Okay, time to be honest.
I started this blog for a few reasons: to get back into practice at writing, give myself an outlet for ideas and creativity, psych myself up to become a "real" writer, and to put together some stuff to provide a viewpoint of a mother who also works full time. Everything in the culture at the moment seems to be about women working part-time or spending their children's preschool years at home. Both options are great, but the commentary and assumptions contained in most of the written stuff I see often don't fit my life. There is seemingly NOTHING about or by women working full time and how they parent and how they cope.
I know there are plenty of women doing this. They are all just too busy to write articles!
However.
Logically knowing something and remaining positive about it are two different things.
It's all too easy to get a bit down and start believing you're in a tiny minority of women breadwinners and full-time working mothers. I know, boo hoo! I'm not carting water home from a village well, right?
Still - it can get hard.
So I wanted to try and source, and write, some stuff about and for the full-time-working mother, to put a positive and helpful slant on a lifestyle that few portray positively. I do believe there are plenty of women out there living this life who are happy with it, achieving well and simply ignoring the rubbish we sometimes see in the paper and hear from well-meaning people about work, childhood, daycare and the like.
But it has taken me a long time to reconcile myself to how I'm living, and I have not got my own balance right.
I am currently on 10 days' sick leave from work, due to stress and exhaustion. I could use longer, but this time has calmed me and I have booked a 2 week family holiday in November which will tide me over to the end of the year.
After that - new year new job new life...
Aug 11, 2010
Aug 10, 2010
Schools
Hmm, what to do?
Having grown up attending local government schools and being big believers in public schools, we have already decided our kids will be attending some sort of local government school.
I also believe in the general idea of "good enough" and that local, close-to-home is the most important criterion for a primary school, so kids are close to friends, feel connected with their community, and are not sapped by commutes every day.
But what do you do when the local school gets "mixed reviews" to put it mildly?
How good does "good enough" have to be?
At what point does a better school outweigh the disadvantages of having to travel further and kids not having friends round the corner?
Our local school: pro's:
Unfortunately we didn't get to speak to the principal; I will do some "research" (i.e., Google searches) and see what we come up with, and see if we can make an appointment to talk with him soon.
I am also comparing our local school to two other schools we have seen which seem FANTASTIC but are further away; one of them, though still in our suburb, is a good 15 min drive away against traffic.
And of course, six years of school is a long time - a lot can and does change within individual schools over the course of six years. Teachers and principals come and go, and the national "education revolution" is bringing changes that should improve all schools.
Sigh. I did not intend to make this a difficult decision. It was always going to be "the local school".
Ah well, we shall see.
Having grown up attending local government schools and being big believers in public schools, we have already decided our kids will be attending some sort of local government school.
I also believe in the general idea of "good enough" and that local, close-to-home is the most important criterion for a primary school, so kids are close to friends, feel connected with their community, and are not sapped by commutes every day.
But what do you do when the local school gets "mixed reviews" to put it mildly?
How good does "good enough" have to be?
At what point does a better school outweigh the disadvantages of having to travel further and kids not having friends round the corner?
Our local school: pro's:
- ten minutes' walk away
- small, friendly
- very diverse
- nice colour uniforms which don't need ironing
- has a new principal who is making changes and concentrating on data/internet, maths, and encouraging local kids to ride bikes to school
- our neighbors' kids went there and they were happy with it (if not ecstatic)
- NAPLAN results on MySchool website seem good (so what's the problem?)
- before and after-school care the most convenient hours of the 3 schools we've seen (we will need this 2-3 days a week)
- I have heard from 3 sources now (including a teaching student who just did placement there) that it's not a very good school, grades are not good, teachers are not the best, etc.
- when we visited today it looked fine except the teachers we saw and the kids we saw in a couple of the classes didn't seem as "engaged" as we saw in other schools (but other classes we saw looked fine)
- does religious education; then again, no harm in kids having exposure to this as it's part of the culture etc - I can always undermine it from the sidelines the way our mum did for us! (thank you mum)
- small grounds - but is this such a problem?
