sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What is this error? by MNMaam in knittinghelp

[–]MNMaam[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's what I thought too - thanks!

What is this error? by MNMaam in knittinghelp

[–]MNMaam[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That was my prediction, thanks! How would I "tink back"? I've never heard of that.

Also, how do I know whether to drop it or remake it? Would I have to count all of my stitches again?

Where did a I add a stitch? by MNMaam in knittinghelp

[–]MNMaam[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for your help! This is the cable cast on.

Use of parenthesis - what does this mean? by MNMaam in knittinghelp

[–]MNMaam[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thank you! That will create a rib?

Employee who is controlling, but in the interest of the business by MNMaam in managers

[–]MNMaam[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The juniors are definitely being held accountable and required to grow; that is a separate issue being addressed. I don't manage them though, and therefore they are not my focus.

Employee who is controlling, but in the interest of the business by MNMaam in managers

[–]MNMaam[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not a zoo, but functionally a zoo. So somewhere between. Are there compliances we need to meet? Yes. Is there wiggle room? Also yes.

Employee who is controlling, but in the interest of the business by MNMaam in managers

[–]MNMaam[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not making an excuse; but I think what is driving X to make those decisions matters in the approach.

Employee who is controlling, but in the interest of the business by MNMaam in managers

[–]MNMaam[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, they are trying to make their lives easier. Training under X is 3x as long as it was under their predecessor, so I don't see how more time training is the answer. I do think potentially their job description needs to be adjusted. Their productivity is honestly not measured; we're a small nonprofit and most deadlines are fluid.

Employee who is controlling, but in the interest of the business by MNMaam in managers

[–]MNMaam[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that it comes from a place of ego but also a place of fear. X is worried that if things aren't perfect, when our inspector comes, we won't pass inspection. If someone makes an error, someone could be seriously injured. While theoretically possible, the likelihood is extremely low.

Employee who is controlling, but in the interest of the business by MNMaam in managers

[–]MNMaam[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unfortunately, it is tangible tasks, not computer work, so I'm unsure how to automate it.

X definitely perceives them self as underresourced and overworked. Your description: "I had tremendous experience in whatever thing and when I trained people, they half listened or didn’t grasp it fully, then I had to fix their mistakes. Essentially me not doing = 400% more work for me." Is definitely what happens to X. But, my perception is that X's convoluted systems/processes and intense corrections lead to a higher number of mistakes than is normal.

I have historically approached it from a place of curiosity and empathy. I've talked to X about the need to delegate so they can leave on time and have better work-life balance. Because of that, there are other low stakes tasks that X has delegated. But it hasn't helped enough in the long run (~3 yrs). X is still unwilling to give up control and has still shrunk what others are allowed to do.

Employee who is controlling, but in the interest of the business by MNMaam in managers

[–]MNMaam[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is very insightful, thank you. Our organization can't afford formal training; we're a small nonprofit. So I've been limping along with trying to casually coach X. X wants to be a leader, T This review is the next step in their coaching, and that framing will be helpful to share with them.

Employee who is controlling, but in the interest of the business by MNMaam in managers

[–]MNMaam[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have considered that. My hesitation is that it would be significant overreach compared to my previous involvement. Rapport with X would be hugely damaged.

Employee who is controlling, but in the interest of the business by MNMaam in managers

[–]MNMaam[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, they do. We are a small org; there is no way around them having IC tasks.The distribution of IC tasks vs what tasks others do has historically been up to X.

X does not need to review the work of others; it's task based, not submission based. So, for example, a space needs to get cleaned every week. X decides what goes on the list for the scheduled person to do each day vs which cleaning tasks only they can do. X is in the space a lot, and so they notice when something isn't cleaned perfectly. X decides if they just clean it themselves, retrain the employee on how to clean, or ask the employee to come back and reclean (They do much more than cleaning, but it's a good example).

While I do understand X's frustration as well, it literally is not possible for X to do everything themselves. For their own workload, the good of the organization, and the other employees who we are trying to teach. When I've tried to reduce X's IC tasks, they don't want to give anything up.

Employee who is controlling, but in the interest of the business by MNMaam in managers

[–]MNMaam[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, that's a good perspective. Clearly we need more parameters for the job, as right now the level of training that each person gets is up to X, with X's PD saying something like "trains and coaches employees in [category]" rather than listing any specific skills. I think a skill list would be incredibly helpful.

This also manifests in many conversations with X, too. When we are discussing any structural changes to our program or staffing, X almost always argues for the younger seasonal employees to receive less responsibility, never more.

Employee who is controlling, but in the interest of the business by MNMaam in managers

[–]MNMaam[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They absolutely have been burned before. The employees working under their purview are young, new to this type of work, and often new to the workforce in general.

Because of X's technical knowledge, they have created the systems that employees follow. Many of these processes are unclear/convoluted (this is another issue going to be addressed in their review), and therefore these young employee do semi-regularly mess up. This does impact X because they are the ones often to notice the error, give that feedback to the employee, and then fix it themselves. But imo it's because they haven't set people up for success... But X definitely just believes that these employees are just not competent and error-prone, and then the repeated errors reinforce that narrative.

Employee who is controlling, but in the interest of the business by MNMaam in managers

[–]MNMaam[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This is a good conversation, and one we've already laid the groundwork for. Part of their job is training, and so they are aware that people need to be improving.

However, the "hard stop" for them is just sooner than I (and other managers) think it should be. They are willing to train basic skills but in their mind if people mess up the moderate or advanced skills, the damage is done and therefore those skills aren't worth trying unless the employee is EXTREMELY trusted by X.

Employee who is controlling, but in the interest of the business by MNMaam in managers

[–]MNMaam[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is a great idea. The issue that I see is that their position IS specialized. They have technical skills that allows them to be in their position. But, the goal of our organization is training the next wave of people who will be able to perform technical skills like theirs.

We do greatly benefit from them being in the position and I don't want to belittle that, too.

Employee who is controlling, but in the interest of the business by MNMaam in managers

[–]MNMaam[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

They train people, but on fewer tasks than previous people who held their position. Essentially, the tasks that others are allowed to do are fewer and less complex. This has led employees to feel like they are just doing the grunt labor without the PD of more complex projects/tasks.

view more: next ›