Overwhelmed

I'm so busy and pissed-off that I don't really know where to even begin writing. This job is really beginning to make me crazy; between RuthAnne and her giant attitude problem, the huge amount of work for one person, and the hypocrisy of the management, I'm about to do what everyone else here does sooner or later: quit, job or no job.



I got my evaluation yesterday, and that was really the last straw.



"A continuing issue...is her tendency to miss deadlines, exacerbated by her lack of communication regarding progress towards task completion."



So let me get this straight. I miss deadlines because I don't communicate--but how am I supposed to communicate with Amy when she's only here 2.5 days out of the week?



"...when under stress, she tends to respond curtly, in a way that is perceived as unhelpful by others."



So I'm being told to control my temper. I will accept that criticism--however, it's ironic to be told to control my temper in a document signed by Beverly, who can't even control her OWN temper. And what's even more entertaining still: of the entire 30-person staff, I can think of at least seven or eight who have SPECIFICALLY complimented me on my "helpful" attitude--and only three at the most who have ever said anything negative about my responses. But those three are Noreen, RuthAnne, and Joanie--and of THOSE three, I would absolutely put hard cash on the fact that it was RuthAnne who's been the squeaky wheel here. Noreen and I have managed a certain detente, and Joanie's pretty much marginalized anyway because RuthAnne doesn't like her. So basically, this criticism comes largely from my interaction with RuthAnne--and what's MOST hilarious is, SHE comes at ME with a bad attitude!!! She repeatedly implies that her mistakes (and everyone else's mistakes too!) are the fault of some omission on MY part; if I hear "it's a TRAINING issue" once more, I'm going to react very badly. Just because something is a training issue, that does NOT excuse her from correcting it!



I copied every single thing I did today onto my iCal, then printed out the page and set it on Amy's desk. There was no lunch; there was no break; there was nothing but a solid block of task after task, overlapping in many cases because I did two things at once, with a huge set of things at the end that I hadn't even touched. This is not an atypical day, and I'm amazed by the fact that it seems to surprise them that I don't have "task persistence" when I'm interrupted fifteen times a day and distracted whenever I attempt to work on any project requiring concentration. It just shows that for all their "empathy" for the stresses of my position, not one of them has the full picture of exactly what it is I do from day to day.



This has been one of those weeks that makes it exceedingly clear to me that I have to make some serious changes in my life. I think I've figured out the whole thing with LJ--I suspect he feels threatened by the fact that I don't -need- him, and upset by his own recent dire financial straits. I don't see anything wrong with the way he and I have been doing things, but I can see how a traditionally-cast male would find it distressing to be in the position he's in. He's broke while I have money; he has no job while I get up and go to work every day; his usual way of making money is crumbling because of strife and drama on the block. I think he's been thinking that he's somehow diminished because I'm the breadwinner--which in my view is TOTALLY not the case! but I think that's part of the reason he's been so quiet lately. That's changed over the past few days, though--Monday he was practically talking a blue streak, for him, and then tonight when he came home he actually THANKED me for picking up dinner! (Shortly thereafter, the sky opened up and a voice from above said "holy crap! THAT's a first...") Not only that, but the kitchen was clean when I came home AND the trash was emptied. I was quite impressed, amazed, and charmed.



Other than LJ, though, big chunks of my life have simply GOT to go. I've got to find something more to do with my life. I have three ideas, which just tells me that I'm interested in wayyyy too many things: home inspector, bakery/coffeeshop owner-operator, and FileMaker developer. (Now, I know those people who create "find your passion in life" manuals say you should make a list of the things you like to do and then combine those things into one job--but I defy anyone to come up with a home-inspecting pastry-making database-development job!!!) I think I'd be a very good home inspector, at least once I took the courses--especially now that I have a personal experience of what inspectors can miss, and how NOT to do the job, and how important it is to do it well. But the roof thing would probably kick my ass--I'm scared of heights. (I suppose for enough money, I could get over it.) I KNOW I'd be a good bakery owner, after some business training; but that's one of those things where the minute I think it, the immediately-following thought is "75% of all small businesses fail....". And I LOVE database development, and it's something I know I could be good at...but there's a large learning curve, and I'm not financially or emotionally equipped to be a consultant. Whereas home inspection is an empirical thing, database design is not--there are no right answers, only things that work better or worse--and I'm the sort of person who becomes emotionally invested in my work, particularly when it's a creative situation. I don't think I would do too well in situations where clients didn't like what I did, or when they made some tiny little arbitrary distinctions ("You called this field 'client name'. It should be 'customer name'...." And the next sound would be the sound of a consultant tearing the head off of their client.)



