4 ms·
No. 1) Humans don’t scale. I assume that’s self-evident. 2) Humans actually aren’t interchangeable pieces. Very, very few people can perform good work in each
by ergonaught 4y ago
No.
1) Humans don’t scale. I assume that’s self-evident.
2) Humans actually aren’t interchangeable pieces. Very, very few people can perform good work in each of those domains. Even fewer can rotate roles like that. Those unicorns are rarely employees.
3) Companies can begin like that (I have been through this kind of role evolution) because there is work to be done and insufficient staff to do it, and the roles split off when growth demands and rewards specialization, but see above, goto 1.
It is great (transformative even) for people in these roles to be able to take perspectives of the other roles. That mostly requires leadership, not rotations.
This rotation does not serve customers.
.02
- thr0wawayf00 4y ago> It is great (transformative even) for people in these roles to be able to take perspectives of the other roles. That's pretty much the point of the piece, and I disagree, one can't truly gain the perspectives of other roles until they take the time to do those roles themselves. Whenever I want to look for low-hanging fruit that improves efficiency in an org, I start talking to CS/CX.
- ergonaught 4y agoInformation exchange ("talking to them") is vital, but directly performing the role simply isn't necessary (however valuable it might be to try it sometime). If it were necessary to directly do a thing in order to gain the perspective, we wouldn't have fiction or pretty much anything else. Brains that cannot perform this function will not successfully perform Success or Support roles, underscoring the point. :)
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]