satetu4401 Many people have a strange way of thinking about the gerrymandering of work, but basically, a permanent employee can do becoming a national of a person or organization. In the first place, permanent employees are “hired to reduce administrative costs by making them a part of the organization”.
It’s stupid to give them a manual job that anyone can do with benefits and high compensation.
satetu4401 You manualize a job when you reduce costs by having part-timers or machines do it, and when you do [infiltration tactics and when you do [infiltration tactics
There is absolutely no point in making a manual for such a job, which is not easy enough to be done by part-timers and does not involve so much human input that it can be called a manpower operation. It’s easier to get the job done if you make it belong to a genus and have them do it the way they’re best suited to do it.
satetu4401 And when you seriously manualize a job, the people who are currently in charge of it can still do their job, while
First, put a different manager from the person in charge, eliminate useful functions that were only possible because that person was in charge, simplify the work on the assumption that people will be replaced, and restructure the work itself before putting 4-5 people in charge to make it a department. The original person in charge is promoted somewhere else.
satetu4401 A common mistake people tend to make is to keep the original person in charge and add more people, but this never works.
“A person who can handle a large amount of work alone by adapting work to himself” and “a person who can handle a team by adapting himself to work” are different races, so mixing them doesn’t work. That’s a waste of human resources.
uiop But come on. When full-time employees were lifetime employment, it’s true that it’s good to be a genus. In this day and age, people no longer stay with one company for their entire lives, and they are changing occupations in search of better benefits. I thought it had to be manualized to turn around.
satetu4401 I’ll do that next time.
takusigov Doesn’t that go directly against the so called job type?
Corp_Warrior_3y I see what you mean about the benefits of attribution. However, I think that efforts to standardize work are necessary because the number of recruits or the quality of recruits is expected to decrease with the aging population combined with the diminishing number of children. Personally, I think it is important to distinguish between gentrification and standardization.
BearBeqr If you become an employee of a company, isn’t it hard to get maternity leave, paternity leave, and paid leave?
Would that be a takeover issue? I would like to know more details!
@tokyo23gou: While I agree with what you wrote, I think that the assumption that a full-time employee = someone who stays with the company forever is crumbling. I think that the assumption that regular employees = people who will stay with the company forever is collapsing, and this is why people are thinking that gentrification = risk. When quitting, if there is something only you can do, it is hard to quit smoothly. Is there a genus for those who don’t want to quit, to increase their value?
@ShiodaSalt: attribution may be a source of growth for an organization when it creates tacit knowledge ( knowledge management terminology) from formal knowledge, and may be a source of organizational growth. SECI Model and others also seem to model the process from the occurrence of gentrification to its elimination.
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/正社員は属人化で管理コストを下げる仕組み using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.