Classifying jobs by time investment

[RemSaverem]

We always hear that we need more staff. We do. Especially since some staff roles will probably need to be doubled to spread across the two hotels.
Here is my proposal (after 4 years as a Manager at KC), for something that could save a lot of people a lot of time, energy, money, & prevent headaches, misunderstandings, staff drop-outs, & confusion.
Characterize each job as something that fits into one of the following categories (and please forgive if I misgroup a job):
(1) Your only responsibilities will be during the con itself. Example: Manga Library shift staff (other than the Coordinator, whom I imagine sets up the day before).
(2) Your only responsibilities will be during the con itself, plus, a day or two before and/or after the con. Example: Tech, guest liason.
(3) Your only responsibilities will be within a month of so of the con itself, & during con, you can have free time. Example: Con Book & Schedule beta readers, Con Suite. <<If this isn't a job slot presently open to at least two staff, I'd propose that it become one!>>
(4) Your responsibilities will be year-round, but will take place before con, & during con, you can have free time. Example: Street Team. <<If there is not already a job slot for at least two people for helping the Prog Chair with coordinating mini-events between cons, I'd propose that there become one!>>
(5) You will have job responsibilities all year long, *and* at con, & you need to realize this before you accept the position. Example: Coordinators & Managers in at least various areas of Ops & Prog.

I strongly believe that a lot of the problems KC has with recruiting & retaining staff & with staff burnout have to do with potential staff either not realizing which jobs will require which degrees of responsibility & commitment at which times, and/or, with staff being hired for/ applying for positions the time requirements of which are incompatible with their personal lives.

If we could know, at the moment that we nominate ourselves for a position or agree to one offered to us, how much will be asked of us at which times of year, because that info is linked to the job title or part of the job description, that would, I strongly believe, end up being a huge timesaver for a lot of people, because people will be more realistic about what they can & cannot commit to, and people will be more likely to follow through if they have known from the start how much they've committed to offering of their time when.

What do y'all think?

Yours fondly,
Rem.
<EDIT>
Please note that this is a suggestion, that those seeking or offering staff positions take these factors into consideration & mention where a job fits along this spectrum when seeking someone for it/ considering taking it. It is not a formal proposal for a vote at a meeting.

<<EDIT: Moved con suite per Czarcasm from 2 to 3.>>

[camname21]

At the vary least, i think it is a good idea for each job to be clearly labeled with a time investment such as this in it's description. 

[Czarcasm]

Con Suite should be in Category 3.

[kylite]

Im not sure where Yoji falls into that. We train throughout the year, and work all of con oncluding load in and load out

[camname21]

General yoji would be 2, because they help the day before and clean up while working during the convention.  The "training" for them is usually a one day thing, so they wouldn't really be working before a day or so ahead of con.  Everyone else (anyone with real responsibility) might be 5.

[RemSaverem]

Wow! Yay! I am so glad some folks actually looked at and contemplated and replied to this thread. I had thought I had hit "notify", then when I didn't get any emails about it, thought there had been no replies; sorry for the delay!
Yeah only those who've actually worked the positions would know what falls into each (even more so than those who assign folks to said positions). I really do believe a lot of headache could be spared a lot of people if it would be clear precisely when, before, during, & after con, and for precisely what ballpark number of hours, people are obliged to give time to the con, for each position, before signing up for them. It's more realistic and more fair to try to recruit people brand new to the world of cons, if they know exactly what they're being asked to get into. And some people definitely will be in a situation in which they know they do or do not have more time before or more time during or more time after con, so matching people to tasks by when they're already free just feels like a logical idea.
Thanks so much!

[Rathany]

Some things this doesn't take into account:

1) When does con start/end according to this system?  Is Friday a 'con day'?

2) Setup and teardown. 

3) Training.

