Of course! It can and should be something that is encouraged in most, if not all, workplaces.
Im saying that’s not the case, even going outside engineering. The emphasis is on learning and polishing your primary skill, not tertiary, or even adjacent skillsets. If it happens and improves workload, great! But if we catch you doing it when you could be making money instead, for shame…
I would say in professions like engineering, where you are doing more problem solving, there is a higher tolerance. Especially since a lot of PMs and supervisors are or were engineers themselves. But tolerance is not acceptance.
Yeah, but I mean if you are fully qualified for the job and the company is being run efficiently, and there are no projects that have nasty extra demands/complaints that deviate from the norm and the skillset of the company. Why need tertiary skills aside from your boss having a sense of humor “yOU sHoUlD leARN thIS, i pAy yoU tO lEaRN”?
Unless you caught me learning something so remote from my core work, so much work for little improvement margin, then you’ve got every right to question me.
Besides, what I have been mentioning are NOT tertiary skills; they are becoming primary skills, but no one actually wants to admit that. It is a constant reminder to your superior that they can’t elevate you even if they want to.
It sounds to me you are talking about a cultural problem called conformity and KPI tunnel vision. Sometimes it becomes so stiff that even working efficiently requires permission because someone is adverse to change.
I’m talking about a cultural problem started by Henry Ford over a hundred years ago called the assembly line. Where you only have one job to do and you do it over amd over with little variation. It started in industry, but shows it’s face in every profession.
Im glad your personal experience is better, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a very dangerous trend in most professions that this entire post is literally complaining about.
Yes, situations should be more ideal for the worker. But they’re not. That is my entire point.
Of course! It can and should be something that is encouraged in most, if not all, workplaces.
Im saying that’s not the case, even going outside engineering. The emphasis is on learning and polishing your primary skill, not tertiary, or even adjacent skillsets. If it happens and improves workload, great! But if we catch you doing it when you could be making money instead, for shame…
I would say in professions like engineering, where you are doing more problem solving, there is a higher tolerance. Especially since a lot of PMs and supervisors are or were engineers themselves. But tolerance is not acceptance.
Yeah, but I mean if you are fully qualified for the job and the company is being run efficiently, and there are no projects that have nasty extra demands/complaints that deviate from the norm and the skillset of the company. Why need tertiary skills aside from your boss having a sense of humor “yOU sHoUlD leARN thIS, i pAy yoU tO lEaRN”?
Unless you caught me learning something so remote from my core work, so much work for little improvement margin, then you’ve got every right to question me.
Besides, what I have been mentioning are NOT tertiary skills; they are becoming primary skills, but no one actually wants to admit that. It is a constant reminder to your superior that they can’t elevate you even if they want to.
It sounds to me you are talking about a cultural problem called conformity and KPI tunnel vision. Sometimes it becomes so stiff that even working efficiently requires permission because someone is adverse to change.
I’m talking about a cultural problem started by Henry Ford over a hundred years ago called the assembly line. Where you only have one job to do and you do it over amd over with little variation. It started in industry, but shows it’s face in every profession.
Im glad your personal experience is better, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a very dangerous trend in most professions that this entire post is literally complaining about.
Yes, situations should be more ideal for the worker. But they’re not. That is my entire point.