JOHN CONSTANTINE wrote:
> I've often wondered about how one derives a "career" out of their life;
> did you take a course early on which spurred an interest in what is now
> your specialty? Or developed your innate love of "x"? Was it simply a
> matter of what was available to you at the time, which allowed you to pay
> your bills? What was it...what is it?
I suspect the latter has more to do with our choices than most of us would
like to admit... BUT, speaking from my personal experiences I would say
that it is a very hollow career if you aren't doing something that you can
draw deep personal satisfatcion from.
> When we apply broadbanding, do we know what we are involving in the mix? Category
> x may now make up to "y" dollars, where before they could make only "y
> minus fifty". What does that have to do with the essence of the work being
> performed; is this a misplaced focus on what seems tangible to some, and
> meaningless to others?
One of the "intents" of broadbanding as I understand it is exactly what
you describe - to allow people to focus on the essence of their work
without being penalized or overly sensitized to tight salary constraints
defined by the position description. Broadbands allow more flexibility in
allowing people an opportunity to explore their interests more freely.
> Would you rather be working in something you liked rather than something
> you didn't, but got paid more money for?
Absolutely. Unfortunately the money also becomes important. That's why
they call various extra incentives such as stock options and restricted
stock and gainsharing "GOLDEN HANDCUFFS". The money keeps many of us bound
to unfulfilling jobs.
>Broadbanding is to me but one more way of categorizing, encapsulating,
>de-humanizing those who do what
> others have asked them to do; it (and similar concepts) have very little
> IMO to do with learning organizations, quality-oriented environments, safe
> spiritual workplaces, the joy of learning etc...
I respectfully disagree. Broadbanding, done properly, is another arrow in
our quiver to encourage free and unconstrained learning in a relatively
safe (no monetary or career limiting penalties) environment. I would
suppose that if it were poorly implemented or misrepresented in its
intent, that one might develop a different opinion.
> Have you used the technique of asking participants to place a pencil on a
> corner of a a square which has been drawn on a piece of paper; then,
> asking that they connect the four corners without removing the pencil
> point from the page? I love it because it breaks the boundaries, changes
> the perceptions, etc. (If you haven't done it, try it.)
One critical piece of information is missing. The objective of this
exercise is to connect all four corners with 3 straight lines and without
removing pencil from paper. It is an effective technique in driving home
the point about "thinking out of the box".
[Host's Note: OK, I've got another piece of paper in front of me. I mark
the four corners and then, without lifting the pencil, make a big "Z"
connecting all four corners... I know I'm missing something. We really
need graphics here on LO to communicate these puzzles!
By the way, I heard back from John Constantine about his statement of the
puzzle... "Minor neglected item...you have only three lines to draw, not
tracing the four sides...I neglected to mention this point. Most
embarrassed I must say." ...Rick]
Gerald Burch
plant manager
Hercules, Hattiesburg, MS
gdburch@netdoor.com
--Gerald Burch <gdburch@netdoor.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>