4) If we pre-define all jobs this way, it limits our ability to tailor positions to the staff we have.  What if A wants to be manager of Blah, and this person can manage the hell out of Blah at con and definitely works enough time and brings enough skills to the table to be worth the title.  But, this person is pants at pre-con.  Sometimes this con runs on finding good people and putting them to their best use, rather than trying to stuff them into pre-made holes.  I don't feel like I can give examples without feeling like I am calling people out who did everything that was asked of them.  This sort of classification might work for some positions, like Yoji, but I don't think this sort of codification works for every section of the con.  Also, I don't want any staff thinking that they shouldn't be involved before con, or that they should not try to be helpful at con if they have a pre-con position. 

Anyway, that is my $0.02.   

[RemSaverem]

[snip]1) When does con start/end according to this system?  Is Friday a 'con day'?

I think of it as one because people can pick up pre-reg's, con suite opens, there is music, etc. I wasn't so much trying to propose set terminology, just the idea of making sure those of whom substantial pre-con work is incumbent are informed, so they don't get overwhelmed when they find it's expected, nor bite off more than they can chew.

2) Setup and teardown.  

I think of that as part of the extended con week, which I think was one of the options.

3) Training.

I think that it would be helpful for potential new staff to be told up front that there may be various trainings they have to attend prior to con as part of being staff. It might be that they are already told this, I don't know.

4) If we pre-define all jobs this way, it limits our ability to tailor positions to the staff we have.  [snip]  

Never heard that expression, "is pants at". I support the idea of tailoring positions to talented & available people. Absolutely. But even those folks should have clarification of what's expected.

[snip]  This sort of classification might work for some positions, like Yoji, but I don't think this sort of codification works for every section of the con.  Also, I don't want any staff thinking that they shouldn't be involved before con, or that they should not try to be helpful at con if they have a pre-con position.  

Agreed. Thanks.
BTW: One of my hopes is to prevent  intradepartmental conflict over how often staff should expect contact from those supervising them or how often they will be tasked to do things pre-con. Negotiating individually for each position or each staff is fine; just that the dialogue occur is important.

[MichaelEvans]

For those staff who don't implicitly /have/ jobs at the convention (IE the literal position description is all work that must occur before the convention and only 'if something breaks' during) having a designated secondary task could be a good idea.  Taking me as an example, there are many jobs that my generally technical, computer/electronics, and data management (databases/forums/application of logic) background could easily let me learn little things for on the fly.  Then there are other jobs where my personality type and skills are either a conflict or not an optimal use of resources.  Also given my background, the /best/ use of my skills is taking issues learned in prior conventions and building tools that enable us to prevent them.

[RemSaverem]

For those staff who don't implicitly /have/ jobs at the convention (IE the literal position description is all work that must occur before the convention and only 'if something breaks' during) having a designated secondary task could be a good idea.  Taking me as an example, there are many jobs that my generally technical, computer/electronics, and data management (databases/forums/application of logic) background could easily let me learn little things for on the fly.  Then there are other jobs where my personality type and skills are either a conflict or not an optimal use of resources.  Also given my background, the /best/ use of my skills is taking issues learned in prior conventions and building tools that enable us to prevent them.

I appreciate what you're saying. But personally I'm not sold on the whole "we're understaffed, therefore no one can have a job that only takes place before con" idea. I want KC to be as inclusive as possible. That means, in today's economic reality, that we could even have folks who want to participate to the best of their ability, which might mean what they can afford to do, which might mean working from home/on the 'net/ in their local areas--and maybe not even being able to attend KC itself per se. IMHO, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy to lament being short-staffed, and to cut off avenues whereby we could garner additional staff. I do not believe that whether or not someone can actually attend all of (let alone physically work during) KC should be the sine qua non of whether they are accepted as valued members of the KC work team. Particularly when so much of what sustains the con involves tech, graphics, networking, proofreading, and other types of activities that could, conceivably, be engaged by someone who geographically, financially, or logistically (e.g., 3rd trimester pregnancy, cancer, etc.) might be unable to make it to con. IMHO, we shoot ourselves in the foot if we do not at least engage the possibility of having staff positions for otherwise fully qualified applicants who simply can't make it to con (or whose time there would be limited, e.g., working or engaging childcare/caregiving offsite most of the weekend, commuting in to give one panel).

