Okay, let me give you a little background here. For my Organizational Communications class, part of the class involves breaking into large groups (~15 people) and working on an assigned project. Basically, we are a fictional consulting firm which has been hired by a fictional company called SSS. SSS is considering locating a distribution center in a fictional, generic rural Minnesota town called Springfield. They want us to make sure it is a good fit. Specifically, they are moving a lot of minority employees into a racially homogeneous area and one thing they want us to look into is race relations, since this town has had problems in the past.
So my classmate, Mark ("continuing education" student, so he's in his 40s or 50s) has suggested several times when we've met that we consider another town, since he is convinced Springfield is dysfunctional. He's brought this up in front of the group but no one really liked his idea. So, we've done all of our research on Springfield. Anyway, yesterday he sends out this email to the group:
(I left out the beginning since it's just rambling and isn't relevant to my story)
Does anybody see the value in Springfield being determined to be a bad place for SSS to move to? Springfield is basically the town from hell, this takes no work on our part to show, the scenario is made for us, all we have to do is report the facts as they are. It would show that we have produced something of value for SSS, and something that he would have no basis to argue about. We could then present the alternative, the research that has been done. What happened to the idea we were going to select a real town? It's allot easier to report reality than create one.
I don't want the group to get off track, and since this has been brought up before, here's how I reply:
Mark,
I see where you're coming from here. But I think we ought to stick with
Springfield. It's not a "town from hell" like in the Simpsons, we're
just using the name and characters. Otherwise, it's just a generic
rural Minnesota town. And given how much research and effort we've put
into Springfield, it would be kind of a waste to toss all that out and
start fresh with a new town (which probably will have many of the same
problems).
Regards,
(my name)
A few hours later, I receive the most bizarre response to a serious email I think I've ever seen:
We continue to make decisions by a couple people saying they don't like something, that worked fine when you were 10 years old and you didn't want to eat your vegetables. I believe everyone is legally an adult now. I really don't care what plan we follow as long as it succeeds, but the present one has not worked. "fluff" is what he called it, I can think of another word that starts with F to describe it. OK, you two you don't like my plan, so what are you going to do to rectify the present one we are following? If you cannot demonstrate a successful course of action then I propose we abandon it. I can demonstrate my plan will work, if you don't want to listen that is your choice, I'm not going to waste time and energy trying to convince people who refuse to listen, but to continue to follow your plan it is your responsibility to show it will work.
the argument that we have invested too much time to change direction is bullshit, in psychology that is called the sunk cost argument, throwing good money or time after bad is a bad idea that is destined to fail. Our present plan is not a bad idea? our client does not appear to me to be happy with it
basically you two are following the GW Bush argument, we've spent 100's of billions of dollars and lost over 3,000 lives trying to democratize Iraq, we've spent too much to walk away, let's spend 100's of billion dollars more and gawd only knows how many more lives, yeah, that's a great idea if it isn't your life or a friend or family members life, it also isn't his money, it's our money
OK, you guys still haven't shown how your plan will work and why the plan I propose won't, the onus is on you to do that. What is your plan? how will you salvage it? It's easy to say something will work and something else won't. prove it
the results thus far show otherwise
I'm nominating him for "Biggest Douche in the Universe"
So my classmate, Mark ("continuing education" student, so he's in his 40s or 50s) has suggested several times when we've met that we consider another town, since he is convinced Springfield is dysfunctional. He's brought this up in front of the group but no one really liked his idea. So, we've done all of our research on Springfield. Anyway, yesterday he sends out this email to the group:
(I left out the beginning since it's just rambling and isn't relevant to my story)
Does anybody see the value in Springfield being determined to be a bad place for SSS to move to? Springfield is basically the town from hell, this takes no work on our part to show, the scenario is made for us, all we have to do is report the facts as they are. It would show that we have produced something of value for SSS, and something that he would have no basis to argue about. We could then present the alternative, the research that has been done. What happened to the idea we were going to select a real town? It's allot easier to report reality than create one.
I don't want the group to get off track, and since this has been brought up before, here's how I reply:
Mark,
I see where you're coming from here. But I think we ought to stick with
Springfield. It's not a "town from hell" like in the Simpsons, we're
just using the name and characters. Otherwise, it's just a generic
rural Minnesota town. And given how much research and effort we've put
into Springfield, it would be kind of a waste to toss all that out and
start fresh with a new town (which probably will have many of the same
problems).
Regards,
(my name)
A few hours later, I receive the most bizarre response to a serious email I think I've ever seen:
We continue to make decisions by a couple people saying they don't like something, that worked fine when you were 10 years old and you didn't want to eat your vegetables. I believe everyone is legally an adult now. I really don't care what plan we follow as long as it succeeds, but the present one has not worked. "fluff" is what he called it, I can think of another word that starts with F to describe it. OK, you two you don't like my plan, so what are you going to do to rectify the present one we are following? If you cannot demonstrate a successful course of action then I propose we abandon it. I can demonstrate my plan will work, if you don't want to listen that is your choice, I'm not going to waste time and energy trying to convince people who refuse to listen, but to continue to follow your plan it is your responsibility to show it will work.
the argument that we have invested too much time to change direction is bullshit, in psychology that is called the sunk cost argument, throwing good money or time after bad is a bad idea that is destined to fail. Our present plan is not a bad idea? our client does not appear to me to be happy with it
basically you two are following the GW Bush argument, we've spent 100's of billions of dollars and lost over 3,000 lives trying to democratize Iraq, we've spent too much to walk away, let's spend 100's of billion dollars more and gawd only knows how many more lives, yeah, that's a great idea if it isn't your life or a friend or family members life, it also isn't his money, it's our money
OK, you guys still haven't shown how your plan will work and why the plan I propose won't, the onus is on you to do that. What is your plan? how will you salvage it? It's easy to say something will work and something else won't. prove it
the results thus far show otherwise
I'm nominating him for "Biggest Douche in the Universe"
Facebook
Twitter