Observing and Documenting Behavior of Micromanagers and other Corporate
Note 1: Paranoid incompetent micromanagers
(PIMM), who successfully combine tight control of minute details/procedures
used in performing assignments with toxic incompetence are often called
"control freaks" (CF). This category of corporate psychopaths represents
really nasty beasts of IT jungles who tend to completely paralyze their
victims. They are completely different from PHB on Dilbert cartoons
and in many way are close to narcissistic
In this set of pages that include
we will mainly address this menace.
Note 2: Good advice about the topic
is difficult to come by and depends on your concrete situation: take any
recommendations with a grain of salt.
Programmers, system administrators and other IT folk are usually taught
many languages, issues of programming style, issues of software engineering;
it is somewhat surprising that this approach usually is not extended to
conversations. Social skills usually are not a forte of many IT professionals.
Once we are aware about this deficiency we may actually turn weaknesses
to an advantage by compensating for them. And the fact that you are
reporting to paranoia incompetent micromanager should serve as a wake up
You can see why this can be a hard idea for some diehard technologists
to take. It means embracing the idea that besides your latest C++ or Java
or Perl code tricks you need to learn something useful that solves
concrete problems for you as a person, not as a device that drives
computer 24*7 :-). It means also accepting that technology exists
primarily to serve people. It means becoming more well-rounded person
with a genuine interest in the world beyond lines of code, chipsets
and motherboards, including developing a genuine interest in the ways your
organization, your boss, and the IT ecosystem in general operate.
If you are reporting to PIMM those skills are really vital and you better
be prepared. The only defense to ignorance is knowledge: One must
understand the enemy and know own deficiencies, weak spots, typical avenues
of attack and limitations. One step in the right direction is learning to
document micromanager behavior. Being a subordinate of a PIMM is not
unlike being a child of alcoholic and you may start to develop set of wrong
adjustments to the situation that cripples you as a personality. Some literature
on the topic can help. See for example [PDF]
Adult Children of Alcoholics. Don't worry about revenge via lawsuits,
or fighting back, or personal pride. Be concerned about your own mental
and emotional well being.
Documenting micromanager behavior is important both from the point of
view of diminishing stress as well as from the point of view of defending
yourself if things go too nasty (you can expect making some mistakes).
Learning this skill is not an easy thing. People tend to jump to conclusions:
just look how readily we label behavior of our manager based on the first
self-help book we bought. And often in reality your manager can be quite
different type of corporate psychopath. More often then not your first
classification attempt is blatantly wrong.
|Documenting micromanager behavior is important both from
the point of view of diminishing stress as well as from the
point of view of defending yourself if things go too nasty
(you can expect making some mistakes). Learning this skill is
not an easy thing.
The other important value in systematic documenting psychopath behavior
is that it reveal that path of betrayals typical for any corporate psychopath.
The key here "document"; this is different from spy and you need to remember
First, you might not even realize the extent of the problem. Futterman
explains, "Taken in isolation, these events
may seem trivial, but taken as a whole, it often becomes more clear
what's actually going on. Some victims may be in denial or discount
these events as isolated incidents. Your written records can document
how severe the situation is."
And, of course, if you decide to take legal action down the line,
you may need the information. It's best to document these incidents
as soon as possible so they're fresh in your mind.
Documentation is also important if you
plan to report the behavior to your boss's boss or to your company's
human resources department. And don't dismiss the idea
of taking the bull by the horns and working toward a solution.
Also without documentation you might not even realize the extent of the
problem and methods used to intimidate and control you. Important
observation, worth repeating again is:
"Taken in isolation, each event may seem trivial, but taken as a whole,
it often becomes more clear what's something really nasty is actually going
on. Some targets may even be in denial or discount these events as isolated
incidents. Written records help to see bigger picture and understand how
severe the situation is."
That's why it is important to keep a diary of any incidents and periodically
try to correlate it with the separately created profile of you psychopathic
boss. You will see how simplistic are labels like micromanager, bully, narcissist
when applied to real, complex beast in IT jungles: your psychopathic boss.
Only by painstaking observation and collection of verifiable "episodes"
you can closer to correct understanding of what makes a particular corporate
psychopath tick and what of your weaknesses he exploit most in his attacks.
Still the methods of attack and intimidation are usually repetitive and
analyzing them greatly reduce the stress in all forthcoming episodes.
