(no subject)

[rivka]

[Poll #649524]

I set question #1 up as a forced choice because I suspected that, otherwise, everyone's answer would be "it depends." I'd be delighted to entertain further discussion of what it depends on, and why, in the comments section - but I also wanted people's gut reaction if they were forced to choose one or the other.

Comments

[lietya.livejournal.com]

I would say it primarily depends on : is this something *everybody* hates (not really fair to unload all of it on other people who will ALSO hate it, but it's not so bad if the delegate-ee isn't as distressed as the supervisor) and is it work-justifiable to claim that the supervisor's time is more valuable and therefore someone else should perform unpleasant but doable-by-anyone tasks (probably, in most cases, an argument could be made).

[baratron.livejournal.com]

Yes. That. Exactly.

It really depends on whether it's something that everyone hates, or something exclusive to that particular supervisor. For example, I *HATE* photocopying. I loathe it to the extent that I would rather clean a bathroom that hasn't been cleaned in a year than do photocopying. I'm actually not exaggerating. I can stand roughly 2 minutes of photocopying if there's a sheet feeder. Otherwise, no way. The ozone and dust from the copier makes me feel wheezy and nauseous, I worry about getting paper cuts (and often do get them), I can't space out and just let the thing go if I have to keep turning pages - everything about it is obnoxious and horrible to me. Most people do not feel this way about photocopying - in fact, some people I know actively enjoy it. So if I was their supervisor, asking them to do the job I loathe and they like would be a good thing.

Assuming, though, that the job is something equally hated by everyone involved in the process, then I would absolutely pick option 1: the good supervisor should not farm out a hated job on subordinates. If everyone hates the job together, the only way to get through it is if everyone works as a team to get rid of it as quickly as possible. The supervisor should be in the metaphorical trench digging along with everyone else, not sitting in a deckchair shouting advice down to the workers.

Does that help?

[marici.livejournal.com]

So, my answer to 1 is yes to both, but I assume you meant unpleasant tasks you really aren't willing to do, not just dislike, right?

[alecaustin.livejournal.com]

My criterion is: I won't ask someone to do something which I wouldn't be willing to do if I was in their position.

When you're supervising others, there are a lot of jobs that you shouldn't do for reasons that have nothing to do with the inherent qualities of the task itself, and everything to do with your other responsibilities, the need to delegate, the need to maintain some kind of authority, and so on.

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

I won't ask someone to do something which I wouldn't be willing to do if I was in their position.

Exactly what I was going to say. Also, ideally a supervisor knows how to do all the subordinates' tasks, and can jump in and help when necessary... but sometimes you hire an expert to do an expert's job. A supervisor does not need to be able to type 120 wpm in order to supervise a transcriptionist who does.

[elynne.livejournal.com]

My answer to #1 is universally A good supervisor doesn't ask subordinates to do anything the supervisor isn't willing to do. No nuance. A good supervisor absolutely should know how to, and be willing to, do everything that the subordinates do as part of the job. A good supervisor absolutely should have been promoted "from the ranks", rather than given a bit of paper that says "I is a Managur!" and stuck into a position of authority (this one I have experienced, many times, and it has universally sucked ass, and not in a good way). This doesn't mean that a good manager should do everything; a manager is meant to be managing, not doing the jobs of the people she is managing. But, if one of the people has a problem, if one of the jobs gets completely out of control, if work is not getting done as fast as necessary, a manager should absolutely be willing and able to roll up her sleeves and jump in. And she should be willing and able to lay down some heavy smackdown and/or training afterwards, so that situation doesn't happen again.

In an emergency situation, I have far, far more respect for a supervisor who leaps into the trenches and pitches in than I do for a supervisor who stands on the viewing platform shouting "Dig faster! Dig harder! Go team go!"