- most of the teachers seem to have been there a long time
Unfortunately we didn't get to speak to the principal; I will do some "research" (i.e., Google searches) and see what we come up with, and see if we can make an appointment to talk with him soon.
I am also comparing our local school to two other schools we have seen which seem FANTASTIC but are further away; one of them, though still in our suburb, is a good 15 min drive away against traffic.
And of course, six years of school is a long time - a lot can and does change within individual schools over the course of six years. Teachers and principals come and go, and the national "education revolution" is bringing changes that should improve all schools.
Sigh. I did not intend to make this a difficult decision. It was always going to be "the local school".
Ah well, we shall see.
Aug 9, 2010
Smug List / Crap List
This is an idea floated by Mia Freedman, author of the wonderful blog Mama Mia - LOVE her, this blog is like a magazine without the silly bits (horoscopes etc). Mia’s suggestion is for more mothers to share those two secret lists they hold in their hearts about how they raise their children: the Smug List (things they know they do well) and the Crap List (things they’re ashamed of or feel bad about). Naturally everyone’s Crap List is longer than their Smug List. The Crap List is the best because reading someone else’s makes you feel better about your own.
So in honour of all that, here are my own lists.
SMUG LIST
1. I ate very sensibly during pregnancy and only gained 14 kilos, even carrying twins (You see, I preferred to put on an extra 15 kilos AFTER the babies were born).
2. My girls were carried to term (2 weeks early for twins = to term), and were a good size and healthy. (Though I know this is actually called “luck”).
3. I have always prepared nutricious, balanced and varied meals for my children and model good eating by eating the same foods with them, being enthusiastic about the meals, and we all enjoy our vegies.
4. I play word games, sing, dance, do nursery rhymes and read and make up stories.
5. I always took my kids for walks from a young age even if it was cold, we just rugged up.
6. Our days follow routines that the girls know and like, and we don't try and cram in too much on weekends.
7. We are teaching the girls their "heritage" language in a relaxed and gradual way without putting pressure on them, and using fun things like songs to do it.
8. I think I strike a good balance between getting the girls to help with things like packing up and just letting them play and have fun and not being too strict about it.
CRAP LIST
1. Other than walking or going to the park, I don't do physical stuff very much - very few outdoor games, football, etc
2. We've never taken them camping or to the snow
3. We have been a bit slack with swimming lessons; luckily, school starts next year with swimming lessons built in.
4. My kids tell me whenever they ask me to come to them or help them with something my response is always "Okay, in a minute..." They also know and use the phrase "You're giving me a headache!"
5. We watch DVDs way more than we read books together.
6. Every Saturday morning I leave the girls with cartoons on TV while I read the paper and have a coffee.
7. I sometimes finish my kids' sentences for them - very bad, trying to stop
8. I have worked way too late on more than the odd occasion, and not been home early enough to enjoy my kids before bedtime.
9. When I am tired and over-worked I get mad too easily and I sometimes yell when I can't get the girls to do what I want. Taking steps to avoid this these days.
10. We have been hopeless at establishing good bedtimes - see post here on same. Hopefully getting better now.
11. I haven't completed any photo albums - not even the baby album.
12. I bought the Lady Gaga CD on a whim (without vetting it first) because my 4-year-old girls love her, then had to try and stop them singing "I want to ride on your disco stick..."
One could go on...
So in honour of all that, here are my own lists.
SMUG LIST
1. I ate very sensibly during pregnancy and only gained 14 kilos, even carrying twins (You see, I preferred to put on an extra 15 kilos AFTER the babies were born).
2. My girls were carried to term (2 weeks early for twins = to term), and were a good size and healthy. (Though I know this is actually called “luck”).
3. I have always prepared nutricious, balanced and varied meals for my children and model good eating by eating the same foods with them, being enthusiastic about the meals, and we all enjoy our vegies.
4. I play word games, sing, dance, do nursery rhymes and read and make up stories.
5. I always took my kids for walks from a young age even if it was cold, we just rugged up.
6. Our days follow routines that the girls know and like, and we don't try and cram in too much on weekends.
7. We are teaching the girls their "heritage" language in a relaxed and gradual way without putting pressure on them, and using fun things like songs to do it.
