![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I was somewhat perplexed at Judy's apparent desperation to get me back working for the Library. Then I sat down and thoought about what it is like to be in charge of a whole gaggle of people, since we generally employ 15-20 students here in the OML at any one time.
If they just show up on time every day, do as instructed, and follow the rules, I'm content.
If they also learn quickly and don't have to be told how to do something more than a couple times, I'm pleased.
If they also also show initiative on taking care of things that need to be done and seem to adapt quickly to changes in situation or policies, I'm thrilled.
If they also also also exhibit unusual extra skills or knowledge and I feel confident that they will do work thoroughly and correctly without me having to watch them, I hold on to them for dear life, and try to give them whatever it takes to for gods' sakes keep them around (choice schedule, higher pay, etc.).
Judy clearly feels that I fall into the last category, which is an assessment I suppose I have to agree with, on reflection. That sort of person makes a supervisor's life much, much easier. You can delegate tasks to them and know that they will be done right and on time. You know that if they encounter an unusual problem that there is a good chance they will be able to solve it in a satisfactory manner, and if not, they are usually just missing one piece of information, not completely clueless, because they've paid attention to past solutions and are able to generalize or deduce from them. So no wonder she was fighting tooth and nail. A new dean has so much on their plate that they've got to have subordinates that function like that, or they'll just explode. (She's kind of exploding as it is, although part of that is that by March 16th, she will have been gone to conferences of various types for 12 of the previous 19 working days.)
I dunno what my point is. Go me?
If they just show up on time every day, do as instructed, and follow the rules, I'm content.
If they also learn quickly and don't have to be told how to do something more than a couple times, I'm pleased.
If they also also show initiative on taking care of things that need to be done and seem to adapt quickly to changes in situation or policies, I'm thrilled.
If they also also also exhibit unusual extra skills or knowledge and I feel confident that they will do work thoroughly and correctly without me having to watch them, I hold on to them for dear life, and try to give them whatever it takes to for gods' sakes keep them around (choice schedule, higher pay, etc.).
Judy clearly feels that I fall into the last category, which is an assessment I suppose I have to agree with, on reflection. That sort of person makes a supervisor's life much, much easier. You can delegate tasks to them and know that they will be done right and on time. You know that if they encounter an unusual problem that there is a good chance they will be able to solve it in a satisfactory manner, and if not, they are usually just missing one piece of information, not completely clueless, because they've paid attention to past solutions and are able to generalize or deduce from them. So no wonder she was fighting tooth and nail. A new dean has so much on their plate that they've got to have subordinates that function like that, or they'll just explode. (She's kind of exploding as it is, although part of that is that by March 16th, she will have been gone to conferences of various types for 12 of the previous 19 working days.)
I dunno what my point is. Go me?