I actually don t even want to think of the numerous times I was told, at an interview for a new job, that I was either over qualified, too specialized, not specialized enough, over educated, under educated, and what else have you.  Even worse is that I have also told people those exact same stories I was told when conducting an interview, never mind how structured the interview was.  The point is that we look at someone s Diplomas, Degree Certificates, CV, Biosketch, and whatever other documentation they bring to the proverbial table... but rarely look at the ADDED VALUE of recruiting and retaining and also retraining the Universal Soldiers out there.

In today s day and age we (employers, organizations, etc) feel more and more pressure to pay more and more salaries and keep more and more people employed, yet the technology is growing so much so that we don t need 5 people to do a simple job anymore.  As a competitive employer, our biggest HR need is to attract and retain the best of the best... that inevitably means great salaries, great benefits, and some other perks to keep your heard-earned Human Assets under your roof.  The problem, however, sometimes rises in that many companies want to employ the best, yet, they can t afford to pay a higher and more competitive salary to the best of the best out there.

This is where a change of mind and focus should creep in very soon.  Imagine having an astronaut onboard a space exploration flight.  He is a specialist pilot, but knows nothing of basic flight engineering, geology, astronomy, and whatever other knowledge and skills needed to complete the mission successfully.  Your HR compensation budget allows, hypothetically, US$100,000.  So now you can either employ a Pilot @ US$20,000, a Geologist @ US$20,000, an Astronomer @ US$20,000, and an Engineer @ US$20,000.  But, you have to train either one of these guys in microbiological sampling techniques for when they take samples out in space, or on the moon s surface.  You also have to train the pilot in advanced flying skills in outer space and how to land and take off in zero gravity.  The Engineer needs advanced training in the effects of working in direct sunlight, outside the O-zone layer... and so the list goes on.

We all know that all of us and everyone we have ever employed will expect to be paid more for every new qualification and skill they have earned and learned.  Which is nothing less than fair, however, when looking at your compensation budget, well, some changes needs to take place or you ll be bankrupt before you can say Sputnik.

So here s the deal: Instead of employing and training five absolute specialists, who will most probably all sit and do nothing for a given period of time during the space journey, surely it ll be more cost-effective and a wiser utilization of time to employ less than five people, pay each of them more, on condition that they have diverse skills and the willingness to learn more - some people might like to call this personal aspiration, hunger for knowledge, self-motivation to learn more... whatever.  Imagine having only two people onboard with all the skills needed to accomplish the desired outcome for this space mission... and paying each of them US$40,000... after which you still have US$20,000 for either bonuses or further training.

Where I come from this might be seen as a bit of a controversial way of doing things, because it doesn t necessarily do anything for job creation.  On the other hand... is job creation solely the responsibility of organizations, and simply the right of people to just have jobs?  Is there no responsibility on each and every one of us to make sure we learn as much as possible about as much as possible, and do as much as possible, and not have this excuse of: "that s not part of my job-spec".  Let s look at a more logical example.  Some qualified statisticians might have an adverse hatred of data capturing for research and analysis purposes.  It might be seen as a lower-end requirement to get the job done.  However, is there something like a lower-end job requirement for any project, if it s needed to make the project work... even young 18-year old Peter who has to load boxes of questionnaires on and off the truck to the venue where the survey will be conducted plays an important role.

So, given the example of a research project above, we might say that we need someone to type up the questionnaires, then someone to fold and pack them, then someone to facilitate the collection of the data... then someone to capture the data electronically... then someone to analyse the data...and finally someone to type up the report and report back to whomever wanted the stats.

Unless total anonymity of the respondents (those who are being tested) or the integrity of the actual data and statistical analysis are compromised, it s pretty senseless to have so many people involved on ONE project.  Imagine now that each and every one of the people involved on the project above are capable of doing and performing every task needed in the project... even young 18 year old Peter who loaded boxes of papers.  You could be running 5 profitable projects, instead of 1 research project simultaneously... make more money... every person on your HR staff list will be able to earn more, and will probably also not have this tendency to point fingers when the project goes sour... why?  Simply because each and every one of them will be accountable for the success of the complete project they are in charge of.
For those of you just entering the world of work... this is how it works:

Those who know HOW to do the job normally work for those who know WHAT needs to be done.  Those who know WHAT needs to be done, don t necessarily always know HOW to do it (that s the reason why Unions are so powerful when they strike).  Those who know WHAT to do are also not always willing to do what they know HOW to do, when the project/situation calls for it (the reason why some employees sometimes complain that their executives aren t doing anything).

Certainly, yes, this will not always work perfectly in every organization, however, in defence to that, everything ain t working so wonderfully the way we are doing it now either.  The point: whereas we have all strived a couple of years/decades ago to become specialists in what we do, the time has come where technology and available HR compensation budgets allows, rather demands, a more universal employee, a Universal Soldier.  Even the fact that corporate hierarchies are becoming "flatter", less complex, and a lot less formal proves that eventually there will most probably be an executive team leading the organization and supporting them and reporting to them: Project Managers / Portfolio Managers who will engage in their own projects, doing whatever needs to be done to complete a specific set of tasks for a specific project. 

In other words, Project Managers will know what needs to be done and also how to do it in all tasks needed to complete a specific project.  A person will compile the research questionnaire, type it up, administer it, capture the data, analyse the data, type up the report and present back to the client.  Cross project conversations will be stimulated where Project Manager A will ask Project Manager B and C to advise on a particular aspect or phenomena s/he hasn t come across before.  The time of being able to say: "It s not part of my job spec," is coming to an end, and the sooner we all realise that we will have to diversify our own skills and knowledge base, the better. 

Like the frustration I have experienced recently dealing with a certain cell phone network when my rather expensive phone on a business contract wasn t working: the sales person referred me to the customer care division, who in turn looked at my phone, and typed a little note about what was wrong with it.  Then it was handed to someone to assess the fault... who couldn t fix it... so it had to be sent to someone else, who fixes certain phone faults... who couldn t fix it either... so it got sent to another technician who may be able to fix higher level repairs... and if s/he couldn t fix it, they would have to speak to the manufacturer to get me a new phone... this should be authorised by another person on a higher level of authority.  Eventually when I asked the Reception Lady where and how far the issue regarding my phone was, she referred me to the Customer Care liaison, who in turn had to trot off and ask the technician, who asked another technician, who asked another technician... and the worst part of it all: I KNEW this frustrating scenario was going to happen.  Why?  Simply because there are way too many lines of communication and hierarchies at play, instead of simply having A PERSON deal with A CUSTOMER s (customers ) problem or query from start to finish.

I salute the Universal Soldier era!  It s a trend, and the definition of a trend is: It s something that s going to happen, whether you are or want to be a part of it or not.

Lehan Stemmet is one of those rare people who studies one thing and ends up doing something else. His brother reckons: Shrinks are mad, Scientists are eccentric, Marketing people are dilly and Authors just completely lost touch with reality... so much can be said about this bloke who studied biochemistry, microbiology, psychology and industrial psychology, who ended up in marketing and well, who got his first book (Deal With It - emotional empowerment) published in the USA. For more details:  Lehans@mweb.co.za / Dealwithit@mweb.co.za