8. I think I strike a good balance between getting the girls to help with things like packing up and just letting them play and have fun and not being too strict about it.
CRAP LIST
1. Other than walking or going to the park, I don't do physical stuff very much - very few outdoor games, football, etc
2. We've never taken them camping or to the snow
3. We have been a bit slack with swimming lessons; luckily, school starts next year with swimming lessons built in.
4. My kids tell me whenever they ask me to come to them or help them with something my response is always "Okay, in a minute..." They also know and use the phrase "You're giving me a headache!"
5. We watch DVDs way more than we read books together.
6. Every Saturday morning I leave the girls with cartoons on TV while I read the paper and have a coffee.
7. I sometimes finish my kids' sentences for them - very bad, trying to stop
8. I have worked way too late on more than the odd occasion, and not been home early enough to enjoy my kids before bedtime.
9. When I am tired and over-worked I get mad too easily and I sometimes yell when I can't get the girls to do what I want. Taking steps to avoid this these days.
10. We have been hopeless at establishing good bedtimes - see post here on same. Hopefully getting better now.
11. I haven't completed any photo albums - not even the baby album.
12. I bought the Lady Gaga CD on a whim (without vetting it first) because my 4-year-old girls love her, then had to try and stop them singing "I want to ride on your disco stick..."
One could go on...
Some Beauty
A bit of beauty to get us through the day -
These were taken at Bright, in Victoria, in May during autumn.
These were taken at Bright, in Victoria, in May during autumn.
Post Mortems
Here are some quotes that have appeared in the news media which may be familiar:
“Clearly, there should have been a red flag ...”
"This should never have happened."
"MI5 let terrorists slip through the net."
"There was a failure to connect the dots."
I've been thinking a lot about this as it is very much a feature of our times. It seems to be something most people accept is of limited use or even a waste of time, but which is somehow required until we come up with something better.
I am talking about the process that occurs after a disaster or near-disaster whereby a lot of criticism and analysis goes on, some blame is apportioned and lessons are supposedly learned for the future.
I am not talking about systemic problems where blame is warranted, such as cases of beaurocratic malaise, bad leadership, corporate wrong-doing or horrible incompetence. I am talking about those disasters or events which everyone secretly suspects could not have been prevented but which in hindsight look like they could have been, and therefore everyone agrees to agree that they SHOULD have been prevented - ergo, the fact that they weren't means someone must be to blame.
We can all think of examples -
- the US media and politicians (especially the senate) castigating the CIA and FBI after any attempted terrorist attack, as if it should be possible to thwart every single one;
- some of the post-GFC analysis castigating the behaviour of investors or investment banks believing house prices/stock prices "would keep rising forever" (which by the way, no one believed. Everyone knew the reckoning was coming. But no one knew quite when...);
- to some extent, the analysis following the Victorian bushfires of Black Saturday, February 2009. A horrific event, and yes, there do appear to have been some leadership and process problems, but perhaps also a once-in-30-years full-scale disaster which no one could have managed effectively.
On a smaller scale, this happens in the corporate world too, driven I think by the growth of this process in the media. It's made everyone terrified of not being "proactive" or of being "complacent".
At my workplace after every loss or "near loss" (being the ones we quantify as such), we are required to produce a "post-mortem", a process about which I am ambivalent. I don't completely oppose them but think most of them are misguided, don't give any real benefit and give a false sense of security that we are bolstering ourselves against future errors. This is because, where day to day control management is very strong and effective (as ours is), the events that cause grief tend to be "out of the box" zingers or once-in-a-year process failures. You can't really "learn from" them, because (a) they are one-off events which could not be foreseen and won't likely recur, or (b) humans tend to act erratically under stress and while it's always possible to improve process and management style, you can't prevent mistakes.
However, it's hard to argue the "anti" case without sounding like a slacker or a whinger. This is because there are always one or two points that come out of the post-mortem that seem reasonable and where it feels like a general lesson can be applied, even if you don't accept that the error could have been prevented.
