(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

[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?"