Work situation Ti and Te?

[Ms. Kensington]

There is some work conflict between the gammas and the Beta, Delta, and Alpha, concerning a form we use to determine the status of whether or not we can handle a case. There are rules for determining jurisdiction. An alpha and beta devised a checklist that needs to be filled out whenever it's uncertain whose case it is. The gammas think it is a waste of time. They feel it is unnecessary. I dont understand how this could be if the list is how we determine whether or not we should handle it in the first place. Then ISFj said the form is for people who "dont do research". I was very confused by this because the point of the form is to do research. I can only guess that she means that she is doing some other kind of research which does not involve a form.

Can someone help me understand their united resistance? The alpha that created the form with the beta is no longer here; ENTj said this morning that we should band together to eliminate it.

BTW, I don't think the delta cares one way or the other.. though i think she is slightly in favor of keeping it.

[Phaedrus]

How do you know that using the check list will help you come to a correct decision? The checklist is only a method, if I have understood the situation correctly. And if it is only a method, it cannot guarantee a correct result. Which means that some people may think that they can come to a correct decision without consulting the list, and they would proably think that they might come to a better decision than the list in some cases too.

[Ms. Kensington]

the checklist *is* what determines who is handling it. We only use it when it's unsure. I think the gammas don't want to complete extra steps, but the "the form is for people who don't research" is what was the most confusing to me. I am actually really confused.. how would one know otherwise?

[Blaze]

the checklist *is* what determines who is handling it. We only use it when it's unsure. I think the gammas don't want to complete extra steps, but the "the form is for people who don't research" is what was the most confusing to me. I am actually really confused.. how would one know otherwise?

it sounds like the person who said this wants people to look at the particulars of a case and refer accordingly. perhaps the form only adds another piece of paper and there's already a lot of paperwork.

for myself, i like checklists since they prompt me to think about what has to be considered, but ?? who knows the mind of gamma.....lol

[Phaedrus]

the checklist *is* what determines who is handling it.

What do you mean by "determine" here? If you, in a particular situation, decide not to use the list because it seems so blatantly obvious whose case it is, but someone later fills out the checklist anyway, and to everyones surprise it turns out that, according to the checklist, the decision was in fact wrong. What happens then? Is the first decision cancelled? Were the ones who thought it was a clear case deluded somehow? Or what? Is the checklist the final word in every matter of non-consensus? If it isn't, then it is only a method after all.

[Exodus]

Making rules like this is definitely a Ti values kind of thing. In its extreme form it unfortunately leads to instruction creep.

[RSV3]

Are you talking about subject matter and/or personal jurisdiction? We don't have a physical checklist, but I do go through a mental checklist of the jurisidctional requirements. If there are some questionable cases (that fall outside the clear rules), I'll just research it.

If non-research people were making decisions on whether we had jurisdiction over cases, I would undoubtedly want them to have the same checklist I go through. I think you're right in assuming the ISFj was talking about doing some other kind of research which does not involve the form b/c as I see it, the form's primary purpose would be to avoid having to do research, i.e., to expedite the determination process.

So basically, as a Ti, I enjoy both creating the rules and applying them. As to why the gammas are rejecting it, the only thing I can think of is that they think it may be a waste of time, particularly for cases where jurisdiction is unequivocally clear (and going through the form would be pointless and a waste of time).

[Phaedrus]

So basically, as a Ti, I enjoy both creating the rules and applying them. As to why the gammas are rejecting it, the only thing I can think of is that they think it may be a waste of time, particularly for cases where jurisdiction is unequivocally clear (and going through the form would be pointless and a waste of time).

That would certainly not be the reason why I would reject it in such a situation. Whether I would reject or not depends on Ms. Kensington's answers to the questions I asked in my latest post.

[Expat]

I'd have to understand precisely what it is all about before making informed comments, but I think that Gammas may be skeptical that the checklist is really going to be followed; there will always be situations that don't apply to the checklist and will have to be discussed independently, so why bother to make a checklist in the first place.

But where I'm coming from is this, perhaps it's a different scenario:

In my previous job one of my tasks was to decide whether, from the technical point of view, we could accept some projects/assignment that were being requested, or not. I'd take a look at the request, and either I'd immediately know whether we could do it or not (sometimes it was very obvious) and when unsure, I'd discuss the situation in more detail with one or two guys, and decide.

After this decision, I - or someone else - still had to go through a checklist to "decide" on that, but I saw the checkist as a purely bureaucratic/recording/cover-my-ass exercise, since reality was in most cases more complex than a checklist could cover. I saw the actual process of going through the checklist a huge waste of time and rather annoying.

[Expat]

Making rules like this is definitely a Ti values kind of thing. In its extreme form it unfortunately leads to instruction creep.

Sure, and I've seen it happening myself -- when trying to write a checklist that will address every possible scenario, it becomes so long that many people don't read it (or do read it but don't really get everything). Especially since there will always be events not covered even by that checklist.

Perhaps Gammas are just more "paranoid" about this, excessively so in some cases. I think we tend to think that a very basic checklist - which then becomes "common sense" or "what everybody in this field should already know anyway" - is necessary, but that will over only (say) 80% of the scenarios, and the other 20% have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis, and no possible checklist is ever going to cover everything.