The book is written by one of my favorite common sense authors, Ken Blanchard, along with William Oncken, Jr. and Hal Burrows. And as usual, Ken made a difficult topic easy to read and understandable. (ie lessons in short fiction books) A subtitle on the cover helps you understand why this book is so valuable.
Now you may have figured out how to say NO to the care and feeding of other people's monkeys and take really good care of your own monkeys, however most people I know do this inconsistently with mixed results. Then they end up with way to many monkeys for their own good. This then leads to:
- The actual owners are waiting, bored and nagging you
- The actual owner's skills and self confidence suffer
- You are stressed out and frustrated by the actual owners
- All relationships suffer
- You choose micromanagement, non-delegation, etc
- You are too busy and don't spend time caring for your monkeys
- Your choices actually starve the important monkeys
- People view you as a poor performer
Now I do a pretty good job of monkey management at work, however historically I have done terribly at home. This is because helping my spouse, kids, parents, etc ranks very high on my care meter. Then my being a workaholic that is capable at pretty much everything from sewing to cooking to car repairs to large scale remodeling to whatever, makes me an incredible monkey collector.
Some simple examples:
- Anything breaks, call Dad
- Computer behaves funny, call Dad
- New program is confusing, call Dad
- Math homework is hard, call Dad
- Want to build something, call Dad
By the way, one of my favorite quotes deals with the problem of kids, peers, team mates, employees, etc that come up to you often and say. "We have a PROBLEM" Here is the answer:
"We do not have a problem, and we will never again have one. I'm sure there is a problem, but it is not ours, it is either yours or mine. The first item on the agenda is to neaten up the pronouns and find out whose problem this is. If it turns out to be my problem, I hope you will help me with it. If it turns out to be your problem, I will help you with it subject to the following condition: at no time while I'm helping you with your problem will your problem become my problem, because the minute your problem becomes my problem, you will no longer have a problem and I can't help a person who does not have a problem!"
Thoughts?
Workstar Monkey
Ed World How I Handled
Ed News Monkey Mgmt
Exe-coach: To DO
8 comments:
So, considering the preceding posts, would you say that RAS has a problem, or that YOU and the other citizens have a problem?
J. Ewing
That is a fascinating question !!!
Technically, I guess the answer is that RAS has a problem and I am willing to help resolve it.
Rationale: My kids are doing great and are happy in their schools and programs. On a rare occasion, there is a questionable teacher issue we have to deal with.(ie give feedback or compensate for) The tax level is not a big issue relative to my income and other household bills.
I guess I will gain a monkey only when it looks like my property value looks like it is going to nose dive or my spouse/kids become unhappy. Then the decision will be should I stay or go.... Or something else.
Thanks for the thinking moment !!!
I forgot an important definition:
"A monkey is the next move."
and I forgot a rule:
"For every monkey there are two parties invloved: One to work it and One to supervise it."
Therefore if you tell your employee, co-worker or children that you will think about it and get back to them with a decision, you reverse roles. They are now "supervising it" and you are "working it"....
"Technically, I guess the answer is that RAS has a problem and I am willing to help resolve it."
So, instead of you supervising their work on this problem, they have dumped it off on you. I was always told that an employee should never, ever, bring a problem to the supervisor without at least one suggested solution, and preferably two. When RAS comes to you with none, they're asking to be fired, IMHO.
J. Ewing
Well, actually they came with a solution and "kind of" asked for our view point. As Speed said, comments were acknowledged and somewhat dismissed. At least in the first input session. I was getting ashes put on my forehead during the second...
More on that soon. The budget cut, not the ashes...
Well, that's better than coming to you with a blank slate, except that to really ask for your opinion, they need to tell you what all the other options are, and why they have selected this one. I know, it's complicated, but that's why we elect them to do it, rather than letting the 3-graders do it as math practice. How do we know, for example, that the cuts they are proposing really are those things they believe are the lowest priorities in the district's budget, and not the highest? If they believe that "education" will suffer, is there an estimate of how much, exactly? If they do NOT, why were these things in the budget in the first place?
J. Ewing
I think you're on to something here. The public school game is rigged in that the monkeys (failure) always seem to hop on our back.
We don't pay enough taxes to get the job done. We're not involved enough as parents or volunteers. Our local businesses should be coming forward often and generously in mutual self-interest.
But it's never the district's fault, is it? We have an excellent, hard-working, dedicated staff. We have robust arts, AP, IB, RSI, AVID, and whatever else. Newsweek says both high schools are high on their lists.
No, we seem to leave with the monkey on our back, while they tut tut waiting for us to "step up."
I'm serious. When did you last here a school district say "we really let that kid down. We should have done better, much better." But to quote Tracy Byrd, what we really here is "We ain't wrong; we ain't sorry,
An' it's probably gonna happen again."
The "good" public school districts, even if they are not cost-efficient, at least deliver better-than-the-others educations, but in doing so, they remind me of my company where, after every screw-up, it was said as justification that "yes, but we had to do it. Imagine how much money we would make if we did everything right." Imagine how much education these districts could deliver if they concentrated on delivering education instead of how much money they were throwing at it?
It is why a prioritized, program-based budget is so essential, because it makes monkeys extinct. The district staff calculates the net cost per participant for every "program"-- support, extracurricular or curricular activity-- and ranks them, in groups, by "net cost per participant." They are then prioritized, between groups and within groups, with "required by law" being the top priority. These rankings are then exposed to the public for comment, and perhaps adjusted.
The real beauty of the approach, however, is that whenever a question arises as to whether more funding is needed, the district presents the public with a clear choice. "The cost of x and y has increased by z dollars. If we do not get z dollars of increased revenue from wherever, programs a, b, anc c-- our lowest priorities-- will be cut." The public then has a simple decision, to pay more and keep a,b and c or let them go. SOOO simple, no monkeys, just a clear option that everybody understands. No monkeys involved.
J. Ewing
Post a Comment