Re: Time management

Hi Dale,

> > > Another is that you could reduce your planned duties to allow more
> > > time for fighting fires.
> >
> > "They" meaning those above me, I assume.
>
> No, I mean you.  You can say, as early as you know, "I'm not going to
> meet this obligation."  That gives the people to whom you made the
> obligation the best chance to find someone else to do those things.

I could, but that's not the way I operate.  It's my responsibilty to find
out as much as I need to before making the committment.  Once made, it's
made and I do whatever it takes to meet that committment.  The only time
I'll go back and say "I'm not going to meet this obligation" is if I *can't*
predict that I'll be able to meet it.
>
> > Yes, they could do that. Then assign those duties to...?
>
> That's a tough problem.  It doesn't have to be your problem.

Yes it does.  For me.  I don't push my problems off on others.

> > This is not a simple problem.
>
> No, it isn't simple.
>
> > > I'm imagining that if you took the time to recharge more fully,
> > > you'd have fewer fires to fight.
> >
> > Ever go on vacation?  Ever returned to find things were running
> > better than when you left?  I haven't.
>
> Why are there so many issues that only you can handle?

That's not what I said.  At least it's not what I meant.  I asked if you'd
ever returned to find things running *better* when you got back.  Best case,
no issues would come up that I needed to handle and things would be running
no worse than when I left.  But sometimes issues that I'm best suited to
handle do come up, and, because I'm gone, the situation gets worse until I
get back to handle them.  A lot of it has to do with relationships rather
than knowledge.

> > Fires, once burning, only get larger unless they're tended.
> > Unwatched, fires tend to spring up.  At least with the kind of
> > organizations prevalent today.
>
> Right.  And when I'm stressed, I respond poorly to the fires I'm
> fighting, and I even start fires (inadvertently) myself.

Yes.

> > > > It's been both my experience and observation that the higher up
> > > > you go in an organization, the larger the number and the larger
> > > > the severity of those things.
> > >
> > > If that is predictable, why don't we plan for it, and schedule
> > > fewer conflicting responsibilities?
> >
> > Good question.  Perhaps it's as simple as we don't know how to do
> > that yet.
>
> I think it's simpler:  If you'll work the hours, the organization sees
> no reason to reduce your workload.

I think it's more about money.  The fewer people you can employ to do the
same amount of work, the higher your profit margins.  The better your profit
margins, the better your competitive position in the capital markets, the
more money you can hold in reserve for hard times, etc., etc., etc.

Best regards,
Bill


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get 128 Bit SSL Encryption!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/CBxunD/vN2EAA/xGHJAA/NhFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
extremecustomering-unsubscribe-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/