Office Monkey

Who would have guessed that self-righteous indignation would be the impetus to finally get me blogging again?

Without further ado-

I work in an office that runs four branches. We all work to support the Big Man Upstairs (BMU). One of our branches prepared a chart for the BMU. Our office then asked the branch to revise it so that it contained this year’s financial data only. My work colleague- let’s call him The Office Superstar, specifically told them how to do it by directing them to delete everything except for the first five columns of the chart. Then he actually went to the trouble of naming the headings of the five columns he wanted. Here is the email:

————————————————————–
Hi all,

The BMU has reviewed the chart and is very happy with what we’ve provided– kudos.

The BMU has asked that we pare the chart down to the first five columns- financial data for 2008/09.
Would include: Region, Agency, 08/09 Old Funding, 08/09 New Funding, 08/09 Total Funding- Old and New.

Please provide the updated chart for 10:00am tomorrow morning.

Best,
The Office Superstar
————————————————-

The next day, we received a chart with 7 columns (the two extra columns providing 09/10 data).

How does that happen? Especially since by the time something gets to me it’s gone through 4-5 people and 2 levels of approval (the analyst, his/her manager, the administrative assistant, the executive assistant, and the director).

Sometimes, because I know how many people see it before I do, I wonder if maybe I’m the one on the wrong page. I wasn’t, and getting the branch to correct this straightforward error was about as straightforward as getting them to complete the original task.

I wrote, “The request was to only include 08/09 info (first 5 columns)? Has direction changed on this?”

I receive, “Scrolling down to Superstar’s email, he requested first 5 columns with financial information that are included in this version. The last 2 columns outline ongoing funding as well.”

?. This person makes more than $80 000/year and she can’t read. She misread Superstar’s email and now with my email flagging and repeating Superstar’s direction, she still doesn’t catch it. That’s two very simple and direct emails that she can’t follow.

Another analyst, let’s call him Marginally Useful, thankfully steps in and (minimally) corrects the chart by removing the two extra columns.

Then I receive from Ms. $80 000, “Just got Marginally Useful’s email, first 5 columns starting from far left not from start of financial information.”

??. My issue was resolved. In fact, she had to read the email that was sent to me that resolved the issue, to catch up! Now she’s emailing me her new found understanding… for my benefit?!?!?! *chokes on her coffee*

I couldn’t let it go and responded:

————————————-
Hi Not Worth Half Your Salary,

Thanks, yes, I read Superstar’s email indicating that he only wanted 08/09 info and listing the headings of the 5 columns he was looking for.

When I got the revised chart, I saw that it included 09/10 info as well so I was just touching base with the branch to see if direction had changed since Superstar’s email.

Thanks again!
——————————————-

Hopefully that was polite and pointed enough. Oh, I didn’t actually call her “Not Worth Half Your Salary.”

And if a simple task that is clearly explained to them in three different ways cannot be successfully completed, can you imagine then, how chaotic their performance in trying to manage province-wide programs and policies?

The challenge is trying to identify the lesson learned here. Did I miss something? Should Superstar have avoided using the word “pare” in his email? Or highlighted the more important details when breaking down tasks- 08/09 only, and five columns, or numbered the headings 1. Agency, 2. Region?

Am I failing to acknowledge the good work of the branch? After all, the chart originally had 12 columns so they did successfully remove 5…

I promise to be more (though not entirely) sane tomorrow.