The first thing to do is to create a structure format of "observational
note". You can model it after insurance companies crash report after
all this is not that different topic :-) and use the same format in all
notes. It should include:
- Date, Time and duration
- Who was present (note if any PIMM patsies were present; that usually
completely changes the dynamic)
- Topics discusses; whether they were planed or ad-hoc (you should
learn to deflect discussion of ad hoc topics with PIMM: it's
better fight on known territory)
- Known patterns of behavior observed
- Known patterns that emerged.
- Short step-by-step description of the event
- Describe your feelings
- Desirable you communications; any blunder committed and achievements.
- References to known similar events
One problem is with classification of PIMM behaviors: this phenomena
is too variable to fit into rigid classification cells. As a usable
proxy you can try to adapt coding procedures developed by
Sillars who classified statements made during interpersonal conflict
into seven categories:
- Denial and equivocation: deny conflict or that are evasive
- Topic management: statements that shift or terminate the
topic in an evasive manner.
- Noncommittal remarks: statements that neither acknowledge,
deny or evade conflict. Noncommittal remarks represent a neutral style
of communication reminiscent of casual conversation.
- Irreverent remarks: make light of a conflict in a friendly
- Analytic remarks: provide or seek information about a conflict
issue in a non-confrontational manner.
- Confrontational remarks: verbally competitive, individualistic
comments, such as insults, criticism, hostile jokes and
imperatives that demand concessions
- Conciliatory remarks: express supportiveness or a desire
for reconciliation, for example, through complements or concessions.
Those categories are somewhat fuzzy but they do reflect typical conversational
strategies and two dimensions in which each communication exists:
- Engagement dynamics: referring to the dominant tendency to
confront or avoid conflict at a particular phase of conversation. Confrontational
remarks and analytical remarks signal switch to engagement styles of
conflict, whereas denial and equivocation, topic management, and noncommittal
remarks signal switch to non-engagement styles. Irreverent and conciliatory
remarks fall in-between and might be attempts to buy time and regroup.
- Emotional dynamics: messages that express hostility versus
friendliness. This dimension separates confrontational remarks, which
are hostile from conciliatory, analytic, irreverent and noncommittal
remarks, which are friendly or neutral.
You can create categories of your own but it is important to have them
and fill them with typical examples for each side. In particular,
the usage of your competence with supposedly incompetent paranoid micromanager
(PIMM) should be studied as this is one of the few favorable factors on
your side in such conflicts. You might reassess your notes a week later
as some things and behaviors are visible only at distance. Important part
is to carefully document your own behavior and types of your responses on
each of those. You will instantly see typical attacks, own mistakes in responding
to them and how some of your weaknesses were exploited.
Pay special attention to deception. Normal humans have a predisposition
to believe what they are told. This phenomena is often called “truth
bias.” Moreover IT specialists are usually relatively weak in detecting
deception in verbal interactions: they spend just too much time with computer
instead of people to fully acquire and develop such skills. But that turn
into huge deficiency in dealing with corporate psychopath as deception is
their natural habitat. Please remember that when dealing with corporate
psychopaths nonverbal cues are generally unreliable indicators of deception.
Those guys usually can hide their true face and emotions like accomplished
poker players. Still the use of uncertainty and vagueness can be one indicator
of deception. Deceivers were also found to take longer to respond and at
times to even withdraw from interaction.
Document who was present in particular conversation of emotional outburst.
Try to describe your feelings during the incident.
The next stage is to classify most frequent areas of conflict. Strangulating
micromanagement would probably be the first and this goes without saying.
But there can be more. First of all many PIMM has an illusion that they
are mentoring you while their mentoring is often worse then "mentoring"
provided by an army drill sergeant. Constant criticism of some activities
with such pretexts as "poor teamwork", "inappropriate behavior"
is pretty common. It is important to understand that like in any war
attack on a weak position in one area can often be used to get obedience
in the other. If you hear about "poor teamwork" be ready that you will be
assigned to help PIMM's patsy in some doomed, screwed beyond any repair
project: kind of cordial invitation to the death march.
In difficult conversations PIMM generally use three lines of attack:
- The Truth assumption: I am right you are wrong. You behavior
is inappropriate and my is completely appropriate. They often
bat the horse of "inappropriate behavior" to death.
- The Intention Invention : When the other persons intentions
are unclear a standard PIMM assumptions is that they are bad. This is
because they are inherently paranoid.