All I know is, I can't stay at this job for the rest of my life. It's the sort of job where, if the environment was tolerable, I COULD have stayed there; but the corporate culture is so dysfunctional--and I hate that word, but it's truly the best descriptor I can provide. What other word is there to describe a situation where there are two managers, and the people under one manager stay put for years and only leave if their spouses get a job out of state or if they have a baby, but the people under the other manager quit regularly, even if they don't even HAVE another job lined up--and in THIS economy??? I've been there four years next month. Since RuthAnne took over as a manager, about maybe two and a half years ago, I can--without too much thought--count at least fourteen people who have quit from positions she supervised. One had a baby and one's wife took an out of state job. At least four of those fourteen quit without having another job already--probably more. In that same time, Amy's side of the fence has lost maybe five or six people, and that's counting interns (in the one program that uses them.) And it's not as though the positions RuthAnne manages are naturally less-stable than Amy's; if anything, I can say that Amy's programs are staffed for the most part by more mature/older people. But that's the only real difference... And yet, even with this blatant and obvious difference, no one is doing anything about RuthAnne! I understand loyalty--but who does it serve to be loyal to someone whose management style aggravates people to the point that they quit? How does that serve the organization?



I can hope that something might change--Stella seemed to imply, after her lunch with Beverly, that something was happening that was going to cause stress at a management level and that I'd better tread light with Amy tomorrow, and since both Samantha and Kate have summarily quit within the past three weeks (and there was another position filled and emptied during the five-day period I was on vacation and getting my teeth pulled!) I can only imagine that Penny and Ella, Beverly's bosses, are going to say something....at least, I HOPE they bring it up!!! But if past actions are any evidence, I don't think it's going to happen--or if it does, I don't think it's going to change anything if they do bring it up.



I'm not perfect, but I'm good at what I do. And I'm much better at my job than that evaluation implies...which I'm going to try prove to them by keeping track of -exactly- what it is I do. I just don't think they're going to listen, and at that point I'm going to need to get out of that place. I'm not going to drive myself crazy for the rest of my life just because I'm scared that they're right about me--because I know they're not. I make mistakes, I'll admit--but most of the things they criticize me about are caused by the culture they allow and propagate. I think one of my strongest positive traits is that I -am- willing to accept responsibility when I'm wrong, and willing to work to correct my weaknesses...but I will be damned if I knuckle under and take the blame for deficiencies that are caused by things outside my control. You want me to react better in times of stress? Okay--then make it possible for me to do my job in such a way that "times of stress" is not "eight hours a day, five days a week, for ten months out of the year". You want me to be more organized and persistent in long-term tasks? Fine--then give me at least an hour a day where -I- am in control of my time, where I am allowed to concentrate without interruptions. And for god's sake, if I work a 40-hour week, DO NOT take up five hours of that week with meetings--and if you DO, then do not force me to use an additional five hours typing up the notes from those meetings! I am a tech-support person--not a stenographer!! You want me to communicate with my supervisor? Then either give me a supervisor who is actually on the premises for more than 20 of my 40-hour week, or tell the 20-hour-a-week supervisor that she MUST check her e-mail when she's not in the office. I do not have time to play phone tag to the degree required by the current situation. And you want me to treat people with more respect? Then speak to that minority of people who don't approve of the way I treat them, and explain to them that their own actions--repeatedly implying that I am not knowledgeable or capable of doing my job; questioning my professional judgement with no valid reason; implying that they know more than they do, or more than I do, about things that I am trained to do and do every day, and they do not--that these actions are the cause of my reactions. I don't understand why, when it's very clear that these stressful interactions are cause-and-effect relationships, that it's automatically assumed that _I_ am the cause!! I get a lot of praise and validation from the lower-rung members of the organization; the middle-level members are mostly either happy with my work or neutral; and basically there's only one person with whom I still have consistently bad interactions--but somehow that's MY fault??



I'm exhausted by the thought of going in there tomorrow--particularly since this is one of Amy's two-and-a-half days in the office, which means....that's right, MEETINGS! I've just stopped doing work at home, because the stress of my job is currently such that I don't feel comfortable doing anything at home other than relaxing and enjoying the fruits of my labors--but the end result is, more work at work!



Only two more days til payday and a long weekend; then only four days and a Saturday project before my vacation...and even with those few little days, that short little bit of time, I question whether or not I'm gonna make it without snapping someone's head off.