The myth of the indispensable workers
In almost all the companies in which I was fortunate enough to work, I came across irreplaceable workers. And everything is fine, the person works for himself and works fine, but the management only has a headache. Why?
Firstly, the maintenance of the 'irreplaceable' usually costs the company much more than the average wage (or even two or three ordinary employees).
Secondly - discipline. In most cases, managers have to put up with late arrivals at work and high conflicts ...
And, thirdly, the concern that the employee for one reason or another may leave the company and, therefore, there will be no one to support the existing solutions / products / contacts.
What are the most important indispensable:
But what is interesting. I have watched the care of key employees in a number of companies. Architects and tmlids, vendors and project managers were fired. This has never led to really serious consequences. The places of the departed were occupied rather quickly, and the difficultly maintained products were replaced with alternative ones. Yes, there was a lot of panic, including among senior management. But only.
Why am I talking about the myth, and why is it worth paying attention to? Because the indispensable does not happen. There are situations in which the value of an employee for a company is higher than the value of a company for a given employee.
')
In general, this issue can be approached from two sides.
On the one hand, star fever is “they can't cope without me.” It is sometimes accompanied by a halt in professional development and increased requirements in relation to the employer. And the limit of leadership loyalty is not infinite. So over time, you can lose as a prof. suitability as well as the workplace [at the very moment when the authorities decide that it is more profitable for the company to maintain for the same means two or three average people who have more desire to move and develop].
On the other hand, the installation is “we cannot cope without it”.
Behind her, well hide from the problems associated with:
So, there are two views, and the problem, in essence, is one. The lack of desire to solve problems and develop (and, like the performers, and the leadership).
Do not take the example of ostriches and burrowing head in the sand. And if you really want to - perhaps you should think about changing the field of activity or rest.
Original here
Firstly, the maintenance of the 'irreplaceable' usually costs the company much more than the average wage (or even two or three ordinary employees).
Secondly - discipline. In most cases, managers have to put up with late arrivals at work and high conflicts ...
And, thirdly, the concern that the employee for one reason or another may leave the company and, therefore, there will be no one to support the existing solutions / products / contacts.
What are the most important indispensable:
- Design and develop a product or solution individually
- Close on themselves any external relations (sales / deliveries)
- Take on multiple responsibilities, which, in theory, should be performed by several employees
But what is interesting. I have watched the care of key employees in a number of companies. Architects and tmlids, vendors and project managers were fired. This has never led to really serious consequences. The places of the departed were occupied rather quickly, and the difficultly maintained products were replaced with alternative ones. Yes, there was a lot of panic, including among senior management. But only.
Why am I talking about the myth, and why is it worth paying attention to? Because the indispensable does not happen. There are situations in which the value of an employee for a company is higher than the value of a company for a given employee.
')
In general, this issue can be approached from two sides.
On the one hand, star fever is “they can't cope without me.” It is sometimes accompanied by a halt in professional development and increased requirements in relation to the employer. And the limit of leadership loyalty is not infinite. So over time, you can lose as a prof. suitability as well as the workplace [at the very moment when the authorities decide that it is more profitable for the company to maintain for the same means two or three average people who have more desire to move and develop].
On the other hand, the installation is “we cannot cope without it”.
Behind her, well hide from the problems associated with:
- Lack of documentation for: code, requirements, errors
- Lack of CRM
- Incorrect organization of the company
So, there are two views, and the problem, in essence, is one. The lack of desire to solve problems and develop (and, like the performers, and the leadership).
Do not take the example of ostriches and burrowing head in the sand. And if you really want to - perhaps you should think about changing the field of activity or rest.
Original here
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/18563/
All Articles