politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I'm the owner of a small business, so I am deeply familiar with this equation. The way we solve it is to "look for talent where no one else is looking" (actually strategy), then train the shit out of and mentor them (informal strategy). My managers are expected to be better than and train the staff to do their work - from technical skills to knowing what good looks like. Then as staff move into management they are expected to pay it forward. Is it a lot of work? Yes - but it's also how you don't end up with a knowledge gap at the top.
Edit: I hold myself to this same standard, which makes it easier to expect it if others.
I applaud your efforts but I'm not seeing how this addresses the problem of bringing someone on that can't generate revenue nearly immediately. In decades past, the "grunt work" a new person could do would cover some or all of their costs until they were trained up enough to be revenue positive. This system worked well until customers stopped paying for the grunt work some time ago (because of automation).
This isn't without cost though. It could take the form of formal paid training, or loss of revenue generation from your own hours because you're spending them training up someone from scratch. Where are you deciding for that to come from in the organization? What loses so the new worker wins? Is there perhaps another piece of your industry I don't know about that invalidates my question?
Up to a certainly level I agree, but especially in technical roles there are folks that are fantastic technologists, but horrible people managers. There are good people managers, that aren't good technologists. Those are two different skill sets. I'm not saying someone can't have both, but that person is generally much more rare/valuable/expensive than two people each doing their role. There's the other part that a person may be capable of both skills but doesn't like to do one of them. Making workers do work they hate is a fast way to have them quit.
For short bursts I can see that, but that doesn't sound sustainable. How do you protect yourself from burnout? You're wearing 3 full time hats:
These are all honest questions on my part as I'd love to find out someone has these answers I don't.
We keep costs low by doing an evening paid training "try before you buy" model - so we can see how people work and they can see how the job is with relatively low commitment. Our work culture isn't for everyone, so we want them to try it out without disrupting too much. We bring on people who are trained, like the job and ready to generate revenue. All staff are paired with a mentor and manager so they learn how to produce client-ready work.
We only promote managers that can do both technical work and people manage. In companies past, this will scale to about 300 people in our line of work. It helps that we only promote from within.
I do work lots, but I am an owner, so that seems fair. I work from home and with family, so I'm able to double up some of my work life balance. But we have also automated pretty much all business operations, so realistically it is 1-2 hours per week. Training at night is a pain in the ass, but again I'm m an owner and this seems fair to me.