Self-Marketing Could Blind Our Eyes
Recently I am involved a troublesome email war in office. S is pretty blunt and she's feeling unhappy for the salary she got paid and I know she wants to leave for a while. She used to leave sharp at 6pm and she might have some internal 'fight' with others.
D is another guy who joined us with the company my company acquired lately. He looks ok and at least normal and he's the kind of person, at least he appears to be, someone who would avoid quarrel. To me quarreling is nothing really bad, but to many people, quarrelling equals to impoliteness, not co-operating.
Obviously S would quarrel with some others and doesn't seem co-operating. But to my understanding she knows what she's doing and she is more capable at work. D is not, though. D is trying to 'stick' to some other departments and always claimed that (s)he needs S's info to complete something and all things are stuck at her.
D tries to help with different people and I believe that its with the intention to get some chances to switch to other departments. Some management people trust him, or at least, they didn't show disagreement with him... although, to my 'professional' judgement he's not very capable. I got confirmed my thought with my team members but still 'cos of D's good attitude he got the trust he needs although he hasn't got the chance to switch yet.
P said that being not nasty is to help the boss. That might be true. But to me if I'm a manager I'd think being fair is more important. I'd rather sacrifice stability. 'cos in the future people would tend to find a more stable solution then to find a right and good solution which might require a lot of changes.
Probably I still have passion to contribute to a company where I work at. Also, I might have some in-born character of striking for fairness and thus eventhough someone appears to be kind and nice but stayed silent under unfair situation, I'd rather (s)he being nasty always but would stand up and fight against unfairness.
D is another guy who joined us with the company my company acquired lately. He looks ok and at least normal and he's the kind of person, at least he appears to be, someone who would avoid quarrel. To me quarreling is nothing really bad, but to many people, quarrelling equals to impoliteness, not co-operating.
Obviously S would quarrel with some others and doesn't seem co-operating. But to my understanding she knows what she's doing and she is more capable at work. D is not, though. D is trying to 'stick' to some other departments and always claimed that (s)he needs S's info to complete something and all things are stuck at her.
D tries to help with different people and I believe that its with the intention to get some chances to switch to other departments. Some management people trust him, or at least, they didn't show disagreement with him... although, to my 'professional' judgement he's not very capable. I got confirmed my thought with my team members but still 'cos of D's good attitude he got the trust he needs although he hasn't got the chance to switch yet.
P said that being not nasty is to help the boss. That might be true. But to me if I'm a manager I'd think being fair is more important. I'd rather sacrifice stability. 'cos in the future people would tend to find a more stable solution then to find a right and good solution which might require a lot of changes.
Probably I still have passion to contribute to a company where I work at. Also, I might have some in-born character of striking for fairness and thus eventhough someone appears to be kind and nice but stayed silent under unfair situation, I'd rather (s)he being nasty always but would stand up and fight against unfairness.
posted by legomate at 11:17 am
1 comments
