 |
 |
The intercom is a little different because, presumably, that's building-wide. The doorbell's chime could be located in a staff area. Although, I do think she said she's hearing-impaired, which would imply the need for a multimodal alert. -Ross. On Friday, February 22, 2013, Kyle Banerjee wrote: > On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 6:50 AM, Andreas Orphanides <[log in to unmask]<javascript:;> > >wrote: > > > Staff numbers remain static, but responsibilities (and gate > > counts) keep increasing. As things get busier, we focus on our core > > responsibilities and some of the added stuff can fall to the wayside. If > > the overhead of participating in the backup system exceeds the available > > mental space, then people are going to forget/ignore it in lieu of more > > central concerns. I don't think this is indicative of poor staff quality, > > though -- just a natural process of triage. > > > > I don't think the correct solution is punitive -- that would only make > the > > existing problem of managing responsibilities worse. Assuming that we're > > not going to get additional personnel, the best route is probably to > > implement a system that's as streamlined and easy as possible for the > > participants. This is why the doorbell works so well. > > > > Agreed on all points except the doorbell since the OP indicated that the > intercom (which works the same as a doorbell for purposes here) wasn't an > acceptable solution because the noise it made annoyed patrons. > > Expecting people to do good things and holding them accountable really > doesn't have anything to do with punitive action. Oppressive methods and > imposed solutions rarely work for the simple reason that people only do > what you make them do rather than what is needed. > > The key to success is engagement. The key to getting people engaged is > showing them that you know they're good, that others count on them, and > that it's important that they deliver. If things don't go as expected, you > need a discussion over what happened and how to make things better in the > future. Expectations should never be low -- that all but guarantees nothing > will happen. > > If the staff I work with had to deal with the backup problem that started > this thread, we'd have a conversation to see what everyone thought would > work best. Then we'd agree on something to try, touch base regularly to > identify what's working, what's not, and decide how to proceed from there. > If the solution for one problem causes other issues, that's part of the > conversation. > > Every place I've ever worked, I'm told there is someone who can't do > computers or operate X equipment (often this is reported by the person in > question). I have yet to actually meet someone who actually is no good with > this stuff and who can't be brought up to speed in a reasonable amount of > time. My experience is that even the most adamant Luddites do just fine if > you invest a little time and faith in them. > > kyle >