Return to Answer

Focusing on the reaction 'read the manual', the responsible for the underlying matters ought to be in the condition

• to point out to the source (existence of the rule);
• to explain the letter and spirit of it (interpretation of the rule);
• to indicate the grounds of the infringement (relevance of the rule);
• to justify consequences being commensurate to facts and circumstances (application of the rule);

ideally in an effortless fashion. The more competent and prepared, the more effortlessly.

The answer you received shifts the burden of the proof on you and amplifies your distress --- hence, preoccupies and distracts you from your tasks on the job --- at least fourfold:

• the rule is not clear (whether the rule exists and is vague; exists and has not been clarified; or does not exist at all);
• you have to find out, lone and alone, what the probably existing, hopefully clear and surely not clarified rule is;
• build your own case for the lack of support, clarity and explanation;
• convey this case to someone who has already proven that they feel entitled to sanction you rather curtly.

So you might well be wrong, but you cannot be asked to find out why you receive a sanction. This is a Kafka-like situation.

There must be a reason why it shall be inappropriate for the company to visit the HR officer, should it happen that he/she needs to be hospitalized. And the HR officer needs to know and explain this.

Focusing on the reaction 'read the manual', the responsible for the underlying matters ought to be in the condition

• to point out to the source (existence of the rule);
• to explain the letter and spirit of it (interpretation of the rule);
• to indicate the grounds of the infringement (relevance of the rule);
• to justify consequences being commensurate to facts and circumstances (application of the rule);

ideally in an effortless fashion. The more competent and prepared, the more effortlessly.

The answer you received shifts the burden of the proof on you and amplifies your distress --- hence, preoccupies you and distracts you from your tasks on the job --- at least fourfold:

• the rule is not clear (whether the rule exists and is vague; exists and has not been clarified; or does not exist at all);
• you have to find out, lone and alone, what the probably existing, hopefully clear and surely not clarified rule is;
• you have to build your own case for such a lack of support, clarity and explanation;
• you have to convey this case to someone who has already proven that they feel entitled to sanction you rather curtly.

So you might well be wrong, but you cannot be asked to find out why a sanction has been imposed on you. This is a Kafka-like situation.

There must be an explainable reason why paying a courtesy/goodwill visit to, say, an hospitalized HR officer conflicts with the company's rightful interests and core values. And the HR officer needs to know and explain this.

Focusing on the reaction 'read the manual', the responsible for the underlying matters ought to be in the condition

• to point out to the source (existence of the rule);
• to explain the letter and spirit of it (interpretation of the rule);
• to indicate the grounds of the infringement (relevance of the rule);

ideally in an effortless fashion. The more competent and prepared, the more effortlessly.

The answer you received shifts the burden of the proof on you and amplifies your distress --- hence, preoccupies and distracts you from your tasks on the job --- at least fourfold:

• the rule is not clear (whether the rule exists and is vague; exists and has not been clarified; or does not exist at all);
• you have to find out, lone and alone, what the probably existing, hopefully clear and surely not clarified rule is;
• build your own case for the lack of support, clarity and explanation;
• convey this case to someone who has already proven that they feel entitled to sanction you rather curtly.

So you might well be wrong, but you cannot be asked to find out why you receive a sanction. This is a Kafka-like situation.

There must be a reason why it shall be inappropriate for the company to visit the HR officer, should it happen that he/she needs to be hospitalized. And the HR officer needs to know and explain this.

Focusing on the reaction 'read the manual', the responsible for the underlying matters ought to be in the condition

• to point out to the source (existence of the rule);
• to explain the letter and spirit of it (interpretation of the rule);
• to indicate the grounds of the infringement (relevance of the rule);
• to justify consequences being commensurate to facts and circumstances (application of the rule);

ideally in an effortless fashion. The more competent and prepared, the more effortlessly.

The answer you received shifts the burden of the proof on you and amplifies your distress --- hence, preoccupies and distracts you from your tasks on the job --- at least fourfold:

• the rule is not clear (whether the rule exists and is vague; exists and has not been clarified; or does not exist at all);
• you have to find out, lone and alone, what the probably existing, hopefully clear and surely not clarified rule is;
• build your own case for the lack of support, clarity and explanation;
• convey this case to someone who has already proven that they feel entitled to sanction you rather curtly.

So you might well be wrong, but you cannot be asked to find out why you receive a sanction. This is a Kafka-like situation.

There must be a reason why it shall be inappropriate for the company to visit the HR officer, should it happen that he/she needs to be hospitalized. And the HR officer needs to know and explain this.

Focusing on the reaction 'read the manual', the responsible for the underlying matters ought to be in the condition

• to point out to the source (existence of the rule);
• to explain the letter and spirit of it (interpretation of the rule);
• to indicate the grounds of the infringement (relevance of the rule);

ideally in an effortless fashion. The more competent and prepared, the more effortlessly.

The answer you received shifts the burden of the proof on you and amplifies your distress --- hence, preoccupies and distracts you from your tasks on the job --- at least fourfold:

• the rule is not clear (whether the rule exists and is vague; exists and has not been clarified; or does not exist at all);
• you have to find out, lone and alone, what the probably existing, hopefully clear and surely not clarified rule is;
• build your own case for the lack of support, clarity and explanation;
• convey this case to someone who has already proven that they feel entitled to sanction you rather curtly.

So you might well be wrong, but you cannot be asked to find out why you receive a sanction. This is a Kafka-like situation.

There must be a reason why it shall be inappropriate for the company to visit the HR officer, should it happen that he/she needs to be hospitalized. And the HR officer needs to know this.

Focusing on the reaction 'read the manual', the responsible for the underlying matters ought to be in the condition

• to point out to the source (existence of the rule);
• to explain the letter and spirit of it (interpretation of the rule);
• to indicate the grounds of the infringement (relevance of the rule);

ideally in an effortless fashion. The more competent and prepared, the more effortlessly.

The answer you received shifts the burden of the proof on you and amplifies your distress --- hence, preoccupies and distracts you from your tasks on the job --- at least fourfold:

• the rule is not clear (whether the rule exists and is vague; exists and has not been clarified; or does not exist at all);
• you have to find out, lone and alone, what the probably existing, hopefully clear and surely not clarified rule is;
• build your own case for the lack of support, clarity and explanation;
• convey this case to someone who has already proven that they feel entitled to sanction you rather curtly.

So you might well be wrong, but you cannot be asked to find out why you receive a sanction. This is a Kafka-like situation.

There must be a reason why it shall be inappropriate for the company to visit the HR officer, should it happen that he/she needs to be hospitalized. And the HR officer needs to know and explain this.