"I'm happy to do X if the consensus is that I'm the right person for that job, but I think that Y has more direct information/expertise than I do in that area and could probably do X more efficiently than I can, if their workload permits."
Sounds like a start-up. When the president barks jump, the only possible response is how high. Lazy is a pretty cynical interpretation of Paperwight's statement. In a healthy organization, there should be room for the response just like paperwight wrote it. But who's ever worked in a healthy organization? Not me.
Definitely not a start-up, but not quite healthy, at least concerning issues between employees. Then too, I'm pretty paranoid about seeming lazy, what with the blogging...
I've worked in startups almost exclusively, with the organization in varying degrees of healthiness. I've never had that statement taken as lazy, nor heard it as lazy. I've heard it as: "Hey, maybe there's a close-to-optimal way to allocate the work, so we can all get this stuff done quickly and well." Maybe I'm too rational.
One can always add, "I'm happy to pick up some of Y's less central tasks if that's helpful."
Oh, so it's just generalized paranoia about laziness. I'm down with that.
So your post suggests that eager, ambitious workers will lead to screwed up companies more quickly than workers who are willing to pass the buck to the person who ought to have it.
There are plenty of ways for a company to get screwed up, but this was an interesting example in that lots of benign and common pressures conspired to lead to a potentially bad result.
Actually, my experience is that in most organizations, accurate knowledge of who can do a job right is almost as highly valued as the ability to do the job right. Someone who knows these things rapidly becomes a go-to person for all sorts of questions, but nobody's particularly offended when they're directed elsewhere.
I'd like to know why this kind of thing is 'decided' in a formal meeting. Meetings involving top brass should be formalities where nothing new happens. Then details like this can be worked out in private where nobody loses face.
I'm serious. There should be non-formal places where this can be hashed out with nobody being put on the spot. It works out better for everybody.
Tripp, it depends on how large the organization is, and where you are in it. I spent time at the managerial levels of relatively small organizations, and this type of thing was indeed hashed out in meetings with the brass. Of course, the brass in question was generally willing to hear "I'm not the right person for that, but Queequeg over there has all that data cold."
If you don't have that kind of environment, then you're absolutely right that tagging people with those kinds of responsibilities in public is a crappy modus operandi.
The correct response in that case is:
"I'm happy to do X if the consensus is that I'm the right person for that job, but I think that Y has more direct information/expertise than I do in that area and could probably do X more efficiently than I can, if their workload permits."
Posted by paperwight | Link to this comment | 12-20-04 6:39 PM
That's a very reasonable thing to say, but my sense is that everyone hears that as "I'm lazy, find someone else."
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-20-04 8:26 PM
Sounds like a start-up. When the president barks jump, the only possible response is how high. Lazy is a pretty cynical interpretation of Paperwight's statement. In a healthy organization, there should be room for the response just like paperwight wrote it. But who's ever worked in a healthy organization? Not me.
Posted by cw | Link to this comment | 12-20-04 9:07 PM
Definitely not a start-up, but not quite healthy, at least concerning issues between employees. Then too, I'm pretty paranoid about seeming lazy, what with the blogging...
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-20-04 9:10 PM
I've worked in startups almost exclusively, with the organization in varying degrees of healthiness. I've never had that statement taken as lazy, nor heard it as lazy. I've heard it as: "Hey, maybe there's a close-to-optimal way to allocate the work, so we can all get this stuff done quickly and well." Maybe I'm too rational.
One can always add, "I'm happy to pick up some of Y's less central tasks if that's helpful."
Posted by paperwight | Link to this comment | 12-20-04 9:32 PM
Ogged, do people at your company know you blog?
Posted by cw | Link to this comment | 12-20-04 9:41 PM
Hell no.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-20-04 9:43 PM
Oh, so it's just generalized paranoia about laziness. I'm down with that.
So your post suggests that eager, ambitious workers will lead to screwed up companies more quickly than workers who are willing to pass the buck to the person who ought to have it.
Posted by cw | Link to this comment | 12-20-04 9:52 PM
There are plenty of ways for a company to get screwed up, but this was an interesting example in that lots of benign and common pressures conspired to lead to a potentially bad result.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-20-04 9:54 PM
sounds like a relationship.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12-20-04 11:07 PM
Actually, my experience is that in most organizations, accurate knowledge of who can do a job right is almost as highly valued as the ability to do the job right. Someone who knows these things rapidly becomes a go-to person for all sorts of questions, but nobody's particularly offended when they're directed elsewhere.
Posted by Matthew McIrvin | Link to this comment | 12-21-04 7:09 AM
I'd like to know why this kind of thing is 'decided' in a formal meeting. Meetings involving top brass should be formalities where nothing new happens. Then details like this can be worked out in private where nobody loses face.
I'm serious. There should be non-formal places where this can be hashed out with nobody being put on the spot. It works out better for everybody.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 12-21-04 8:46 AM
Tripp, it depends on how large the organization is, and where you are in it. I spent time at the managerial levels of relatively small organizations, and this type of thing was indeed hashed out in meetings with the brass. Of course, the brass in question was generally willing to hear "I'm not the right person for that, but Queequeg over there has all that data cold."
If you don't have that kind of environment, then you're absolutely right that tagging people with those kinds of responsibilities in public is a crappy modus operandi.
Posted by paperwight | Link to this comment | 12-21-04 9:52 AM
paperwight,
Oh. I work for megacorp and have never worked for a small company.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 12-22-04 2:05 PM