Is it right to use employees only for their intended purpose?
I read a book by Tom DeMarco and Timothy Lister “The human factor. Successful projects and teams ” or simply“ Peopleware ”. It is a shame that the absolute majority of managers did not read this book and even did not hear about it.
A good review on the site was left by one of the readers:
I will not retell the book - it will take a lot of time, I recommend just reading, but as an addition I would like to consider another problem that I constantly observe in our companies, namely the use of employees (resources) ONLY by purpose. Why is this bad, you ask? The answer is simple: if resources are used only for their intended purpose, then any desire for creativity and development is killed, and this, as you must understand, is a frequent reason for changing jobs.
')
For example, you need to close a .net developer job. Standard procedures, interviews, tests and voila! you have a new employee. He is given a corporate account, a project and obligations twice a day to report to the boss. From the company's point of view, everything is fine, but what if this new employee is a good speaker, or an experienced freelancer and has the ability (talent) to look for new projects? Or is he a fan of a new platform (technology, product), but the company currently cannot (does not want to) afford to be distracted?
No, I am aware that it is impossible for everyone to be given the opportunity to do what they please, but practice shows that a certain percentage of people could really be effectively involved for other purposes.
A typical example: marketers and HR want to advertise a service, website, company, job, for example, in Habré. After the first publication in the style of "we have the most wonderful company in the world - a young and promising" article (and the author) goes into deep minus, from which there is no longer any opportunity to get out. Although the decision lies on the surface: take an employee with positive karma, explain the meaning and purpose of the message to him, and the employee will write about it in a technical language that most users understand. And the sheep are whole and ...
Another example is when one big company pasted over the whole city with advertising about free seminars, including minibuses and kindergartens, eventually having received 25 participants, instead of connecting active people from their company, which would bring it many times more profit.
Unfortunately, I have never met a company where one person could officially engage in several unrelated areas, such as development and marketing or testing, and be the content manager of the internal portal. And if he met such a situation, then it was all on pure enthusiasm.
What do you think, if a person came to code, then the company should be interested in what else he can do?
A good review on the site was left by one of the readers:
I recommend to read and then re-read.I fully support.
I will not retell the book - it will take a lot of time, I recommend just reading, but as an addition I would like to consider another problem that I constantly observe in our companies, namely the use of employees (resources) ONLY by purpose. Why is this bad, you ask? The answer is simple: if resources are used only for their intended purpose, then any desire for creativity and development is killed, and this, as you must understand, is a frequent reason for changing jobs.
')
For example, you need to close a .net developer job. Standard procedures, interviews, tests and voila! you have a new employee. He is given a corporate account, a project and obligations twice a day to report to the boss. From the company's point of view, everything is fine, but what if this new employee is a good speaker, or an experienced freelancer and has the ability (talent) to look for new projects? Or is he a fan of a new platform (technology, product), but the company currently cannot (does not want to) afford to be distracted?
No, I am aware that it is impossible for everyone to be given the opportunity to do what they please, but practice shows that a certain percentage of people could really be effectively involved for other purposes.
A typical example: marketers and HR want to advertise a service, website, company, job, for example, in Habré. After the first publication in the style of "we have the most wonderful company in the world - a young and promising" article (and the author) goes into deep minus, from which there is no longer any opportunity to get out. Although the decision lies on the surface: take an employee with positive karma, explain the meaning and purpose of the message to him, and the employee will write about it in a technical language that most users understand. And the sheep are whole and ...
Another example is when one big company pasted over the whole city with advertising about free seminars, including minibuses and kindergartens, eventually having received 25 participants, instead of connecting active people from their company, which would bring it many times more profit.
Unfortunately, I have never met a company where one person could officially engage in several unrelated areas, such as development and marketing or testing, and be the content manager of the internal portal. And if he met such a situation, then it was all on pure enthusiasm.
What do you think, if a person came to code, then the company should be interested in what else he can do?
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/285422/
All Articles