Monday Moan 57

It’s for you – please pick up!

Lucy Kellaway, writing for the BBC Magazine, says that the telephone is no longer needed, because she does everything by email;

 

“We are now witnessing the death of the office landline, and with it the main switchboard.

 

If anyone really wants me, they send me an email, and because I don't like random disturbances ..... I've stopped answering my desk phone altogether.

 

The other day I checked my voicemail and found 100 messages stretching back over weeks. Guess what I'd missed? Nothing of any note at all.”

 

Sorry Lucy, you are wrong on so many levels.  For a start, some people would say you are behind the times and that email itself is now dead because everyone is using social media instead.  I think this is wrong too, but it just demonstrates that there are always those who see themselves as being at the forefront of whatever the latest trend is who will proclaim the death of the old way of doing things.

 

In fact, Lucy is a brilliant example of the kind of person who is so frustrating to the vast majority of normal people.  The majority of us answer our phones because we know that nobody makes a call without having a good reason for doing so (unless they are just trying to sell you something, of course).  A phone call is so much more immediate and satisfying that an email.  And you can’t pretend that all emails are vital and need immediate attention.  By all means don’t answer the phone if the number is withheld, if it appears to be from someone trying to sell you something, if you can see it’s from someone you don’t want to speak to, or if you really can’t be disturbed at that particular time.  But please pick up normal calls and please check your voicemail and then get back to people who need to speak with you!  I wouldn’t mind betting that many of the 100 messages she claims were of no note were from people who were then forced to email her instead, thus causing extra work and taking longer than a simple phone call would have done.

 

 

Define selfish ……..

A series of programmes about different aspects of keeping London’s roads going has been surprisingly captivating over recent weeks.  I loved the lady who offered her opinion on a road patching repair to the gang who had just done the work – “I could do better than that ….. that’s rubbish ….. it’s not very technical is it, it’s like icing a cake, you put the base on, then you stamp it down, then you put the top bit on, you’re meant to leave it smooth".  

It was hard to disagree with her and she said it all in such a perfectly calm and non-aggressive way that the labourers involved did not take offence or feel threatened.

 

 

As with all such programmes, however, there were those who said things that were just nonsense.  A cyclist taking part in one of the regular Critical Mass events that see hundreds of cyclists clogging up the centres of cities said; “Of course we are annoying people this evening,  ‘cos what we are doing is in some ways selfish, but then everyone on the road is being selfish.”  

 

Well no, that’s not true, is it?  Most people who venture onto the roads do so because they need to get somewhere.  That’s not being selfish, that’s the whole purpose of roads.  On the other hand, using the roads for no purpose other than to deny to others their freedom to use the roads, with no thought as to the possible consequences for those delayed by their actions, is not just selfish but arrogant and potentially dangerous. 

 

 

Out of office and out of mind?

The out of office message is a great invention. It allows you to know that the intended recipient of your email is not around and, if that mail requires some urgent action, who to contact in the absence of the first person.

 

So much for the theory.  In practice, of course, it doesn’t always work out quite like this.  This little chain of messages from last week is, unfortunately, not uncommon. All names have been changed to save any embarrassment ……….

 

To Peter:

“Dear Peter, I am writing to you hoping you will be able to help with […….] I look forward to hearing from you soon.”

 

From Peter:

“I am currently on leave and will be back in the office on 2^nd September.

If the matter is urgent, please contact Paul on paul@xxxxxx.org.uk or phone 0123 456789.”

 

OK, I thought, no problem and thanks for letting me know.  Wasting no time, I forwarded the original message to the person mentioned in the out of office message –

 

To Paul:

“Dear Paul, I see I have missed Peter, no doubt on a well-deserved holiday. I imagine, from his out of office message, that you have not yet set off on holiday yourself, so wonder if you could have a look at this please and let me have any comments?”

 

From Paul:

“I am currently on leave and will be back in the office on 2^nd September.

If the matter is urgent, please contact Peter on peter@xxxxxx.org.uk or phone 0123 567890.”

 

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh!

 

 

Last time before the summer break

Someone said to me last week that they thought I had a bit of a thing about Margaret Hodge and that I didn’t like her.  Reading the Moan over the past year might give you that idea, but in fact my issue is not personal and I am not picking on her. It’s just that she is the most high profile and irritating of those politicians who display a particular kind of arrogance and who abuse their positions to promote their own, often ill-informed, opinions without stopping to consider alternative views on their merits.

 

MPs are now on their summer break from their formal Parliamentary duties and so the Moan can take a break from commenting upon their posturing, particularly in Select Committee inquiries.  But I couldn’t resist the temptation to award Stuart McIntosh, Director of Competition at Ofcom, the accolade of ‘Best Witness in dealing with Hodgewallop’ for his handling of Margaret Hodge last week.  McIntosh was giving evidence to her Committee but failing to say the things she wanted to hear, so in time-honoured Hodge fashion she simply kept interjecting her own comments whenever he didn’t say the right thing.  McIntosh was having none of this and twice within a minute he corrected her – she didn’t like it at all. You can listen to the exchange here. A few minutes later she became exasperated with him not saying what she wanted to hear and started to ‘correct’ him by regurgitating what another witness had told her, but she couldn’t quite remember what had been said so asked that other witness (who was not actually giving evidence) to intervene. McIntosh took all this and then very clearly said that he personally had invited that complaining witness to present some evidence to his organisation so that they could then take action. Unfortunately, no such evidence had been produced – with the very clear inference to be drawn that the witness was simply using the system to complain, without there being any substance to those complaints.  What you could term, ‘playing the system’.  Hodge’s response?  A disgruntled “I hear you.” You can listen to this exchange here.

 

I’d like to think that Margaret Hodge might use her summer break to ponder on her performance and to wonder whether she might be being manipulated by those who have spotted her penchant for publicity and are just feeding her lines they know will feed her ego.  But I’m not holding my breath.