Is it correct to use employees only for their intended purpose?

    I read the book by Tom Demarco and Timothy Lister “The Human Factor. Successful projects and teams ” or simply“ Peopleware ”. It's a shame that the vast majority of managers did not read this book and did not even hear about it.

    One of the readers left a good review on the site:
    I recommend reading and then re-reading.
    I fully support.

    I will not retell the book - it will take a lot of time, I recommend just reading it, 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 for their intended 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 should understand, is a common reason for changing jobs.

    For example, you need to close a .net developer job posting. Standard procedures, interviews, tests and voila! you have a new employee. He is given a corporate account, project and obligations to report to the chief twice a day. From the point of view of the company, everything is fine, but what if this new employee is a good speaker, or a freelancer with experience and has the ability (talent) to look for new projects? Or is he fan of the new platform (technology, product), but the company at the moment cannot (does not want) afford to be distracted?

    No, I am aware that it is impossible for everyone to be given the opportunity to do whatever they like, 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, vacancy, for example, on a hub After the very 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 minuses, from which there is no way to get out. Although the solution lies on the surface: take an employee with positive karma, explain the SENSE and GOALS of the message to him, and the employee will write about it in a technical language that is understandable to most users. And the sheep are whole and ...

    Another example, when one large company pasted the whole city with advertising about free seminars, including minibuses and kindergartens, as a result, 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 areas that were not interconnected, 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 pure enthusiasm.

    What do you think, if a person came to code, then the company should be interested in what else he can do?

    Also popular now: