Shoot me and put me out of my misery

Thanks for the laugh. I'm very non-confrontational but I stand up for myself firmly when there's a challenge. I've already used the "let him be wrong" approach and it is effective in showing how wrong he can be -- but the project gets screwed up in the process and we start to get behind. This is because he has more say than he should (PLs fault, IMO).

I'm no good at the slutting it up approach. Nobody would buy it and I'm married with two kids. Truthfully, I do feel sorry for him and would never want to be him, but that doesn't mean I have to roll over and defer to his massive ego just because it's the biggest in the office.

Truth be told, I think I'm more pissed at PL than I am at DW, mostly because PL is well aware of all of the same things I am, and still acts as if he should have some clout. When I IM PL, I can tell whether or not DW is in his cube by the tone of his chat (if that makes sense, like anybody can tell tone in a chat), his willingness to challenge and argue my decisions, some of which are very, very inconsequential. Likewise, I can tell when he's left because PL is all mister nice guy, we need you, thanks for fixing that, thanks for helping so-and-so, I'm glad you're on top of it. In short, sometimes I feel double-teamed, like he goes to PL for backup.

Don't get me wrong, I hold my own in these challenges but that doesn't mean it doesn't piss me off long after the fact.

I never got E.G.'s take on this, will try to do so. This all remains very, very familiar. There's a bunch of alpha male/ testosterone stuff going on.

Is DW good-looking? Somewhat more "cool" (I put quotes because this can be scientist-cool rather than real-life cool -- you know what I mean) than most of the people there?

It sounds like at the very least he has boundless confidence, deserved or not. That alone can get someone far (in a "the harder they fall" kind of way, anyway.)

OK, E.G. speaks:

http://people.mills.edu/spertus/Gender/why.html also that deborah tannen book The basic thing is that you have to beat him once, and soundly, in a public forum, and he and everyone else has to know it. It can't be on a question of programming style --- it has to be something which importantly affects functionality. The best way to do this is to be super-prepared, set several traps, and wait. Then when the time comes, spring the trap, with backup information at the ready. Do it cooly, and firmly, and don't make it look personal. Given that he is educated but inexperienced, you have to use something that you can't learn in school, but only by working. In order for him to get fully lodged in the trap, it has to be something that your coworkers won't immediately figure out either.

then he added:

and if he reacts badly, that's ok. that will make it easier for the project lead to have a talk with him. he's insecure because he's new on the job and wants to prove himself.

The Deborah Tannen book he's referring to is "You Just Don't Understand." It's great.

I'm reading that report... really interesting! Here's the abstract:



I'm thinking that the fact that you were mistaken for a male for so long (especially in the politics threads) and your profession are not unrelated (but you already knew that...)

Agree with E.G.

Still think you should try the other suggestions I made. Make him look like an ass in public. Repeatedly. Without being "mean."

Wow, that is excellent input. Thanks to you and to EG.

DW is not good looking and though he does fit a certain hacker stereotype (heavy, drinks lots of soda, uninterested in other things) he doesn't fit well with the people who work in my department, most of whom are more well-rounded and curious in general. I remember a while back thinking about the advent of the "guru type" in computer science. Everybody was looking for someone like this who had some sort of god-like knowledge. This person is always male with long hair. This person doesn't actually exist (though I know one, who was my mentor once, who came damn close). I think maybe that's what DW is aiming for and that possibly some people are falling for that idea.

And you are right about the profession - perceived gender connection. I'm aware that some of how I present myself and my ideas is affected by my perception that I should be as genderless as possible in order to be seriously considered.

I'm going to get to work on EG's advice.

I think, essentially, that's the advice EG gave, except for the repeatedly part. He's looked like an ass many a time, but never as a result of my direct challenge, and I've always refrained from rubbing it in while he licks his wounds.

Don't rub it in; that's what I meant about being mean. Sadly, men can get away with being a$$holes, but women are expected to be nurturing.

Just finished reading that paper -- very interesting. I guess the fact that I took time out of my workday to read it, and to chat here means my anger has subsided. Otherwise, I 'd be in a work frenzy fueled by pure rage.

Thanks for all the input, folks.

Also, the paper focused a lot on how bad things are for women in adademia. It could be that my issues with DW have a lot to do with the fact that he just left academia -- aside from the differences in programming approach that come with that.

Hey FreeDuck,

I've been reading along. Do both you and DW hold degrees in computer science? Sometimes the 'scientists' look down on programmers with engineering degrees.

He has an MS in CS but no experience. I have a BS (in Math) and 6 years experience. There is definitely some conflict as we are almost complete opposites.

What an interesting thread. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading along. You've made me yell, laugh and make up a voodoo doll, complete with stick-pins.

