Et Tu, TM?
I was really pissed yesterday. My fellow colleagues and I who are in the same appointment were implicated in an email sent out to all the sub-dept managers and deputy managers. Irritation has made me incoherent. Perhaps I ought to start at the beginning.
Due to a high turnover rate, especially a couple of months back when five of my ex-colleagues, all executive level, resigned en masse (for various reasons I suppose; I do not want to attribute their resignations to any one particular reason. Amongst other things, I don't want to appear to tie events of the past to what I am writing about now). In addition, two other colleagues had to go on long medical leave. Because of that, executives and senior executives doing shift work in my particular department were in short supply. My dept head then made an unprecedented decision: our deputy managers were to take their turn doing shift work with us. In effect, while their position was higher than us, their appointments for part of the month of July would be the same as us.
That was perfectly fine with the bunch of us execs. We were, for the most part, chums with our deputy managers, and worked well with them. They had all used to hold our current appointments, and being Duty Officers and Duty Managers would have been old hat to them. We were grateful to have the experienced people with us on shift. It made life easier.
Well, just a couple of days ago, there was a mail sent by my department head to virtually all of the senior officers in my department. In it, my department head said that she was impressed at the measures one of those deputy managers on duty had done in order to ensure productivity and reach a high level of throughput for the department. The mail ended off saying that she wanted to see the other duty managers doing the same things as he did.
What got me pissed is not the fact that she seems to be favouring one person over the others. That in itself is already pretty dangerous considering that everybody knows everybody in my department. What really got me hopping mad was the implication that the rest of us were not doing our work. The measures and techniques which that particular deputy manager had used were standard measures and part of the framework of our duties anyway. A further check into the statistics of that particular shift shows that while the throughput achieved was one of the highest, the resource productivity was in effect, below average!
I am not begrudging my deputy manager his hour of fame. In fact, I am glad of it. He is a self-effacing gent who can achieve more with a little more exposure. I am, once again, highlight, big-caps, bold, italics, and underline in 128 font-size, PISSED at the implication that the rest of us are not doing our work! If it were just me, I would put it down to discrimination; THAT I can handle. But to imply that ALL the duty managers are NOT discharging their duties effectively really takes the cake! Within a couple of short sentences she has told us what she really thinks about our appointment, and sadly, she has also shown very effectively, that she has no idea what the real work scope of a duty manager or duty officer is supposed to be.
The rest of my colleagues who are in the same appointment as I are without doubt, the young executives who are the most loyal, hardworking people I've had the privilege to rub shoulders with. To say that they aren't doing their job is indubitably an insult towards their moral character. And to say that a person's single shift's performance is outstanding when simple statistics show it to be patently untrue is an imperfect nod towards favouritism. Both of which I abhor.
Managers all around the world beware. Subordinates may be subordinates, but to believe that they are also stupid is a total fallacy!
Due to a high turnover rate, especially a couple of months back when five of my ex-colleagues, all executive level, resigned en masse (for various reasons I suppose; I do not want to attribute their resignations to any one particular reason. Amongst other things, I don't want to appear to tie events of the past to what I am writing about now). In addition, two other colleagues had to go on long medical leave. Because of that, executives and senior executives doing shift work in my particular department were in short supply. My dept head then made an unprecedented decision: our deputy managers were to take their turn doing shift work with us. In effect, while their position was higher than us, their appointments for part of the month of July would be the same as us.
That was perfectly fine with the bunch of us execs. We were, for the most part, chums with our deputy managers, and worked well with them. They had all used to hold our current appointments, and being Duty Officers and Duty Managers would have been old hat to them. We were grateful to have the experienced people with us on shift. It made life easier.
Well, just a couple of days ago, there was a mail sent by my department head to virtually all of the senior officers in my department. In it, my department head said that she was impressed at the measures one of those deputy managers on duty had done in order to ensure productivity and reach a high level of throughput for the department. The mail ended off saying that she wanted to see the other duty managers doing the same things as he did.
What got me pissed is not the fact that she seems to be favouring one person over the others. That in itself is already pretty dangerous considering that everybody knows everybody in my department. What really got me hopping mad was the implication that the rest of us were not doing our work. The measures and techniques which that particular deputy manager had used were standard measures and part of the framework of our duties anyway. A further check into the statistics of that particular shift shows that while the throughput achieved was one of the highest, the resource productivity was in effect, below average!
I am not begrudging my deputy manager his hour of fame. In fact, I am glad of it. He is a self-effacing gent who can achieve more with a little more exposure. I am, once again, highlight, big-caps, bold, italics, and underline in 128 font-size, PISSED at the implication that the rest of us are not doing our work! If it were just me, I would put it down to discrimination; THAT I can handle. But to imply that ALL the duty managers are NOT discharging their duties effectively really takes the cake! Within a couple of short sentences she has told us what she really thinks about our appointment, and sadly, she has also shown very effectively, that she has no idea what the real work scope of a duty manager or duty officer is supposed to be.
The rest of my colleagues who are in the same appointment as I are without doubt, the young executives who are the most loyal, hardworking people I've had the privilege to rub shoulders with. To say that they aren't doing their job is indubitably an insult towards their moral character. And to say that a person's single shift's performance is outstanding when simple statistics show it to be patently untrue is an imperfect nod towards favouritism. Both of which I abhor.
Managers all around the world beware. Subordinates may be subordinates, but to believe that they are also stupid is a total fallacy!
posted by ekkie at 10:38 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home