[kightp.livejournal.com]

A good supervisor absolutely should have been promoted "from the ranks", rather than given a bit of paper that says "I is a Managur!" and stuck into a position of authority

I used to feel this way. But my current boss did rise through the ranks - from the job that would become mine - and his inability to let go has been a thorn in my side for more than a decade. He still expects me to do things the way he used to do them, even though my own methods work perfectly well - and even though the job and the technology used to perform it no longer bear much resemblance to the job he was doing in my place.

Frankly, I've been happier working for managers who were professional managers, had great people and organizational skills - and little or no on-the-ground experience in the jobs of the people they're managing.

[lisajulie.livejournal.com]

I don't see the options in question #1 as mutually exclusive. I may well be able and willing to do something, but I might not exactly _like_ doing it. Err, that is to say, I'd be willing to do the job because I knew it needed to be done, but it wasn't something I liked to do.

[ewtikins.livejournal.com]

I didn't see them as mutually exclusive either. Will and personal dislike are different.

[elissaann.livejournal.com]

I picked Door #1 on the first question, from personal experience.

Before I supervised a staff of 5, I was one of them. After I became manager, I made sure to learn everyone else's job. If part of a job was horrid, I would help them find a way to make it bearable. A happy staff does better work.

[wcg.livejournal.com]

With that attitude you'd have been a good NCO. That's not something I tell just anyone.

[fairoriana.livejournal.com]

I have a boss who doesn't consider any task beneath him, even if he doesn't necessarily know how to do it. And I respect him more for that than I would if he had a big corner office and wore shiny shoes.

[going-not-gone.livejournal.com]

The supervisor should be both willing and able to do any aspect of the supervisee's job, and should be willing and able to jump in and help out with the less enjoyable tasks as needed.

However, part of a supervisor's job is to assign tasks, and one of the perks is being able to assign them in the way you prefer. As long as you're not assigning tasks in an unfair way (i.e. giving all the crappy stuff to one person because you don't like them), it's not unreasonable to pass off the ones you dislike.

[castiron.livejournal.com]

I ended up selecting "a" on #1, but I thought very hard about "b", because darn it, that's why my department hires work-study students....

...except that really, delegation in the workplace isn't primarily about having someone else do the stuff you hate; it's about having someone else do stuff because you have other important projects that you really need to do yourself. I don't mind at all standing by the copier and babysitting it through 500 copies of an order form. But it makes more sense to have the work-study do it so that I can spend time on more specialized tasks that I really can't delegate.

[marith.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's my view. If the big mind-numbing or unpleasant job needs to get done ASAP and it's too big for the employee to easily handle, the supervisor should jump in and help. But if it's not a crisis, then is that the best use of the supervisor's time?

I've never particularly minded a supervisor invoking RHIP as long as they're upfront and fair about it. "We all hate doing this, and as the boss, I get to delegate it. Are you willing to take on this task for the time being? Or would you and Fred take turns doing it to minimize suffering? Or (if there's significant turnover) should we have each new person do the job for X months?"

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

Question 1 is the reason why I think the military should require service in the enlisted ranks before an officer can receive a commission.

[beaq.livejournal.com]

Delegation, IMO, means division of tasks for which YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE. A team exists in order to accomplish a project more efficiently and quickly. Not in order to save you the hassle of doing the boring bits. That's more like...hiring a maid than supervising an employee.

You CAN do whatever you want, but I don't think a good supervisor does that. It creates resentment and stifles the growth of employees.

[wild-irises.livejournal.com]

The piece that's missing for me is that it's fine to delegate tasks I personally dislike, but I have to either know that the person delegated to (1) doesn't also dislike the same tasks; (2) is fully aware that the tasks are part of zir job description; and/or (3) will get something really cool to do as a balance.

Special cases

[wiredferret.livejournal.com]

I am a specialist -- I do things that my bosses don't know how to do, and therefore cannot help me with.

That said, I think in most cases, a boss/manager should know how to do most things their team does, and be willing to do so sometimes.

