Employee hierarchy
Still working on Day 15.
On Yahoo News I saw this slide/article about the "6 Cool Companies to Work for." One listed was Best buy which made me think of both Steph and Roli. lol Here's the link: http://www.cnbc.com/id/39573304?slide=5 ...Thoughts? lol
Anyhoo, They also list a company called Ning (http://www.cnbc.com/id/39573304?slide=4) which apparently has a "horizontal hierarchy" which means that everyone, regardless of title collaborates together. Why something as basic as this is considered a perk in US employee structure is a mystery to me.
Another company, WL Gore (http://www.cnbc.com/id/39573304?slide=6 the makers of various products including Gore-tex), does even better. According to the article everyone is an associate (from new hires to employees that have been there for decades). And instead of bosses they have leaders who "emerge naturally based on their ability to gain the respect of their peers and attract followers." This solves the problem I've always had with how companies reward people with promotions. The concept of promotion in and of itself is fine, but the way it always seems to happen is "you've been doing *this* job so well that we want to give you a totally different job not necessarily related to the job that you performed prior." It makes no sense. Just because someone does well at their position doesn't mean they have the skills and expertise to be the supervisor of their position.
And what about people that do their jobs exceedingly well yet aren't interested in the position "above" theirs? Like me! lol I do direct services. I love counseling, group facilitation and other duties that involve working with people hands on. But if I were to stay with my current employer years from now I still wouldn't be interested in having my supervisor's position. So how do you reward someone like me for doing a good job? Sure I can take on more responsibilities and thus warrant a raise and maybe even a title change/upgrade. But again, at the end of the day I would never want to do what the managers and directors do. Not because I can't (I'm more than certain that I could), but because it would take me away from the work that *I* value and enjoy most. A system like the one at WL Gore seems more inclined to reward employees based on performance than based on title.
I haven't even discussed the issues that arise when you have a top-down method of doling out responsibilities and tasks. With people declaring certain things are "below their pay grade," other staff feeling talked down to/disrespected, those farthest from the actual work making the most important decisions about the works, etc. Call me naive but I maintain hope for the US that one day things will become more equitable. But it certainly remains to be seen.
On Yahoo News I saw this slide/article about the "6 Cool Companies to Work for." One listed was Best buy which made me think of both Steph and Roli. lol Here's the link: http://www.cnbc.com/id/39573304?slide=5 ...Thoughts? lol
Anyhoo, They also list a company called Ning (http://www.cnbc.com/id/39573304?slide=4) which apparently has a "horizontal hierarchy" which means that everyone, regardless of title collaborates together. Why something as basic as this is considered a perk in US employee structure is a mystery to me.
Another company, WL Gore (http://www.cnbc.com/id/39573304?slide=6 the makers of various products including Gore-tex), does even better. According to the article everyone is an associate (from new hires to employees that have been there for decades). And instead of bosses they have leaders who "emerge naturally based on their ability to gain the respect of their peers and attract followers." This solves the problem I've always had with how companies reward people with promotions. The concept of promotion in and of itself is fine, but the way it always seems to happen is "you've been doing *this* job so well that we want to give you a totally different job not necessarily related to the job that you performed prior." It makes no sense. Just because someone does well at their position doesn't mean they have the skills and expertise to be the supervisor of their position.
And what about people that do their jobs exceedingly well yet aren't interested in the position "above" theirs? Like me! lol I do direct services. I love counseling, group facilitation and other duties that involve working with people hands on. But if I were to stay with my current employer years from now I still wouldn't be interested in having my supervisor's position. So how do you reward someone like me for doing a good job? Sure I can take on more responsibilities and thus warrant a raise and maybe even a title change/upgrade. But again, at the end of the day I would never want to do what the managers and directors do. Not because I can't (I'm more than certain that I could), but because it would take me away from the work that *I* value and enjoy most. A system like the one at WL Gore seems more inclined to reward employees based on performance than based on title.
I haven't even discussed the issues that arise when you have a top-down method of doling out responsibilities and tasks. With people declaring certain things are "below their pay grade," other staff feeling talked down to/disrespected, those farthest from the actual work making the most important decisions about the works, etc. Call me naive but I maintain hope for the US that one day things will become more equitable. But it certainly remains to be seen.