I just took on more work than I can handle and I'm not sure what to do.

zepherin

At my job I am in a government employee, and I have been working what is essentially one and a half jobs for the past year, which is fine, it kept me pretty busy. Another employee with a heavy workload rolled out without a lot of notice (roughly 3 hours of notice). I've been tasked with that employees duties. I would rather do his position when everything is said and done. It is a lateral move, but a favorable one with better career options.

However I'm stuck.

I can only get so much comp time and if I go crazy with it I'm going to be constrained to 40 hours a week.
If my computer wasn't 10 years old I might be able to manage better.

I can either let my old duties lapse to keep my new boss happy and keep the new duties going well.
Or
I can keep my old duties up to date and let my new duties lapse a bit and chalk it up to a learning curve.

Since this is the government it would take them roughly 8-10 weeks to fill the position if they started today. It took them a year from the time my predecessor left to when I stepped foot onto the facility, so it can take up to a year.

Where do I manage the balance?

Thundyrkatz

Whenever I have been in a position where I am being asked to do more things then there is time to do, I talk to my manager and let them know. Say something like, "how would you like me to prioritize this work, I can do X Y & Z, but A & B will have to take a back seat" Then absolutely do my best to get it all done.

Later, if your boss comes back and asks why A & B have not been kept up to date, you can reference the conversation you had and ask if his priorities have changed and would like you to focus more on A & B.

The goal here is to communicate what you can do and what you need to your manager so you are all on the same page.

Tox

You don't. It's not your job to determine how much work you should be assigned.

You need to address this with your boss(es?). They need to know the work load you started with and the workload you now have because of these extra duties.

Explain that you'd love to help out with the opening, and actually would like to end up filling that position, but that your current workload simply does not give you enough extra time to do so, and that you need one or the other to be eased.

You need to be honest and frank, and not kill yourself. You can only do what you can do, and if they don't lighten your load, then just do what you can manage and frequently report to each boss what you didn't have time to get done. If they get grumpy, go to their bosses.

zepherin

The negative part is that it is 2 different bosses, and one of them is new (started today), and the other one will have me prioritize everything that is his, because he already started on it.

The person who assigned me is over both of them, but he is scheduled to retire next month.

WonderMink

Retiring guy sounds like a good bet. He has nothing to lose to set you up the right way. Hr is pretty much above office politics at this point.

DevoutlyApathetic

To: Old Boss, New Boss
BCC: Own Personal Archive Email Address
Subject: Exciting New Opportunities and Resources

"Hi Bosses,

As you know I'm doing my job x, some of position y and with the departure have been assigned job z. I am excited to do all the work in the world as a go getting team player! When I have conflict between my 2.5 jobs what sort of prioritization would you like me to use? In my unique position of serving two masters because I'm doing all the work in the world I'm a little unclear on what takes priority.

Additionally, I fear my current stone tablets might be the limited factor for my workflow, is it possible to consolidate the IT resources for these positions and maybe get an abacus?"

Sincerely,
Guy doing all the Work in the World."

Essentially document that you're doing lots more, make reasonable requests about resources to your managers and document document document. Remember, they're managers and resource allocation is their thing. If you run out of time, tell them and let it be their problem. It is essentially their job.

alltheolive

It's probably still best to try and make this a decision for a manager. It sounds like the person who assigned you to multiple bosses, retiring or not, should answer your question about prioritization. Alas, in the real world, managers are imperfect and the overboss might ignore the problem altogether or delegate the question to one or both underbosses, who might each tell you to prioritize their own work.

If you can't convince anyone to tell you what to do, and if you have this kind of discretion, I recommend telling the new boss that you very, very much would like to apply to the lateral-move position when it is advertised and you're very sorry that you can only give it 20% time (or 0% time) at the moment, but you haven't been able to free up as many of your hours as you'd hoped. This kind of conversation would be possible in my workplace, but certainly not in every workplace. I think it's unfair to leave your old boss (even more) shorthanded, while it's the fault of the guy who quit without notice that the new boss has to make a hire. If your bosses will retaliate against you for saying they are shorthanded instead of pretending you're a slow learner, that's an unfortunate situation that you can't really win.

