A plain statement that not everyone may interpret in the same fashion!
Fact
On the railway, there has always been a hierarchy (a pecking order if you would like to call it that). This is initially based upon one's grade, the higher grade you are, the higher up the pecking order you are.
Then there are a number of other factor's which can modify this further. If you have two individuals of identical grade, but one is senior to the other (they have more service), then the senior one is ahead in the pecking order.
Juniority (this refers to skills etc), and can mean an individual with less service can effectively be ahead of colleagues with a higher grade and more service.
These are the three basic starting points in determining where in the hierarchy one is :
1) Grade.
2) Seniority.
3) Juniority.
Why do you need a hierarchy?
In any organisation, you need to have a chain of command. Where the issuing of instructions, orders and tasks flow from the top down through the chain of command.
You need to have someone in charge, and someone subordinate, having a situation where all are equal just leads to anarchy. And a natural consequence of this, is that your position within the hierarchy can have a direct implication as to the sort of tasks you will be assigned, and the level of your workload.
If you are at the very bottom of the hierarchy, you can expect virtually any task to be put on your plate. As a rule, the lower you are in that hierarchy, the harder the tasks that can be assigned to you and the more in the way of amount of work that you have to do. That is the way of the world, at the bottom you have to do everything imaginable, literally work yours balls off if required, and as you go up in the hierarchy, you can do a bit less and delegate task's to your subordinates. As you go up the ladder higher and higher, you do less and less.
So that lays down the basic elements for the allocation of tasks! But are there other factors which you might consider?
Yes, there are a number of factors, of which it is entirely reasonable to consider when allocating tasks, some of these would be unreasonable and unfair to others to ignore. It's part of how the chain of command works, recognition is given where it is deserved and conversely admonishment or punishment is given out where it is deserved.
The nature of recognition can vary immensely, from a mere thank you, or being allocated an easy task, to being given an earlier than expected finish or getting an easy shift somewhere at the lower level. Higher levels of management may well give recognition through promotion and so forth.
While admonishment or punishment can vary immensely also at the lower levels, from a mere bollocking for a misdemeanor, to giving someone no more than they are due (i.e. 30 min's for a meal break, and no more), to giving them a job that they wont find pleasant. And at higher levels, it can also mean a bollocking, or a disciplinary, demotion, suspension from duty, even dismissal.
Factor's which could be considered :
1) Attitude
Attitude to the job can have a dramatic influence upon allocation of tasks. An example being lookout, when you have an unpleasant task such as shovelling and a better one such as acting as lookout, and you have two individuals. One of them has a positive attitude who would take the responsibility of being a lookout seriously, while the other has a less than positive attitude and views it merely as a cushy number and a means to avoid hard work. Which would you choose?
2) Performance
Performance can be viewed as completing any given task within the required timescale and to the required standard. Initially this could be by reference to such things as experience gained over the years, i.e. how long it takes to do some task or other and to what standard. Or you could refer to such things as MIMMS, which are an extensive series of time and motion study results, which give a timescale for virtually every task or part thereof.
Also you could use the time taken to do a task by the majority as your benchmark, say if everyone took on average 30 mins to shovel six a piece, and someone took an hour or more on average. I think it would be safe to say they were performing poorly.
Also, if doing six a piece, someone consistently did their six to a less than perfect standard, stone still on the web of the rail and around the clips, beds looking like there was a body buried in them. Then that could also be considered as performing poorly.
Also you could consider such points as whether the put the tools they use away correctly or not, or if they doing lookout whether they put away the kit correctly, detonators locked away etc. This could also be considered as performing poorly.
What downside might poor performance elicit, at the least a reprimand or being allocated a less than desirable task.
Good performance on the other hand can be given recognition, and that can very well take the form of being allocated a easier task.
Also you could put under this category, the fact of whether an individual has already undertaken one or more tasks already. One such could be the driving of a vehicle to site, it wouldn't be unreasonable to allocate any tasks that required doing to those who had completed no task so far.
3) Timekeeping
A person's ability to adhere to their contractual hours, that means being at your booking on point at the allotted time, and not leaving your booking on point until the allotted time. Not something immensely popular, but that doesn't mean it's OK to flout it. Take the piss and it is guaranteed to get a response.