The problem is, there is no possible way to actually prevent the kind of errors that occur. They are not systemic failures but moments where individuals or teams have "failed" to act a certain way in a time of extreme pressure or stress or where information was flying from ten different directions.
Sure it's always possible to point to a behavioural or procedural improvement - such as, "when something new is happening and the stakes are high, we should pull back for ten minutes and round-table with other teams to ensure everyone is operating under the right assumption/same strategy/etc". No one can disagree with that. Also no one can argue that we actually did this or that it would have been wrong to do it - so it seems like this is a lesson we should learn from and accept the validity of the post-mortem exercise.
But the difficulties in applying this in future to prevent any similar problems lie in (1) recognising the event in the moment it's happening [as next time won't look like this time] and (2) knowing when action now or pulling back is the more appropriate [as the answer won't be known until we get it wrong].
In the absence of systemic problems, there are three general problems with the "post mortem":
1 - No matter how tight a ship you run or how good your operations and controls, at some point someone will stuff up. Anlaysing who and how afterwards does not guarantee anything in future, because next time it will be something and someone else. "The human element" in other words; there will always be an element of error
2 - Hindsight is 20-20. Something happens. Something else happens. A lot of other things are happening at the same time around these two things. The two things are related - one leads to the other. Some of the other things appear to be related that are not, or create more noise at the time. Afterwards it may appear the development was "obvious", that there were "red flags" and a "failure to connect the dots" - but however obvious it looks afterwards, there are some events that just do not stand out at the time. Even the participants can forget this afterwards.
3 - Unexpected things can happen which were not possible to predict or guard against, such as an out-of-the-box system bug. As these events are "one-offs", the lessons you learn from them are not applicable to future events - other than as a general lesson to beware of one-off events. (And this is always in mind during a project anyway).
Some good comments on this same theme can be found by:
“Clearly, there should have been a red flag ...”
"This should never have happened."
"MI5 let terrorists slip through the net."
"There was a failure to connect the dots."
I've been thinking a lot about this as it is very much a feature of our times. It seems to be something most people accept is of limited use or even a waste of time, but which is somehow required until we come up with something better.
I am talking about the process that occurs after a disaster or near-disaster whereby a lot of criticism and analysis goes on, some blame is apportioned and lessons are supposedly learned for the future.
I am not talking about systemic problems where blame is warranted, such as cases of beaurocratic malaise, bad leadership, corporate wrong-doing or horrible incompetence. I am talking about those disasters or events which everyone secretly suspects could not have been prevented but which in hindsight look like they could have been, and therefore everyone agrees to agree that they SHOULD have been prevented - ergo, the fact that they weren't means someone must be to blame.
We can all think of examples -
- the US media and politicians (especially the senate) castigating the CIA and FBI after any attempted terrorist attack, as if it should be possible to thwart every single one;
- some of the post-GFC analysis castigating the behaviour of investors or investment banks believing house prices/stock prices "would keep rising forever" (which by the way, no one believed. Everyone knew the reckoning was coming. But no one knew quite when...);
- to some extent, the analysis following the Victorian bushfires of Black Saturday, February 2009. A horrific event, and yes, there do appear to have been some leadership and process problems, but perhaps also a once-in-30-years full-scale disaster which no one could have managed effectively.
On a smaller scale, this happens in the corporate world too, driven I think by the growth of this process in the media. It's made everyone terrified of not being "proactive" or of being "complacent".
At my workplace after every loss or "near loss" (being the ones we quantify as such), we are required to produce a "post-mortem", a process about which I am ambivalent. I don't completely oppose them but think most of them are misguided, don't give any real benefit and give a false sense of security that we are bolstering ourselves against future errors. This is because, where day to day control management is very strong and effective (as ours is), the events that cause grief tend to be "out of the box" zingers or once-in-a-year process failures. You can't really "learn from" them, because (a) they are one-off events which could not be foreseen and won't likely recur, or (b) humans tend to act erratically under stress and while it's always possible to improve process and management style, you can't prevent mistakes.
However, it's hard to argue the "anti" case without sounding like a slacker or a whinger. This is because there are always one or two points that come out of the post-mortem that seem reasonable and where it feels like a general lesson can be applied, even if you don't accept that the error could have been prevented.