- The Blame Frame : Others are to blame for everything that
happed wrong and PIMM for everything that happened right
Only regular analysis and practice can help to avoid the pitfalls when
facing a difficult conversation with PIMM and come out as a winner.
After you collect evidence about several such episodes you will be surprised
by commonalities and usage of same tactics, verbal clichés again and again.
You may even need to hide smile hearing them again in the next encounter.
Often PIMM use for strangulation is limited to a dozen of catch phrases
as "insufficient team work", "inappropriate behavior", etc. After
this arsenal is well known they can be more easily deflected. While such
attacks might make you nervous first, you might be able to use them even
to your advantage later encounters by attacking the assumptions behind the
statement and use of
In case you need to file a complain the first thing to do is to find
out what is your company has a policy against workplace bulling as this
is the least common denominator of the behavior for all types of corporate
psychopaths. This is not a legal requirement so your company might
not have such policy. In this case you need to follow standard grievances
procedure and that diminishes your chances for success unless you have a
really strong supportable evidence. Ask your human resources department
about procedure for filing grievances if you are not sure about them. If
there is no such procedure report to your manager boss.
In case there is no such procedures (in many small companies there are
none) write a complain to your boss supervisor. In this letter you need
to provide dated evidence of the most appalling episodes. Describe the level
of distress you felt and any medications that you need to take to cope with
If you are fired you can resort to legal action. But outside o f narrow
scope of sexual harassment this path is costly, time consuming and your
chances to prevail are not that great. If you suffer serious illness
that can be attributed to the unfair treatment you got, they might be slightly
higher. In this case it might make sense to dig the Web on the topic, talk
to a couple of lawyers and compare their advice on how to proceed. Remember
that they can be biased toward legal action even if the case is weak. See
Chapter 19 in a book
"The Bully at
Work" by Gary and Ruth Namie
Oct. 15, 2004 ( money.cnn.com )Then there are the gatekeepers
-- people who are obsessed with control -- who allocate time, money
and staffing to assure their target's failure. Control freaks ultimately
want to control your ability to network in the company or to let your
star shine. Another type is the screaming Mimis who are emotionally
out of control and explosive.
2. Don't take it lying down
If your boss has a difficult management style, you don't
have to let their bad behavior go. You can respond -- just remember
to stay professional.
So, if your boss insults you or puts you down, Susan Futterman,
author of "When You Work for a Bully" and the founder of MyToxicBoss.com,
suggests responding with something like, "In what way does
calling me a moron or an idiot solve the problem? I think that there's
a better way to deal with this."
If you find out that your boss is
bad-mouthing you to higher-ups in the company,
confront them directly and professionally. Get the evidence
in writing from your source if you can. Then, ask him or
her what is causing them to do this.
You could say, "I've been hearing
from other people in the company that you're not happy with my work,
you and I know that this isn't the case and I want to talk about
how we can fix this."
If your boss has been defaming you, that's illegal. You may want
to consult an attorney.
If your boss is a control freak who's breathing down your neck,
you should address it. Say, "I can't
function effectively if you're going to be micromanaging me and
looking over my shoulder all the time. If I'm doing something fundamentally
wrong, let's talk about it. But this isn't working."
If someone screams at you, don't
be a doormat. If you've made a mistake, acknowledge
it. But let your boss know that they're
creating a difficult work environment. Even if you
haven't made a mistake, you may want to calmly ask what they're
upset about and if you can address it.
3. Take notes. Documenting your boss's bad behavior
is key for two reasons, according to Futterman.
First, you might not even realize the extent of the problem.
Futterman explains, "Taken in isolation,
these events may seem trivial, but taken as a whole, it often becomes
more clear what's actually going on. Some victims may be in denial
or discount these events as isolated incidents. Your written records
can document how severe the situation is."
And, of course, if you decide to take legal action down the line,
you may need the information. It's best to document these incidents
as soon as possible so they're fresh in your mind.
Documentation is also important if
you plan to report the behavior to your boss's boss or to your company's
human resources department. And don't dismiss the
idea of taking the bull by the horns and working toward a solution.
Try arranging a face-to-face meeting with your boss. Tell them
you want to discuss the problems you've encountered because you
want to resolve them.
Chances are often slim that this will work, however. If they
reject the opportunity to discuss things with you, add that to your
4. Know when it's too much.
Bosses may exhibit bad behavior sometimes. Hey, no one is perfect,
not even bosses. But if your boss is abusing you, that's a problem.
