(March 1, 2016 at 3:22 pm)Cato Wrote: Does the behavior reveal itself in the branch's performance? If so, brow beat them and make comparisons to other branch's plainly visible. To whatever extent you have the influence, there should be consequences for substandard performance. It's the only way to completely sidestep the politics of it all.
If they perform despite the shenanigans, then you're left dealing with a purely political issue. I haven't read the first of RD's links, but have read Greene's '48 Laws of Power' and highly recommend it. Prior to reading it, I was a bit naive regarding office politics and dealing with the types of personalities you describe. Greene's book, if nothing more, at least allowed me to re-frame what was going on around me. Since, I have been able to identify the gambits and better manage them for what they are rather than continue to be frustrated by someone's cuntish behavior.
Yes, the branch performs poorly. Both myself and many others are constantly reminding the library director of this. The director assures us that it will be dealt with, but it never is. I've gone so far as to tell the director that not one of her promises of resolving the issue has ever resulted in change. She just said "It will this time, because this is unacceptable." Then, she has a meeting with the supervisor and threatens to fire her, or she goes and manages the branch herself for a while to "get them back on track" but things fall apart again as soon as she leaves. If the director sees one vague sign of improvement, she acts like everything is fixed. Then, when we go back to her with evidence that nothing has changed, she gets defensive as if we're the ones with the problems for complaining and being petty. I don't think the director necessarily favors this woman, but she just seems like she has no idea what to do with her, so she just tries to convince everyone else that we're overreacting.