[abbylee]

Re question #1, I don't see the answers as mutually exclusive. There's a difference between passing off things that you don't like doing and things that you wouldn't do. There's also a difference between passing off things that anyone can do but you dislike, and things that are your responsiblity and you dislike.

I've rarely has problems with a supervisor asking me to do something. But I have had problems with one who didn't seem to understand that the trade off for having more flexible hours, the ability to deligate tasks, and a higher paycheque, is that she also earned a lot more responsibilty.

[jilesa.livejournal.com]

Like a couple of other people here, I don't see the options in question one as mutually exclusive. I can be willing to do something if necessary even if I don't like it.

That said, I don't see anything *wrong* with delegating work that I don't enjoy or that I'm not good at to someone who enjoys it more or is better at it than I am. In other cases, there may be work that I as a supervisor am perfectly willing and able to do, but it's better for the organization if that work is delegated. (e.g. It's not the best thing for the organization for a librarian earning $50,000/year to spend time affixing labels to books when there's a technician earning $25,000/year who can do the labels and the librarian has a whole shelf full of books awaiting cataloging.) Mostly, it comes down to what the priority of the task is and who can do it most effectively in the context of what the organization needs.

[nex0s.livejournal.com]

i think that a supervisor should be *able* to do everything, but may not be willing to do it. or, conversely, may hate it terribly, but if there is a supervisee that is able to do it and doesnt hate it utterly, why shouldn't the supervisee do it?

FWIW: i've never been a supervisor.

n,

[jenett]

As with other comments..

I think it's important the supervisor be willing to do things (or willing to learn how to help with them.) for all sorts of reasons, starting with "Who will make urgent choices if Supervisee is out sick?" and continuing with "It generally leads to better work environments long term."

That said, it is also perfectly reasonable to delegate the bits you don't like, as long as a) either everyone shares the horribleness if all parties concerned consider it horrible and something that just has to be done or b) you hate it, but the person you're delegating it to is okay with it (maybe not their favorite task, but at least neutral about it.)

My boss, who I adore, is very good at this. He is also good at delegating to me, pretty exclusively, the things he does not like to do that I really actively enjoy. This makes me a lot more willing to do the bits I'm not so fond of.

He's also willing to chip in with whatever other stuff, when needed, although there are bits where it's much simpler just to wait until I'm back or able to look at it (when we leave it.)

[kalmn.livejournal.com]

i am answering according to the training i just got out of this morning. heh. in which we learned, do not ask your workers to do things you're not willing to do.

willing to do and like to do are different, however.

also, i think that a manager ought to be able to back their team up, should a team member get run over by a bus, however, willing to do and able to do are also different.

[wcg.livejournal.com]

1. I learned at Parris Island, and had reinforced via the NCO academy, Advanced Leadership School, the Staff NCO academy, the Warfighting school, and the Naval Warfare College that no Marine ever asks another Marine to do something he wouldn't do him/her-self. While there are sometimes specialized tasks that are clearly best done by the people best qualified to do them, good leaders always keep themselves technically and tactically proficient, so they can do what must be done if necessary. (I know civilians aren't Marines, but the rules of good leadership still apply for lesser mortals.)

2. Currently both. Have been both for most of the last 37 years, including all those years in uniform.

3. See list of professional military education in 1 above.

[kcobweb.livejournal.com]

My boss and I used to discuss the fact that *every* job has its component of "monkey work", that is, tasks that could conceivably be done by a trained monkey. Your particular monkey work will vary from job to job - and as you go higher in the chain of command, you have more opportunities to delegate it, but it's always *there*.

My personal bit of monkey work at my old job was slapping labels on brochures, so that every piece that left our building had our name on it. Boring brain-dead work. But we had (unpaid) interns who thought they were above such things; OTOH, my boss (who had a PhD and made twice what I did) would frequently help me.

