Are Skills Important?

It is all in the vision and mental make up of the establishment. Most of the projects are driven by taking back investment money, having least considerations on long range thinking.

Even if people or trained well inside an organization, given a chance ,people will try fro better market prices elsewhere.

Trends and technologies change at a drastic speed phase calling for constant changing attitude.

It is all to dealt by human resources management, keeping hold on people and grooming talents of real potential value.

Again the group attitude with best team spirits, responsibilities, achievement drive and leadership.

People's involvement at work fostered by feeling of my/ our organization, a rare reality in modern times.

What I think is that the people who make up the workforce are responsible for determining their educational needs. If you know your weak in a specific area of work, people should read, search and do what ever possible to get the principles down and start experimenting.

If people learn and have the knowledge, the broader the base the better off you will be in your present position or somewhere else. I know that people expect companies to supply their education for them (I don´t know why), but if you get it yourself you may get a raise, a promotion or look elsewhere outside your company to satisfy your needs based on your acquired knowledge and practice.

When you leave the company, because it doesn´t appreciate your two cents, you are free to go, no strings attached since your education has been acquired by yourself aside from the company.

Companies are looking at the bottom line. So should you. The company is not willing to invest, but since you represent your own company, THE SELF COMPANY, you will invest and grow.

really great post.. I'm with you 100% ga

Chris

Also being a business owner, I do not believe their is nothing wrong with paying unemployment or workman's compensation. It is good business sense. Or at least a piece of mind.

bit off topic.....but I feel it should be shared because of misconceptions.

I am taking courses for a Bachelors degree in project management. Just recently in our technical communications writing class we were asked, about working with types of co-workers: The Lazy Boss, The Unloader, The Liar, The Gossip/Drama Queen (that applies to both genders), The Manipulator, ect..... And how do you deal with it?

It was said and a consensus was to fire them, with the reason that there is so much unemployment, it would be easy to replace.

I directly asked them so, because you do not get along with these people, that you would get rid of them, the reply was, of course.

Then I posed this situation, "You a have an employee, who in conference meetings, reeks of strong perfume, tells bad and sexually provocative jokes, believes to be liked by all women, is rather disgusting were people go out of their way at work to avoid him.

Would you fire this person?

Their response was "Yes, in a New York Minute. I can have a replacement the very next day."

Then I went on to say, This disgusting individual, has a following of clients, where he wears many faces, the clients actually search him out. And in the company he is directly responsible for 70% of the bottom line. You are willing to sacrifice that for an unknown, just because he does not meet your personal approval. I do not believe that is a wise decision, is it?

Or maybe we should either think about making such a rash decision or just stay in school.

p911

I think that all the employees, with your help, should be converted to independent contractors, with performance contracts. (including you, if you are an employee of your own company.) Help set them up in their own businesses. Reward them for what they contribute to the company. Create an independent rating system, that allows them to see real (but anonymous) feedback from colleagues customers, about their performance, and/or personal characteristics.

this way, you get the best of both worlds, and imho, so do they. You can get stellar performance, with more knowable costs, and you can more easily deal with deadwood and personnel issues. Firing is archaic. Income proportional to performance is the trick.

Chris

I believe in healthy competition between employees, but you have be careful about that, it can very easy backfire on you.. I think if you are fair and honest/sincere to the employee, they will do also in return the same. I do not think you could ask for more.

It is a nice idea to have healthy competition among employees but the means of compensation should not be based on monetary values only. Heed p911's warning. Rewards may be given as an accolade such as some sort of praise or award. Remember if you pay one employee less than another that employee that is payed less will eventually perform less. Money as a bottom line is emotional to everyone.

In regard to the OP's actual question if an employee or company will be ready to resume work based on qualification, I would emphasis that when you are employed along with the employer ongoing education is needed at all times (good or bad). That means that there should be some sort of shared cost with ongoing education. I offered all our employees a 50% reimbursement for tuition fees upon successful completion of a relevant course. If the work was a mandated part of the job and workers were not available I would hire people and give them the needed training. The risk was always that an employee would then sell his newly gained skills to a competitor (it has happened). If the employee is smart he will gain as many skills as it takes to become gainfully employed. If education is a part of the employment picture then the company and the future employee need to agree to what is required. Once in the company, ongoing education should be required as a basis for continued employment. The feeling of growth will spread throughout all employees and I feel it makes for a better environment that will be more constructive than gossip.