The problem is, there is no possible way to actually prevent the kind of errors that occur. They are not systemic failures but moments where individuals or teams have "failed" to act a certain way in a time of extreme pressure or stress or where information was flying from ten different directions.
Sure it's always possible to point to a behavioural or procedural improvement - such as, "when something new is happening and the stakes are high, we should pull back for ten minutes and round-table with other teams to ensure everyone is operating under the right assumption/same strategy/etc". No one can disagree with that. Also no one can argue that we actually did this or that it would have been wrong to do it - so it seems like this is a lesson we should learn from and accept the validity of the post-mortem exercise.
But the difficulties in applying this in future to prevent any similar problems lie in (1) recognising the event in the moment it's happening [as next time won't look like this time] and (2) knowing when action now or pulling back is the more appropriate [as the answer won't be known until we get it wrong].
In the absence of systemic problems, there are three general problems with the "post mortem":
1 - No matter how tight a ship you run or how good your operations and controls, at some point someone will stuff up. Anlaysing who and how afterwards does not guarantee anything in future, because next time it will be something and someone else. "The human element" in other words; there will always be an element of error
2 - Hindsight is 20-20. Something happens. Something else happens. A lot of other things are happening at the same time around these two things. The two things are related - one leads to the other. Some of the other things appear to be related that are not, or create more noise at the time. Afterwards it may appear the development was "obvious", that there were "red flags" and a "failure to connect the dots" - but however obvious it looks afterwards, there are some events that just do not stand out at the time. Even the participants can forget this afterwards.
3 - Unexpected things can happen which were not possible to predict or guard against, such as an out-of-the-box system bug. As these events are "one-offs", the lessons you learn from them are not applicable to future events - other than as a general lesson to beware of one-off events. (And this is always in mind during a project anyway).
Some good comments on this same theme can be found by:
- Shakar Vedantam commenting on "intellectual dishonesty" in a comment called False Positives vs False Negatives in his blog "The Hidden Brain"
- Malcolm Gladwell in the chapter "Connecting The Dots" in his book What The Dog Saw
Aug 2, 2010
Work-Life Balance and Plasma TVs
Article in The Age online yesterday:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/life-balance-still-not-working-20100731-110pg.html
My reaction reading this article, as to most others on this theme, was "yeah that's me". Paradoxically when reading these articles (which I devour, though they offer no solutions!) is at once deflation that the "no work-life balance" lifestyle is still the norm, and comfort that I'm not the only one. It can be hard at times to remember that you're not the only woman out there working full-time while every other mother is at home or working part-time.
(Yes, it's a "first-world problem", and not the worst thing in the first world by a long shot. But please a little slack - this is the blogosphere after all).
But what dismayed me when reading this article was all the comments afterwards. Like all comments after an opinion piece they were forthright, accusatory, bitter and rude. As always, the participants end up slanging off each other. As always, after a while someone comes in conciliatory or attempting a compromise which unleashes defensive replies or a new round of slanging off... So far so usual. (Really you should just read the opinion pieces and not all the comments afterwards!) But what was dispiriting was the number of people who commented basically that people who work are greedy and selfish and want wealth at the expense of nurturing their families.
Are we really still in that place?
Still??
Okay - so in the extremely unlikely event that any of those people will read this comment, I will explain how this thing works, with working and childcare and cash.
Some people have to work because of circumstance, even if they have small children.
These people love and cherish their children and want the best for them.
Their children are as happy and as well-adjusted as other children.
Not everyone who is working and paying off a mortgage has bought a mini-mansion.
Not everyone who is working is high-flying their way through a top-tier career.
The people in top-tier careers are working those jobs because they are the jobs they know and are good at - just as we all do the best job we can get for the hours we need to work.
There is not a simple equation of giving up paid work meaning giving up luxuries or giving up a glamorous career. The couple who sacrifice one person's work, or someone's career, to provide a stay-at-home parent are very strapped for cash; they see the working parents going out for coffee or buying something expensive and they think "Well if they just gave up that, they wouldn't have to work."
