| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Media Issues > Topic: why does everyone hate the new person? |
Topic: why does everyone hate the new person?
| Author | Message |
| mimi77 | Posted – 4/26/2008 2:12:10 PM | show profile i have been in publishing for nearly 7 years and i am at my third magazine. i started my senior level position 9 months ago and i have found that a lot of my co-workers are acting really childish and petty and refuse to be nice to me. i have been nothing but nice and professional, but i am finding that my magazine is just full of petty clicks that think they are all better than the next and i just don't have a place. i know it takes awhile to stop being the new person, but how long does it take? what gives? |
| Marie | Posted – 4/26/2008 4:15:30 PM | show profile Fear and jealousy--work is just high school all over again. |
| reporterwriter | Posted – 4/26/2008 4:38:35 PM | show profile That's pretty much it. Work for yourself, don't worry about them. |
| RockinRonD | Posted – 4/26/2008 6:12:16 PM | show profile | email poster You just outlined the case for pursuing a freelance life. At many magazines, especially places like Hearst and CN, the new person never really stops being the new person, at least in the eyes of most. It really is high school all over again. Grown up writers and journalists work for themselves, either on staff or, even better, as freelancers. Saves a fortune in therapy bills and anti-depressant meds. |
| WordyBird | Posted – 4/27/2008 2:43:24 AM | show profile EXACTLY why I quit my last job. After 10 years with a fantastic team--one that welcomed new people in the rare instances that we got them, too--the next place was embarrassing. I'm talking people stealing highlighters off my desk, deliberately not responding to e-mails, and all manner of passive-aggressiveness. A lot of it was pretty ridiculous, considering the worst of the bunch wouldn't respond to e-mails about HER project, and if it didn't get done, it was going to be HER butt in a sling, not mine. I got it done before I left, and the you-know-what couldn't so much as muster a thank you. Just really petty, childish, high school stuff that has no place in an office. But, hey, she's in advertising sales. Her grave is nearly dug. Karma slaps. |
| WordyBird | Posted – 4/27/2008 2:45:28 AM | show profile RockinRonD said: " Grown up writers and journalists work for themselves, either on staff or, even better, as freelancers." And that's exactly what I did. When I thought, "I'd rather wait tables than work with these people," I knew it was time to be in business for myself. |
| mkelly | Posted – 4/27/2008 9:50:38 AM | show profile Are you at a good magazine? Or are the cliques people who aren't very good at their jobs? I find most unwelcoming people, or groups that form cliques, are really just people trying to mask their insecurities by allying themselves with those of comparable mediocrity. There is, certainly, an argument that freelancing spares you from this nonsense. But it's well-known in the corporate world that the best companies, and the best employees, often seek out contentious environments where people challenge each other's ideas and work-- and then, when the best solution is found, all fall into line to execute that decision. Media types sometimes forget that while our craft is based in creativity, it's still a business like any other. Why do some people behave stupidly? Because they're not great employees-- and that's true of any industry. |
| WordyBird | Posted – 4/27/2008 12:41:40 PM | show profile "But it's well-known in the corporate world that the best companies, and the best employees, often seek out contentious environments where people challenge each other's ideas and work-- and then, when the best solution is found, all fall into line to execute that decision." I've never heard of that. I don't know anyone who deliberately seeks out contentious environments, and I know a LOT of good writers, editors, graphic designers, and production people. It's one thing to have brainstorming sessions where people toss out ideas and discuss the merits of those ideas--in a constructive and diplomatic way, even if and when they speak frankly--but "contentious" has no business in a productive workplace as far as I'm concerned. What you've described sounds like a shark tank, and I don't know very many talented people who would choose to work in an atmosphere where people are inclined to disagree about everything, which is what "contentious" implies. Contentious environments invariably indicate that there's a lot of micromanagement and a lot of mistrust. Again, don't get me wrong. There's a place for constructive criticism. But constantly being questioned or disagreed with--constant contention--eventually makes people feel like they are not trusted to do their jobs correctly, and that can and will lead to stress, aggravation, and high turnover. Somehow, I doubt those qualities are hallmarks of "best companies" or "best employees." |
| InsomniacNOT | Posted – 4/27/2008 4:02:12 PM | show profile I think that's a very negative interpretation of contentious, Wordybird. It doesn't mean hostile and aggressive but rather argumentative. NOw, while certain types of argumentative probably aren't very effective in the work place, MKelly is right in that good executives do indeed seek out dissenting opinions. They don't want to be surrounded by yes-men and -women, and open debate is considered good and healthy. |
| WordyBird | Posted – 4/28/2008 1:17:05 AM | show profile From Merriam-Webster's: 1 : likely to cause contention (a contentious argument) 2 : exhibiting an often perverse and wearisome tendency to quarrels and disputes (a man of a most contentious nature) So, I'd say contentious is a negative word. Or are you going to be contentious about it? :-) Again, I acknowledge *constructive* and *useful* discussion--no one is calling for "yes" people--but I'll maintain that very few people of talent will stay in a contentious environment for very long. It's just not productive, and it is indeed wearisome. If you're good at what you do, you don't have to put up with that nonsense. |
