空帮哇:英文翻译!

From my experience, they'll realize it about the same time you realize it. Don't leave them there. Move them on. Just chalk it up as one job they can't do. But don't look at it -- or let them look at it -- as "failure".

There's nothing written in the heavens that says everyone should like and be good at everything. What you're trying to do is to let people find out what they like and what they're good at -- and you're trying to find that out too.

So who's going to do all this "training"? Why the employees themselves of course. Who knows the job better than the person who's been doing it? Another expectation -- that the employees doing a job are responsible for writing up and maintaining a written description of that job!

You'll be amazed at how good these descriptions become as each employee "improves" the writeup they've been given. And you'll find that not only the writeups improve -- but the manner of doing the job itself. The writeups give the employee a direct way to improve the way the job is done.

Now all this cross-training does good things for your employees. You can take great pride when one of your assemblers discovers he's very good at purchasing, loves dealing with vendors -- and finds a job with a bigger company at significantly better pay. Or better yet, if he's a superstar, spins out on his own and, with your help, convinces a group of companies -- maybe including your own -- to let him do the buying for the whole group.

But it's also done good things for your company. You no longer have employees so "key" that their absence -- or their leaving -- causes major disruptions in your operations. And you've gained a climate of change so necessary in today's business world. Every employee is continuously looking at how to improve the job they're doing -- not because of dictum, but because it's built into the job itself. You haven't "empowered" your employees -- you simply haven't taken away the power they came with!

You've also gained a basis for a fair and objective pay system. For example, weight the jobs by their "worth" to the company. A job that only a couple of employees can do competently, and none "very well", would get a top weighting. One that most everyone can do and is quick to learn would get a weighting near the bottom. Then weight each employee according to their ability to do each job (e.g., from "can't do" to does "very well"). The product-sum of those weightings gives you a pretty good measure of each employee's "worth" to the company -- and one that can be explained and justified to them -- and their pay should obviously bear some relationship to that "worth".

What about the superstar -- the super salesman... or super purchasing agent... or superstar engineer.