It's not like that.
In the situation they are witnessing, the dynamic is actually this:
Both parents need to work to pay the mortgage and bills. Neither parent is earning enough to cover these expenses singly. But with the combined salary, after expenses and daycare there is a little discretionary cash available. This is one of the advantages of the arrangement - as every arrangement has its advantages and disadvantages.
Believe me, before returning to work after 8 months' maternity leave, I sat with notepads and calculators and spreadsheets and did every sum you can think of, taking into account bills if at home, bills if out of the house working, benefits, tax incentives, salary, daily expenses while working vs daily expenses while home, part-time work, full-time work, etc.
If I could have stayed at home longer, I would have.
There were also things I was not willing to sacrifice - not because I am selfish but because I trust the cost-benefit analysis in my head. We were not about to sell our house and rent, or try to live with one car. I know people do this, but it would not have been right for us; the stress or added logistical difficulties would not have outweighed the benefit (for us). Every family sacrifices some things and draws the line at those they don't believe are of benefit - every family.
Until recently I used to say "and we don't own a plasma TV thank you very much!" - but I can no longer say that, exactly (it's LCD not plasma). But give me a break, we go digital next year, and prices have dropped.
So please - everyone - a little understanding and respect for our fellow parents. Whether working full-time, part-time, or not at all, the good parents and good-enough parents are all the same: making choices, sacrificing some things and enjoying others, doing the best they can with the cards they've been dealt, for the benefit of the children they love.
And don't most of us do a pretty good job?
http://www.theage.com.au/national/life-balance-still-not-working-20100731-110pg.html
My reaction reading this article, as to most others on this theme, was "yeah that's me". Paradoxically when reading these articles (which I devour, though they offer no solutions!) is at once deflation that the "no work-life balance" lifestyle is still the norm, and comfort that I'm not the only one. It can be hard at times to remember that you're not the only woman out there working full-time while every other mother is at home or working part-time.
(Yes, it's a "first-world problem", and not the worst thing in the first world by a long shot. But please a little slack - this is the blogosphere after all).
But what dismayed me when reading this article was all the comments afterwards. Like all comments after an opinion piece they were forthright, accusatory, bitter and rude. As always, the participants end up slanging off each other. As always, after a while someone comes in conciliatory or attempting a compromise which unleashes defensive replies or a new round of slanging off... So far so usual. (Really you should just read the opinion pieces and not all the comments afterwards!) But what was dispiriting was the number of people who commented basically that people who work are greedy and selfish and want wealth at the expense of nurturing their families.
Are we really still in that place?
Still??
Okay - so in the extremely unlikely event that any of those people will read this comment, I will explain how this thing works, with working and childcare and cash.
Some people have to work because of circumstance, even if they have small children.
These people love and cherish their children and want the best for them.
Their children are as happy and as well-adjusted as other children.
Not everyone who is working and paying off a mortgage has bought a mini-mansion.
Not everyone who is working is high-flying their way through a top-tier career.
The people in top-tier careers are working those jobs because they are the jobs they know and are good at - just as we all do the best job we can get for the hours we need to work.
There is not a simple equation of giving up paid work meaning giving up luxuries or giving up a glamorous career. The couple who sacrifice one person's work, or someone's career, to provide a stay-at-home parent are very strapped for cash; they see the working parents going out for coffee or buying something expensive and they think "Well if they just gave up that, they wouldn't have to work."
It's not like that.
In the situation they are witnessing, the dynamic is actually this:
Both parents need to work to pay the mortgage and bills. Neither parent is earning enough to cover these expenses singly. But with the combined salary, after expenses and daycare there is a little discretionary cash available. This is one of the advantages of the arrangement - as every arrangement has its advantages and disadvantages.
Believe me, before returning to work after 8 months' maternity leave, I sat with notepads and calculators and spreadsheets and did every sum you can think of, taking into account bills if at home, bills if out of the house working, benefits, tax incentives, salary, daily expenses while working vs daily expenses while home, part-time work, full-time work, etc.
If I could have stayed at home longer, I would have.
