The Friend who fell out with his boss (now ex-boss, of course) (see 19 December 2002 post) received his 2002 Performance Report today, completed of course by his ex-boss.  He showed it to me and I thought that it was rather amusing :

“Director had said that he wanted a certain photograph to be on the front cover of our newsletter.  When I informed X [ie. my Friend], who was then editor of the newsletter, of Director’s direction, X instead of confirming with Director or acting as Director had directed, went around asking the other Branch heads.  X decided not to put in the photograph Director wanted and asked me to approve another photograph.  It was only after I insisted he check with Director did X see Director.  In my opinion, X’s behaviour is not conducive to harmonious working relationships”.

First I thought it was rather amusing that my Friend’s ex-boss had gotten so worked up over this minor incident – consulting the other department heads about the correct photograph to use, instead of taking his boss’ word for it.  Also, according to my Friend, what the Report omitted to say was that :

1.  His director did not actually say that he wanted the “certain photograph” to be on the front cover.  My Friend had recalled at a meeting with his Director and all the other Branch heads including his (ex-)Boss that Director had changed his mind.

2.  So when my Friend spoke to (ex-)Boss who recalled differently (and incorrectly), he thought it would be prudent to first check if other Branch heads recalled the same, before going in to see Director.  (It’s only prudent not to wish to look as if one had failed to listen to his Director’s instructions).

3.  Rather pettily, my Friend’s (ex-)Boss wasn’t very pleased (to say the least) when he approached the other Branch heads.  Such “behaviour is not conducive to harmonious working relationships”.