Hi Guys,
I'm sure everyone of us heard about these 3 pillars in an organization - People, Process and Technology. There was a time where technology reign supreme in running organizations where there were mass computerization and automation. Then there is the dotgone times.
Nowadays, companies are heavily focusing on Business Process Re-engineering where they are now looking at optimizing their business processes and operations to compete in the global (and local) economy effectively.
However, I discovered that in the midst of all these - the most important factor has been left out - PEOPLE! More and more companies are treating employees and skilled professionals like 'toilet-paper' where there can just dispose off easily. Gone are the days where employer talks about 'belonging to the company' and employee talks about sacrificing for the company. Everything is just running based on a piece of paper 'contract'.
What are your thoughts on this?
I am a believer in this spec: WS-People
As long as you train (ask, tell) them to be interoperable, it doesnt matter on the platform he or she is running on, they can be replaced ... and it applies to both sides of the equation.
The smart ones believe in WS-People* and work hard to put the * in there. This can come in the form of proprietary domain knowledge or even [gasp /] good looks ?
Does your company consider the skills or talents as strategic? If no then I'll not be surprised at all that it could treat people with such skills/talents like a "toilet-paper".
If you are in I.T. line, and your company is using I.T. to GROW its business, then I.T. will have a strategic role to play, and your talents in IT become very important to the business. If your company simply uses I.T. to RUN its business, chances are they think I.T. more as a COST-center, and they probably feel that they don't neeed people with GREAT talents in I.T. (as long as the system is up, ok already)
Regarding employer-employee relationship, I've some opinions here:
http://community.sgdotnet.org/forums/18306/ShowPost.aspx
domainconnect wrote:Does your company consider the skills or talents as strategic? If no then I'll not be surprised at all that it could treat people with such skills/talents like a "toilet-paper".
The question I asked was not related to any particular company in mind. Just a general description and should not be treated as 'your company' or 'my company'.
domainconnect wrote:Regarding employer-employee relationship, I've some opinions here:http://community.sgdotnet.org/forums/18306/ShowPost.aspx
Heh! You are not giving up aren't you? Still trying to divert people into believing in your 'thesis'.
Have a balance my friend. Although some grapes are sour, that doesn't mean all grapes are sour, and that also doesn't mean that people who have tasted sweet grapes cannot talk about grapes that are sour.
ok, got it..should use "the company", instead of "your company"
My thesis has nothing to do with my personal experience (if that's what u are trying to say with the story about grapes), but it came from observations and analysis. To me employer-employee relationship is like a business relationship where both parties SIMPLY strive for win-win situation, or as you put it : "Everything is just running based on a piece of paper 'contract'"
domainconnect wrote: ok, got it..should use "the company", instead of "your company" My thesis has nothing to do with my personal experience (if that's what u are trying to say with the story about grapes), but it came from observations and analysis. To me employer-employee relationship is like a business relationship where both parties SIMPLY strive for win-win situation, or as you put it : "Everything is just running based on a piece of paper 'contract'"
I understand your observation and I too thought it was like that sometime back until I met a few people who absolutely shows their utmost loyalty to their companies (and of course, their bosses treat them well in return). That changed my perspective and I accepted it that things like that exist although they don't happen frequently.
Let's put it this way, it takes two hands to clap. If companies treat staff like 'toilet-paper', don't expect the staff to give loyalty - they will just give poopee.
I strongly do agree that most companies not just IT company do lack out "People". Many organizations thought that IT or IS can replace human or their workforce, hence they left out their employees. We should aware that an organization grown does not solely depend on technology as a critical factor for success, but it is strongly based on the people and IT factors to complete the picture.
People are the living ones that act as the pillar for the organization. Why ? Imagine an organization with just machine, can they survive? Although technology play an important role in this knowledge-driven markets, but lack of human touch do loses customers interests.
If an organization that just focuses on the IT/IS for automation or computerization their tasks or radical redesign their processes, they might bound to fail because people play an important role in here too. People are the workforce and are the person who actually carried out the tasks.
Once my supervisor told me that, in an implementation 20% rely on technology while 80% rely on the people. Because people are the one that have the capability to analyze, evaluate and act appropriate. Human have the skills and knowledge to do so. With the help from technology, it eases the tasks of human.
Most successful companies look into retaining their people and treating their people well.
Firedancer wrote: Most successful companies look into retaining their people and treating their people well.
MOST is a very crutial word in the above sentence...
When i read this thread again, it make me think of the movie, "Stealth".
Can technology really replace human ? Althought technology or system able to do most things that human can do but do they really can replace human (People) ? System able to learn from human and do some task even better than human but in the end, the need the input from human and lot more...
It even strengthen the fact that "People" is very important here. Retaining people and their knowledge is crutial. In some practices, some organizations tense to create a system to manage and maintain the human knowledge as they know that people might leave one day.
But why can't organization create a framework or practise to maintain the people in their organization ?
There are good people, there are not so good people and there are bad people. There are important people, more important people and not so important people.
It's NOT possible to please everyone. A clever organization will know who it should maintain and who it can afford to lose.
If you happened to be viewed as "not so important", no matter how good and how talented you are..they can afford to lose you.
domainconnect wrote: If you happened to be viewed as "not so important", no matter how good and how talented you are..they can afford to lose you.
I beleive, the factors "how good u are" and "how talented you are" in their eyes are the ones that are used to decide if u are important...
amytang wrote:When i read this thread again, it make me think of the movie, "Stealth".
OK. Off Topic. Speaking about stealth --- isnt that what the whole of Malaysia is all about now ? Nobody can see anybody in Malaysia these few days and you can only find them hiding at home or in the clinics.