Have you been an expert? -- Expert trap

Every company has so-called "experts ". However, in terms of technology alone, it is not clear that every "expert" is a real expert, mostly a pseudo expert. This requires analysis from multiple aspects and consideration of personal positioning and company positioning. Some people are older and do not like Job hopping. They are inevitably dependent on a company. This old employee has an extremely comprehensive understanding of the company's products, his knowledge structure may cover R & D, process, production, marketing, sales, and even the company's history. This phenomenon is especially common in small companies. For a company, many of them are not highly technically positioned. His experts may focus on the production, market, and even personnel levels under the guidance of the company's value. These may lead to a misunderstanding called "expert trap ".

The so-called "expert trap" means that a person who has been in a company for too long has gradually become a "expert" recognized by the company, but it is actually just an illusion. Such "experts" are everywhere. Mr. X of company V is an example. Mr. x's knowledge reserves are all built around the company's products. It not only knows all aspects of the company's products and technologies, but also knows the technological evolution well, even suppliers and customers are comparable to professional market and procurement personnel. In normal days, mr. x serves mostly as a "Fireman", where to go and no longer differentiate jobs and jobs. Company v attaches great importance to employees like mr. X, because it is really a multi-user, but it is rather confusing to promote mr. X. In fact, for individuals, this development model of mr. X is really not wise; for company operations, this kind of Talent Training and Employment method of company V is also highly risky.

Why? Before discussing this issue, we should discuss what experts are. Of course, experts are not standard parts and there is no uniform standard, but most experts have the following characteristics: first, experts have specialized fields that do not depend on specific products and platforms, simply put, it is independent from the platform. Second, experts have a solid basic knowledge and a high degree of professionalism. Third, experts have a wide range of knowledge, he has a wide range of professional fields and has unique insights. I personally think that the first point is particularly important, which can often become an important criterion for determining experts and pseudo experts.

Every company has its own products, so as to provide a platform for R & D and technical personnel to exert their own capabilities. On this platform, not all or most of the knowledge in the field can be used, but it may be a small part. How about changing a company? Can I still get the corresponding treatment from the current company? For example, Mr. x. If he changes to a company or a technology platform, his current expert status will no longer exist and his technical capabilities will be compromised, his understanding of products, market understanding, and technical proficiency will be useless, but does he have a deep understanding of knowledge outside of products, i'm afraid it's hard for him to get the company's treatment now. Real experts are proficient in specific fields, and their position will not change due to product changes.

For the development of R & D and technical personnel, this "expert" title is very undesirable. A person, once dependent on a company, is immersed in this "expert" status, it is terrible, this directly blocks his development path. There is a famous saying about recruitment: "You have five years of work experience, but in my eyes, you just repeat your work experience for five years. "This is roughly the story of a pseudo-expert. The growth of his real technology and capabilities is extremely limited, and later he was bound by the company. During the company's development process, pseudo-experts constantly spend their energy on trying the solution, maintaining the old version of the product, and pressing for major product accidents, the Research on process parameters, the research on the production process, the communication with the customer, and the competition with the supplier. The real cost is in product R & D and quality improvement. Fake experts did not participate too much, but some non-experts are doing this. In fact, the work done by pseudo-experts should be achieved by the division of labor and collaboration among multiple departments, rather than being taken over by all.

Interestingly, the company attaches great importance to and cherishes the existence of "experts", but is not prepared to assign management positions that meet the "experts" status. This seems confusing. But after thinking about it, it is logical. It is precisely because of the important position of pseudo-experts in grassroots work that the company is unwilling to put them in a specific management position, because no one can replace such "all-round" talent. In addition, the knowledge structure of pseudo-experts is generally not qualified for R & D management positions, because they are not pursuing perfection in R & D and technology fields, continuous "high-end" and "upstream", refining and abstracting technologies, and moving towards platform-level and system-level development, but in the "low-end" direction, constantly learn about the process, market, and production, and slowly direct the knowledge structure to the "downstream" of a product process. The mr. X of company V is to be determined by two positions, Technical Support Department Manager and Process Department Manager, after looking forward to the failure of the electrical R & D manager. In the end, mr. X became the manager of the Process Department.

Although company V attaches importance to the position of Mr. X, objectively speaking, such emphasis is also very dangerous. From the perspective of R & D personnel development, mr. X is undoubtedly excellent from the perspective of the growth of ordinary employees in a company. In company V, apart from the management positions of the R & D department, we believe that mr. X is competent for the management positions of all other departments. This is unique for Company v. If mr. X has not continued to work in company V, but switched to another company. A large number of product secrets of company V will flow out, and many suppliers and customer resources will be lost to varying degrees, there will be a long period of vacuum in the company's talent process, mr. what X is best at will lead to faults, because it is similar to mr. X Comprehensive System handover is very difficult. For company V, this loss is immeasurable and its impact will be very far-reaching. Therefore, the existence of "experts" like mr. X is not desirable for companies from the perspective of risk aversion from "Putting eggs in two baskets. From the perspective of Talent Training, it has resulted in a situation where mr. X is a single person, which also shows that there are major problems in V's human resources. For V, it also needs to be deeply reflected.

The existence of pseudo experts is extremely common. In many companies, fake experts with fake names are everywhere. In essence, the difference between an expert and a pseudo-expert lies in the idea of reflecting different realms in its personal development. Experts are constantly pursuing skills and knowledge in the field, while pseudo-experts are constantly pursuing product skills and knowledge. I believe I can tell you what I think when I stand at the height of the industry and field, and stand at the height of products?

How can we avoid expert traps? I have several suggestions:

1. jump out of the small circle of the company's products to comprehensively research related products in the field, especially typical applications; to stand at the height of the industry and field;

2. consciously cultivate your own platform-independent skills; extract the most core technologies in the industry, understand and master them;

3. Solid and solid basic knowledge in the industry field;

4. Consciously learn and research from the upstream of the industry;

5. focusing on R & D and technology, you can understand all kinds of knowledge in the process, production, procurement, sales, and technical support processes. However, the goal should be better product R & D and technological improvement, instead of becoming a "product expert".

In this way, you will not be an expert, but become a real expert in the field!

This article is from the "automation and Motion Control blog" blog, please be sure to keep this source http://atthesea.blog.51cto.com/8567246/1549144

Have you been an expert? -- Expert trap