Photo Credit: Nina Paley blog, blog.ninapaley.com
A Twice told tale: Testing Timelines
The following exchange relates to a recent incident at my wife’s work, in which she and her manager had numerous discussions on testing process that ties directly to a worker’s compensation issue of a colleague, Carla. As a reference point, the place of employment is a biotech company in which drug testing occurs.
My wife’s point of view:
“I’ve recently been frustrated on an hourly basis with my manager, Chuck. It all began after a worker’s compensation claim and request for time off was submitted by Carla roughly a week ago. Carla had been in charge of a drug testing process that requires constant pipetting and lifting/raising of your arms for a majority of the day, with minimal breaks. Carla would take short lunch breaks and often skip restroom breaks to ensure she was able to get the process done by the end of the day, and didn’t have to stay late. This was her choice. Due to the daily grind of this task, her shoulder flared up with a serious case of tendinitis, and she was forced to stay home at the doctor’s request. Due to Carla’s interest in leaving on time, and not working late on a daily basis, she had done a majority of the work with the manual process, as it is much more accurate to do this process by hand rather than using the testing machine. Plus, the machine is slow and forces operators normally to stay after hours to complete. Add this up on a weekly basis, and late nights would be common. With Carla out of the office rehabbing her shoulder, (rightfully so), my boss, Chuck, tasked me with her daily process. Thankfully due to Carla’s worker’s compensation claim, upper management (Zeke), had stated that the testing/processing of this area would be run once on a weekly basis rather than daily. I was happy to oblige and cover Carla’s tasks and I mentioned to Zeke that if I feel any pain I would stop and bring it to his attention. This is where my frustration arises with Chuck, my direct manager. After the group wide meeting was held in which we were told the process would be run once a week, Chuck approached me with his disagreement with Zeke’s timeframe. He stated he doesn’t see how production and testing of this new drug will move forward if we run it on a weekly basis. With his frustration, he placed the pressure back on me, stating we would test/run this process as frequently as I can perform the task, hinting that we would run the tests multiple times a week. I’ve previously told Chuck about work related soreness and I’m not one to let my shoulder become numb before speaking up. But within hours of upper management stating the guidelines for our testing process, Chuck is already trying to up the workload, and possibly bring further injuries to his team. This is unacceptable.”
Chuck’s point of view:
“Carla has recently been out with shoulder tendonitis, due to repetitive stress injury to the shoulder. I’m curious as to why this process was being performed manually, when we have machines that can brunt the workload. I’ve recently tasked Katrina to oversee Carla’s job responsibilities, and my manager, Zeke, has limited this testing to be held once a week. I keep bringing this up with Katrina, as I see the need to run this process on a more frequent basis, or else we will fall far behind in our drug testing and eventual product release. I feel responsible if our team is the reason for the delay, and even though upper management will have to explain their ‘once a week’ policy, it still falls on my shoulders as to why the testing was so infrequent. What I don’t understand is why are we limiting the process to once a week, when we can use the machine on a daily basis? From team reports, the machine is slow and less accurate than manual testing. This just sparks the conversation that testing should be performed in teams, one user that kicks off the machine process first thing in the morning, the other user that stops the machine at the end of day. We could match early arrivers at work, with those who stay late to oversee the machine processing. In terms of machine accuracy, we could attempt to calibrate the machine or reach out to the vendor to identify the issue. If this machine is heading obsolete, then perhaps we try and find a newer model that is more time efficient and accurate. But then again, where do funds come from for such a fancy machine? I really wish that the testing could just be split between the team, and when they are feeling any pain, stop and bring it to my attention!”
What I found interesting about this exercise is the range of emotions and sense of understanding that came over me while typing out the exchange. When hearing my wife’s perspective, I did have a strong emotional tie and was concerned about her boss’ decision making and lack of concern for her well being. I was shocked to hear how adamant he was about running the process, and that even on the same day as the company meeting, he was still trying to change the timeline that had been decided. However, when I took Chuck’s point of view, I removed all sense of emotion and tried to brainstorm logically on why he was taking such an approach. There were areas that I failed to consider when listening to my wife’s perspective, and it really allowed me to see the issue from the other side. Even though no observation or official research was used in this exercise, the communication and ideation techniques helped strengthen my empathic perspectives from both my wife and Chuck’s point of views. I was able to listen to my wife’s concerns and then project my own dialogue by placing myself in Chuck’s shoes for the day. A great exercise to see the world through another lens, and in more than one point of view!
