I am supposed to describe my “insights on the purpose or value of a position description.” This is the kind of nonsense that makes me crazy. It is a waste of my precious time. So I was thinking of making it funny–maybe a top ten list. Could you guys help me out? Here is what I have so far:
• Serves as an explanation of the job to a new employee.
• Serves as a guideline for the Employment Committee when evaluating a position for any changes (in the event a position is vacant).
• Serves as a reason to not do something: “That is not in my job description!”
• Serves as a self-evaluation—a reminder of what the employee is supposed to be doing.
• Serves as a basis for evaluation if someone is doing their job correctly.
• Serves as a foundation for reason to terminate an employee if necessary.
Okay, those sound really seriouso. I need something more funny or sarcastic. I have to turn this in late this afternoon. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated!
Lillith Fair: Congratulations. You have reached the second level of bureaucratic hell.
In the first level, you stop doing your job to write a “job description” about your job. This is one step removed from productivity.
In the second level, you are asked “for your insights on the purpose and value of a position description”. This is a description about a description, and is two steps removed from productivity.
To advance to the third level, you must take some action relating to the process of preparing a memo on your insights on the purpose and value of a job description. For example, you might assemble a task force to discuss it, or schedule a meeting, or even write another memo about how best to verbalize one’s insights when faced with such a task. This would be three steps removed from productivity.
Thanks Freddy, for that insight. I have just shared it with the rest of the staff. The 2nd and 3rd levels so totally describe the chair of the committee!
Last fall we had to fill out all these evaulations on ourselves and others and give them to other people to fill out on us…it took him about an hour to explain the process!
Then when we had the meeting where he gave us the results he started out by saying, “Now I want you to divide into pairs. There are two of you who are ‘black and white’ thinkers. I don’t want those two people together. We all know who they are.”
Well. I didn’t know! I knew about the one, but who was the other? IT WAS ME. So I really got nothing out of the entire evaluation because I was so angry that he said that I was a “black and white” person. Which, of course, I am.