The problem takes on greater urgency if the abuse starts
to make you feel bad. If you chronically suffer high blood pressure
that started only when you began working for your boss; or you feel
nauseous the night before the start of the work week; or if all
your paid vacation days have been used up for mental health breaks.
When the bullying has had a prolonged affect on your health
or your life outside of work, it's time to get out. It's also time
to leave if your confidence or your usual exemplary performance
has been undermined.
Ironically, targets of abusive bosses
tend to be high achievers, perfectionists and workaholics.
Often bully bosses try to mask their
own insecurities by striking out.
5. Control your destiny.
Even after you leave your nightmare boss, you'll still have to
explain why you left to potential new employers.
Futterman advises against dramatizing your old work situation.
One way to gracefully sidestep the issue: say you and your
manager had a longstanding disagreement over the most effective
way of getting things done and you thought the most professional
way to resolve it was to move on.
"You certainly don't want to start recalling and recounting the
abuse you suffered. You'll inevitably get upset and that's not the
way you want to handle a job interview," she says.
Try to control the interview situation to the extent you can.
Don't give your abusive boss as a reference but rather someone else
with whom you worked previously. Another good choice might be a
colleague or a peer you're on good terms with or someone who can
speak about you professionally.
Also, if you only worked for your bullying boss for a short time,
you may want to consider leaving that job off your resume altogether
Maybe I've somehow misled you, but I am not unemployed.
I have had some real SOB's (of both genders), but
I haven't had any such for some time. My recommendation
to all is to document everything, anytime one of
these psychos acts out. And while you are doing
this, seek employment elsewhere. Yes, it's a pain,
but it is also necessary. The economy is growing,
but few jobs outside of the start-up IT positions
of the mid-90s and union jobs have the luxury of
employees telling off their employers.
Take notes. E-mail them to yourself, if nothing
else. Sure, some bosses read e-mail; fine. If the
SOB fires you because you are taking notes, then
that only accelerates the inevitable. Perhaps, and
I know this is a stretch, if they read what it is
they are doing, MAYBE they'll realize their errors.
Either way, protect yourself; those notes may
save you in HR if you decide to challenge your dismissal.
September 2006 ( mediate.com)...The following suggestions are offered:
1. Acknowledge your limitations – IDT is, in part, important
because it demonstrates that people are poor at detecting deception.
Thus, it is crucial that one not rely upon a perceived ability to detect
deception in the negotiation context. Forewarned, in this case, is forearmed.
2. Is there a reason to lie – There are habitual liars who
compulsively engage in deception. However, most people do no lie without
reason. It is natural to think that deception would be beneficial to
any negotiating party. However, this is not the case. This view misinterprets
the process of negotiation.
Many statements will be made in the course of a negotiation. Not
all statements will completely true or completely false. In evaluating
the veracity of any given statement or response the negotiator should
ask whether and in what way deception would be beneficial to the Sender.
Leakage actually varies based upon motivation. For instance, when “deceit
is motivated by self-interest it will contain greater strategic (i.e.,
compensating) behavior to formulate plausible lies, reduce leakage,
and project a favorable image.”
3. Flood the circuits – IDT demonstrates that when a Sender’s
cognitive abilities are “overloaded” they will begin to leak. It stands
to reason that the greater the load, the greater the leak and the easier
its detection. Another major premise of IDT is that individuals are
poor lie detectors in one-on-one communication situations. Thus, it
would appear to be to a negotiator’s advantage to increase the load
on their opposite.
This may be accomplished, for instance, if the negotiator can arrange
to get their opposite in a two-on-one negotiation. In this way the Sender’s
work will be doubled. There may even be an opportunity for a “good cop-bad
cop” scenario where one of the negotiating pair purposefully leaks suspicion
while the other does their best to suppress such leaks.
There is at least one caveat to this procedure. Buller and Burgoon
state that when communication transactions go beyond two participants
they become increasingly less interpersonal and their model may begin
to break down. To combat this perhaps only one of the negotiating pair
should actually conduct the negotiation while the other observes the
lone negotiators behavior.
4. Watch for leakage – The major reason for successful deception
is that in interactive contexts Receivers fail to recognize the available
clues and leakage. Thus, in a negotiation one should watch for those
clues discussed herein. The difficulty of this task is acknowledged
(i.e., considering truth bias, deceiver sensitivity, etc.).