I had a similar office-scenario recently. An account I had been working on was effectively being micro-managed by several male managers (didn't need two of them!) and they both kept cutting me out of the loop, by-passing me, making me look bad in front of the client when I didn't know what was going on. I met with them both, explained that I had a problem with how they were handling things and explained what it is (again) that I do, what my job is. They gave me some lip service and continued with "their way", butting in where they shouldn't have been, making decisions and promises they shouldn't. In the meantime I went to my manager and predicted that we would lose the client if this behavior didn't stop. She agreed with me and called a meeting where we bluntly told them to work with us or they would have to re-assign the account to another team. Their manager/the office head was present for the meeting and all agreed with the best course of action. No changes were made and the account continued to be handled badly. Finally, two weeks ago, the client called the office head to complain about their frustrations with the handling of the account. I was called into a meeting where I sat with 8 men as they all cried and moaned about how did this happen, that this account was such a mess. I smiled and calmly replied "I can do my job better than any of you and I know none of you even want my job, so why don't you just get out of my way and let me do it?" Silence. After explaining what it was that I was going to do to fix the mess, I left and called the client. I explained that I would be handling everything from then on and they would only deal with me and I would pull in the team of experts as needed for anything I could not handle myself. Today, in a meeting with the client and the entire team, the client expressed how happy they were with the handling of the account. I looked around the room at the 8 men sitting with me in the meeting and smiled.

This experience has worked in my favor since I don't think these guys will ignore me again when I express an opinion and advise them that things are headed for the shitter!

Hopefully the same will happen for you but without things having to go too far that it's detrimental to the work of the team. Sometimes it is necessary to call a spade a spade. If this guy has a condescending tone, it might be just the ticket to simply say so. I know when a (former) manager spoke to me in a derogatory manner I called her on it right there in front of everyone. I told her I did not appreciate it, respond well to insults, and it was not a particularly good method to garner team-spirit or an increased productivity on my part. There again, I am a confronter. I will work like the devil himself for a boss and team that respects and appreciates me but if you shove annoying obstacles in my path, that are unnecessary, I will boot them but good! Luckily the people I work with accept that part of my personality, even though it can be shocking to someone who has never been confronted like this before. If I am wrong in my opinion or I am talking out of my ass, I expect someone else to say so and correct me. I have no problem saying "oops, sorry!" I don't say I am right all the time. It's just that I have no time or patience for office politics or having to "put up with" a difficult personality who seriously impedes the work of everyone else.

Good luck ducky!

Thanks heeven, and thanks for the story. It makes me feel somewhat better.

I think the highly confrontational approach probably won't work here, but I do have a reputation for being a smart-ass and stubborn and that's served me well so far.

I've been thinking about EG's advice and my own work methods. I don't know if I have the power to set traps but I think there are some that are already set by virtue of the project and I can take advantage of those. My immediate goal is to arm myself and expect challenges and be prepared to obliterate them as they come, and there's nothing like raw anger to facilitate this. However, I don't want to keep playing defense so I'm going to have to figure out how to do something like what was suggested.

I suspected his education was in cs, not math or engineering.

I think you will some day end up having the 'get out of my job' discussion with him, with or without the CL present. I don't think it's gender as much as education and training. I'm also not sure it's ego as much as the CS 'purist' mentality, or is that really just ego?

Experience will go a long way toward tempering the scientist outlook and, if you can stand it long enough, you might see him come around to looking at the project from the practical rather than the hypothetical viewpoint he's so used to. It might happen sooner if you point it out to him.

Good luck!

I think the gender part does have something to do with it on a subconscious level and not just with him, obviously. He has no idea what my degree is in so I don't think he looks down on me for that. I'm not even sure he does look down on me. What I know is that if he were a woman he would never have been given as much leeway as he has and that, even though this assumption has thus far been wrong every single time, when there is a conflict, the assumption is that he is right until I show otherwise. And he talks down to me, but that one I just throw back at him.

There is something of the purist in him, and yeah, I think ego has a lot to do with that, but again, that comes down to having not worked in industry before. This has already been pointed out to him (not by me) and one minute he seems to take it in and accept it and he's fine for a few days, then whammo, back to the beginning and the whole process starts all over again. I'm convinced this is because PL continues to give him more clout than he should have.

Some people are excellent at talking the talk. Looks/sounds good to the bosses. I am thinking he is fresh out of acadamia and has had less time to have the knocking stuffed out of him in the real life workplace. This will happen. Right now he is probably talking to justify his position - smart guy. It's the end product that really speaks. If he can deliver and/or is right about what he says, fabulous for him. Success on a plate. However if he annoys the living crap out of the team and/or does not listen to constructive criticism and take other ideas into account and ends up hurting the project, his smooth talking will not save him from a pissed off management.

FreeDuck--

You wrote:



Don't rub it in--but make sure the dirty laundry is on display. In his mind "non-confrontational" means "nothing wrong". This is not good for your incipient ulcer.

Hold your dominion.

More from E.G. (yes, I've told him "just use your account!" and even reminded him of the password, but he wants to do the relay thing for now, oh well):

the other thing she can do is, if he ever happens to be right in an argument with someone else, is to back him up. if nobody else ever does, he might have the sense to be grateful.