The re-education so far...
Oct. 22nd, 2012 06:34 pmA month or so in and I'm playing the game like a pro. Nothing I'm being asked to do is too much trouble, to the point where my manager has commented on how 'helpful and positive' I'm being about everything, which can only be to my benefit.
However, I still wish she'd stop doing stupid things like this - we have complicated rules about disclosure and confidentiality, so what goes in reports is discussed on a regular basis. One type of reports, if we haven't had particular permission to share information, there's a limit to who can know about it, which can mean we have pre-meetings with other agencies and tell them things that we don't then discuss in meetings as a whole.
Anyway, I supervised someone a few months back and agreed that, as a particular piece of information hadn't been properly agreed for general disclosure, we wouldn't mention it in the report but would have a pre-meeting discussion instead. Which unfortunately then didn't happen, hence it's come back under scrutiny - I'm certain it was just an oversight, not a deliberate attempt to keep this information under wraps for whatever reason. I was asked to look at it all again and then had this discussion with my boss:
Boss: "You said in your supervision notes that [piece of information] shouldn't be mentioned. 'Mentioned' is a passive word. You should have said 'stated', because it gives the impression you don't think [piece of information] is as important as it actually is."
Me: "Well, that's one interpretation."
Boss: "It's not an interpretation."
Because apparently she knows better than I do what I meant when I wrote that back in July and clearly the fact that I said something shouldn't be 'mentioned' rather than 'included' (or, gods help me 'stated') in the report is clearly a value judgement on the piece of information instead of just a comment on the need not to breach confidentiality by not saying something that could be shared with everyone.
Yep, more evidence (if I needed it) that working for my boss is bad for my mental health.
However, I still wish she'd stop doing stupid things like this - we have complicated rules about disclosure and confidentiality, so what goes in reports is discussed on a regular basis. One type of reports, if we haven't had particular permission to share information, there's a limit to who can know about it, which can mean we have pre-meetings with other agencies and tell them things that we don't then discuss in meetings as a whole.
Anyway, I supervised someone a few months back and agreed that, as a particular piece of information hadn't been properly agreed for general disclosure, we wouldn't mention it in the report but would have a pre-meeting discussion instead. Which unfortunately then didn't happen, hence it's come back under scrutiny - I'm certain it was just an oversight, not a deliberate attempt to keep this information under wraps for whatever reason. I was asked to look at it all again and then had this discussion with my boss:
Boss: "You said in your supervision notes that [piece of information] shouldn't be mentioned. 'Mentioned' is a passive word. You should have said 'stated', because it gives the impression you don't think [piece of information] is as important as it actually is."
Me: "Well, that's one interpretation."
Boss: "It's not an interpretation."
Because apparently she knows better than I do what I meant when I wrote that back in July and clearly the fact that I said something shouldn't be 'mentioned' rather than 'included' (or, gods help me 'stated') in the report is clearly a value judgement on the piece of information instead of just a comment on the need not to breach confidentiality by not saying something that could be shared with everyone.
Yep, more evidence (if I needed it) that working for my boss is bad for my mental health.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}