Perfectionist Rehab

I am a nervous person.

I tend to fixate on things that I’ve said. Words I did not say. Situations that I avoided. Moments I self-sabotaged.

Instances where I dropped all pretenses and told the truth.

I must preface all of this by saying that I do not arrive at conclusions quickly. I’m observant. Cautious. Meticulous. Forgiving.

I tend to explain away bad behavior, rationalizing another person’s mistakes through kindness. Empathy. Compassion. I always aim to recognize the reasons behind behavior. I rationalize curtness and insensitivity through my big, stupid heart.

“They’re just going through a tough time right now.”

The issue with being compassionate is that it’s all too easy to allow others to mistreat you.

“I shouldn’t be so hard on them.”

“It’s not their fault they’re acting this way.”

“They’re just under a lot of pressure right now.”

The problem with seeing the best in others, even when they cannot perceive their own best attributes, is that we can overcorrect. We can rationalize their abuse.

“I could have communicated more tactfully.”

“I overreacted.”

“I should be more sympathetic to their struggles.”

“I jumped to conclusions.”

“I should be more compassionate.”

The line between compassion and enabling becomes increasingly fuzzy for me.

Is compassion the goal when only person regulates their emotions?

Is compromise the solution when only side concedes?

Is empathy the remedy when only one participant considers the other’s feelings?

I recognize that if we give with expectation, that’s not a gift. It is manipulation.

I subscribe to the idea that we do what’s right regardless of another person’s behavior.

I say please and thank you.

I hold open the door for people standing behind me.

I always return my grocery trolley after I loaded my car.

I stack my dishes when I’m finished at the restaurant.

I’m someone who tries to leave the world a little bit better, even if that’s with a small garden patch. A healthy child. A redeemed social condition. I don’t act for recognition. I don’t act for praise.

I’m innately stubborn and unyielding on this matter. We can either be a drain on our communities, or we can serve them.

In fact, I despise the immaturity reflected in reciprocal exchanges.

“I reflect whatever you give me back to you.”

“If you’re good to me, I’ll be good to you.”

“If you’re a dick to me, I’ll be a dick to you.”

However, it’s naive to think that all people have your best interests at heart. There are people who really are self-serving, even if they aren’t clinically diagnosable. There are two-faced people. There are individuals that take advantage of generosity, who directly benefit from those who regularly practice self-abandonment in the name of kindness. Generosity. Team spirit. Community. Love.

Some people suck.

Let’s get into some anecdotal evidence.

I’m a management analyst supporting a government contract. My main responsibilities include surveillance of the work performed. This takes many forms but simply put: I inspect the quality team’s standard inspections.

My position is an organizational control. My team exists to keep the quality team honest. We identify instances where inspectors don’t identify non-conformances. We report any error recordings that are incorrect. We determine if they’re sampling too many transactions or too little.

I’m one of the most senior people on my team. I have my opinions, and they are based on historical observations throughout this iteration of the contract.

I was in a project meeting yesterday, and a member of the senior leadership team was condescending to me.

“The difference between training and quality is that trainers have to record every misstep in the process. Quality is inspecting the results of the process.”

I trained this person in quality management systems nine years ago.

However, this person’s definition is simultaneously reductive and idyllic. Of course, in an ideal situation, the training team would be more granular in their reviews. Trainers would determine if the students were executing each step in their process flows appropriately. Quality, however, is the measurement of whether a product conforms to the customer’s minimum expectations.

Naturally there could be some differences, in that you would expect the training team to report lower performance than the Quality department.

This is not what happens.

Where I work, trainers and quality inspectors do not have the same detection rate. This is not because of the difference in functions – this is because the trainers and inspectors alike are reviewing cases with limited understanding of the customer’s expectations.

Every finding is subjective. Every result is the reviewer’s opinion. And none of these employees is willing to entertain differing opinions.

Every day is a power struggle. These people bicker and argue and condescend to each other. And I had had enough.

“That’s a really idealistic interpretation of what’s happening here. The quality team is not inspecting the end product, however. The customer decides whether a product is compliant, and the quality team flat out ignores technical direction. They literally interpret the manual for some errors, base the rest on personal opinion, and flat out refuse to overturn resulting findings on the basis that the requirements are in the contract.“

Let me tell you something. Our performance requirements are intentionally vague. Accurate review. Accurate response. Standardized notes left. Contact information updated. There is plenty of room for individual interpretation. Inspectors and trainers alike pretend they aren’t making judgement calls, however. They turn their noses up, enforce their interpretations of vague performance standards, refuse to play nice in the sandbox, and assert that everything they’re doing is based in fact.

My impatience reared its ugly head this week for one reason, and one reason only.

The quality team was refusing to admit they were wrong.

“That’s not what’s happening, Michelle.”

“Oh, yes, it is. Didn’t you see my email this morning? We had a contract modification published months ago that relaxed scan quality criteria. The new performance requirement states that “all relevant and pertinent information is visible on scans”. The quality department dug their heels in on a defect this morning when the customer had already stated that the document conforms to standards. The scan only had headers and footers lobbed off. The processor had everything they needed to complete their review, so they accepted the document. The quality team is now flat out refusing to remove the defect because they didn’t know that the standards had changed, even though they were in the meeting that initiated this change three months ago!”

The manager’s eyes were wide.

“I didn’t know any of that happened.”

“Listen to me, this is happening daily. We’re doing what we can to address it, but this is what’s happening. Don’t kid yourself – their inspection results have nothing to do with the customer’s expectations.”

I popped off. I was a woman possessed by righteous indignation. I’ve had enough.

Now, I’m obsessively mulling over this conversation. Chewing every word. Heart racing, armpits dripping, palms slippery.

This is what happens when I lose control. I reveal the truth. I state the facts without any cushioning.

I’ve sugar-coated the situation for a decade.

Understand, I’m typically very calm. Measured. Articulate. Gentle. Mindful.

This is my version of an outburst, and I feel utterly exposed. Vulnerable. Anxious.

The truth is this: I’ve been spinning this scenario for years. I’ve covered up what I knew to be true with gentleness, the benefit of doubt, and careful articulation. Consideration. Empathy.

The inspectors inspect based off opinion, not fact. When presented with a different argument, they flat out refuse to entertain it. Arrogant. Obstinate. Defiant. Elitist. Incompetent.

The situation came to a head this week. The quality team sent me an email with a defect to review, with which I disagreed.

“This document looks acceptable to me. I recognize that the headers and footers have been lobbed off, but the operator can see all the information they need to perform their review. Our technical guidance for this situation is clear. As long as the processor can reasonably discern they have the correct document, all relevant pages, and they are able to perform their review, they can accept the document.”

I was accused of excluding the quality manager in the requirements change. Aside from the fact that this accusation is character assassination, because it’s not in my character to exclude someone from a conversation that directly impacts them.

This person lied to avoid accountability. An Outlook notification chimed.

“Well, it seems that the quality team was excluded from this conversation. In the future, it would be nice if all stakeholders were present at these sorts of meetings.”

I saw red. I started shaking. The audacity.

So, I responded with a link to our meeting record.

“I’m a bit confused, because you were in attendance?”

I still can’t decide whether I love or despise this side to my personality.