[@random]

For those staff who don't implicitly /have/ jobs at the convention (IE the literal position description is all work that must occur before the convention and only 'if something breaks' during) having a designated secondary task could be a good idea.  Taking me as an example, there are many jobs that my generally technical, computer/electronics, and data management (databases/forums/application of logic) background could easily let me learn little things for on the fly.  Then there are other jobs where my personality type and skills are either a conflict or not an optimal use of resources.  Also given my background, the /best/ use of my skills is taking issues learned in prior conventions and building tools that enable us to prevent them.

I appreciate what you're saying. But personally I'm not sold on the whole "we're understaffed, therefore no one can have a job that only takes place before con" idea. I want KC to be as inclusive as possible. That means, in today's economic reality, that we could even have folks who want to participate to the best of their ability, which might mean what they can afford to do, which might mean working from home/on the 'net/ in their local areas--and maybe not even being able to attend KC itself per se. IMHO, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy to lament being short-staffed, and to cut off avenues whereby we could garner additional staff. I do not believe that whether or not someone can actually attend all of (let alone physically work during) KC should be the sine qua non of whether they are accepted as valued members of the KC work team. Particularly when so much of what sustains the con involves tech, graphics, networking, proofreading, and other types of activities that could, conceivably, be engaged by someone who geographically, financially, or logistically (e.g., 3rd trimester pregnancy, cancer, etc.) might be unable to make it to con. IMHO, we shoot ourselves in the foot if we do not at least engage the possibility of having staff positions for otherwise fully qualified applicants who simply can't make it to con (or whose time there would be limited, e.g., working or engaging childcare/caregiving offsite most of the weekend, commuting in to give one panel).

This is one of the best expressions I've heard of a couple of things that have concerned me for a long time. I completely understand that we don't want to let everyone who wants it to be staff, and I think we do a lot to be inclusive already. But I think there is still more we can do to be inclusive of the kind of people we need, in a few different areas.

One thing that pretty much JUMPS to mind as far as roles outside of con is "assistants to the Board." I only have an impression of this, so I hope someone who does know can answer: Would it be reasonably accurate to say that the directors often get swamped with more than any one person should be reasonably expected to do, unless it were for a paid job?

If that is true, would it be fair to say that people who could help with the legwork outside of con would go a long way toward enabling the Board to focus on the areas that are most important?

[RemSaverem]

@ random: Thank you, & I agree.

There were a few things that were said in some of the Candidate Q & A threads that I found offputting. One was something along the lines of the idea that work in cons does not translate as professional work in the outside world (I think this was by Beau).

This con, one of my Creation Station panelists/staffers & I arranged academic credit at a community college for her prodigious amounts of work before and at con. If we chose to view and market ourselves as a learning and teaching environment, we undoubtedly could expand the number of opportunities students have for receiving credit for their professional input to the con, and perhaps even obtain professionally trained interns for some of the work. (BTW: I have both undertaken myself and set up for others various types of Co-op credits and work studies and could and, if asked/authorized, would gladly help in such endeavors. Whether that would fall under Publicity or Relations or ?)

Among the departments to which I'd believe we could successfully engage outreach for such:
Co-Op/Voc Ed
Marketing
Graphic Design
Web Design
Hospitality  (LCC has such, including an Event Planning seminar)
Traditional Art
Writing
Performance Arts
Japanese
Costume/Fashion Design/Fabric Arts/Textile Arts
Theater Tech (I don't know if there are programs in Oregon, but my cousin has a degree therein.)

Historically I also have written job references for Creation Station staff and panelists whose event-coordinating work and/or panel presentation content has been professional-grade.

