this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2024
2234 points (99.5% liked)
Malicious Compliance
19560 readers
2 users here now
People conforming to the letter, but not the spirit, of a request. For now, this includes text posts, images, videos and links. Please ensure that the “malicious compliance” aspect is apparent - if you’re making a text post, be sure to explain this part; if it’s an image/video/link, use the “Body” field to elaborate.
======
-
We ENCOURAGE posts about events that happened to you, or someone you know.
-
We ACCEPT (for now) reposts of good malicious compliance stories (from other platforms) which did not happen to you or someone you knew. Please use a [REPOST] tag in such situations.
-
We DO NOT ALLOW fiction, or posts that break site-wide rules.
======
Also check out the following communities:
[email protected] [email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I recently was recently reprimanded for using the term "subordinates". I was informed that term has fallen out of favor. Direct Reports is the proper way to say it these days.
Sounds good to me, I've never gotten in trouble for indirectreportination.
What about indirect reports?
That's who you are to all the people who aren't your boss but think they can tell you what to do anyway.
Or just your direct reports' direct reports.
Honestly calling someone a "direct report" sounds even more dehumanising. At least calling someone a "subordinate" acknowledges that you're belittling their existence. A "direct report" sounds like a piece of paper.
Fair enough. Subordinate is the term I've always heard used. Direct reports just sounds like the sugar coated version to me.
Oh yeah it's totally the sugar coated version. It's funny because I was only using the term "subordinates" because that is what the software platform I was training on calls "direct reports".