I’m the owner of a small business, so I am deeply familiar with this equation. The way we solve it is to “look for talent where no one else is looking” (actually strategy), then train the shit out of and mentor them (informal strategy). My managers are expected to be better than and train the staff to do their work - from technical skills to knowing what good looks like. Then as staff move into management they are expected to pay it forward. Is it a lot of work? Yes - but it’s also how you don’t end up with a knowledge gap at the top.
Edit: I hold myself to this same standard, which makes it easier to expect it if others.
I’m the owner of a small business, so I am deeply familiar with this equation. The way we solve it is to “look for talent where no one else is looking” (actually strategy)
I applaud your efforts but I’m not seeing how this addresses the problem of bringing someone on that can’t generate revenue nearly immediately. In decades past, the “grunt work” a new person could do would cover some or all of their costs until they were trained up enough to be revenue positive. This system worked well until customers stopped paying for the grunt work some time ago (because of automation).
then train the shit out of and mentor them (informal strategy).
This isn’t without cost though. It could take the form of formal paid training, or loss of revenue generation from your own hours because you’re spending them training up someone from scratch. Where are you deciding for that to come from in the organization? What loses so the new worker wins? Is there perhaps another piece of your industry I don’t know about that invalidates my question?
My managers are expected to be better than and train the staff to do their work
Up to a certainly level I agree, but especially in technical roles there are folks that are fantastic technologists, but horrible people managers. There are good people managers, that aren’t good technologists. Those are two different skill sets. I’m not saying someone can’t have both, but that person is generally much more rare/valuable/expensive than two people each doing their role. There’s the other part that a person may be capable of both skills but doesn’t like to do one of them. Making workers do work they hate is a fast way to have them quit.
Edit: I hold myself to this same standard, which makes it easier to expect it if others.
For short bursts I can see that, but that doesn’t sound sustainable. How do you protect yourself from burnout? You’re wearing 3 full time hats:
delivering/producing your product or service
training staff
running the business tactically (day to day operations) and strategically (vision, goals, investment decisions)
These are all honest questions on my part as I’d love to find out someone has these answers I don’t.
We keep costs low by doing an evening paid training “try before you buy” model - so we can see how people work and they can see how the job is with relatively low commitment. Our work culture isn’t for everyone, so we want them to try it out without disrupting too much. We bring on people who are trained, like the job and ready to generate revenue. All staff are paired with a mentor and manager so they learn how to produce client-ready work.
We only promote managers that can do both technical work and people manage. In companies past, this will scale to about 300 people in our line of work. It helps that we only promote from within.
I do work lots, but I am an owner, so that seems fair. I work from home and with family, so I’m able to double up some of my work life balance. But we have also automated pretty much all business operations, so realistically it is 1-2 hours per week. Training at night is a pain in the ass, but again I’m m an owner and this seems fair to me.
I’m the owner of a small business, so I am deeply familiar with this equation. The way we solve it is to “look for talent where no one else is looking” (actually strategy), then train the shit out of and mentor them (informal strategy). My managers are expected to be better than and train the staff to do their work - from technical skills to knowing what good looks like. Then as staff move into management they are expected to pay it forward. Is it a lot of work? Yes - but it’s also how you don’t end up with a knowledge gap at the top.
Edit: I hold myself to this same standard, which makes it easier to expect it if others.
I applaud your efforts but I’m not seeing how this addresses the problem of bringing someone on that can’t generate revenue nearly immediately. In decades past, the “grunt work” a new person could do would cover some or all of their costs until they were trained up enough to be revenue positive. This system worked well until customers stopped paying for the grunt work some time ago (because of automation).
This isn’t without cost though. It could take the form of formal paid training, or loss of revenue generation from your own hours because you’re spending them training up someone from scratch. Where are you deciding for that to come from in the organization? What loses so the new worker wins? Is there perhaps another piece of your industry I don’t know about that invalidates my question?
Up to a certainly level I agree, but especially in technical roles there are folks that are fantastic technologists, but horrible people managers. There are good people managers, that aren’t good technologists. Those are two different skill sets. I’m not saying someone can’t have both, but that person is generally much more rare/valuable/expensive than two people each doing their role. There’s the other part that a person may be capable of both skills but doesn’t like to do one of them. Making workers do work they hate is a fast way to have them quit.
For short bursts I can see that, but that doesn’t sound sustainable. How do you protect yourself from burnout? You’re wearing 3 full time hats:
These are all honest questions on my part as I’d love to find out someone has these answers I don’t.
We keep costs low by doing an evening paid training “try before you buy” model - so we can see how people work and they can see how the job is with relatively low commitment. Our work culture isn’t for everyone, so we want them to try it out without disrupting too much. We bring on people who are trained, like the job and ready to generate revenue. All staff are paired with a mentor and manager so they learn how to produce client-ready work.
We only promote managers that can do both technical work and people manage. In companies past, this will scale to about 300 people in our line of work. It helps that we only promote from within.
I do work lots, but I am an owner, so that seems fair. I work from home and with family, so I’m able to double up some of my work life balance. But we have also automated pretty much all business operations, so realistically it is 1-2 hours per week. Training at night is a pain in the ass, but again I’m m an owner and this seems fair to me.