A common thread on advice columns I've been reading is "don't think of something as tattling". But I'm going to unpack that a lot.
I think when that notion makes sense is when you *should* be able to fix something yourself. Like, whether you're dealing with children or employees, if A has a small-ish problem with B it's reasonable that they should start by asking B about it, not by asking someone in charge to intervene.
In retrospect I lagged behind at this pretty basic skill most of my life. But it is something it's good for people to learn (although as with many skills, it may help if you actually explain to A what they should do, not just say "not asking me" and leave them helpless until they spontaneously realised for themselves what they're supposed to do). And that sometimes A can't handle what you expect and you need to deal with the situation differently.
I don't exactly like "tattling" as a descriptor, but it basically fits the scenario that you should be able to handle this without intervention from authority. Although I wish there was a clearer separation between "asking for help because you're not as good at getting people to behave reasonably as average" and "asking for help because whenever someone makes a mistake less than perfection, you try to get them into trouble for it". To me those are quite different, even if they both involve the person in authority having to pay attention to the issue.
But the other dichotomy might be, where are you on a scale between "we're all in this together each doing our own role" and "we knuckle under authority because we have to." If the authority is unfair, violent, evil, etc. the de facto rule might sensibly be "don't involve them, except as a nuclear option". Think, if the police are likely to treat everyone involved badly, invoking the law isn't a clearcut decision. If the authority is fair and care about the people (like a parent hopefully is), you hope that involving them will help in any case where it seems useful, even if your peer is in trouble.
But obviously, people can have divergent ideas where a typical office job falls on this scale. Some people's viewpoint is very much, "just get a paycheck," and if their colleague is successfully scamming the boss, then more power to them -- they probably need the money and the ultimate owner's don't deserve it. Other people, whatever they think of the ultimate owners, hope the employees are functioning as a team, and deliberately doing a good job in expectation of being rewarded for it, and carrying someone who's not doing their share isn't something to automatically put up with.
Unsurprisingly the advice I see looks more to the second viewpoint, but I'm not sure when I should dismiss the first viewpoint or when I shouldn't.
I think when that notion makes sense is when you *should* be able to fix something yourself. Like, whether you're dealing with children or employees, if A has a small-ish problem with B it's reasonable that they should start by asking B about it, not by asking someone in charge to intervene.
In retrospect I lagged behind at this pretty basic skill most of my life. But it is something it's good for people to learn (although as with many skills, it may help if you actually explain to A what they should do, not just say "not asking me" and leave them helpless until they spontaneously realised for themselves what they're supposed to do). And that sometimes A can't handle what you expect and you need to deal with the situation differently.
I don't exactly like "tattling" as a descriptor, but it basically fits the scenario that you should be able to handle this without intervention from authority. Although I wish there was a clearer separation between "asking for help because you're not as good at getting people to behave reasonably as average" and "asking for help because whenever someone makes a mistake less than perfection, you try to get them into trouble for it". To me those are quite different, even if they both involve the person in authority having to pay attention to the issue.
But the other dichotomy might be, where are you on a scale between "we're all in this together each doing our own role" and "we knuckle under authority because we have to." If the authority is unfair, violent, evil, etc. the de facto rule might sensibly be "don't involve them, except as a nuclear option". Think, if the police are likely to treat everyone involved badly, invoking the law isn't a clearcut decision. If the authority is fair and care about the people (like a parent hopefully is), you hope that involving them will help in any case where it seems useful, even if your peer is in trouble.
But obviously, people can have divergent ideas where a typical office job falls on this scale. Some people's viewpoint is very much, "just get a paycheck," and if their colleague is successfully scamming the boss, then more power to them -- they probably need the money and the ultimate owner's don't deserve it. Other people, whatever they think of the ultimate owners, hope the employees are functioning as a team, and deliberately doing a good job in expectation of being rewarded for it, and carrying someone who's not doing their share isn't something to automatically put up with.
Unsurprisingly the advice I see looks more to the second viewpoint, but I'm not sure when I should dismiss the first viewpoint or when I shouldn't.