Why do I believe that my career is a place for me to think about things at both a cloud and dirt level?
Because I’ve experienced it at 2U. I have to think about the Google Ads keywords as well as how marketing spend now will impact the FDD 2 years from now, which will help or hurt us to sell licenses.
Being the only person day to day in marketing forces that simultaneous context switching repeatedly. It’s beneficial to an extent. It’s detrimental to an extent. I think there needs to be a balance of both sides and all ranges on the spectrum.
I didn’t have this level of thinking at Capgemini because of the position that I was in. Or maybe more importantly, the position that I wasn’t in.
Hmm, if we’re in the same role for a while, we’re going to probably only be exposed to a certain number of things. Our perspective may be limited.
If I believe that more exponential and internalized growth can be greatly caused by experience breadth and depth, then our careers should most definitely be a catalyst of that, not an impasse.
Being in one industry in one profession in one company can be very profound but you have to go out of your way for that.
What if we built it into the system and it was easy to do the things that gives perspective to us?
Right now the way it has been is to reward those who stay at a company long term.
Hmm, the current system rewards continuity at best and complacency in reality. Current systems (educational, governmental, organizational) incentivize comfort over creativity. Optimization through repetition over enhancement through novelty.
The incumbency advantage. “Why have we done it this way? Because that’s the way we’ve always done it.” Tenure for professors at universities.
All these things require uniqueness to fit into standardization. I think the balanced amount of that is actually the sweet spot. We’ve overindexed on rigid structures for the last few generations. Now we’re starting to shift a bit back towards the center with more individuality and uniqueness.
So then the question becomes how do you build systems in which diverse experience becomes not only easy but actually automatic?
Hmm, the current org chart structures perpetuates the 1-1 relationship. What if we structured orgs in a many-to-many way? Instead of many 1-1s, what if it was one many-many?
People are on many teams utilizing their skillsets. Maybe there are teams divided up by functions, like most orgs are. Maybe teams by objective. Maybe teams by time period. Maybe teams by location. Maybe teams by scope. Maybe teams by ideation life cycle stage.
Not “or” here, “and”.
That way you get rid of the 1-1 supervisor-supervisee relationship and instead make it peer to peer reviews. Different contexts to assess someone’s skillset and value instead of just in one area. One a larger scope, different industries even. We may have that impostor syndrome when we start something but with unlimited information which we have nowadays, we can easily enough becomes an expert at it.
What if you didn’t need to get a major or degree in any specific subject? It’s normalizing towards that anyways right now, excluding specialized professions (like medical).
In education, why do some things have to be classes and others extra-curriculars? We’re placing more importance on some things inherently by structuring it like that. What if school was a mini version of this proposed organizational structure with kids rotating through different subjects, activities, and more to give them more experiences earlier on?
Governments, I’ve already mentioned this before but having some sort of rotational system where you can only be in something for so long. It’s really just a profession / industry in the larger system, like I already mentioned today.
To have another answer to the original question, it’s because I’ve grown so much with that perspective that I want others to as well.
Kommentare