Kommentarer til: Let us adapt jobs to people

Af: Daily Lifestream update (November 17th)

Daily Lifestream update (November 17th) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 02:12:02 +0000

[...] Shared Let us adapt jobs to people. [...]

Af: Erik Micheelsen

Erik Micheelsen — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 19:34:53 +0000

I get your point about CEO’s! And I experience something similar.

But you’re asking HMR to be of service to the organisation as it transits from a production capacity to a knowledge capacity (vis a vis your blog http://kolindkuren.dk/2009/10/.....cellence/)

That means putting them in a position where they have to explain/communicate the practicle and operational difference between working with concrete objectives and working with conceptual objectives.

If you do not know how to turn conceptual objectives into practice, there is no way you’re company can be a knowledge company.

As I see it, this is where the meat is.

Did you not write “from profit to purpose”? That makes total sense conceptually. It makes no sense what so ever from a concrete understanding.

So, does HR have the mental toolset to work conceptually? And can they transfer that knowledge to the CEO?

What do you think?

Af: Lars Kolind

Lars Kolind — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 18:28:42 +0000

I count on HR because I have lost faith in many CEO’s that tend to stay in their jobs by playing power games rather than by adding value.

Af: Erik Micheelsen

Erik Micheelsen — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 16:31:14 +0000

Well Lars, a mathematician yet being a CEO at a hearing aid company was a fit and a match!

Your question delves very much into the heart and soul of what I work with on a day to day basis. Aligning people. Not with “what they want to be” (a great leader, the inventor, a sales guru) and the jobs they might apply for from that position.

But rather with “who they are”. And from that position – what would you do do?

The difference is huge. My experience is that the vast majority of people keep trying to “set themselves up” such that they “then can be happy”.

It’s much better for people to find out what they are about because from that position they are able to open doors that are closed to anyone else.

My experience is that is easy to get people aligned this way. The hurdle, I find, is the challenge this brings to traditional “leaders” (did I just say managers?).

The reason is, once in this position, people know how best to apply themselves to insure the continued success of the business they work for.

And that might include breaking a lot of company rules regarding modus operandi and actually going for outcomes they cannot rationally justify when it comes to execution.

May I ask this question! When it comes to innovation and organisation – who knows what the jobs are ahead of time?

It’s much better if the jobs are bound to outcome. Then have the people who find themselves aligned to the very same outcomes, describe the job function, performance criteria etc.

And another question: Lars – why do you point to HR to achieve the outcomes you are looking for? Are you certain they have the qualifications?

Af: Erik Micheelsen

Erik Micheelsen — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 16:26:22 +0000

Please excuse and omit the article above and read nearly the same article below!!

Af: Erik Micheelsen

Erik Micheelsen — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:04:46 +0000

Well Lars, a mathematician yet being a CEO at a hearing aid company was a fit and a match!

Your question delves very much to the heart of what I work with on a day to day basis. Aligning people. Not with “what they want to be” (a great leader, the inventor, a sales guru) and the jobs they might apply for from that position.

But rather with “who they are”. And form that position – what would you do.

The difference is huge. My experience is that the vast majority of people keep trying to “set themselves up” such that they “then can be happy”.

It’s much better for people to find out what they are about because from that position they are able to open doors that are close for anyone else.

My experience is that is easy to get people aligned this way. The hurdle, I find, is the challenge his brings to traditional “leaders” (did I just say managers?). The reason is, once in this position, people know how best to apply themselves to insure the continued success of the business they work for.

And that might mean breaking a lot of company rules regarding modus operandi and actually going for outcomes they cannot rationally justify.

May I ask this question! When it comes to innovation and organisation – who knows what the jobs are ahead of time?

And another: Lars – why do you point to HR to achieve the outcomes you are looking for? Are you certain they have the qualifications?

Af: Steffen Brysting

Steffen Brysting — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:25:29 +0000

I agree that you could get bored in a job, if you’re only using one or two of your many skills, and that the company should be aware of special/additional skills among the employees, so that these skills can be used, when it is relevant. But does a job have to cover all of the skills of an employee?
Perhaps the person in the job would like to save some of the skills/talents (fx singing, dancing, photography or novell writing) for his/her spare time in order to keep a clear difference between job and private life?
If the company is open minded and ready to do an effort to use special skills of the employee, this could surely be a topic for the yearly job conversation between boss and employee.

Kind regards
Steffen

Af: Arne Jacobsen

Arne Jacobsen — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:05:51 +0000

Well spoken Lars!
Sometimes “things” are so simple that you don’t see them. But if one does, like you do here, turn them upside down, they shine clearly!
As a teacher working in the danish school system for more than 30 years I can see, that if we hired new teachers like you propose, it would “revolutionize” all the danish school systems. Oh, I hope this would happen some day…;-)

In danish we use the word ANSÆTTELSE for hiring someone for a job. I think this word (and the phrase: hiring for a job) speaks for itself…….?

Af: Stephan E

Stephan E — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:49:37 +0000

The question is not WHETHER an organisation needs a stated purpose including a strong value-platform, but what purpose statement is right for a specific organisation.

We cant all have a “For a better world”-statement as that would become meaningless. You cannot say that all pump-manufactures should “provide clean water”.

Similar. You cannot make any job self-customised as that would render the organisation meaningsless. Every organisation needs to find its own balance in “adapting jobs to people” including how you build teams rather than one-man attack machines. It is a continous circle of learning, doing and redesigning just as the market and competition is changing.

Af: Per Feldvoss Olsen

Per Feldvoss Olsen — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:36:30 +0000

@Stephan
I would argure that there are some catalyzing leadership elements that could enable us to do what Lars suggests – 1) you could use the value based approach, that would enable a (pseudo-)version of the suggestion – or you could 2) define a purpose that would fully allow you to define your own job – within the ‘purpose’ definition naturally. Many would be happy with option #1, and naturally there would many in between cases.

Stretching this a bit further you (Stehpan) might very well pay a guy to work for the ‘Tryg foundation’, perhaps pushing some of his/your concepts – since you all share the same general purpose. Regarding “business cases” for this – last week I was at an arrangement with a manager for (look at:) http://www.e-types.com/33861/, he actually claimed that they did a lot of things without having a business case…. the only bennefit would be “expand the job/client” expirience….. my interpetation.
regards Per