| mkelly | Posted – 4/28/2008 11:49:02 AM | show profile I suppose if you want to get hung up reading the dictionary, that's your choice. But I'd recommend that you read 'Good to Great' by Jim Collins, one of the most popular business books currently in print. He hammers home the theme that good companies (and good people) seek out challenging environments and surround themselves with others who challenge them. Anyone who hasn't seen this dynamic in the working world isn't looking very closely. And if you're working at a company where this isn't encouraged, look for another job. |
| WordyBird | Posted – 4/28/2008 5:54:31 PM | show profile Oy. As I've said more than once now, there is a difference between "challenging" and "contention." But this is *exactly* the kind of contention that no one with any talent is going to tolerate for any length of time. I've got 20 years in the business. I think I know a good working environment when I see one. One that is bogged down in pedantic nonsense like this would not qualify. |
| WordyBird | Posted – 4/28/2008 5:56:08 PM | show profile By the way, I'll add that yes, as a writer and editor, I take word choice very seriously, and it appears that you have made a poor word choice. Don't shoot the messenger. Contentious enough for ya? |
| Mag Girl | Posted – 4/28/2008 6:02:46 PM | show profile There's a difference between being disagreeable and simply disagreeing. |
| Homer | Posted – 4/28/2008 9:56:06 PM | show profile I think everyone's saying the same thing, just slightly differently. In other words, everyone agrees that a "contentious," in this case "hostile", environment is unproductive, but a challenging environment keeps us sharp. 'Nuff said. Now where's that OP to weigh in on all this brilliant insight? |
| mkelly | Posted – 4/29/2008 9:47:09 AM | show profile Copy editors quibble over word choice. Executive editors worry about what the point is. |
| bjoconnorfla | Posted – 4/29/2008 10:33:01 AM | show profile Wordy Bird -- go fly into a plate glass window if you're coming here to lecture people on word choice. dodo. Anyone who has their beak out of the Chicago Manual for a minute and into the real world knows that, yes, there is a school of management that subscribes to the theory of "creative friction." These are weak managers (esp. on creative concepts and ideas) who usually are very insecure. Their rationale is that they should "hire the best talent and let them fight it out so that the best ideas emerge." the reality is that they don't have a clue as to the direction of their publications or how to do their jobs, so they hire a bunch of dissonate talents in a desperate hope that somebody will produce something good, and thereby cover the manager's ass. It's a type of corporate "Survivor" game where, despite the toll on morale, productivity and general decency, they seek to encourage a lot of workplace conflict in a Darwinian belief that only the best ideas and performers will come out. You often hear these managers say, "Cream rises to the top," but, of course, so does scum. This is why so many infantile back-stabbing drama queens (of both genders) somehow manage to keep their jobs. Because, if someone produces good work product in their own name, what does it matter how much of others' good work s/he's destroyed along the way? |
| WordyBird | Posted – 4/29/2008 10:43:21 AM | show profile "These are weak managers (esp. on creative concepts and ideas) who usually are very insecure. Their rationale is that they should "hire the best talent and let them fight it out so that the best ideas emerge." the reality is that they don't have a clue as to the direction of their publications or how to do their jobs, so they hire a bunch of dissonate talents in a desperate hope that somebody will produce something good, and thereby cover the manager's ass. It's a type of corporate "Survivor" game where, despite the toll on morale, productivity and general decency, they seek to encourage a lot of workplace conflict in a Darwinian belief that only the best ideas and performers will come out. You often hear these managers say, "Cream rises to the top," but, of course, so does scum. This is why so many infantile back-stabbing drama queens (of both genders) somehow manage to keep their jobs. Because, if someone produces good work product in their own name, what does it matter how much of others' good work s/he's destroyed along the way?" So, basically, you agree with me. Nice to see another birdbrain on here. Watch out for those propellers, clucky. |
| WordyBird | Posted – 4/29/2008 10:50:24 AM | show profile From the OP: "i have found that a lot of my co-workers are acting really childish and petty..." I see MKelly has proven the OP's point. |
| sophiesMOM | Posted – 4/29/2008 1:43:14 PM | show profile oh boy do i know what you're talking about! at my last full time job, i came in at sr. ed. level, which pissed off one female co-worker in particular, because she has *just* been made sr. ed after months of campaigning to get herself promoted. she resented me from the get-go, and even went so far as to inquire from one of the higher ups about my salary....she let this fact slip at a company cocktail party. why does it always seem to be women who behave this way? |
| InsomniacNOT | Posted – 4/30/2008 3:20:01 PM | show profile I have seen many petty and jealous men over the course of my career. Perhaps you only see the women because you are pre-programmed to believe that women are petty and jealous. |
