April 13th, 2011

Those who can’t, cont’d

Posted in The Job - Experience by 200

So I didn’t really finish my post off yesterday. It was about supervisors creating shite for overworked controllers. I got kind of sidetracked as the post went on.

As I was saying, we close a log with several Home Office codes, these are national codes used by all forces & enable statistics to be compiled about all the jobs we deal with.

Sometimes we pick the wrong code. This is either because we made a simple mistake & picked the wrong one from a drop down list in our haste to get rid of the log & get onto the next one, sometimes it’s because we interpret a job differently from the supervisor. For example, it’s quite easy to pick ‘suspicious package’ when you actually meant to pick ‘suspicious incident’.

So the log goes to supervisor’s desk to get closed & they notice an error. It would take them less than 4 seconds to correct the error & close the log. Some supervisors do, but others want to make a point, so they decline to close the log & send it electronically back to the controller having typed on it something like ‘please change the code to ‘suspicious incident’. The controller gets the log back on their screen, has to accept it, open it, read the message & then fill in the codes again to close it and then send it back to the supervisor. The extra work might take 90 seconds.

That’s OK when you’ve got f-all to do but when you are busy, it is simply extra stress, created directly by the supervisor. Stress which you can really do without because you are pretty bloody stressed as it is.

Some supervisors understand this, realise your mistake was a simple error probably because you;re too busy & under stress & they deal with it, thus solving a problem.

Others appear to think that as you made the error you better sort it out & create a problem for you. They are the kind of people who do not subscribe to the theory that a person who never made a mistake never made anything.

You can skip to the end and leave a comment. Pinging is currently not allowed. RSS 2.0

3 comments

  1. Joe says:

    I think that’s pretty typical for someone who doesn’t know how to manage staff effectively. If it’s a regular occurrence with a particular individual then it’s something that needs raising, but for the occasional error in judgement or mistake when typing it in, then I can’t see why it’s necessary.

    A better idea would be the ability for them to simply mark the log as a mistake, correct it themselves, and at the end of the day/week give you a list of where you went wrong, and if it’s excessive ask for an explanation. It could highlight particular areas where the software needs improving for example, or where somebody needs re-education on the criteria for a particular code.

    A good supervisor should be helping the team get the job done, not crapping on them from a great height or causing any extra work unless absolutely necessary. A team led by a good supervisor is inevitably happier, more motivated, more productive, and less likely to put their fist through a monitor in a fit of rage.

    April 14th, 2011 at 01:17

  2. Gary says:

    Sending stuff back reminds me of an occasion I forgot to put an offenders club number on one of two sets of fingerprints during process. Both sets went to HQ. A week later the form returned with a snotty memorandum telling me to put the CRO number in the appropriate box and to be helpful the number had been written on the memo. I was standing by the shredder at the time…………..
    I simply denied ever receiving the form back. Laugh I nearly wet myself!

    April 14th, 2011 at 14:09

  3. Mad Mick says:

    When the classification of documents came in to the Police I had lots of fun with jobsworths who regularly sent “incorrectly classified” documents back. I spent 10 years in the Army dealing with classified documents so I pretty much knew what I was talking about. When a colleague of mine received a document back together with an instruction to correctly classify it I sent it back to the CJD-wallah who initiated it reminding him that, as the document was classified, the envelope it was contained in should similarly reflect the classification. Failure to do this rendered his “instruction” invalid. Surprisingly it never came back. Little victories.

    April 14th, 2011 at 16:25

Leave a comment