Sorry I have been away so long. I've been on the road quite a bit at various meetings across this wonderful country of ours. I have had the privilege of meeting so many technologists of various colors, sizes, shapes, dispositions and, most importantly, disciplines.

When I meet fellow RTs I am always amazed by the people who state "I'm just a radiographer" when discussing in which discipline(s) one may be registered or certified as if working as a frontline radiographer is a lesser position than working in the other disciplines. I have to tell them I cannot disagree more. Although the radiographer's position can (and often does) serve as a spring board for one to diversify into another discipline it is by no means below or of lesser importance the others.

Just as it is within a department it is within the radiologic sciences. We all play our roles with none being more or less important. Do you think the radiologist who is depending on you thinks you are "just" a radiographer? Do you think the mother who is bringing her child to you thinks you are "just" a radiographer? Let me put it another way – would any of us turn our loved one over to "just" a technologist? We all know we wouldn't. We all know that radiographers are the gateway to the profession as well as to the department.

I still carry my (R) proudly even though I do not actively practice it anymore. I am proud of my (R) as I am of my (T). Other than the difference between those who like to find the problem and those who like to treat the problem, does one group work any harder than the other? I think not. That's "just" my opinion. What do you think? I'd love to hear.

I apologize for the gaps in my posts. You see, I have just returned from a two month period of being gone more than I have been here. My travels culminated with the Indiana Society of Radiologic Technologists meeting week or so ago. I can never say this enough – networking is one of the most important things one can do in any profession. Most of us concentrate on networking as tool to assist with making that next step up the career ladder. I rely on networking more to determine positioning: Is what my facility doing and what I am doing positioning us – the facility and me – at the forefront of current practice. Am I doing and seeing what the other managers are doing...the good ones that is?

These types of meetings are also an opportunity to share the 'interesting' things we have seen and experienced. Invariably, discussions turn to interviews and the most 'interesting' ones we've had of late. We've all participated in interviews with some having gone wonderfully and some, well, having been just this side of complete disasters (and I say that as someone who has been the interviewer and in the interviewee). Interviews are theater...shows and displays that involve balancing the intricacies of the important first impression with the complacency of having done it before, the ability to be humble and gracious because someone is giving us a shot with the arrogance necessary to regurgitate all we've accomplished before. They are about balance.

Being the age I am (41 for those of you guessing) I find that many managers my age are at that break point between the very formal approach of those older than us and the casual approach of those younger than us. I have found the best interviews I've been involved with have been those when the interviewer and interviewee recognize that both parties are interviewing and being interviewed. That is, the person who is being interviewed must recognize that they are interviewing the manager – is this someone I can work for? – the facility – does it meet my needs for comfort? Advancement? Camaraderie? A good manager will make you aware of this in an effort to make you comfortable. Making the candidate comfortable will allow the 'real' person to come through and that is what the interview is all about.

So, after reading this, what are your thoughts? Been through a great interview...or one not so great? The readers and I would love to hear.

Oh, yes, my friends, we have just finished up that most wonderful time of the year...annual evaluations. As a manager, is there any better expression on someone's face then when you say 'hey, it's time to do your review.' That long walk from the floor to the office reminds many of us of the walk to the principal's office – well, I mean, I never did it but that's what I have been told. You believe me, right? Any way, where was I...

As much as most folks dislike doing (managers) or receiving (all of us), evaluations are important tools when used correctly. We all have disaster stories that we can tell about the time we received and evaluation that was either completely comical or completely biased and off base. I hope that each of us can remember at least one review that was what a review is meant to be – helpful, insightful, and encouraging.

When I conduct reviews I have one hard and fast rule that goes unbroken – there should be no surprises. None. And, as always, one exception – something good. We often go through our day many things in a positive and productive manner. When I notice a pattern I make note of it at the time but it may be something minor or inconsequential to the person I am telling. I make note of the pattern throughout the year and note it on the evaluation as well. On the other hand, if there is something negative on the evaluation and it has not been discussed with the person that is unfair to the employee and does more harm than good. If I haven't discussed it with the person and given an opportunity to correct the problem then I am not performing an evaluation – I am conducting an ambush. As many of us know, there is not much worse in the workplace than being ambushed by your boss.

The evaluation should be a review of what the person has accomplished throughout the period. I know that some managers feel it is perfectly fine to simply hand the completed review to the person and ask 'Any questions?,' and move on. I have found that evaluations are best when the reviewer sits down with the person and covers everything on the evalation. That means going the items the person was noted for doing as well as those the person didn't get. The only way a person can reach the 'exceeds' level is to know what she/he didn't do or could be doing to receive it. A good evaluation review should be one that looks back as well as looks forward. How can anyone improve her/his performance if the two aren't tied together?

At least that's my take...what's yours?

I apologize for the gap between posts...as they say change was afoot. Given this is the case, change is as an appropriate a topic as any to discuss today. Change is that wonderful constant that s place wherever we are in occupation, position or life. As a department director I am often asked to implement and guide change. "How do you deal with change and getting others to buy into that change?" is a question that is often asked of my by management students with whom I come in contact. A seemingly simple question it is!

The thing we're often told is that there will be the dirty 'R' word: Resistance! Resistance to change will rear its head and bog down the process. We have to fight back against the resistance and push on regardless! That is the rallying cry I often here from some mangers I know. Being the contrarian that I am I happen to believe that resistance to change is, in fact, a good thing.

Why is resistance to change a good thing? We're often caught up with those matters at work (and home) that have no real significance to actually getting the job done. Resistance is the indicator that what I am proposing to change does actually matter to people. Here is the question: if you're changing something that doesn't matter or has no impact would there be resistance to it? The answer is no. When I make the initial pitch for a change to the staff I gauge if the change is relevant by their initial level of resistance. If there is resistance I know that I am on to something and then can begin to lay the groundwork and form the necessary team to gain input and begin the process.

I have found that allowing my staff to express their resistance to a change to be a positive stepping-stone to completely the project and future projects successfully. As long as it is done professionally and is based in fact it can be a powerful too that ensures the right changes are made and the right people are involved in assuring the change takes place as designed. Running from the resistance or trying to shut it down from the start will only ensure that there is no support for the change and the change will ultimately fail.

What is your take on resistance and what is the best (or worst) change process in which you have been involved?