Teaching Tact to an Ogre

With the Holidays behind us, I wanted to spend just a brief bit of time talking about the buzz kill in the office. And though they don't only attack during the holidays, Its only fitting as I read "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" for the first time to my son, that I recall how people steal spirit in the office... 

Names have been changed to protect the guilty (and sometimes innocent).

We all work with them.  They are boorish and are aggravating when they hit their groove. Worse they bully their way into getting what they want, and when they don’t, they whine about it until someone caves or the project comes to a screeching halt.  I am of course referencing the 'Office Ogre'. 

The Ogre is a certifiable HR nightmare. And though there is no room for this type of behavior in the modern world, they still manage to keep their job. Even more so, they have apologists.   Ogres have little to no class, will immediately make one of two assumptions about people - both typically wrong (A. you are an idiot and he talks under you, OR B. you are a genius  and that you can read his mind), and has never heard of a mental to vocal filter. They even have their own list of '-isms'. Everyone in the office can tell you stories of run-ins with "Grendel" - insert your Office Ogre here. (Yes, I have de-personified my Ogre as the infamous villain from literature's Beowulf)Here is a brief one of mine.

As Product Managers we are looked to for information and guidance on the direction for our products - simple enough concept. When something needs to change, we make the appropriate requests. These requests can be tricky, in a small privately owned company you really need to be slick, you need to be able to manage egos (and engineers have BIG EGOS). Logic doesn't always win the day, and emotional appeal has no empirical relevance  and will be dismissed readily. Grendel is tactless, he doesn't have a strategic thought in his head - "it is my way, or...you're an [expletive]  idiot"

The other day Grendel turned the corner and asked how I was able to get what I wanted out of my latest product release. I gave Grendel my best Godfather impression, "make them an offer they can't refuse".  First, I presented scenarios/challenges that needed to be addressed with concepts/solutions that I knew were flawed. This discussion led the design team to the solutions and designs that I wanted. You have to be able to pull the invisible strings.  Allow those you are working with to feel like the ideas were theirs - you get what you want.

Similarly, during the project goal identification process, we put together a list of targets. I ensured that the list we generated included, obviously, those necessary for the product to function and required upgrades. It also included a generous list of wants, and scattered through out were decoy goals. You never get 100% of what you ask for, so if you only ask for exactly what you must have...what you get will fall short of your expectations. Such a list should include things you really want that you know are possible and are in line with your goals. It also includes good goals : but you can live without them , they take longer to develop, etc… (decoy goals). The team will select and go after the meat of what you really wanted and will get rid of the rest - you get what you want.

Finally, I and my concepts had to remain fluid and malleable. To manage the egos, the project and to find the best solutions, I didn't push against walls. What walls I couldn't talk myself around, I circumvented. To throw a cliché at it - you can't lose the forest through the trees, (and inversely) don’t ignore the trees as you run through the forest. You have to be flexible, bendable, and fluid - look for the long term, and you can get what you want.

He asked me point blank - "Are you good at that?".

Well, Grendel, "I got what I wanted out of my team and more."

He looked at me; "Apparently I don't have tact, it just doesn't stick."

This illustrated an otherwise obvious fact...you can't teach Ogre tact.

The Problem is…

…I am a scientist, I’m trained to be hyper analytical, I’m trained to write a certain way, to select words for maximum impact, and to be precise & concise. 

… the mass public has been trained by the media to ignore the conventions of the English language, to discount poor spelling and grammatical errors, and to accept typographical missteps. 

…news outlets know that to be heard and to be read, they must write and cover stories that grab attention, often at the sake of poor reporting, promoting poor behavior, highlighting the worst in humanity or covering case studies in which the first gut reaction is “ARE YOU [expletive] KIDDING ME?”

…the public doesn’t believe it unless a well-funded laboratory runs experiments, analyzes data, and then publishes a report. If it doesn’t exist in science it cannot be true. This phenomenon is the polar opposite of religious fervor – it is scientific fanaticism. 

…both political parties love to latch on to science, politicize it and therefore fleece it of any real meaning or humanitarian gain possible.

…real science is rarely sexy. Thus why many scientists are turned off to science fiction, we see the inaccuracy of details and it often destroys the story. Michael Crichton has an essay on this and the above topic on his official site.

Here are some of my recent inspirations:

(NOTE: I have no problem with the results of the following; merely that someone funded a study to investigate concepts that otherwise are ‘no-brainers’ to the point that publishing data on them is simply dizzying, verging on idiotic.)

Smoking After Diagnosis Increases Cancer Deaths – So what you mean to tell me is that if I am a smoker, and I am diagnosed with lung cancer, I should stop smoking? Well, ‘its my life, I do what I want.’  

How walking to work could reduce your risk of diabetes (up to 40%) – Wait a minute. You mean that if I get out and walk, that is exercise as a mode of transportation, I will be healthier? Yes, someone paid a group of researchers to statistically analyze the health gap (diabetes and hypertension) between walkers and drivers. What they fail to publish is that walkers are at a greater chance of becoming a pedestrian struck by a moving vehicle than when driving. 

Here is a story where someone was paid to debunk 4 dumb experiments. Though I like the intent of this article, it falls far short of hitting its potential. The author points out the fallacies behind these investigations, but doesn’t do it in “plain English.”

THE SOLUTION: I have no clue…Education? Reinforcing higher standards for which to hold the public and the media? Using our brains? A little common sense?