There were also things I was not willing to sacrifice - not because I am selfish but because I trust the cost-benefit analysis in my head. We were not about to sell our house and rent, or try to live with one car. I know people do this, but it would not have been right for us; the stress or added logistical difficulties would not have outweighed the benefit (for us). Every family sacrifices some things and draws the line at those they don't believe are of benefit - every family.
Until recently I used to say "and we don't own a plasma TV thank you very much!" - but I can no longer say that, exactly (it's LCD not plasma). But give me a break, we go digital next year, and prices have dropped.
So please - everyone - a little understanding and respect for our fellow parents. Whether working full-time, part-time, or not at all, the good parents and good-enough parents are all the same: making choices, sacrificing some things and enjoying others, doing the best they can with the cards they've been dealt, for the benefit of the children they love.
And don't most of us do a pretty good job?
Aug 1, 2010
Flu Vaccine update
There is "good" news on the issue of the safety of the seasonal flu vaccine for children under five - looks like it was a bad batch after all, and not a problem with flu vaccines overall.
This reported by The Age newspaper today -
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/ban-on-flu-vaccine-for-young-kids-lifted-20100730-10zcw.html
This reported by The Age newspaper today -
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/ban-on-flu-vaccine-for-young-kids-lifted-20100730-10zcw.html
Jul 16, 2010
The Perils of Management
Some lessons learned from recent events:
General Stanley McChrystal - no matter how good you are and how lauded you are, don't forget you are not the boss!
Kevin Rudd - what works at the beginning doesn't work forever. Don't get so caught up in your own momentum you don't notice things changing around you.
Also, stay friendly with your colleagues.
Malcolm Turnbull - Doesn't matter how successful you are at everything else you've done, you can't beat politicians at the politics. It's nothing to do with being smart or right.
Melbourne Storm - There are good reasons for all those annoying rules. Always do the right thing, even if you're swimming in a culture that doesn't. Eventually, it will - and then things will not be pretty.
Goldman Sachs / Lehman Brothers - See above.
Previous Greek governments - Don't ignore that too-hard basket. See above.
BP - thanks for pointing out the truth about business continuity plans!
But seriously, when copy-pasting BCP templates from region to region, remember to delete the walruses.
Christine Nixon - Tough luck. During normal business you're a star if you delegate and have a strong team underneath you. But when a crisis hits, you're expected to don the hard hat and direct detailed operations down the mineshaft. Never mind the two modes of working are not compatible within the one person. A factory foreman can't run a multinational and a CEO can't run the factory floor - but the CEO is expected to be able to do both.
Hence the real reason for the astronomical CEO salaries these days. Yes they are entirely out of proportion with what the individual is worth or brings to the company. But they are a direct result of the expectations people have of company leaders these days. No one can meet these forever - getting blamed and getting fired has become a certainty in business and in politics. The more senior you are the more you need that paypacket, because it is basically an insurance policy against the inevitable.
So many paths to ruin, but not many templates for success!
General Stanley McChrystal - no matter how good you are and how lauded you are, don't forget you are not the boss!
Kevin Rudd - what works at the beginning doesn't work forever. Don't get so caught up in your own momentum you don't notice things changing around you.
Also, stay friendly with your colleagues.
Malcolm Turnbull - Doesn't matter how successful you are at everything else you've done, you can't beat politicians at the politics. It's nothing to do with being smart or right.
Melbourne Storm - There are good reasons for all those annoying rules. Always do the right thing, even if you're swimming in a culture that doesn't. Eventually, it will - and then things will not be pretty.
Goldman Sachs / Lehman Brothers - See above.
Previous Greek governments - Don't ignore that too-hard basket. See above.
BP - thanks for pointing out the truth about business continuity plans!
But seriously, when copy-pasting BCP templates from region to region, remember to delete the walruses.
Christine Nixon - Tough luck. During normal business you're a star if you delegate and have a strong team underneath you. But when a crisis hits, you're expected to don the hard hat and direct detailed operations down the mineshaft. Never mind the two modes of working are not compatible within the one person. A factory foreman can't run a multinational and a CEO can't run the factory floor - but the CEO is expected to be able to do both.
