Delegation.

[rivka]

Yesterday's poll sparked some great discussion - my thanks to everyone who contributed.

Here's what prompted the poll. Tuesday is lab meeting day, and yesterday was our first lab meeting since everyone started taking off for holiday travel. At the meeting, I had this conversation:

rivka: "We are way behind with follow-up visits right now, so let's really make a push to get those scheduled."
RA #1: "I just have one subject tomorrow, so I can make calls all afternoon."
rivka: [looking from RA#1 to RA#2] "Please make sure that you split the calls up so that one person isn't doing all of them."
RA#1: "We always do."
rivka: [does not volunteer to make any calls herself.]

See, I hate making business phone calls. Hate it. Always have. If phone calls are on my to-do list, everything else happens first - generally including sizable amounts of procrastination. When I became a Research Supervisor, with two RAs and a grad student under me, I decided that I would not be making any more routine phone calls. I don't call to remind subjects of their appointments. I don't call to schedule follow-ups. I don't call to find out whether the clinic will be closed for Martin Luther King Day. I make the calls that need to be made by me - to the Institutional Review Board, to federal regulators, to our boss when there's news she isn't going to like, to anyone who needs to be handled with diplomacy. But I am not willing to make the routine calls. I made plenty of them when I was a grad student and a RA and a research coordinator. My RAs make them now.

Does this make me a bad supervisor? I don't think it does. My RAs don't seem to mind making phone calls - I mean, if RA#1 can cheerfully volunteer to make them all afternoon, then obviously she doesn't feel the same way that I do. I do unpleasant stuff I don't ask them to do - for example, I can't count the number of times I've said something along the lines of, "Well, if he tries to give you a hard time about it, just refer him to me. You're an RA - you're not responsible for our policies." I'm willing to have them schedule all the problem-child subjects on my shifts.

I'm just not willing to make the phone calls.

Comments

[janetmiles.livejournal.com]

I personally don't think that makes you a bad supervisor; I think it makes you an effective one. You delegate that which can be done by others, and do yourself what others can't or shouldn't have to do.

(I could be wrong, but I suspect that if there were an emergency, you'd be willing to help out with the calls.)

[wcg.livejournal.com]

What Janet said.

[platypus]

If you've got a subordinate who doesn't mind doing the calls, I don't see any reason why you should have to do them. It's not a task that most people find nasty or unpleasant, and it's not like you absolutely couldn't do them if necessary. You're just delegating something fairly routine and repetitive to someone who already volunteered.

[therealjae.livejournal.com]

Frankly? I think the ideology of delegation assumed by most of your friends list is a little odd. (Sorry, guys.)

I mean, isn't that what you hire someone *for*--to do things you don't want to or don't have time to do yourself? Isn't that the whole point of having employees? You decide which tasks you don't want to do, you write a job description, you hire someone who's willing to do those things, you pay them what they're worth. What's the problem?

-J

[patgreene.livejournal.com]

Yep. What she said.

[lietya.livejournal.com]

I don't think it does, because back when your skill set didn't much exceed the making of those calls, you made them (albeit unhappily). Now that your skills are more greatly needed elsewhere, you delegate the calls, to people who do *not* suffer as you did with them. That's both fair and justifiable.

I also don't have a problem with scut work that's widely understood to be the province of the "lowest person on the totem pole," because everybody does their stint at it, then moves up the heirarchy and re-assigns it to those below (who know that one day they themselves will graduate beyond it). RAs make those phone calls, because that's part of the understood nature of the job and the job *level.* You did when you were one; now you get to make them do it. Such is life.

[orangemike.livejournal.com]

I also don't have a problem with scut work that's widely understood to be the province of the "lowest person on the totem pole," because everybody does their stint at it, then moves up the heirarchy and re-assigns it to those below (who know that one day they themselves will graduate beyond it).

It ain't necessarily so. Some get the "secretarial stain" (a phrase stolen from an old Dilbert strip) attached to their CV and are never allowed to rise above it. Then there are class issues, etc.

[epi-lj.livejournal.com]

Hey, I even used the "doesn't like to make phone calls," example in my response, didn't I?

Go me!

[ratphooey.livejournal.com]

You once made the calls. In a desperate situation, you could probably force yourself to make the calls again. That counts.

It's more about your staff feeling that you aren't just in charge of them but part of a team all working towards the same goal, than you actually doing the grunt work.

And, as you suspect, I'm sure other people don't find the task as odious.

[beaq.livejournal.com]

They're RAs, for crying out loud. They do what you tell 'em. :-)

I read your initial phrasing as suggesting that the job was shunted off simply because the manager didn't LIKE to do it, with the implication that it was an inherently odious or boring thing to do. I don't think that's good management. I don't think delegation of ick is casually justifiable unless it serves the team goals rather than simply being a perk for the boss. It sounds like your reasons are more involved than simple personal distaste. The fact that it's a huge relief not to have to do them is beside the point.

If forced to pick a or b again with no finessing them, I'd still choose the way I did.

[beaq.livejournal.com]

Hm. But considering the apparent tone of my previous comments.... I guess I'm still arguing with myself over this.

I don't see anything wrong with what you're doing. Do you?

[ckd]

I missed the poll somehow, but anyway.

I'm with janetmiles and wcg. You'd do it if you had to, it's not like you're dumping things on them for no reason, etc.