Turning up persistently late will get a negative response.
An immediate negative response would be the allocating of a less than desirable task to someone who is repeatedly late.
Also finishing earlier than one should can elicit a negative response, and at the very least it can mean that you are effectively in managements pocket, that you owe them. This can mean that they may ask you to do something at some point that you are not particularly keen on doing, but as you owe them, there's not allot that you can say against it.
Also, many may view that someone who makes considerably more from finishing earlier than they do has an unfair advantage. And many may feel it's fair to redress that imbalance in some fashion.
A easy way to redress that imbalance, is in the allocation of tasks. The more an individual benefits from finishing earlier, when there is a less than desirable task in the offing then it's only fair that they are more in the frame for that task than anyone else.
The easiest way to fulfill the requirements is to start at the designated time, and finish at the designated time. That way you have met what is expected of you, and you owe nothing in return, management have nothing that they can hold over you.
4) Initiative
Initiative can be viewed to cover a broad range of things, but at the simplest level you could say the following. If you notice a clip is missing, you go and find a clip and replace it, it you know that a duff jack is required, you fetch one.
Not merely point it out and expect someone else to do it, just because one is to bone idle and cant be bothered to put themselves out.
You have an undesirable task, who would you allocate it to? The individual who shows willing and initiative, or the bone idle one?
5) Flexibility
I would describe this as being prepared to do sometimes, things that you wouldn't particularly want to do, but you bite the bullet and put your self out and do it.
If there was an undesirable task in the offing, it's not unreasonable to allocate the less than desirable task's to those that exhibit the least flexibility, and conversely allocate the more desirable tasks to those that do exhibit flexibility.
Fact
On the railway, there has always been a hierarchy (a pecking order if you would like to call it that). This is initially based upon one's grade, the higher grade you are, the higher up the pecking order you are.
Then there are a number of other factor's which can modify this further. If you have two individuals of identical grade, but one is senior to the other (they have more service), then the senior one is ahead in the pecking order.
Juniority (this refers to skills etc), and can mean an individual with less service can effectively be ahead of colleagues with a higher grade and more service.
These are the three basic starting points in determining where in the hierarchy one is :
1) Grade.
2) Seniority.
3) Juniority.
Why do you need a hierarchy?
In any organisation, you need to have a chain of command. Where the issuing of instructions, orders and tasks flow from the top down through the chain of command.
You need to have someone in charge, and someone subordinate, having a situation where all are equal just leads to anarchy. And a natural consequence of this, is that your position within the hierarchy can have a direct implication as to the sort of tasks you will be assigned, and the level of your workload.
If you are at the very bottom of the hierarchy, you can expect virtually any task to be put on your plate. As a rule, the lower you are in that hierarchy, the harder the tasks that can be assigned to you and the more in the way of amount of work that you have to do. That is the way of the world, at the bottom you have to do everything imaginable, literally work yours balls off if required, and as you go up in the hierarchy, you can do a bit less and delegate task's to your subordinates. As you go up the ladder higher and higher, you do less and less.
So that lays down the basic elements for the allocation of tasks! But are there other factors which you might consider?
Yes, there are a number of factors, of which it is entirely reasonable to consider when allocating tasks, some of these would be unreasonable and unfair to others to ignore. It's part of how the chain of command works, recognition is given where it is deserved and conversely admonishment or punishment is given out where it is deserved.
The nature of recognition can vary immensely, from a mere thank you, or being allocated an easy task, to being given an earlier than expected finish or getting an easy shift somewhere at the lower level. Higher levels of management may well give recognition through promotion and so forth.
While admonishment or punishment can vary immensely also at the lower levels, from a mere bollocking for a misdemeanor, to giving someone no more than they are due (i.e. 30 min's for a meal break, and no more), to giving them a job that they wont find pleasant. And at higher levels, it can also mean a bollocking, or a disciplinary, demotion, suspension from duty, even dismissal.
Factor's which could be considered :
1) Attitude
Attitude to the job can have a dramatic influence upon allocation of tasks. An example being lookout, when you have an unpleasant task such as shovelling and a better one such as acting as lookout, and you have two individuals. One of them has a positive attitude who would take the responsibility of being a lookout seriously, while the other has a less than positive attitude and views it merely as a cushy number and a means to avoid hard work. Which would you choose?
