Minefield | Hacker News Reader

Minefield

thedailywtf.com

29 pointsrpledge20 comments

This is a story about a sociopathic middle manager guarding his territory from someone qualified to take his job, but unfortunate enough to be hired below him.

When I read it, the first and only comment under this at DailyWTF was sympathetic towards Peter. I hope that commenter had just skimmed it and missed the point.

The blue comments at the bottom of the page are "Featured Comments" chosen by a moderator for being really interesting. The full comments list is http://thedailywtf.com/Comments/Minefield.aspx

Thank you for pointing that out. I went back and re-read the blue comment and there is more there than meets the eye.

Although Peter is painted to be a sociopath in the article, not every whiz-kid is pushed out because of one.

from the highlighted comment: After that experience I never hired a Bobbie again. I would conveniently overlook them. I still believe that I am doing them a favor.

So the commentator is sparing the 'wiz kids' from the shitty organization because he knows their enthusiasm and talent will be wasted.

I guess this is fair turn about. I've read plenty of stories/articles from managers and founders about how difficult employees are. Living most of my professional life in the role of manager has taught me a lot, but for my part, I'll never forget what is like to sit on the other side of the desk. I'm an advocate for the people who work for me. The sad thing is, this will probably hold me back. As happy as the ending of the story is, real life rarely lives up to the expectations of story plots.

Am I missing the point? Isn't Peter just an asshole?

In situations like these, how is it that the rest of management doesn't see how toxic "Peter" is? Can everyone really be that blind?

Two factors:

1) The overwhelming majority of information they see is information provided by Peter.

2) They don't really care that much as long as it doesn't screw up their universe.

True, but in this case they'd have to be totally brain dead not to realize something major was up after Peter got caught in a serious lie, one he'd made a really big deal about (the whole point of the meeting, after all).

Unless he had amazing protection from someone senior and powerful enough, he would be dead meat.

> Unless he had amazing protection from someone senior and powerful enough, he would be dead meat.

You wish. It would be awesome if incompetence was that easy to cull.

In this special case, where he called a meeting on the basis of a lie about an important thing and was caught out on it?

I agree, it would be awesome, but incompetence plus industriousness at this at this level is seldom found. He wouldn't have been caught out if he hadn't moved to actively trying to get rid of Bobbie.

This is what anybody should do:

Complain only once with your boss.

If your boss don't fix the issue, document everything and complain with his/her boss.

Continue until you get to the CTO/CEO.

This was actually explained to me by my current boss, he is that awesome.

Except that path, in the organization outlined above, will lead directly to you getting fired.

Your boss spends more time with his boss than you do, and will monopolize the information flow. If you make your boss feel threatened? You're done.

Bad review with comments about workplace manner and ability to get along with teammates - BS "personal improvement plan" with vague metrics - wait 30 days - fire. It's that easy if someone's threatening to expose you for the fraud you are. Kids to feed and all that.

At the very beginning, yes.

But I think not, after the awesome code that Bobbie provided at the end.

If that doesn't work, it's a lot better to quit, after all.

I can't quite put my finger on why The Daily WTF's writing style reminds me so much of Reader's Digest. Thoughts?

It reads quickly and is easily likeable in a third person narrative is my best guess.

Also, much like Reader's Digest, the user-submitted anecdotes are typically re-written by the same person to give them all the same, easy-to-digest flow.

I think you hit it on the head. Also, they are simple morality tales with names changed to protect the innocent.

This is not a true story is it?

Peter was doing her a favor the entire time. It's like an M. Night Shyamalan movie with the paradigm shift at the end. She was over-qualified, so he didn't want her to be stuck at a go no-where company. While it does say "She could do Peter's job in a snap." this doesn't mean that he is afraid she will, but that she should be working somewhere more challenging.

He wants to get rid of her to save her.

This is what I thought for a minute after reading the featured comment and justifying his actions. But then I re-read it and realized that Peter is just an asshole and is 90% of the reason Corporate America is a piece of shit that deserves to burn in hell.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com