It is entirely valid to see working in cons as a gateway to paid, pro bono, or credited professional work, and it is entirely valid to see paid, pro bono, or credited professional work as qualifying one to participate (be it as staff or panelist) for the con. What would be the point of trying to keep, and/or portray, ourselves as deliberately *only* self-trained amateurs? Of course we want to keep a DIY spirit and to continue to train from within folks starting from scratch. But it would be another of those self-fulfilling prophecies, if we remain understaffed because we decline to re-envision what qualifies one for staffing and how staffing is engaged. Either we expand the pools from which we are able to entice new staff *and* are willing to hire new staff, or we don't; but I do believe we'll trap ourselves into a dwindling number of overworked staff if we don't, and that's not something I want to see happen.

[Rathany]

We have had staff who have gotten college credit for Kcon work.  We have also provided internships and even custom made a staff position to give someone a leg up on the experience they needed toward getting the job they wanted.  I would like to see us do this sort of thing more, but people should know that it is very possible. 

Also, to address the above:  While we have had staffers who have been pregnant, etc, no one is going to require someone who is 7-9 months pregnant or on chemo to do work at con if they had a pre-con job and finished said work.  We deal with lots of special cases.  That is part of what I was saying about about NOT wanting to set in stone what certain jobs require in terms of pre-con and at-con work.  We need to be able to customize *certain* positions to our staffers.  (I high lighted certain because some jobs simply do require pre and at work and there is no way around that.) 

And yes, being a Director is a ton of work.  Assistants and Assistants To can help a great deal.  Though, what is also very important is competent managers.  If a Director has to do all the 'thinking' and 'tracking' bits of a manager's job for them, well, the sheer amount of things that need to be taken care of is overwhelming.  People who can take on projects and can plan them and follow through on their own take a *huge* amount of stress off of Directors, IMHO.  Making it so the director does not need to keep thinking about it is really big.  The Manager level is also the level most of our staff interact directly with and are more visible to attendees than directors.  NOT that I would discourage anyone from wanting to try for higher levels of con work, but the importance of solid managers should not be underestimated.

[RemSaverem]

We have had staff who have gotten college credit for Kcon work.  We have also provided internships and even custom made a staff position to give someone a leg up on the experience they needed toward getting the job they wanted.  I would like to see us do this sort of thing more, but people should know that it is very possible.

That is all awesome. However, while it is great to be willing to accept these arrangements when individuals propose them, IMHO it would be even more helpful to overtly advertise that they are possible (beyond this thread), and, to actively have (whomever is deemed appropriate, perhaps a Relations or a Publicity position) engage outreach to school departments to seek new folks who would come work for KC under such arrangements.  

Also, to address the above:  While we have had staffers who have been pregnant, etc, no one is going to require someone who is 7-9 months pregnant or on chemo to do work at con if they had a pre-con job and finished said work.  We deal with lots of special cases.  That is part of what I was saying about about NOT wanting to set in stone what certain jobs require in terms of pre-con and at-con work.  We need to be able to customize *certain* positions to our staffers.  (I high lighted certain because some jobs simply do require pre and at work and there is no way around that.)  

Agreed. Again, that we make exceptions is great. I simply think the more that we overtly say that such are not only okay, but welcome, and actively sought, the more we can broaden the base of volunteers & staff with differing life circumstances & levels of experience.

And yes, being a Director is a ton of work.  Assistants and Assistants To can help a great deal.  Though, what is also very important is competent managers.  If a Director has to do all the 'thinking' and 'tracking' bits of a manager's job for them, well, the sheer amount of things that need to be taken care of is overwhelming.  People who can take on projects and can plan them and follow through on their own take a *huge* amount of stress off of Directors, IMHO.  Making it so the director does not need to keep thinking about it is really big.  The Manager level is also the level most of our staff interact directly with and are more visible to attendees than directors.  NOT that I would discourage anyone from wanting to try for higher levels of con work, but the importance of solid managers should not be underestimated.