2) Performance
Performance can be viewed as completing any given task within the required timescale and to the required standard. Initially this could be by reference to such things as experience gained over the years, i.e. how long it takes to do some task or other and to what standard. Or you could refer to such things as MIMMS, which are an extensive series of time and motion study results, which give a timescale for virtually every task or part thereof.
Also you could use the time taken to do a task by the majority as your benchmark, say if everyone took on average 30 mins to shovel six a piece, and someone took an hour or more on average. I think it would be safe to say they were performing poorly.
Also, if doing six a piece, someone consistently did their six to a less than perfect standard, stone still on the web of the rail and around the clips, beds looking like there was a body buried in them. Then that could also be considered as performing poorly.
Also you could consider such points as whether the put the tools they use away correctly or not, or if they doing lookout whether they put away the kit correctly, detonators locked away etc. This could also be considered as performing poorly.
What downside might poor performance elicit, at the least a reprimand or being allocated a less than desirable task.
Good performance on the other hand can be given recognition, and that can very well take the form of being allocated a easier task.
Also you could put under this category, the fact of whether an individual has already undertaken one or more tasks already. One such could be the driving of a vehicle to site, it wouldn't be unreasonable to allocate any tasks that required doing to those who had completed no task so far.
3) Timekeeping
A person's ability to adhere to their contractual hours, that means being at your booking on point at the allotted time, and not leaving your booking on point until the allotted time. Not something immensely popular, but that doesn't mean it's OK to flout it. Take the piss and it is guaranteed to get a response.
Turning up persistently late will get a negative response.
An immediate negative response would be the allocating of a less than desirable task to someone who is repeatedly late.
Also finishing earlier than one should can elicit a negative response, and at the very least it can mean that you are effectively in managements pocket, that you owe them. This can mean that they may ask you to do something at some point that you are not particularly keen on doing, but as you owe them, there's not allot that you can say against it.
Also, many may view that someone who makes considerably more from finishing earlier than they do has an unfair advantage. And many may feel it's fair to redress that imbalance in some fashion.
A easy way to redress that imbalance, is in the allocation of tasks. The more an individual benefits from finishing earlier, when there is a less than desirable task in the offing then it's only fair that they are more in the frame for that task than anyone else.
The easiest way to fulfill the requirements is to start at the designated time, and finish at the designated time. That way you have met what is expected of you, and you owe nothing in return, management have nothing that they can hold over you.
4) Initiative
Initiative can be viewed to cover a broad range of things, but at the simplest level you could say the following. If you notice a clip is missing, you go and find a clip and replace it, it you know that a duff jack is required, you fetch one.
Not merely point it out and expect someone else to do it, just because one is to bone idle and cant be bothered to put themselves out.
You have an undesirable task, who would you allocate it to? The individual who shows willing and initiative, or the bone idle one?
5) Flexibility
I would describe this as being prepared to do sometimes, things that you wouldn't particularly want to do, but you bite the bullet and put your self out and do it.
If there was an undesirable task in the offing, it's not unreasonable to allocate the less than desirable task's to those that exhibit the least flexibility, and conversely allocate the more desirable tasks to those that do exhibit flexibility.
**************************************************
The basic principle of all this is, that working hard when it is needed, having the right attitude, showing initiative, good time keeping, good performance, being prepared to be flexible at times can all have positive benefits in the long run. While short comings in these areas can have a definite downside. It is only fair that it should be so, why should an individual who performs poorly on all counts reap the same benefits as someone who will knock their pan out when its needed.
Do well and it is recognised, and you could find that when there is a shed load to do that you wont necessarily be on the sharp end.
Do poorly and it is recognised, and you most definitely will find you are on the sharp end every time and rightly so.
So the nature of the sort of the day one will have is largely determined by our own actions, how well or not as the case maybe, and has a directed influence on what sort of day we will have and what tasks we'll be given. So the better we do, the better day we'll have, and the reverse is equally true.
So the nature of the sort of the day one will have is largely determined by our own actions, how well or not as the case maybe, and has a directed influence on what sort of day we will have and what tasks we'll be given. So the better we do, the better day we'll have, and the reverse is equally true.
