Monday, August 10, 2009

specialists

The longer I'm at my job the more and more I'm convinced that anyone could do it. It requires no special training; only patience, curiosity, and the ability to suppress your homicidal instincts. The last part is especially easy when your as mellow and easy-going as I am. We'll be in a meeting and my boss will make a comment along the lines of "Our specialist will get in touch with your coordinator and make sure everything is working together properly" and suddenly people are looking at me and saying things like, "Right?"

My mind struggles to figure out who I am in this scenario...I'm certainly no coordinator, I'm merely a tech grunt. Am I...am I the specialist? Holy crap, she did mean me, me the specialist, when did this happen? How did this happen? Did I get a raise too? No? What about a new title? Nu-huh? Ok, how would you like this "specialist" to proceed? Contact the coordinator, work with the director, fulfill all their requests, and make sure their conference goes off without a hitch? No problem. By five o'clock you say? Easier done than said.

I think any field that requires a "specialist" to interpret things into lay terms is pretty suspect. Specialists and consultants fall into the charlatan category when it comes to job knowledge and amount of work done - think of them as the op-ed author in your local paper. They talk a good game, but largely they're grasping at straws and making up technical jargon that they'll cite as "industry speak". When it comes to work actually getting done or getting things to actually function properly, you can rest assured the specialists and consultants will be far removed from the action, but always at the ready to swoop in and take credit for what the proletariat has accomplished. When in doubt, remember this graph:

4 comments:

RiCap said...

LOL this is a lovely graph. Don't sell yourself short though. Could any of the "executives" do your job? Probably not. In fact I'm betting they call you when something accidentally gets unplugged.

Sarah said...

First, the criticisms:

Sarah: "It's 'you're as mellow and easy-going as I am' not 'your'."
Corey: "That graph looks like a 7 year old got a hold of Microsoft Paint."

Now, the empathy:

My title has 'coordinator' in it and I do piles more work than people that have 'manager' or 'director' in their title. I'm torn, because I'm trying to get promoted, but I like getting things done and don't want to move down your graph. Also, I think you need "technology competency" line to add to your graph. It would look pretty similar to the line that's there already I think. Are all companies like this, or is it just nonprofit/education/government jobs?

Anonymous said...

From my limited experience (and I do realize that there are many exceptions), I have decided that it is far worse in government than in the private sector. In the private sector, the people who are high up in a company tend to care about their payroll spending, and are thus less likely to allow it to be wasted on employees who sit around on their ass and don't work. That's why there isn't the type of job security in the private sector as there is in government, because if your work product ceases to be worth what they're paying you for it, you get fired.

juha said...

Dammit, I HATE the your/you're fuckup, from now on I'm using 'ur'. MSPaint? Um, that's a drawing that I scanned in thankyouverymuch.

I don't think the private sector is any more immune to the Peter Principle than the state and government hierarchies.

Honestly I think there is a distinct difference between the executive class which is typically appointed by a Board and directors/managers that tend to "rise through the ranks". An executive position is as much politics and networking as it is knowledge and skill. The directors usually have a certain familiarity with the work being done and requests being made - even if they are unreasonable and/or moronic.