Alan’s story seems one of a delusional sense of superiority and defiance than that of an
adaptable support personnel. It seems once Alan realized his knowledge, experience,
and competence allowed him the authority to engage in his work as he pleased, he
became “drunk with power”. Alan did not seem to understand his role as support but
instead viewed himself as superior.
I do agree that Alan was not properly enculturated and the “hands-off” approach to his arrival is much to blame for this. He nor the faculty members did not get acclimated to Alan’s role as a respected position. In his previous position, Alan wanted more responsibility but I think Alan truly wanted more authority.
In his new position in the humanities department, this became more evident as his
expectations of how he should be viewed came from a place of arrogance, thus
affecting how the department began to view him.
Alan’s defiance was evident in the ways he communicated with the members of the department. Although helpful and an asset, he chose to defy recommended customs within the activity system, making his communication not only appear frivolous but incompetent.
However, Alan is not only to blame here as it seems the faculty members had their own sense of superiority regarding Alan, dismissing his emails due to grammatical error does not warrant one to diminish his
authority in his area of expertise.
Alan’s mistake here is being immovable in his writing – there was no compromise or new choice made to evolve in his new position. This is necessary to create a sense of teamwork, rapport, and mutual understanding.
On the other hand, the faculty seemed to show a certain behavior towards Alan that one could
describe as immature. It is not lost on me that scholars who should know better chose
to belittle him for his shortcomings that did not meet their standards.
Leave a Reply