5. Compensate for truth bias – One should be aware of the
existence of the truth bias. This awareness does not necessitate a shift
down the truth continuum to an expectation of falsity. However, realizing
this inherent bias one should be more able to prevent its exploitation.
6. Watch your own suspicions – It should be remembered that
being inept at detecting deception also means that one is inept at determining
veracity. Therefore, one should be careful not to over interpret behavior
7. Realize you are at a disadvantage - The research demonstrates
that deceivers are more adept at detecting Receiver suspicion and adapting
to it than Receivers are at detecting deception. This can mean that
the deception Sender can be aware of the Receiver’s doubts even before
8. Know your opposite – The ability to detect leakage is related
to one’s familiarity with the normal behaviors of an individual. In
polygraph exams the operator will begin by asking simple questions (name,
age, address, etc.) to establish a base-line against which to measure
subsequent responses. The negotiator should also attempt to do this
with their opposite prior to commencing substantive negotiations.
It is more difficult to detect deception in one to whom we are favorably
disposed. IDT says that it is dangerous to negotiate with someone you
know and respect since it increases the truth bias. The obverse is also
true. If a relationship is based upon mistrust or is otherwise negative
there may actually be a lie bias held by the parties.
9. Sleep on it – Individuals are better at detecting deceptive
in a reflective mode. Therefore, one should seek the opportunity to
reflect upon the course of the negotiation prior to finalizing the deal.
10. Trust but verify – In the end there is no substitute for
knowledge. Going into a negotiation a negotiator should have as much
knowledge as possible about the subject of the negotiation, the possible
positions to be taken by their opposite, the reputation of their opposite
and their ultimate bottom line. All theories, including IDT, are simply
tools to assist the negotiator in obtaining the best possible result.
No theory can act as a substitute for a careful investigation of the
statements and allegations made during the course of a negotiation.
... ... ...
There are many different factors that contribute to negative opinions
of managers. It’s not the goal of this essay to list them all, but here
are some of the basics:
- Inconsistent: Says one thing, does something else.
- Arrogant. Always believes they are right, and makes sure
you know it.
- Egocentric. Makes every issue and decision about them.
- Doesn’t listen: is offered advice but ignores it before
even considering it.
- Self-centered: Doesn’t support, encourage or look out
for their team.
- Mean/Abusive: Makes people feel bad for no reason.
- Micro-manager: Refuses to delegate anything, despite
what they say.
- Coward: Backs down whenever challenged.
- Isolated: doesn’t involve others in decisions, and rarely
looks for ways to support/encourage the work of their team.
- Incompetent: Lacks basic communication, intellectual,
or emotional skills needed to for their role.
- Checked out: Isn’t committed to their work or their team.
Skimming this list should have one of two effects:
- Either you are now certain you have the worst manager in the
history of civilization,
- or you’ve recognized a few bad traits
that your manager does not have.
If you are in the former group please re-read the first paragraph
of this essay. Odds are good you can do better.
For most of you the above list should point out a few bad qualities
your manager does not have. This is good. You should take a moment to
imagine how much worse it could be (picture an evil manager, wearing
a red cape, in a dark dungeon of a cubicle farm, laughing to himself
as he uses the list above as a checklist for his daily activities).
If you can see some behavior in your manager
than isn’t as bad as others there is room for you to make better use
of your manager.
Skills: strengths and weaknesses
It’s easy to fall into the trap of labeling people as bad, and blaming
them for everything. Saying “my manager sucks” may relieve tension,
but it’s not going to improve your working conditions. Remember that
managers are just people, and all people are better at some things than
at others. Even if your manager does suck, he
sucks in some ways more than others.
When you are working for someone else, good or bad, it
pays to spend some time evaluating what
their strengths and weaknesses are. The more time you
can spend exposed to their strengths, and the less time you spend exposed
to their weaknesses, the less frustrated you will be.
It sounds elementary, but the following exercise works wonders.
Make two lists: Strengths and Weaknesses.
Fill them in with all of your opinions about your manager. Think back
to the first day you started working with them. Were they more useful
then? Are they good at working with certain people? Fighting for budget
increases? Put it all in the list. Build an analysis of your manager.
If you have a hard time with this, or end up with his only strength
being “can use his picture for karate practice”,
talk with co-workers that work for the same manager.[better
"used to work for the same manger" -NNB]
They will have had different experiences with him/her and
will have a different perspective (Do it privately over coffee if there
are things you want to keep confidential).
Pay attention to who works best (or worst) with your manager and
talk to them. If you ask enough people you’ll likely conclude that every
person sees the manager differently. They might all have criticisms,
but they may be about different things or be for different reasons.
With information from several sources, you now see your manager
more clearly than you did before.
July 9, 2002 (Techrepublic.com)
“Begin to document the micromanagement in writing,” she said.
“If the micromanager says one thing but
acts out something else, you need to document that pattern.”
According to O’Brien, when the micromanager gives you an assignment,
you should follow up with an e-mail message like this:
“This is my understanding of the assignment
and the time line. If this is incorrect, please get back to me.”
O’Brien said that the next step is to go
to human resources with your documentation. However, in O’Brien’s experience,
this tactic may backfire. If the HR department intervenes,
the employee may face the prospect of retaliation.
If you don’t get satisfaction from human resources, O’Brien recommends
going to an outside source, such as an employee assistance program or
a career counselor, to get some help and a plan to deal with the situation.
“Get your job search up and running,” O’Brien said.
She believes that working for a micromanager is a no-win situation that
can adversely affect your health and your career.
“Micromanagers make you feel like you never
do enough,” said O’Brien. “No matter how well you think you’re doing,
micromanagers make you feel like you never do anything right, and that
your job is in jeopardy.”
Managing Pressure: Milestones and Deliveries by
Pressed repeatedly for "status" reports, you might guess that
they don't want status — they want progress. Things can get
so nutty that responding to the status requests gets in the way of doing
the job. How does this happen and what can you do about it? Here's Part
III of a set of tactics and strategies for dealing with pressure.
Pressure often comes from the disparity between expectations and reality.
We can limit this disparity by limiting the perceived ups and downs
that come with most projects. Here are some tactics for managing pressure
by smoothing out the ups and downs. See "Managing
Pressure: Communications and Expectations," Point Lookout
for December 13, 2006, and "Managing
Pressure: The Unexpected," Point Lookout for December 20,
2006, for more.
Space milestones evenly
It's common practice to divide project timelines into uneven segments
distinguished by milestones, with some milestones identified as
"major." This practice can undermine perceptions of progress, because
people prefer steady forward progress to an uneven stream of equal-sized
steps forward. This is true even if the achievements vary greatly
in significance. Spacing milestones unevenly creates progress perception
problems. To manage perceptions, let go of the distinction between
kinds of milestones. Have more milestones, and space them fairly
evenly. Spacing milestones unevenly
creates progress perception problems. Have more milestones, and
space them fairly evenly.
Milestones near deliveries are critical
Gaps between milestones just prior to a delivery are especially
costly, because they engender anxiety about a lack of real evidence
that the project is healthy. Anxiety increases if preparations are
underway for receiving the delivery. Idle time creates fear. Choose
milestones that provide news during parts of the schedule when
people might be susceptible to fear.
Deliver usable capability at regular intervals
Even when a schedule has evenly spaced milestones, customers, sponsors
and management can become anxious when the project delivers usable
capability at irregular intervals. Milestones that don't "matter"
to the customer have little positive impact on perceptions of progress.
The psychological reason for this may be related to airline passengers'
aversion to itineraries that have legs in them that go the "wrong
way" even when those itineraries are faster. Milestones that don't
"matter" represent cost and schedule without real progress. Schedule
regular milestones that have customer impact.
As a sponsor or a senior manager, you're uniquely positioned to smooth
out the experience of these ups and downs. Establish review processes
that ensure that these pressure-management strategies are used throughout
the organization. Project plans should have evenly spaced, frequent
milestones that deliver real value early and often.
And establish after-action reviews for projects
that recently passed through crises to enable project team learning.
A little pressure does help, but most of us are under way more pressure
than is helpful. And we can do something about that.
The Detection of Deception Via Non-Verbal Deception Cues - Law ...
for the Defensive Verbal Behavior Ratings Scale
Behavior Symptom Analysis
Interview How-To utexas.edu
TOXIC LEADERSHIP IN THE U.S. ARMY
Pre Test Excerpt Deception, Conversation
and the Receiver.
Synergy - J Appl Social Pyschol, Volume 34 Issue 12 Page 2602 - December
2004 (Article Abstract)
Of Thoughts Unspoken Social Inference and the Self-Regulation of ...
