>
> [WS:} I think you are overstimating the level of
> unique individual skills needed to do the job. The
> essence of modern organization is standardization and
> taylorization, which means that jobs are separated
> from individuals and their unique skills.
No, the essence of bureaucratic organizations is specialization and allocation of work based on technical qualifications. Thus, for better and worse, we have the distinct operations of any large corporation or government agency: HR, Marketing, Planning/Design, Management, accounts receivable and payable, "line" workers who actually produce the goods and services, etc. The crucial aspect of this modern production is not "Taylorization"; just the opposite! In a large bureaucratic organization like Microsoft, it would be silly to expect one worker to excel in all these domains of activity; some code software, some hire workers, some clean the executive offices at night. Like I said, there are bad and good things about this hyperspecialization, but it certainly isn't an example of "standardization".
>
> You need only a certain minimum qualifications to
> function in such a system, such as literacy and the
> ability to think analytically, but most people save
> those mentally retarded or conditioned to be stupid
> and inept by thier upbringing have those skillls. All
> they need to effectively function, is a little bit of
> training in job-specific systems.
Well, that's true of any specialized organization: people need to learn the skills in order to participate in a particular specialized job in a bureaucratic organization. However, you're massively underestimating the amount of specialized training and knowledge are required in order for a bureacracy to function. Software coders, accountants, lawyers, tax consultants, EEOC officers in HR: all these specialized jobs at Microsoft require years of experience and formal education, and it would be more or less impossible for these workers to simply "trade" jobs with a little bit of training and maintain the quality of the work accomplished.
>
> There are only two real issues at stake here. First
> is how much an organization is willing to invest in
> job training - many organziations want simply to
> externalize that cost as much as possible. Second
> and more importantly, intrerpesonal skills or "social
> intelligence" is what matters the most, since most
> work problems are solved collectively. People with
> bad social "alchemy" can really undermine that
> collective effort, hence the need to find out if the
> "chemistry" is right.
Sure, I agree that interpersonal skills are crucial in most job settings, and I understand the motivation to hire someone with the right social "alchemy". The question is, how can we effectively accomplish this? The hubris of many interviewers notwithstanding, this cannot be accurately gleaned from a job interview.
Miles