ARA Review by Linda Reyburn Shirey of The Underdog
Moderator: Official Reviewer Representatives
-
Linda Reyburn Shirey
- Posts: 3
- Joined: 22 May 2025, 08:51
- Favorite Book: successful millennial
- Currently Reading: A Kaleidoscope of Masquerades (A Lt. Plate in Sand Waves Mystery Book 3)
- Bookshelf Size: 0
- 2025 Reading Goal: 50
- 2025 Goal Completion: 0%
ARA Review by Linda Reyburn Shirey of The Underdog
[Following is an OnlineBookClub.org ARA Review of the book, The Underdog.]
4.5 out of 5 (some spelling and punctuation issues)
It’s unusual for a person representing herself to win against a well-known academic institution - this play-by-play has great ‘David and Goliath’ appeal.
The content is a mixture between journal-style personal memoir, court case, and case study for work-induced anxiety. It’s raw and real, and that holds some of the appeal. (And if I’d won a two-year case against a similar institution, like Phoenix College, I would probably feel very self-congratulatory - might not bother to hide it.)
It’s puzzling when a training college has procedures that it chooses to ignore, instructors that it chooses to ignore, and then acts surprised when there are financial consequences. One of the lines is telling: ‘Don’t these managers/HR talk to each other?’ Not with a great deal of trust or openness, I’d imagine. Sounds like CS Lewis’ assertions about the cold professionalism of the Tempters’ College bright to life.
Is it because they can’t believe a lowly instructor over a team lead (Management Myopia)? Is it because they are busy putting out many fires (and worrying about budget impact from many directions) so they put an investigation on the back burner until the smoke alarm goes off? (Possibly a topic for a second book!)
Not sure what gives management the idea that they can bully their way through any situation, and it’s discouraging that one has to be a little OCD to plow through the details and roadblocks of an internal investigation being made public via Tribunal….but that is why they exist. Image management only gets you so far before the facade crumbles.
Some of the phrases made me laugh (“I was the perfect employee”) or reminded me of common assertions made in discrimination cases: I am in the right and have done no wrong, I am asking for advice from the tribunal and they are not helping, etc. All of these phrases are the kind of thing that you think to yourself at night, while petting your dog – understandable when faced with a bunch of suited beings who act politely without resolving any issues to a satisfactory conclusion. The ridiculousness of the solicitor’s statement trying to have its outrage cake and eat it too (‘all documents received have been included/anything omitted was an error on behalf of one or other of the parties’) – in addition to the monumental failure of paying a Tribunal-ordered fine on time….no. There’s no excuse for that, any more than the ‘balance of probabilities’ indicating that you should retain a supervisor rated as a bully by 3 out of 12 interviewees and intimidating by 7 out of 12.
A good read overall!
***
View The Underdog on Bookshelves
4.5 out of 5 (some spelling and punctuation issues)
It’s unusual for a person representing herself to win against a well-known academic institution - this play-by-play has great ‘David and Goliath’ appeal.
The content is a mixture between journal-style personal memoir, court case, and case study for work-induced anxiety. It’s raw and real, and that holds some of the appeal. (And if I’d won a two-year case against a similar institution, like Phoenix College, I would probably feel very self-congratulatory - might not bother to hide it.)
It’s puzzling when a training college has procedures that it chooses to ignore, instructors that it chooses to ignore, and then acts surprised when there are financial consequences. One of the lines is telling: ‘Don’t these managers/HR talk to each other?’ Not with a great deal of trust or openness, I’d imagine. Sounds like CS Lewis’ assertions about the cold professionalism of the Tempters’ College bright to life.
Is it because they can’t believe a lowly instructor over a team lead (Management Myopia)? Is it because they are busy putting out many fires (and worrying about budget impact from many directions) so they put an investigation on the back burner until the smoke alarm goes off? (Possibly a topic for a second book!)
Not sure what gives management the idea that they can bully their way through any situation, and it’s discouraging that one has to be a little OCD to plow through the details and roadblocks of an internal investigation being made public via Tribunal….but that is why they exist. Image management only gets you so far before the facade crumbles.
Some of the phrases made me laugh (“I was the perfect employee”) or reminded me of common assertions made in discrimination cases: I am in the right and have done no wrong, I am asking for advice from the tribunal and they are not helping, etc. All of these phrases are the kind of thing that you think to yourself at night, while petting your dog – understandable when faced with a bunch of suited beings who act politely without resolving any issues to a satisfactory conclusion. The ridiculousness of the solicitor’s statement trying to have its outrage cake and eat it too (‘all documents received have been included/anything omitted was an error on behalf of one or other of the parties’) – in addition to the monumental failure of paying a Tribunal-ordered fine on time….no. There’s no excuse for that, any more than the ‘balance of probabilities’ indicating that you should retain a supervisor rated as a bully by 3 out of 12 interviewees and intimidating by 7 out of 12.
A good read overall!
***
View The Underdog on Bookshelves