* Names have been changed in this exercise
My wife’s point of view:
“I’ve recently been frustrated on an hourly basis with my manager, Chuck. It all began after a worker’s compensation claim and request for time off was submitted by Carla roughly a week ago. Carla had been in charge of a drug testing process that requires constant pipetting and lifting/raising of your arms for a majority of the day, with minimal breaks. Carla would take short lunch breaks and often skip restroom breaks to ensure she was able to get the process done by the end of the day, and didn’t have to stay late. This was her choice. Due to the daily grind of this task, her shoulder flared up with a serious case of tendinitis, and she was forced to stay home at the doctor’s request. Due to Carla’s interest in leaving on time, and not working late on a daily basis, she had done a majority of the work with the manual process, as it is much more accurate to do this process by hand rather than using the testing machine. Plus, the machine is slow and forces operators normally to stay after hours to complete. Add this up on a weekly basis, and late nights would be common. With Carla out of the office rehabbing her shoulder, (rightfully so), my boss, Chuck, tasked me with her daily process. Thankfully due to Carla’s worker’s compensation claim, upper management (Zeke), had stated that the testing/processing of this area would be run once on a weekly basis rather than daily. I was happy to oblige and cover Carla’s tasks and I mentioned to Zeke that if I feel any pain I would stop and bring it to his attention. This is where my frustration arises with Chuck, my direct manager. After the group wide meeting was held in which we were told the process would be run once a week, Chuck approached me with his disagreement with Zeke’s timeframe. He stated he doesn’t see how production and testing of this new drug will move forward if we run it on a weekly basis. With his frustration, he placed the pressure back on me, stating we would test/run this process as frequently as I can perform the task, hinting that we would run the tests multiple times a week. I’ve previously told Chuck about work related soreness and I’m not one to let my shoulder become numb before speaking up. But within hours of upper management stating the guidelines for our testing process, Chuck is already trying to up the workload, and possibly bring further injuries to his team. This is unacceptable.”
Chuck’s point of view:
“Carla has recently been out with shoulder tendonitis, due to repetitive stress injury to the shoulder. I’m curious as to why this process was being performed manually, when we have machines that can brunt the workload. I’ve recently tasked Katrina to oversee Carla’s job responsibilities, and my manager, Zeke, has limited this testing to be held once a week. I keep bringing this up with Katrina, as I see the need to run this process on a more frequent basis, or else we will fall far behind in our drug testing and eventual product release. I feel responsible if our team is the reason for the delay, and even though upper management will have to explain their ‘once a week’ policy, it still falls on my shoulders as to why the testing was so infrequent. What I don’t understand is why are we limiting the process to once a week, when we can use the machine on a daily basis? From team reports, the machine is slow and less accurate than manual testing. This just sparks the conversation that testing should be performed in teams, one user that kicks off the machine process first thing in the morning, the other user that stops the machine at the end of day. We could match early arrivers at work, with those who stay late to oversee the machine processing. In terms of machine accuracy, we could attempt to calibrate the machine or reach out to the vendor to identify the issue. If this machine is heading obsolete, then perhaps we try and find a newer model that is more time efficient and accurate. But then again, where do funds come from for such a fancy machine? I really wish that the testing could just be split between the team, and when they are feeling any pain, stop and bring it to my attention!”
What I found interesting about this exercise is the range of emotions and sense of understanding that came over me while typing out the exchange. When hearing my wife’s perspective, I did have a strong emotional tie and was concerned about her boss’ decision making and lack of concern for her well being. I was shocked to hear how adamant he was about running the process, and that even on the same day as the company meeting, he was still trying to change the timeline that had been decided. However, when I took Chuck’s point of view, I removed all sense of emotion and tried to brainstorm logically on why he was taking such an approach. There were areas that I failed to consider when listening to my wife’s perspective, and it really allowed me to see the issue from the other side. Even though no observation or official research was used in this exercise, the communication and ideation techniques helped strengthen my empathic perspectives from both my wife and Chuck’s point of views. I was able to listen to my wife’s concerns and then project my own dialogue by placing myself in Chuck’s shoes for the day. A great exercise to see the world through another lens, and in more than one point of view!
* Names have been changed in this exercise