[journeywoman.livejournal.com]

It really irritates me when interns think they're too good to do something. I don't think they should only do scut work and nothing else, but I also think that some scut work is part of the intern job description.

[ailbhe]

A supervisor should not ask a subordinate to do something that the supervisor would absolutely refuse to do. But sure, asking subordinates to do things one doesn't *like* is fine when necessary, which it often is.

[epi-lj.livejournal.com]

What about things where the subordinate doesn't have the same issue that the supervisor has? I mean, if you're vegetarian and would refuse to work in the meat department, can you still supervise a grocery store? The people who work in the meat department may have no problems with it at all. If you're Muslim and would absolutely refuse to work on Eid, should you still be allowed to require non-Muslim workers to work on Eid?

[epi-lj.livejournal.com]

I answered the survey as set because there was a lot of insistence in the post in doing so, but I don't think that the first question presents mutually exclusive options or complementary options. There's a difference between "willing to do" and "likes to do".

And then, there are all the border cases. What if you're unwilling to work on Hanukkah, but your subordinate isn't Jewish and totally doesn't care? What if you're unwilling to make phone calls because of a strange phobia about phone calls, but your subordinate is totally okay with phones?

So yes, I think it depends.

Also, does, "Willing to do," mean, "Willing to do if there were nobody else available to do it but it had to be done"?

[platypus]

I think supervisors often have to have subordinates do work that neither of them *wants* to do. The undesirable work is often more repetitive or mind-numbing or unpleasant, and it often makes sense to delegate it because it can be done by lower-level employees.

However, I do think that supervisors should generally be *able* to do their subordinates' work. The store supervisor who can't work a cash register, the librarian who can't check out a book -- that's annoying and in a way undermines their authority. I think supervisors can manage people better when they know what it's like to do the job, and I always respect somebody who's willing to get their hands dirty.

[beaq.livejournal.com]

I feel differently about that. Any complex task takes time and energy to learn to do well, and most of them require daily doing to remain proficient. I think it would a waste of time and resources to expect supervisors to be able to take at the drop of a hat the place of any specialist on their team. Sometimes, to be proficient in managing a system, you have to remain sketchy in some of the details. That's why you hire trained people who you can trust.

Unwillingness to touch a task because you don't like it, though, ecch.

[kightp.livejournal.com]

I wanted to answer "yes" to No. 1.

I do believe that supervisors should be *willing* (and preferably able) to do 'most everything, but I also know that their own jobs have an entirely different set of demands that may make them unable to do a given thing at a given time. In which case I see nothing wrong with the supervisor delegating what zie least likes doing and focusing on the things that (a) zie must do and (b) zie prefers to do.

In an ideal workplace, this would be an occasional thing, and when the supervisor had more time/fewer demands zie would pitch in and do the scutwork right alongside everyone else.

Hm. I'm suddenly reminded that I do not work in an ideal workplace...

[therealjae.livejournal.com]

I'm coming at this from the point of view of an academic, and until I read this discussion, it would have never, *ever* occured to me someone might think there was anything wrong with foisting unpleasant tasks off on someone you've hired for the purpose of doing them. In fact, I'd have rephrased "That's part of what delegation is *for*" as "That's the whole point of having employees at all".

Hard scientists always hire research assistants and techs and even post-docs to do the ickier parts of their experiments. In my field, too, it's well known that when you're a graduate student you do your time doing your own and other people's transcription (a task that takes a lot of training but very little brainpower, and it's dull, dull, dull), for example, and then when you're a faculty member, you get to foist that off on other people presuming you're good enough that someone gives you the money to hire them.

I don't know--do we have it entirely wrong? I'm confused.

-J

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Not exactly.

Culture plays a large part in how such things are seen. In my later comments I say I'm not really allowed to pitch on on certain types of work.

So my passing that off isn't seen as wrong (and if I'm someplace where I'm low on the totem pole, or outside of garrison, things are different).

And the folks I work with all understand that, so there isn't any real friction.

TK