The present study hypothesized that gender and expectation of future
interaction affects the frequency and nature of lying. Male and female
participants (208 undergraduates) were randomly assigned to same- or
opposite-gender partners and given the expectation they either would
not meet again or would meet 3 additional times. Participants engaged
in a 10-min conversation that was videotaped covertly. Later, target
participants evaluated the videotape identifying lies they told.
During the conversation, 78% of participants lied, with females lying
significantly more than males. Females, but not males, lied
more when expecting future interaction than when expecting no future
interaction. The nature of lies also varied between women and men. Findings
suggest women and men differentially use deception as a self-presentational
Analysis of Spoken Discourse
Psychological and Sociological Observations
Durkheim The Rules of the Sociological Method -- Chapter V
PSYCHOLOGY Conduct a psychological observation with guidance
a psychological observation with direction
1879 and All That: Essays in the Theory and History of Psychology - Google
JSTOR: Notes on the Psychological Observation of Children. I
Printable Copy of Psychological Effects of Combat - Lieutenant ...
There are several books devoted to the topic. Old books are cheap and
are as valuable as new. Don't spend money for the new book unless you are
certain that it is better. See
and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers :
Harvard Mafia :
: Surviving a Bad Performance
Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as
Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience :
Who Rules America :
Two Party System
as Polyarchy : Neoliberalism
: The Iron
Law of Oligarchy :
Finance : John
Kenneth Galbraith : Keynes :
George Carlin :
Propaganda : SE
quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes :
Random IT-related quotes :
Oscar Wilde :
Somerset Maugham :
War and Peace :
Marcus Aurelius :
Eric Hoffer :
Kurt Vonnegut :
Otto Von Bismarck :
Winston Churchill :
Napoleon Bonaparte :
Ambrose Bierce :
Oscar Wilde :
Bernard Shaw :
Mark Twain Quotes
No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult :
Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools
vs. Efficient Crooks: The efficient markets hypothesis :
Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers
as intelligence collection hubs : Vol 23,
No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments :
Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification
of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05
(May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method :
Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan
Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law
Fifty glorious years (1950-2000):
the triumph of the US computer engineering :
Donald Knuth : TAoCP
and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman
: Linus Torvalds :
Larry Wall :
John K. Ousterhout :
CTSS : Multix OS Unix
History : Unix shell history :
VI editor :
History of pipes concept :
Solaris : MS DOS
: Programming Languages History :
PL/1 : Simula 67 :
History of GCC development :
Scripting Languages :
Perl history :
OS History : Mail :
DNS : SSH
: CPU Instruction Sets :
SPARC systems 1987-2006 :
Norton Commander :
Norton Utilities :
Norton Ghost :
Frontpage history :
Malware Defense History :
GNU Screen :
OSS early history
Principle : Parkinson
Law : 1984 :
The Mythical Man-Month :
How to Solve It by George Polya :
The Art of Computer Programming :
The Elements of Programming Style :
The Unix Hater’s Handbook :
The Jargon file :
The True Believer :
Programming Pearls :
The Good Soldier Svejk :
The Power Elite
Most popular humor pages:
Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society :
of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection
: BSD Logo Story :
The Cuckoo's Egg :
IT Slang : C++ Humor
: ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? :
The Perl Purity Test :
Object oriented programmers of all nations
: Financial Humor :
Financial Humor Bulletin,
2008 : Financial
Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related
Humor : Programming Language Humor :
Goldman Sachs related humor :
Greenspan humor : C Humor :
Scripting Humor :
Real Programmers Humor :
Web Humor : GPL-related Humor
: OFM Humor :
Politically Incorrect Humor :
IDS Humor :
"Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian
Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer
Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church
: Richard Stallman Related Humor :
Admin Humor : Perl-related
Humor : Linus Torvalds Related
humor : PseudoScience Related Humor :
Networking Humor :
Shell Humor :
Financial Humor Bulletin,
2011 : Financial
Humor Bulletin, 2012 :
Financial Humor Bulletin,
2013 : Java Humor : Software
Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor :
Education Humor : IBM
Humor : Assembler-related Humor :
VIM Humor : Computer
Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled
to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer
The Last but not Least
Copyright © 1996-2014 by Dr. Nikolai Bezroukov. www.softpanorama.org
was created as a service to the UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP)
in the author free time. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively
for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License.
to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only
in compliance with the fair use doctrine. This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the author present and former employers,
SDNP or any other organization the author may be associated with. We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose.
August 15, 2009