Remember if you pay one employee less than another that employee that is payed less will eventually perform less.

I retained this from college statistics when covering Demmin's methods, so it would take some time to verify this,,,,but.

Henry Ford did this to employees down stream by paying them an extra nickel hour/day I can't remember. But that Nickel meant allot.

Anyways this pitted the people upstream with the attitude, "A Nickel huh., we'll see about that!, we'll see who's worth the extra nickel." And the employee's literally busted a$$ and buried the poor guy down stream with work, productivity rose, but created allot of consent between employees. Have no favorite, never do that to an employee.

If your going to do something, Give things out at Christmas time,.....but make it the same value, because they check.

p911

I don't think you gentlemen are understanding me.

I'm saying eliminate the employee mentality.

Change the way that work is concieved of, and package it differently, and get these people to quote you on a performance basis to complete the work. If they want to get paid more, they have to perform more.

You get to specify what you need done, how you need it done, and when you need it done by, and what tests will be administered to evidence the performance. They get to compete to meet those requirements, make the best presentation of it, and do it most economically.

If you are wise, you will not choose bottom dollar, but choose the person who performs the work with an eye to consistency and optimal quality, as specified.

Chris

Some companies already offer piece work. Even in Agriculture, you get paid not by the hour but by the basket. Piece work was tried for underground miners who were paid by the volume or ton of ore removed. That proved to be dangerous because the miner would then take shortcuts. Who wants to shore up rock walls for a whole shift when the amount of ore removed will be compromised. Let's compromise safety instead! But not all work is piece work; some companies have a slow time, so what is the point of trying to increase production until you get into the fast time? I think these slow periods are better directed to training, conferences, seminars, or even in house training. My company was never big enough to worry about pushing employees for production. They knew when to put out and when to relax and read/research or whatever else they deemed as productive.

Perhaps we should enter a phase of pure capitalism. That is to say each worker owns a share in the company and reaps the rewards or shares misfortunes equally. The company books would be open to all. When it comes to slow periods the shareholders will vote who works and who doesn't. The shareholders could also vote to fire or hire someone. The worker would then understand reward for work given. Management by committee if you will. This type of company sounds good on paper but my guess is it will always take a chief to push and direct. Thus we will end up with a hierarchy of personnel as found in almost all companies today. I cannot think of an exception but one may exist. (Perhaps very small 2 or 3 employee companies where the committee is also very small).

very insightful... I agree with your points, and idea.. very intrigue to me also.

chris

Training is very important for high skill level.But loyalty and trustworthy are also important to satisfy an employer.

Yes skills are important, but the problem is with the evaluator. People value skills that they themselves hold, and those that interest them or benefit them, above all others. They may not evaluate how those skills truly impact company needs, at least not on an unbiased level. Since this web site is primarily aimed at technical people, most readers here probably value technical skills more than business skills. Yet, since most businesses are run by businessmen without technical backgrounds, companies under-value technical skills. Thus the decades old complaint that management does not understand or treat technical staff very well.

Companies have lots of excuses about not training staff, but it usually boils down to money (they don't want to pay for training, and they don't want to give raises to staff who improve their skills). Companies do want employees to get more training and skills, but on their own time and dime. They want more productivity from employees, yet want to keep costs (such as salaries) down. Companies don't plan ahead farther than the next fiscal quarter, so they don't seriously think about future benefits due to improved staff. In the down economy they assume that they can easily replace or add people with any skills that they need, and get a bargain. My company simply outsources needs, after layoffs. Very short-sighted because the replacements are only temps, have little motivation, leave behind no documentation or expertise, and have no loyalty. If business picks up and the company realizes that it needs better product control, it will find that it has hurt its chances of attracting premium employees because of the bad reputation it gained due to outsourcing.

However, the post about each person viewing himself as an independent company is right on the mark. Each of us should realize that we are selling our services, and need to prove our value every day. If we expect better compensation then we should earn it, and getting additional training and skills on our own is one way to do that. Your best investment is in yourself. It's how you become so valuable that companies are chasing you, instead of you always trying to hold onto a job.

For routine jobs training and supervision are enough.For few jobs only skill is important