My parallel: sometimes we have to shut down the entire data center for power work or whatever. Some portion of the team does the shutdown and a different group does the powerup. Shutdown is often early morning, powerup midafternoon.

I take powerup if at all possible; I'm not a morning person. However, if nobody else can take it, I'll take the shutdown. Also, powerup is generally when stuff breaks, so having someone there who knows more of the whys and wherefores of the system setup is useful; the more junior folks can be trusted to run shutdown commands and hit breaker switches.

[aranel.livejournal.com]

As a relatively young person in a relatively low-level job, it drives me absolutely nuts when my supervisor tries to take care of stuff I and other underlings are capable of handling. It reads to me as her being a control freak and not trusting us to do things right, not an egalitarian dream work environment. She is more needed to do the stuff only she can do (because she understands the program better, works longer hours, has more contacts and resources available, has had more training, etc.) than to stress herself, and thus us, by trying to do everyone else's job for them.

[porcinea.livejournal.com]

I didn't answer your poll, because I didn't think your two choices were incompatible. It is possible both to delegate stuff you don't like, *and* to only assign to your subordinates work that you are willing to do yourself. You don't have to be eager to do it; just willing. And the fact that the calls will get done, eventually, if they are on your to-do list, means that, in fact, you are *willing* to do them. Just not eager.

I think this makes you a good supervisor.

[johnpalmer.livejournal.com]

Nod. I think this is perfectly justified, especially because it's a thing that bugs you, but isn't universally bothersome. And, you *do* make calls, when you need to, so it's not like you're hiding behind your assistants.

I have to admit, in your position, I might feel a twinge of guilt about it myself, but the fact of the matter is, you're asking them to do something that's an ordinary part of their job, and doing it so that you're more able to concentrate on the stuff that only you can do. Well, that's how delegation is supposed to work.

[ailbhe]

See, I parsed "unwilling" as, um, absolutely will not do this thing no matter what. So I was thinking of things like... lying to customers, working in hazardous conditions without safety equipment, etc. Not "stuff I used to have to do, which I hated, but don't now."

[jenett]

What ailbhe said.

With an added line about the kind of stuff some people pull about the "I'm so much better than you, so even though an emergency/unusual situation has come up, I'm not going to chip in at all because it's beneath me."

I think it's important that good supervisors be able and willing-in-case-of-unusual-circumstances to do stuff. I don't think they need to do it all the time. The example you give is perfectly reasonable. Not unusual circumstances, you have RAs who are happy to do it, and who don't find it particularly unpleasant. There's no *need* for you to be willing to do it.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

Hey, you made the calls when that was your job. That certainly fits my "up through the ranks" view.

(I hate making calls, too.)

[minnaleigh.livejournal.com]

I had trouble answering the poll because, like you, I hand stuff I don't like to do over to someone else all the time. But, I *can* do it and I *would* do it if they were too busy or something. Or if, for example, so many mice needed to be eartagged that everybody needed to pitch in, I would do it without complaint. So I'm somewhat willing to do the tasks but on a normal day, I delegate away.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

"Does this make me a bad supervisor?"

Not even a little bit.

B

[chiefted]

I think maybe I answered the quiz wrong yesterday. I don't want to say it was the wording of the question.

The question I think I answered wrong (ok there was no right or wrong) was about not tasking a subordinate to do something that you wouldn't do as the supervisor.

My answer was yes but, IMHO, should have been a third option. Maybe along the lines of you have done task, previously but now you can delegate task do you still delegate it.

As others have said, doesn't make you a bad supervisor to delegate tasks you don't like yet others don't mind it or even like doing it, you are an effective one, using the strengths of your team.

which is why I wind up writing the student guides and doing curriculum development others hate it and I actually don't mind doing it and well I think I am pretty good at it.

[sashajwolf.livejournal.com]

I think that's fine, especially given that you did this task when you were in their position. Even if for some reason you hadn't, taking care of routine tasks is a large part of what assistants are for.

[toadnae.livejournal.com]

As an admin, it's my opinion that doing the stuff my boss doesn't want to do IS my job. I think you're a fine supervisor -- it's not like you're asking them to do anything dangerous or harmful to their careers. They are RA's -- they do the scut work. Such is life.

[xopher-vh.livejournal.com]

This where the nuance comes in. You're at a level where it's inefficient for you to make routine calls. And as you said, you paid your dues. I answered the question from the point of view of the super asking the subords to do things the super NEVER was willing to do...or that are ethically questionable, things like that.

Besides, there's a division of labor here. You're not just dodging all the unpleasant tasks (another thing that would be Bad Super territory).

Finally, if they were both out sick and the calls finally HAD to be made...you'd make them. UNWILLING to do...I interpreted that as "Oh no, not me! I'm not going in there" kind of unwilling, not "why should I do this when I have RAs?"

[jinian.livejournal.com]

I think it's funny that people are posting to say what they assumed about the poll questions, but only if they disagreed with you because of it! Well, I assumed something very close to your actual situation, so there. :)

[xopher-vh.livejournal.com]

She foooooooled uuuuuussss!

[orangemike.livejournal.com]

You're not a bad supervisor. A bad supervisor is the kind who won't do that sort of thing because they're above it.

"I have a Pee Aytch Dee; I don't do that stuff like you peons!"