense, although no one is rude - but in reading this, it really seems to me as if there was a chance of reaching a reasonable, workable agreement at this point - and that some of Melissa's ideas of the desorganisation of the EP project were perhaps bulit on misunderstandings.
Then, seemingly out of the blue, Therese comes back with her resignment note, saying that upon reading Melissa's last mail, and the pm from Doris, she understands that she has been subjected to power plays and negative talk behind her back, and will therefore no longer work for Leaky.
In the context of the mails described above only, this reaction seems strange and unreasonable. But the pm in question is this one:
[QUOTE=DorisTLC,Dec. 28 2005,7:44 pm]I am forwarding to you conversations Nick and I have had regarding your role in this forum. This should better help you to understand where I am coming from as an administrator of this forum, and as a Senior Staff member of TLC.
Melissa also recieved a copy of this.
Doris
[QUOTE=NickTLC,Dec. 27 2005,8:56 pm]Doris,
I have thought about Therese and the issues that we have dealt with regarding her, and I am convinced that we need to think about either replacing her or otherwise just doing *something* about what's going on, and honestly, you're just the better person to solve this.
We need to have more admin involvement in the Floo Review, to be sure, either way, so I'd like to hear what you have to say about involving the two of us better in the project and having more administrative oversight of decisions being made.
--Nick[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
9 comments:
I'll preface this by stating that I am all too familiar with the scenario you mention above, even if i'm not with the specific incidents you cite.
"I-Teamwork" is the predecessor to Leaky's current "Project Management" tool: "ProjectPath".
It is not uncommon that many managers have found that they have less than adequate access to the projects they are assigned to lead, and this has caused more than a bit of unrest even recently.
It's quite interesting, as I come from a background where managers are given the tools they need to lead rather than being hand-held and watched and restricted. Leaky Senior Management does not hold to that belief, and I say this from my observations based on their actions, rather than anything that has ever been expressed to me verbally or in writing.
There have been many managers that simply do not have full control over their projects as listed within Project Path, and equally they do not have full access to other administration tools necessary to do their job.
What does this mean? Whether it's true or not, the message is clear: Senior Staff does not have total confidence in your abilities to do your job and always wants someone looking over your shoulder making sure that all is "as it should be". An Umbridge to your Dumbledore, as it were.
Giving an individual outside of Senior Staff full control over a project, regardless of their project manager title, is just not acceptable and risky. There needs to be strict control over all these projects, and quite frankly, the only ones really able to do this (in their action-based opinion) is Senior Staff. Therefore, restrictions must be placed on all "managers", and in the end, final (and significant) say is with Senior Staff.
I challege anyone to find me a Leaky Manager that is not subject to these conditions. Not all are aware of this when they take on their responsibilities, and it seems that most, once they do take a whiff of what is stinking downwind, do not stand for it and eventually leave.
The problem that Leaky faces is finding managers/staff that are drones and will not question the status quo.
Let me be perfectly clear about this. I am not, under any circumstances, referring to current staff or managers as "drones". Senior Staff manages to keep staffers in line by simply controlling the flow of information that can be digested by them. Managers just accept it for what it is, or move onwards.
I didnt intend for this comment to be so lengthy, as I merely found it very interesting that even now the same type of events are transpiring within Leaky. It was interesting to notice with this blog, that others (far before my arrival and departure) have experienced almost identical circumstances.
I am still dumbfounded reading this story and the stories that have emerged and have been brought to my attention recently.I didn't was a manager and I'll never be one, not on the Leaky Lounge anyway.
Just let me say that admins who cannot trust their co-workers (and, what's more important, unpaid co-workers,who work just because they want to and enjoy it )are in a very poor state and no software will help them. The problem is in their mind.
YWKW
Sorry for a stupid mistake, I am being agitated.
YWKW
Thank you anonymous for clearing that up!
You know, when you read a chat where people are discussing something that they all see but you don't, it may sometimes be difficult to understand what they are saying...
But yes, what you say sounds about right. Doris were talking about entering all tasks and assignments and deadlines etc.- and talking about seeing there if things were done and who were doing them and if anyone was available to be assigned another task - and she said she had to do it, Therese would have to go to her and tell her what she wanted entered, then Doris would do it. When Therese said this was cumbersome and would take too much time and slow everything down, Doris argued that it was only a practical thing and did not mean anything - Therese could still assign tasks, but Doris had to enter them...
Which does seem to mean that Doris would have to know every single little detail of tasks to be done, and be the one to enter them into this planner - and see who were doing what and meeting what deadline etc. Not Therese as she would not be given access. Which indeed sounds cumbersome and unecessarily controlling.
Not that a Seniour Staffer witht he title of "Sitewide project co-ordinator" should NOT have any access to this - of course she should - but to deny project managers access to the part of this planner that deals with their own project - that really is overcontrolling!! And yes, as you say, communicating a mistrust in managers, definitely.
It seems that the micromanagement continues, even though there is now a structure in place that looks like delegation. But if the managers are totally handheld, nothing is really gained....
YWKW - welcome over here!!! Yes, the problem is not about any kind of software or planning program - if you want to delegate and empower your co-workers, you can, no matter what kind of software you have....
And talking about mistakes - I totally should have checked that comment for grammar and spelling before I hit the "send" button....
Anon -
Wow. Reading what you wrote all I could do was just nod my head and say yes, yes, yes, yes.
In sum, Senior Staff will let you do as you want as a manager until they disagree, don't like it, etc. etc. and then they step in and put their own version of what they want in. The idea of delegation of responsiblity and trust is but a figment of imagination that they like to propagate around the lounge. But it just ain't so. And exactly; when that comes to light, people leave.
Thank you so much, again, Torill for all your efforts and being willing to tell your story.
Gina - what you say about how Seniour Staff will let you do as you want and give you the impression of having something delegated to you, reminded me of another incident with the Essay Project.
We were voting for a name. A whole long list came up, where Scribbulus was one of them. The Floo Review mentioned in some of my quoted chats another. Melissa actually posted in that thread, something she rarely did in the Essay Projct forum, and I think she suggested a name too, maybe Scribbulus even. We spent a lot of time discussing this. Then we voted, and the Floo Review won. But shortly before launch, Melissa decided that Scribbulus was going to be the name after all, and that is what it became.
I think Scribbulus was a better name than the Floo Review, which I hated. But this is not the point. The point is, why let your staff have the idea that they can decide the name, have them spend a lot of time discussing and voting - when you are going to overrule them anyway if they decide on a name you don't like? Why this pretence of democracy that leaves people irritated when it proves to be an illusion?
It would have been far better if Melissa had asked us to come up with name suggestions for her to pick from, and not allowed us to go to a vote, if she didn't plan to honor it.
Sigh. A small detail, just an insignificant example. But from what you are all saying, it seems to illustrate what is a general tendency in TLC management. You never know exactly what it is you have been delegated, or whether or for what reason the delegation will be withdrawn.
top [url=http://www.c-online-casino.co.uk/]uk bonus casino[/url] coincide the latest [url=http://www.realcazinoz.com/]free casino games[/url] autonomous no set aside hand-out at the chief [url=http://www.baywatchcasino.com/]baywatchcasino
[/url].
Post a Comment