Re: sad tale - response

Subject: Re: sad tale - response
From: Hulda Hime <hulda -at- WW-WEB -dot- COM>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 14:40:57 -0700

Unfortunately, the approach John has suggested is often the best and only
way to move forward. I agree with it 100%. Another suggestion...keep
documenting each interaction you have with this developer and the progress
(or lack of) through the lifespan of the project.

Good luck!

-- Hulda R. Hime --
hulda -at- ww-web -dot- com

----------
> From: John Posada <posada -at- FAXSAV -dot- COM>
> To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
> Subject: Re: sad tale - response
> Date: Monday, April 27, 1998 1:58 PM
>
> Sorry, but sometimes you need to use the 2X4 approach.
>
>
>
> "Dear <SME>: As much as we may both dislike the current situation, I've
> been instructed by <our boss> to address this document. You may dislike
the
> situation you're in and I may have an opinion about how you were treated
> during the initial creation of the document, but that doesn't change the
> fact that I need to address this document and I have a limited amount of
> time to do it in.
>
> Therefore, if I am not able to count on your complete support, I'll have
no
> recourse but to document the document's problems, my efforts to resolve
> them, and my inability to get your cooperation in the matter.
>
> I need to address this matter within the next 48 hours in one way or
> another. Please see me before Wednesday 11am to let me know how you would
> like to proceeded in this matter or I will have no recourse but to pursue
> other solutions"
>
> Thanks"
>
>
> Just because someone else wants to play games doesn't mean that you have
to
> participate. On noon on Wednesday, send your boss this memo and cc the
> person.
>
> John Posada
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Miki Magyar [SMTP:MDM0857 -at- MCDATA -dot- COM]
> Sent: Monday, April 27, 1998 3:19 PM
> To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
> Subject: sad tale - response
>
> Matthew Bin told us of his trials with a disgruntled ex-employee SME and
> his attempts to improve the user doc, "which, when it is written in
> understandable English,
> is full of speculations, excuses, and snarkiness."
>
> Matthew, my heartfelt sympathies. You may have hit a brick wall, but
> there's one thing you might try that's worked for me. First, you must
> realize you will never change this bloke's view of the world, you, or his
> work. So don't try. Instead, put yourself on his side - "It's a real
pain,
> but I've been ordered to do this, so we might as well get it over with.
> Here's the stuff they told me to put in..." hand him a list of specific
> questions or blanks to fill in, with your guess as to what it should be.
> Grumble a lot about the unfairness of it all as you prod him to give you
> data. Make it clear that *something* has to go in there, and it's either
> going to be his input or your best guess. But don't criticize his work or
> point out its flaws. Instead, indicate that you are confused (implication
> is you're too dumb to understand). List the two or three possible
> interpretations of his garble and ask which is correct.
>
> This may not work, but it's worth a try. You may find that having a
mutual
> 'foe' ('them') is enough to allow him to actually communicate with you.
>
> Good luck!
>
> Miki
> mikim -at- mcdata -dot- com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> !
> !
>
>
>
>
>




Previous by Author: Re: How old is the profession?
Next by Author: Re: Propriety: New Twist on Professionalism & Secretaries Day
Previous by Thread: Re: sad tale - response
Next by Thread: Extensible/Scalable


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads