"I simply don't feel comfortable stating this in any other venue at this time for reasons I can't reveal. It's not like I haven't tried."
That was from a comment today by Anonymous@12:27 p.m., a reader who says they're a USA Today editor. Although the subject is USAT, the writer's frustration is shared by many employees across Gannett. Indeed, in a sign of that frustration, the reader wrote their comment on Gannett Blog, despite USA Today Publisher Craig Moon's reported admonition at Wednesday's staff meeting that employees instead take concerns to supervisors. The comment (originally on this post) is quite long, but well worth reading:
'A lot of smoke'I concur that many USA TODAY editors are lacking in various ways as managers and visionaries. Too many are into simple labels and simple solutions. While some folks might be afraid of change, I am not one of them. And I am an editor! I am a manager who, perhaps surprisingly to some, tends to agree with a lot of what is said here.
Where I see smoke, I tend to think there is fire. And I see a lot of smoke on this blog. Granted, there are also some purely personal grudges and malicious comments here. I think most who read this blog are educated enough to understand the difference. I also think most are wise enough to respect varying opinions, though some seem overly defensive for whatever reason.
I have been accused of being an obstructionist, and it hurts because my bosses simply do not know my heart let alone my mind. To label someone unjustly, I've come to realize, is to lose that person in spirit, loyalty and productivity. Trust becomes fractured. Victims of stereotyping shut down. I try my best not to do that to the people who I supervise, although there are instances when it is clear that someone is exactly what they project. Sometimes they are incompetent, limited in their work ethics or skills. Sometimes they are complainers with no honorable motives. Some do abuse the system.
'Critical mistake' bosses make
I try to judge each person's actions and comments on their own merit and don't look to cubbyhole anyone based on limited interaction with them or vague perceptions told to me by others. However, I know that some of my fellow editors are incapable or unwilling to look beneath the surface of what staffers or other editors are trying to tell them.
These editors are under pressure to do certain things, meet difficult demands from the highest levels. The critical mistake they make is in abandoning comments and input made by folks on the front line. Those folks on the front line are the ones who have to deal with the consequences of decisions made at the top. They have a large stake in how things go, and a wealth of experience to provide insights that might prevent some major errors and damage that can't be reversed.
Day in and day out the staffers and editors who are out front have to overcome the poor planning that was done by their bosses. I am a boss; I see it. It's maddening and exhausting to continually be led down the wrong road, knowing as you go down it that you're simply following orders to march off a cliff. But good soldiers do just that. And to do anything else is to be thought of as a renegade by some. That's unfortunate for some individuals, and it's ultimately bad for business.
The burnout level of lower and mid-managers in particular has always been high in all companies for reasons we all know. But when mid-managers and their staffs have little or no say in their futures or day-to-day tasks, it can be unbearable just coming to work. They are put into losing situations before the day even begins by short-sighted planning from the top, by a gross lack of resources and by longtime issues that have never been resolved.These issues are fixable, but the will has to be there. I don't always see that will in the USA TODAY newsroom. I see some lip service. I see some surrender and even denial. Once in awhile an honest attempt is made to fix something, but because this is a territorial newsroom, things aren't always easily resolved.
All this frustration can lead to confrontation. I have witnessed an increase in newsroom conflicts in the last year. It's a disturbing trend that I was just discussing with another editor and staffer on Wednesday. Much of it is subtle, but to someone in the middle of the storm each day, it is quite obvious. Editors making broad-based decisions need to understand that the pressure they are feeling from above is not a valid excuse to make bad decisions. Those decisions feed into the anxieties of staffers when not processed well. While some departments are functioning reasonably well, some aren't. Some are faced with far broader changes than others. Those changes must be handled correctly.
My main pointManaging editors, deputy managing editors and other top managers need to understand that just as it's counterproductive for someone to be afraid of change or argue groundlessly against it, it is at least equally destructive to change JUST for the sake of change, so that an ME or DME can show the top editor that they did something. That "something" has to really be thought out. Critical decisions can't just make superficial sense, but when examined more closely, have unlimited holes in it. That something often leads to major problems. I see this pattern repeated over and over. Some trial and error is understandable, but not every major change should be approached with the attitude of, "Well, if this doesn't work we'll try something else." We're not in a position anymore to experiment on a large scale. We have to be more reasonably sure things will work before they are enacted.
What works, what doesn't
A lot of things work well at USA Today. If they didn't, the paper would not have risen to No. 1. Many of those things that worked well for the paper could be adopted in the future. There are some proven principles and people that should not be abandoned just because they aren't trendy. There are certain relationships and alliances that should be maintain and nurtured. Some workflows are highly efficient and help us do the impossible every single day. Details about everything from seating arrangements and schedules to flow charts and titles need to be put under the microscope because neglecting just one of those details could bring down a pretty good and broader plan. The big picture is important, but so are the little "quality of life" issues that can make work much more rewarding, or can turn a job into an impossible situation for one person or an entire team.
Yes, despite USA TODAY's success, there are also many things that need to be fixed and changed dramatically. I am a huge proponent of change and of repairing things that don't work. But, thus far, I see a lot of things being tinkered with that do work, and a lot of other things being introduced that have been proven failures in the recent past. I feel like some managers are forcing a nut onto a bolt, even at the risk of stripping the both. They appear to just want to say, "look the nut is on the bolt," regardless of whether it's on there properly and without damaging either.There is a way to change but also preserve what is working and has always worked. There is a way to move forward but not abandon lessons learned from the past. If editors making key decisions can blend change/new ideas with respect for history, there will be greater efficiency, more buy-in and less concern about being wrongfully labelled.
Why I came to Gannett Blog
I truly hope this makes sense and that certain courses of action can be examined further as the industry evolves both at USA TODAY and other newsrooms. I somewhat regret having to express my ideas (I had to avoid specifics, sorry) here rather than to my supervisors directly, but I simply don't feel comfortable stating this in any other venue at this time for reasons I can't reveal. It's not like I haven't tried.
I know some of the ideas I have outlined don't relate to every department at USA TODAY, but I feel I have heard enough from around the building, and certainly have been adversely impacted by decisions from my team leaders to validate my opinions. I believe that most of my remarks here are a reflection of how the folks I supervise generally feel, though I don't claim every observation is universally seen.
I am also asking Jim to post this as a separate item on the blog so that it will be more visible and that something good can come from it. Regardless, I hope everyone will take this in the spirit it is given. I don't want to be confrontational or alarmist. But some things just need to be brought to light for the sake of USA TODAY and a number of people I respect and whose careers hang in the balance for various reasons.
Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write gannettblog[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the green sidebar, upper right.
[Images: recent screenshots from USAT's website]
I repeat my comment from this person's earlier post:
ReplyDelete12:27 -- that is simply a marvelous post. My hat is off to you for, perhaps, the most reasoned and thoughtful post I have read. Frankly, I stopped reading this blog a while ago because of the overwhelming amount of negativity and personal attacks. It simply had become depressing. A colleague encouraged me to take another look. I did and am heartened to have read your post 12:27. I sincerely hope it is read by by others, including the MEs, DMEs, executive editors, but most especially the Editor. He's a good man and I fear there is a lot he is not being told about what is truly happening in his newsroom
This wonderful post is what I term the "Universal Post." True under many Mastheads or call letters.
ReplyDeleteWhile in no way minimizing the the great workers on the press room floor or the TV station engineering control rooms; the news people on the front line encounter what is occurring at Gannett when covering stories every day. Perhaps this reinforces an emotional reaction.
They are spun everyday by every agency press spokesman or corporate flack when covering a story. I bet everyone secretly and sadly sees their own employer telling half truths or avoiding truth entirely. An employer so removed from the day-to-day operations of the paper or TV station newsroom; that reaction to so many stimuli has no credibility or chance of success.
We are often the conduit from angry government or corporate employees to the world.We use that anger release mechanism as fodder for stories everyday. Our conduit is this blog. Hence in this time of constriction there is a preponderance of negative comment. What do you expect?
As a sweatshop worker I am curious. How many mid-upper level editors-managers work at USAT?
I find this blog entry to be very difficult to understand. What the heck are the key points? I give the blogger an F in his/her writing ability and the ability to articulate a clear point. Painful reading. Might Edit it down.... aren't you an editor?
ReplyDeleteMight I suggest 12:27 find an editor because I have a really hard time finding the point buried in this torrent of verbiage. This editor says the reason for this post is where there's smoke, there's fire. Yes, unless it is someone behind the curtains blowing smoke. I have a gut feeling that might be this case, and I am paid for trusting a gut feeling until proven otherwise.
ReplyDeletePlease, more details. What works, what doesn't?
ReplyDelete4:48. You came here too, eh? I repeat and add... What an arrogant statement 4:48. But hey, you spelled everything correctly. Maybe you used a spell-checker. I don't come to this blog much anymore because when someone does try to express true feelings, there's always some insecure person who who bashes them. Then the main point is lost and it becomes an argument over the style guide, which then deteriorates into name calling. As for your "gut" feelings that you are so well paid for, I don't think anyone is impressed.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not this post could have been shorter is ignoring some profound points that the writer had the courage to say. And they said it in a far more civil tone than you.
I applaud the writer for talking about change and about editors needing to listen in order to have a more productive and nimble newsroom. We often forget these basic points in the rush of everyday life.
This person's post isn't about grammar or showing off writing skills. I follow the writer and disgree with your (4:48) brief attack on their attempt to provide a more indepth look at what might possibly be a root cause of many problems in the newsroom.
LOL. Edit it down? Spoken like a true USA Today editor, 4:14. If it can't be said in a 100 words, than don't say it, huh? Maybe add some snappy bulleted items? Not sure what you don't understand, but I agree with 3:15 and think this was a great effort by the author, whether they are an editor or not. An A-minus!
ReplyDeleteHey, I WORK there too and I'm not sure what he's talking about (or she).
ReplyDeleteBut seriously, the answer is not to look for a solution, or to wait for a solution. The answer is to BE the solution.
You know what's needed. Just do it. Everyone will follow.
The arrogance of some of these replies is astounding! No, I am not an editor, but I can sympathize with the man and I can clearly understand what he points out. And no - I don't have a crystal ball!Being lied to and tossed off as so much garbage, what does management expect from the employees. But I'll guess the employees are their entertainment when they rip each other apart under so much stress. As one man said: Give 'em blood and they (management) love you for it!!!
ReplyDeleteChange in the workplace can be healthy if done right by the RIGHT person. However, looking at some of the people creating these CHANGES have not even an inkling what they are talking about. Trust me, sitting in a meeting and talking about it like they're looking for the easter-egg is disturbing - bringing the change about and not having input from the crew involved is just plain dumb. But hey, looking at the upper echolon that at the most knows how to cut their computers on and off - why am I surprised?
But the truth is: they run out of ideas. But in order to justify their paychecks they try to fling even the most outrageous ideas out there that just simply don't work.
Instead of bashing the man I salute him for his honesty!
All: I've now made 12:27 pm's comment a separate post under the link, Why a USA Today editor shares ideas here. You can read it, here: http://tinyurl.com/6avbkx
ReplyDeleteIf Gallup turned up any of these sentiments, were they reflected in the reports given to Moon and other big cheeses? And who audits Gallup's work, to make sure it doesn't boost employee approval ratings to justify their contract. And, and: How much does/did USAT pay Gallup?
ReplyDeleteJim, are you satisified this editor guy/girl is real -- i.e. do you know him/her? Since the editor's credibility is under attack here, perhaps the editor will email you in Spain, confidentiality assured of course.
ReplyDelete@9:08 pm: Thank! This will sound like a cop-out, but: I never talk about sources. Security here is paramount. Please keep coming back.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read the post, parts of it sounded oddly familiar. The it hit me---sounds like an updated and expanded version of that "Dear Co-Worker" memo from 09/11/07.
ReplyDeleteWhy are people questioning if this was posted by a real editor? Is it because they don't like the way it written? Aren't there different types of editors who aren't necessarily wordsmiths? This could be the words of a design editor or a photo editor or a video editor. I have known some executive editors that weren't English or even journalism majors and would probably make lousy copy editors. I think it is a bad assumption to conclude this isn't an editor as a couple commentators have apparently charged. Actually, assumptions like that make me question their journalistic smarts. I also think there are gems spinkled throughout that post that should be paid attention to. It seems more constructive and honest than many posts. The message seems clear to me. Kudos to whomever took the time to write it. Thanks, friend.
ReplyDeleteThank you 9:35 for openeing the door to other perspectives. Although this blog tends to focus on the editorial aspects of this world we call Gannett, there are other departments that exist besides the newsroom, opps forgive me, information centers.
ReplyDeleteGraphics, classified sales, circ sales retail sales, layout, the list goes on and on.
One can't exist without the other, so the divionary thinking is part of the problem. NO one department is more important than the other.
It's when the decision makers are rolling out revamped versions of old material, and simply re-wrapping the same old products in new wrappers, that the shit get old. They under estimate the intelligence of the consumers they want to spend money with them. And when failure stikes, the peons are to blame, and not their short sighted flashy wrapping on the same old same old. Ad rvenue is the cited downfall. Then give the advertiser someting worth investing in besides the same failed products under a new name and a new wrapper.
I am running the risk of sticking my nose where it doesn't belong. But some of what I am reading here is of professional interest to me, and it's a quiet Friday night, so I am hoping you will entertain my general observations and ramblings. I am not trying to sell the company anything, nor do I claim to be an expert in these specific matters, although I do have some credentials in a related field.
ReplyDeleteMy studies have included topics such as "cultural and structural changes" and "effective communications" within various industries. I have studied diversity in the workplace, although that doesn't seem to be a major issue here. I assure you that I am not a USA Today editor or management plant, although I did briefly work on my college and hometown newspapers. Please excuse my typos or style errors. For the sake of full disclosure, I also have two friends who work at the newspaper who informed me about this blog. I haven't read much of it but did chance upon this entry today, and read the comments.
The post is intriguing to me, regardless of where it came from or how the writing is perceived by professionals. It's textbook in what it details. If accurate, it pinpoints several common ailments of many businesses, and particularly ones struggling or in transition. I tend to think the post is authentic and written by someone from the inside, maybe close inside, and that these problems really do exist to some extent. Both what I read here and have heard from my friends confirms there are issues for sure. How widespread the view might be is only known by the people who work there. Ask 20 people how they feel about where they work, and you tend to get 20 different answers. Yet there are common threads sometimes. It's useless to speculate what is in people's hearts from afar. I actually seek out folks like this writer because they are valuable in determining what is fundamentally not working in an institional environment. I have learned to some degree to disguish between valid complaints and water cooler whining. With all respect to others who choose to remain private in their thoughts, I can't really study or solve what I can't see or hear. I encourage organizations to foster this kind of openness in my consulting work, although my understanding of this blog is that it isn't endorsed by Gannett Corp.
There are things that should go beyond the company suggestion box that can help identify what really is eating at people, but that's a bit beyond what I wanted to state at this moment. I will say that studies and surveys are only as good as the honesty of those participating and the followup from those who initiate it. In a tight-lipped environment, where there might be some intimidation felt by workers (the medical and law enforcement fields are prone to circling the wagons), surveys can give a distorted picture. But what people feel and perceive is often in conflict with what management wants to actually foster. Yes, many mangers and owners of businesses really do want what is best for their employees, as hard as that might be to accept at times. Studies show that truly happy people are far more engaged and productive than employees who feel insignificant or unheard. In a field that requires creativity, other ingredients are also vital. A musician, for example, would tend not to do well in a cubicle regardless of how well treated they are. That's a generalization, but statitically accurate nonetheless.
I could go into great detail about the importance of disclosure and transparency, timely communications, and an almost obsessive attention to detail when transforming any organization that needs to find a way to reinvent the wheel in order to survive. The writer talked a lot about "buy-in," and why it might not be happening at USA Today. I saw many familiar patterns in what the writer stated. (As a sidenote, it always intrigues to read negative comments from co-workers targeted at other employees who try to express themselves. It's so counterproductive to attack those who are trying to identify real issues. There are better ways to disagree.)
Managers are often caught in a loop in the way they approach change. USA Today is a young newspaper but it's an old business. Managers might be essentially sabotaging their own success rate by not breaking free from the vortex they are in. It's related to a branch of the "law of unintended consequences" that leaders need to pay far more attention to, especially when trying to promote change. The comments about "trial and error" raised a red flag for me. If that is indeed the approach at USA Today in instituting change, get rid of it and get rid of it now. People and most businesses are not appropriate for lab experiments. There is a time and place for experimentation and testing, but the final product shouldn't be rolled out until every problem is engineered to resolution. BMW doesn't send cars to its showrooms that can't be sold because of obvious flaws.
The problems stated by the writer might be compounded by the culture of any news organization, where journalists tend to question what they are told. Forgive me if am unfairly stereotyping anyone, but that is the perception or journalists and it's based on more than just my limited view. Myers-Briggs tends to classify journalists as idealists and socially aware. If they weren't in journalism they would probably do well in social work. That's another statistical fact, not just my opinion. Good traits for the trade, not so good for surviving in a corporate environment. It is a lot more complex than that but in brief it might explain why people feel shut out from the process of change and why the results of the process are prone to failure. Combine that with the threat of layoffs or other financial issues such as salary freezes working in the background, and you can lose a workforce rather quickly.
My simple advice to anyone working in an environment where change is difficult and the need for reform is widespread, for whatever reason, would be to keep communications open. Respond to e-mails promptly, kindly and professionally, return phone calls, talk face-to-face when possible, address concerns in the most honest manner possible, even at the risk of sounding concerned. Fess up to mistakes. False bravery rarely works unless you are a trained actor. This applies to both managers and other employees. Supervisors need to spell out the details of the changes and plans. The more specifics, the better. Don't leave people guessing who will do Job A or what Job B will now consist of or what hours Sally is going to work. Nail down timetables. Detail a short-term plan for getting work done and what the nature of that work will be, and a long-term goal where individuals can envision how they will fit in a year or five years from now. You don't want people wonderng if they are valued. If, in fact they aren't valued though, it's best to get rid of them fairly but promptly.
I am not emotionally attached to your newspaper office, but it is clear many of you are and should be, as my friends are. Who wants to go to work feeling that they don't matter? I still find your business a noble profession and would urge you to work through your issues in away that would create a more functional office and more clarity within individual minds.
I am not great with technology, so I hope this comment makes it onto the blog.
JC
I do believe this was an editor or a supervisor who sincerely wants to begin a broader dialogue and who truly cares for their workplace, profession and coworkers who are suffering in silence. Change isn't easy, but as the author said so well, most people would change if they felt part of the process and were given more info about how things are going to play out. Most people just want to know they are going to be able to do their jobs and that a situation isn't being created where they are bound to fail. I also read the outside consultant's (is that what you are?) comments which seem to back up what many of us feel and some of us state on this blog and have tried to say to our leaders. I avoid this blog most days because of some of the haters who want to attack anyone too in favor or too against the company. It just gets too mean. But the writer of this entry seems to me to be rational, so I read on. Yes, it was long, but so what? Why the attacks for length? It probably took the person a long time to write that, so be a little kinder and less judgmental. Grading? Why? Please support these types of coworkers, even if you don't totally agree with the way they write or their opinions. It is so important to have an outlet and it does no one any good to demean anyone on here. Support all your USA Today/Gannett colleagues who are trying to make a difference in this climate of change and uncertainty, regardless of whether they go about it here or just by putting in an honest day's work. We're all struggling, reassessing our futures, and hoping for the best from our leaders. It's clear that our leaders need to raise the level of their games to get us through this. I agree with the countless folks on this blog who simply don't feel management has been up to the task thus far. But I am optimistic that that will change. It has to. Please, no grading of my writing. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteTerrific effort! Enjoyed the insights. My department isn't suffering quite as much change as others, but I know those who are are feeling it. I think you expressed your feelings well and even offered solutions. Not sure why anyone would be threatened by that. Hope you followup so we can read more as things evolve. I also have enjoyed some of the comments and kudos to those who take the time to contribute here, but am disheartened by a couple of the typically nasty, thoughtless replies. I guess as with all technology and interactive communities, there is always a dark side that appears. Up to us to fight these drive-by attackers.
ReplyDeleteThought-provoking topic with mostly interesting comments and opinions. I too am put off by the two brief comments earlier that offer nothing other than put-downs for the editor who had the guts to lay out his/her thoughts. I pray these hostile and pompous people don't work next to me.
ReplyDeleteA flurry of comments tonight... Wow! I back the editor (regardless of what type of editor they are) and anyone who wants to make things better at USA Today. God knows, we have issues. We can disagree how to prioritize or repair them, but few can deny they exist and that they need to be solved in order to handle the changes that are upon us.
ReplyDeleteAll the anonymous comments, including mine, are a pretty good indication that USA Today folks are somewhat afraid to speak out. I commend the author of this lenghty post, but just wish we could get to the point where we felt comfortable saying who we are. I think it would add another level of legitimacy to this blog. If this was an editor with any authority or influence, what a great statement it would make for them to identify themselves. On the other hand, I understand that would be career suicide in the current climate. Thumbs up for the effort, even with the anonymous tag. You spoke not only for the news people, but for other departments at USA Today and Gannett.
ReplyDeleteWell, I work here, too, and I have no idea what you are talking about, 6:42. Especially "the answer is not to look for a solution, or to wait for a solution. The answer is to BE the solution. You know what's needed. Just do it. Everyone will follow." What???
ReplyDeleteOur consultant friend sounds like he knows his business. I work for editors who do not have the decency to ever reply to my e-mails,let alone reply to them kindly. I encounter turf battles on a staff that is shrinking by the week, leaving editors who fuel the battles desperate for copy. Instead of thanking reporters who care about their job, I see editors who appear to feel threatened by them.
I thank 12:27 for taking the time to sum up what many of us are feeling. And I thank you, Jim, for providing a safe place for the discussion that should be going on in the newsroom but can't because everyone is so afraid of the consequences.
Let me explain why this post ultimately is crap: I have had good bosses and I have had bad bosses. I have worked in newsrooms with lots of resources and worked in newsroom with scant resources. I was able to do excellent work in all of those situations because my skills and dedication and backbone were strong enough. The best journalists can adapt to any situation. The worst journalists complain and never adapt. Which are you?
ReplyDelete12:40. You're just an amazing person, huh? I find that people who brag about themselves on blogs, and call other people's thoughts "crap", have major issues and think far more of themselves than they should. Your ego and name-calling qualities make you a person I'd never want to work with.
ReplyDelete"I was able to do excellent work in all of those situations because my skills and dedication and backbone were strong enough."
ReplyDeleteYou're hired! A star amist all the terrible employees ....
Hi, another longtime USAT editor here.
ReplyDelete12:27 lost me a little bit with his/her post, but nevertheless I believe it's on the road to what we need for discussion on this blog. Of all the Gannett properties, USA TODAY probably has the highest likelihood of surviving the newspaper downturn and the bad economy. From my view, USAT is actually starting to turn the corner in terms of hiring smart people with relevant skills and with forging ahead on plans for innovation. What most people often do not see is that we're not a startup any more, and change comes slowly when you're trying to turn a big ship. But I believe change is occurring.
However, I must say that the most positive change is occurring mainly because of some of the fresh thinking that's come into the newsrooms over the last couple of years. One area, for example, is the hires of smart, innovative people in Rich Media. (And no, I don't work in that department.) They may not have 30 years of experience covering Capitol Hill, but they sure know how to take news and information and make it work really well on the Web. That's the way the news business is going, and we are really fortunate to have that department doing what it does more and more.
Where we are falling down, IMHO, is with some of the managers on the upper side who have yet to really understand that the USA TODAY of the 1990s is long gone. These people don't show me that they really understand what our web site is doing, what it needs to become, and how to develop content that works well both in print and on the web.
As for the interpersonal friction that is so often talked about here, I must admit that coming to USAT was a shocker after working for perhaps one of the best managers ever at another newspaper. There truly are a number of people working here who royally dislike their bosses, and vice versa. The vitriol that I read here is just the expression of things they would love to say face-to-face but do not have the ability to say. (And there's equal grumbling in all corners of the 2nd and 3rd floors.)
My request to all USATers here is this: Can we set those personal things aside and do what we can -- individually, each day, and together -- to make our little corner of the news media the absolute best it can be? Can we stop looking for the bad in each other and try to look for the good? Can we not talk as if we've given up the fight to tell good stories, get them first, and tell them best?
Peace to all.
Wow. How can anyone question the legitimacy of 12:27 as a Gannett employee? Anyone who has ever spent any time in a Gannett newsroom can see, plain as day, that they work for Gannett.
ReplyDeleteI spent 4 years in a much smaller Gannett newspaper, and all the points ring true, particularly about management at any level simply not listening/not caring about what the foot soldiers have to say.
And 12:40? This comment:
"The best journalists can adapt to any situation. The worst journalists complain and never adapt. Which are you?"
Is not really true. We all like to think that. We all want to be the best, certainly. I think a lot of times, journalists are conditioned to believe if they just slave away, keep working, keep feeding the beast long enough/well enough, give up their lives, spend their own money, do whatever it takes to get the story or serve the paper, that they can overcome anything. Not true.
Certainly, there are those who sit and whine and don't do crap. Those people, in any industry, don't help. And certainly, there are great people who work hard and really do overcome unwieldly work obstacles. But it's difficult to work yourself out of quicksand that is not only sucking you down, but being piled on top of you too.
Unfortunately, I work at a different newspaper now at a different company, and things don't feel much different. It's tough to figure out what to do next, and I don't think just "working hard" and sucking things up and ignoring the bad stuff is the answer.
Well we've had a management consultant weigh in.
ReplyDeleteWhat we really need, though, is a psychiatrist!
My gut reaction looking better each day.
ReplyDeleteI'm not arrogant and I'm not contrary. In defense of those earlier brash criticisms, I, too, don't understand the point being made in this redundant and lengthy post -- or in most of the comments.
ReplyDeleteI feel like the kid in "The Emporer's New Clothes."
I see a post that cites obvious generalities in many various and sundry ways (pun intended).
Can anyone quantify the purpose of the post? What am I supposed to feel or understand as a result of reading it? I come up blank.
I think, like a lot of posts, it had to remain general to protect certain identities, which is, in a way, part of the problem. The main ideas I took from it are:
ReplyDelete- Change is best when it is well-planned, considers all details and is inclusive of all key people and opinions. The writer thinks some USAT managers have failed in some ways in that regard, which in turn has caused some staffers/lower managers to feel alienated, and for some jobs or workloads to become stressed.
- Those who have tried to get their managers to revise what some consider to be faulty assumptions that key policies are being built upon, are not received well by upper managers. These folks get labeled as complainers. Logistal and morale problems tend to snowball from there if the changes fail.
- Hiring and retention of good people has been less than stellar.
- Important information is often shared later than it should be or is sold in some way that creates lack of confidence or confusion for those workers trying to get the paper out. (I can relate to that one.)
As someone else said, I think it's a good starting point for further discussion.
This a blog and by the nature of the beast, there are some built-in things people have to write around, dodge, squeeze in. At least this writer seemed sincere and reluctant to start a juvenile mud-slinging contest. Seemed to have some modesty. I feel he or she has a pretty good understanding of some of what's going on in portions of the editorial department.
Whether the post was worth all the words is another question. I think the phasing out of the newspaper, along with the bad economic conditions, will create turmoil that is bound to get worse before it gets better. It's unlikely that anything said in Gannett Blog is going to change much of anything at USA Today.
For the person who wanted to know what they should be feeling after reading this post, I think in general sense you should feel that some of your coworkers are good people who are struggling with some profound challenges. They want better from their leaders during these times of change. At least that's my take. Maybe the poster will return here to followup.