Hence the real reason for the astronomical CEO salaries these days. Yes they are entirely out of proportion with what the individual is worth or brings to the company. But they are a direct result of the expectations people have of company leaders these days. No one can meet these forever - getting blamed and getting fired has become a certainty in business and in politics. The more senior you are the more you need that paypacket, because it is basically an insurance policy against the inevitable.
So many paths to ruin, but not many templates for success!
Jul 15, 2010
Ambition or Pride or whatever else gets in the way
I don't think of myself as ambitious. I've never wanted to be the CEO, or even a very senior manager. But whatever job I'm doing, I always want to do well. More than well. I want to be impressive and have others look to me with awe and respect and gratitude for the wonderful work that I do. I want to be sought out for opinions and correct process, esteemed for my knowlege and liked and respected for my ability with staff and customers and projects and getting things done. I can't help it. I can't switch it off. And I don't know whether it's pride or ambition or work eithic or just plain fear and insecurity (hello again you two...).
I hate the thought that someone at work might be less than pleased with the way I have handled something; get anxious when I feel things turning out less than ideally through a combination of rush, resourcing shortcuts, systemic complexity, corporate bureaucratic madness or some other not-my-fault insanity. It's important to me to do a job well and to be seen to do a job well.
So lucky me - I don't have enough of whatever-this-is to propel me into senior jobs with more money - just enough to keep me anxious and competitive and hamstring my efforts to scale back and achieve some modicum of "work life balance".
Exhibit A. Since I started at my company, my workload has been insane. Since making "Vice President" (whoo-hoo) my workload has been insane AND bonus! carries ten times the responsibility and visibility along with it (and thank you GFC, no real increase in salary). So recently this all came to a head with my boss and I having something of a showdown which was not only cathartic but beneficial - because in the following days, she re-arranged workloads, scaled back demands and created a restructure to balance the work more fairly across the management team. All this is good right? And it's what I wanted and needed. AND YET! As she's talking through all this and going out of her way to involve me and ensure I'm OK with it, some words start coming out of my mouth. I'm concerned what this means for my position, my staff numbers are smaller than the other managers, am I still responsible for the same areas, blah blah blah blah what?! Even as I'm talking, I am listening to myself and thinking, What are you doing?! shut up you idiot!
Is this normal or stupid or both?!
I hate the thought that someone at work might be less than pleased with the way I have handled something; get anxious when I feel things turning out less than ideally through a combination of rush, resourcing shortcuts, systemic complexity, corporate bureaucratic madness or some other not-my-fault insanity. It's important to me to do a job well and to be seen to do a job well.
So lucky me - I don't have enough of whatever-this-is to propel me into senior jobs with more money - just enough to keep me anxious and competitive and hamstring my efforts to scale back and achieve some modicum of "work life balance".
Exhibit A. Since I started at my company, my workload has been insane. Since making "Vice President" (whoo-hoo) my workload has been insane AND bonus! carries ten times the responsibility and visibility along with it (and thank you GFC, no real increase in salary). So recently this all came to a head with my boss and I having something of a showdown which was not only cathartic but beneficial - because in the following days, she re-arranged workloads, scaled back demands and created a restructure to balance the work more fairly across the management team. All this is good right? And it's what I wanted and needed. AND YET! As she's talking through all this and going out of her way to involve me and ensure I'm OK with it, some words start coming out of my mouth. I'm concerned what this means for my position, my staff numbers are smaller than the other managers, am I still responsible for the same areas, blah blah blah blah what?! Even as I'm talking, I am listening to myself and thinking, What are you doing?! shut up you idiot!
Is this normal or stupid or both?!
Consolations of Working in the City
Walking in from Richmond Station on a cold winter morning.
The approach to Batman avenue over William Barak Bridge.
Simultaneously listening to the World Cup result over my radio headphones and the operatic music drifting up from the speakers over Flinders Street Station below (to ward off violence!)
Unfortunately while lugging my backpack full of work shoes, work clothes, work makeup and water bottle, I pulled a muscle in my neck and have been popping pain killers all week since. Other than that, it was a nice way to start the week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