Possibly your managers could use a weekly task list from you, so if each of them can only have 60% of the work they wanted from you, they can at least pick which 60%.

schuss

Do what DevoutlyApathetic said. It isn't your job or failing if you fail to do 2.5 jobs that you never signed up to take on, it's management's problems. If they're unwilling to do anything, send a note with HR cc'd that notes you will do everything you can within your allotted time, then prioritize as you see fit and leave after your 10 hours a day are up.
As it's government and likely not a high-viz position, you will not get anything for any level of sacrifice you proffer, so don't kill yourself so someone else can be lazy.

zepherin

schuss wrote: »

Do what DevoutlyApathetic said. It isn't your job or failing if you fail to do 2.5 jobs that you never signed up to take on, it's management's problems. If they're unwilling to do anything, send a note with HR cc'd that notes you will do everything you can within your allotted time, then prioritize as you see fit and leave after your 10 hours a day are up.
As it's government and likely not a high-viz position, you will not get anything for any level of sacrifice you proffer, so don't kill yourself so someone else can be lazy.

That's fair enough, there is a certain amount of visibility to both of the positions, since they are both cost drivers. I went from being 2% of the agency's budget to being 6% which will draw attention. I agree that if they can't make a decision of priority then I will have to go with whatever seams the most important. I will ask the director for prioritization, he's not a dick, he's actually pretty cool, but he won't think of this sort of thing. I suppose I should actually talk to the new guy and see what the cut of his jib is. :0

schuss

zepherin wrote: »

schuss wrote: »

Do what DevoutlyApathetic said. It isn't your job or failing if you fail to do 2.5 jobs that you never signed up to take on, it's management's problems. If they're unwilling to do anything, send a note with HR cc'd that notes you will do everything you can within your allotted time, then prioritize as you see fit and leave after your 10 hours a day are up.
As it's government and likely not a high-viz position, you will not get anything for any level of sacrifice you proffer, so don't kill yourself so someone else can be lazy.

That's fair enough, there is a certain amount of visibility to both of the positions, since they are both cost drivers. I went from being 2% of the agency's budget to being 6% which will draw attention. I agree that if they can't make a decision of priority then I will have to go with whatever seams the most important. I will ask the director for prioritization, he's not a dick, he's actually pretty cool, but he won't think of this sort of thing. I suppose I should actually talk to the new guy and see what the cut of his jib is. :0

Don't play go-between. Put both managers in the room with you and have all of you hash it out.

DivideByZero

As somebody who used to get absolutely fucked by having three bosses who all expected me to drop the others' work and focus only on their projects, you probably can't afford to prioritize shit yourself. It's inevitably going to piss off somebody. You need both bosses and the outgoing director in a meeting to hammer out your responsibilities for the near future. How long until the director's replacement is starting? Because if you're still doing the work of three people when they start, you need to have the same meeting all over again so everyone is on the same page.

zepherin

DivideByZero wrote: »

As somebody who used to get absolutely fucked by having three bosses who all expected me to drop the others' work and focus only on their projects, you probably can't afford to prioritize shit yourself. It's inevitably going to piss off somebody. You need both bosses and the outgoing director in a meeting to hammer out your responsibilities for the near future. How long until the director's replacement is starting? Because if you're still doing the work of three people when they start, you need to have the same meeting all over again so everyone is on the same page.

Bout a month till he rolls out.

DivideByZero

Perfect, that'll give you enough time to hammer out a plan of action with the current director and both your bosses, then meet again next month to bring the new guy up to speed and work out any issues with the plan.

DevoutlyApathetic

I'd also encourage you to get departing guy to help you get things set up as you want them set up. New over Boss is more likely to "keep things the same" then want to change things right away.

kaliyama

@Schuss gets it right. You need to put them in the same room so they are forced to recognize how unrealistic their expectations are, at least so you might get more comp time or something. In fact, that may be a good way to phrase it - look guys, i don't have enough comp time to do all this work, let's get me more comp time.

zepherin

kaliyama wrote: »

@Schuss gets it right. You need to put them in the same room so they are forced to recognize how unrealistic their expectations are, at least so you might get more comp time or something. In fact, that may be a good way to phrase it - look guys, i don't have enough comp time to do all this work, let's get me more comp time.

I do like more comp time.