Totally agreed. Historically we in the CS have tried to be as self-sufficient as possible to have as little as possible impact on the rest of the Prog process: coordinating our own staff & volunteers & panelists & event descriptions & Con Book sections & schedule. I do not know if any other part of the con has done such, but almost without any exception in 7 years at multiple cons, it's been what's really worked for us. To what extent any given Director wants to centralize or decentralize various aspects of prep work across various subdepartments is his or her prerogative & can vary by year. But IMHO responsible managers empowered to take certain steps can get a whole lot done that takes a whole lot off the Directors' shoulders, at least if the Coordinators assisting us are also responsible, competent, respectfully communicative, etc.

[pyronine]

And yes, being a Director is a ton of work.  Assistants and Assistants To can help a great deal.  Though, what is also very important is competent managers.  If a Director has to do all the 'thinking' and 'tracking' bits of a manager's job for them, well, the sheer amount of things that need to be taken care of is overwhelming.  People who can take on projects and can plan them and follow through on their own take a *huge* amount of stress off of Directors, IMHO.  Making it so the director does not need to keep thinking about it is really big.  The Manager level is also the level most of our staff interact directly with and are more visible to attendees than directors.  NOT that I would discourage anyone from wanting to try for higher levels of con work, but the importance of solid managers should not be underestimated.

Totally agreed. Historically we in the CS have tried to be as self-sufficient as possible to have as little as possible impact on the rest of the Prog process: coordinating our own staff & volunteers & panelists & event descriptions & Con Book sections & schedule. I do not know if any other part of the con has done such, but almost without any exception in 7 years at multiple cons, it's been what's really worked for us. To what extent any given Director wants to centralize or decentralize various aspects of prep work across various subdepartments is his or her prerogative & can vary by year. But IMHO responsible managers empowered to take certain steps can get a whole lot done that takes a whole lot off the Directors' shoulders, at least if the Coordinators assisting us are also responsible, competent, respectfully communicative, etc.

That is how I am running Reg this year. i feel it is the managers job to oversee their entire dept while reporting to the Director with updates and info. In every management job I have ever been in, I have always felt that it is the responsibility of the lesser manager to handle situations and take stress of their supervisor's shoulder. All my Director should have to do is ask me where we are at, And not try to take the burden on him/herself. A director is just like a regional manager, it is their job to see all departments run smoothly without having to micro manage it.  While input from a director is good, the manager should have complete control over his or her department, and not rely on their director to make sure things get taken care of.

PS  what is IMHO (I am a ho?) really, i dont know what it is.

[Jamiche]

PS  what is IMHO (I am a ho?) really, i dont know what it is.

In My Humble Opinion 

[RemSaverem]

I agree with your post, with the exception that I believe a Director should inform a Manager directly of any major changes that affect the Manager's area (e.g., policies, schedules, allocation of at-con resources). It is not always the case that telling someone else will get the info to the Manager reliably, accurately, on time, or even at all, if the other staffer forgets or is acting with malfeasance. IMHO = in my humble opinion.

[camname21]

PS  what is IMHO (I am a ho?) really, i dont know what it is.

In My Humble Opinion 

I'm sure you could use them interchangeably, but I thought IMHO was 'In My Honest Opinion.'   There is a big difference between Humble and Honest ^^

[@random]

PS  what is IMHO (I am a ho?) really, i dont know what it is.

In My Humble Opinion 

I'm sure you could use them interchangeably, but I thought IMHO was 'In My Honest Opinion.'   There is a big difference between Humble and Honest ^^

At least back in the day it started as "humble", because that was still a common expression. But I don't doubt that initialisms, like words, can change in meaning over time.

I've always preferred IMO, myself. If I'm offering an opinion, then "humble" feels contradictory since I think it's relevant enough to offer it. And "honest" seems redundant, because a person's opinion - i.e. what they genuinely think about something - is by definition honest (and hopefully "accurate" as well, but those are two different adjectives). But I can see good reason for using IMHO, because that's the initialism that people recognize more easily.

[camname21]

I think I'll try sticking to IMO from now on.  Thanks Jamiche for raising the question