Do you agree?

Nope · 10 Sep 2023

If someone doesn’t like confrontation then they’re not fit to be a manager.

EDIT: should say “If someone actively AVOIDS confrontation even if it’s a requirement of their job because they don’t like confrontation, then they’re not fit to be a manager.”

Would you agree?

timbo46 · 10 Sep 2023

Nope · 10 Sep 2023

timbo46 said:
No.

Not even if it means not sorting out problems that require a manager to sort out because it will make you unpopular to do so?

IT Minion · 10 Sep 2023

Not liking something is very different to not doing something.

Nope · 10 Sep 2023

IT Minion said:
Not liking something is very different to not doing something.

Except when they deliberately shirk their responsibilities because they don’t like confrontation!

conny · 10 Sep 2023

A manager should be someone who can de-fuse situations before the parties become aggressive towards each other. He needs to be a Master of tact and diplomacy BEFORE things get out of hand/control. He should be the final person to deal with the situation, but he should be kept informed at all stages of development. If he acts correctly, his delegates will defuse/resolve the issue, so he doesn't have to get involved. If it gets to the stage that he does have to get involved, then he should have the most amenable resolution to all parties.
Confrontation should never be allowed to develop. (Sadly, it all too often is allowed to develop because no-one was able to deal with the initial reason).

Nope · 10 Sep 2023

conny said:
A manager should be someone who can de-fuse situations before the parties become aggressive towards each other. He needs to be a Master of tact and diplomacy BEFORE things get out of hand/control. He should be the final person to deal with the situation, but he should be kept informed at all stages of development. If he acts correctly, his delegates will defuse/resolve the issue, so he doesn't have to get involved. If it gets to the stage that he does have to get involved, then he should have the most amenable resolution to all parties.
Confrontation should never be allowed to develop. (Sadly, it all too often is allowed to develop because no-one was able to deal with the initial reason).

I don’t disagree.

Brigadier · 10 Sep 2023

conny said:
A manager should be someone who can de-fuse situations before the parties become aggressive towards each other. He needs to be a Master of tact and diplomacy BEFORE things get out of hand/control. He should be the final person to deal with the situation, but he should be kept informed at all stages of development. If he acts correctly, his delegates will defuse/resolve the issue, so he doesn't have to get involved. If it gets to the stage that he does have to get involved, then he should have the most amenable resolution to all parties.
Confrontation should never be allowed to develop. (Sadly, it all too often is allowed to develop because no-one was able to deal with the initial reason).

Or "she".

Or "they"

nwgs · 10 Sep 2023

Brigadier said:
Or "she".

Or "they"

Roy will be posting soon…

Brigadier · 10 Sep 2023

nwgs said:
Roy will be posting soon…

"Coming to a thread near you....."

conny · 10 Sep 2023

nwgs said:
Roy will be posting soon…

Well if he does, let him be aware that I don't do this gender/non-gender, non-pronoun, known as a he/she/binary BS.
And anyone who doesn't like me for it can go and whistle Yankk-doodle-dandy all day long as far as I'm concerned.

At my age I'm not conforming to some namby-pamby nanny state, that places more rights on someone who has not been out of nappies long enough to have experienced anything of life. It's us old 'uns who have been through the mill and kept this country going through strikes, wars, civil unrest in our towns/cities, unemployment and generally being shafted with various taxes and penalties. We have never declared we are 'offended/hurt feelings et al, and never claimed compensation because someone called us names.

Nope · 10 Sep 2023

conny said:
Well if he does, let him be aware that I don't do this gender/non-gender, non-pronoun, known as a he/she/binary BS.
And anyone who doesn't like me for it can go and whistle Yankk-doodle-dandy all day long as far as I'm concerned.

At my age I'm not conforming to some namby-pamby nanny state, that places more rights on someone who has not been out of nappies long enough to have experienced anything of life. It's us old 'uns who have been through the mill and kept this country going through strikes, wars, civil unrest in our towns/cities, unemployment and generally being shafted with various taxes and penalties. We have never declared we are 'offended/hurt feelings et al, and never claimed compensation because someone called us names.

I once knew someone who got offended by everything. Believe it or not he got offended because I wasn’t offended by something he found offensive. I don’t understand that logic. My philosophy on life is that if you go through life looking for something to be offended about you will never be disappointed.

fillyboy · 10 Sep 2023

SamH82 said:
Believe it or not he got offended because I wasn’t offended by something he found offensive. I don’t understand that logic.

Yes, but you were offended by him being offended about you not being offended.

nwgs · 10 Sep 2023

SamH82 said:
I once knew someone who got offended by everything. Believe it or not he got offended because I wasn’t offended by something he found offensive. I don’t understand that logic. My philosophy on life is that if you go through life looking for something to be offended about you will never be disappointed.

Roy is that you ?

Nope · 11 Sep 2023

fillyboy said:
Yes, but you were offended by him being offended about you not being offended.

I wouldn’t say I was offended, more confused and slightly irritated.

Do you agree?

Similar threads