Workin' for a living
So one of Reed's mantras is this: "We (Technology Services) worked really hard to become strategic to the University. The great news is, we succeeded and are strategic to the success of the University. The bad news is, we succeeded and are strategic to the success of the University. Now we have to deliver."
I feel a bit like that's my own life right now. I've worked hard in the last 6 months to become strategic to the success of Technology Services. The great news is, I succeeded. I'm helping manage the biggest technology rollout since I started in June. I'm playing a meaningful role (not just taking notes) in BPR Round 2 Design. And I actually got Reed to turn on an Out of Office message for his email while he's on vacation. I'm enjoying the work and my interactions with co-workers both in Tech Services and across the University. The bad news is, I succeeded. I put in close to 50 hours last week. My fibromyalgia was very unhappy with me for the long hours in my office chair. If I don't deliver on my BPR and MySAU 2.0 commitments, the ripples will be felt far outside my team of two. So far, I'm delivering but when I consider my pain levels on Thursday night and my complete mental and emotional fatigue on Friday, I wonder if it's worth it? Check back in 3 weeks, I guess we'll know then.
posted by Christy Randalll @ 7:11 PM
5 Comments
5 Comments:
Christy, what would make it worth it? Recognition? What drives you to become "strategic"? What is it that you are looking for?
The "mantra" is one of successfulness. How have our lives been enriched by this new importance to the Univeristy? Are we now treated with more respect and granted more recognition for our expertice and skill? We have more resources, and room to innovate, but far more pressure, and the failures are much more visible. Who's success is it?
I did not mean to sound offensive. Christy was wondering (out loud) if it will be worth it, and I was just curious what that means.
Reed's mantra (spiritual words of power?) I have heard, and although amusing, it bothers me. There is something that seems "off" about it that I am still unable to place.
Ok, so a little clarification is in order. I do want to become strategic to Tech Services. My current official HR title is "Administrative Secretary," soon to be upgraded to "Executive Secretary." While I know it is my own pride that causes me to bristle, I feel that title demeans my abilities and psychologically diminishes my actual role. If I thought this job would be a "secretary" I never would have taken it. It's not a secretary job, and I love it. But I fight that perspective in my own mind and in the minds of others, some days more successfully, some days less so.
The other part is, I see a Tech Services need I can fulfill. We need someone with a cross-department view who can come alongside the directors on strategic projects to help them get accomplished. A project manager. I think I'm succeeding in this, thus the work.
To speak for Reed (which I've done quite a bit this week), I would say that Tech Services wants to be strategic for several reasons. One, we get more resources and have more autonomy. Geeks need toys and autonomy to do great work. Not good work, great work. Reed's goal is to have our outstanding technology be a differentiator for Spring Arbor University when a student considers us against our competing Universities.
The mantra's point is that if the University is to make its goal of 6000 students by 2010 as defined by the strategic mission statement and map, technology must play a key role in that success. Who benefits? Ultimately, hopefully, all University constituents. 6000 has been shown as the "sweet spot" for enrollment for small universities for best service delivery, community size, nimbleness, etc. At the 6000 spot hopefully we will be operating at our most efficient levels and empowering all those students to go out into the world and make a difference for Christ. (And pay tuition and give money to Advancement, but that's a different discussion.)
For better or worse, I'm bought into that belief. In my BPR meetings I've seen community members go from change-resistant to excited about the great things we're going to accomplish as a University. That's exciting to me.
I'd love to discuss your views on the "mantra" when we both have a minute. I value your unique perspective on such things, and there are very few who know it as well as I do!
I am sorry Christy. I ask too many questions and give no disclaimers. Here is one now, that should keep every post I make company:
"Please, don't take me too seriously. I know I don't."
I sometimes push too hard and sound too critical. Feel free to tell me so. It seems that this gets me into trouble rather often.
My response:
I do not undervalue your role, and I do know it's importance. No quibble there. I do understand the how's and why's behind becoming strategic. I know it is working. What I did that I should not have done was asked a question in response to your rhetorical "I wonder if it's worth it?" That was just pushing too hard, and I am sorry.
No apology necessary! I didn't perceive your comments as critical, just inquisitive.
This is the part where I rail against digital communication: email, blogging, IM, whatever. It seems it takes more time to comment, re-explain, apologize and comment again than participate in communication with more cues than italics, bold and capitals.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home