On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 11:15 AM, George Bonser <gbon...@seven.com> wrote:
> > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bickn...@ufp.org] > > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 6:46 AM > > To: NANOG > > Subject: Re: common time-management mistake: rack & stack > > > Low level employees should be apprenticed by higher level employees. > > Many of our skills are learned on the job; just like other trades > > someone with only book knowledge is darn near useless. Not only do > > those above need to teach, but they need to supervise, and exercise > > standards and quality control. > > +1 I believe that can not be stressed enough. There is also another > aspect to it in that about 15% of the population of people are "abstract" > thinkers and 85% are "concrete" thinkers. The abstract thinkers are the > ones who can come up with a vision in their head of how something should > work as a system and then set out and build it. Or when they are faced > with a problem, can in their head envision the work around and then apply > that vision on site to do things such as rewire a portion of the network in > a methodical fashion with no/little downtime. Those people are relatively > rare and working with your line staff gives one an opportunity to assess > the various talent sets of the people in the organization. The abstract > thinkers are the ones good at being able to design a network from scratch > and the concrete thinkers are the ones who will be great maintaining that > network and keeping everything documented and done according to policy. > You need both and it just so happens that you need more of one sort in > just about the same proportion that you find them in the general > population. The key is to identify which people have which talents and > place them where their natural abilities more closely mesh with their job > requirements. If you can do that, you can have a very powerful team. If > you place people into positions simply based on the number of years in the > organization or because of holes punched in the cert ticket, you might end > up with people in positions that they don't really like or aren't > particularly good at doing. The first step in building such an > organization, though, is working closely with your people and attempting to > identify whose natural abilities like in which direction. Sometimes it is > more about talent than training, more about nature than nurture. > > > To your point, if you look at skilled trades the simpler the task the > > more likely it will fall to the "new guy". Rack and stack is probably > > one of simplest jobs in our industry. A two man team, one senior, one > > junior, showing up at a colo may see the junior guy doing the physical > > work, while the senior guy works out any issues with the colo provider > > brings up the interconnection to them, etc. > > But at the same time, if you have a guy who might not be so sharp at > troubleshooting a very complex network but is sharp as a tack when it comes > to documenting things and keeping paperwork organized, that is a vital > skill in the overall effort, too. That person should be given > responsibility for maintaining more of the documentation, organizing things > so they are easy for other employees to find, etc. and their pay should > still continue to increase as they gain wider scope across more of the > organization over time. The point is that it often takes many different > sorts of skills and attempting to match people's natural talents to the > requirements of the organization benefits both parties provided the > individual involved doesn't see their position as a dead end. A good > person of the sort mentioned above can literally save hours of time for > people doing other tasks such as troubleshooting a problem. There is a > certain synergy involved and some organizations recognize that, and some > don't. Some are better in an architectural role, some are naturally better > in a sustaining role, others are better at an organizational support role > and (darned) few are good at all of those tasks. Sometimes we don't have > the luxury of such specialization of roles, but some organizations do, > particularly if they are in a phase of reorganization and downsizing. One > thing to look at might not only be "how good is this person in their > current role" but also "would this person absolutely kick butt in a > different role". > > > But key to an apprenticeship is that the senior guy does some of the > > low level work some of the time, and _shows_ the junior guy how to do > > it right. The senior guy might rack or stack a couple of boxes each > > colo they visit, and relate concepts like how the screw hole spacing > > works in the rack rails, how to plan cable management, proper labeling, > > and so on. > > Actually, just having the senior person assist with some tasks such as > moving/installing heavy/unwieldy gear does more than just show them how to > do it right, it is actually quite an important almost sort of bonding > experience between employees. It says "I'm not allergic to work and not > above doing the same job you are doing when it needs to get done, we are > all important pieces of the big picture." It can give an employee a sense > that they are respected and appreciated for the job they do, even if it is > fairly low on the corporate org chart. It is still vital to the success of > the overall business or they wouldn't be there to begin with. Doing things > like this telegraphs that in a tangible way without having to spew a lot of > corporate propaganda. > > > > It really accomplishes much of what everyone else is talking about, > > while still being productive. The "old hat" gets the downtime and > > catharsis of doing a simple, yet productive task. The new guy gets to > > learn how to do the job properly. The employer knows the work has been > > done right, as it was overseen by the old hat, and that they will have > > someone to replace him when the old hat retires. > > The "old hat" still gets job satisfaction from seeing a vision come to > physical life and operate as planned. Why deprive them of that? It can > re-energize one's love of a particular carrier field and remind them why > they are in that field to begin with. > > > Maybe if we did more apprecenship style learning folks would still know > > how to wrap cables with wax string. It's simple, fast, and works well. > > Leo, in many trades, telecommunications being one of them, the military > was one source of new people with some skills and with some hands-on > experience. As that scales back these days, it gets harder to find such > people. We don't have trade schools and we don't have apprenticeship > programs like companies used to have so I agree. People coming out of a > community college or a certification program know enough to be extremely > dangerous (sort of like a lieutenant with a screwdriver, the most dangerous > person in the world aside from a corporal with a clipboard) and need to be > mentored as they gain perspective in real world situations. I completely > agree that we should be looking more at our employees in the longer term as > a nurturing process and identifying where their natural interests and > abilities can benefit both sides of the equation. Having that interaction > with the senior staff is vital. And that senior staff member should not > only be explaining WHAT he is doing, but WHY he is doing it that way. > > > Knowledge transfer should also include the very important WHY NOT to do something a certain way. This part is often left out. Considering that most bit-twiddler tasks can be performed a multitude of ways, both sides of the argument should be presented. Perhaps this is obvious to all on the list, but it's certainly not to junior staff.