Told you I would do a "pondering".
From a previous post, the thought process leaves me confused and wondering most times. I've seen it multiple times and still don't get it. Common sense and expected, or at least anticipated, business needs, I would think, should lead an organization to behave differently. Yet, contradiction seems to fly in the face of experience.
Not all positions require more than one person to be knowledgeable in a field. Some positions in fact only allow for one person to be in, or around, a position. That is understood. Yet others beg to have either cross training between two positions, or at least a trained back up. (With cross training, the people involved switch on a regular basis to keep them fresh and up to speed, where a back up needs only occasional hands-on.)
I myself have been in positions where if I were gone, there was no one capable of filling in for me. That lead to issues of catching up on undone work upon return, and if a problem arose, it remained unresolved. One is a nuisance and the other, a potential show stopper.
Still, it happens. I don't get it.
I've read enough "business materials" over the years, I realize that budgets often do not reflect the monies needed to have a secondary person. It is, in some circumstances, "unjustifiable". But to have a critical position, that a company needs to have a qualified person to cover at all times, yet doesn't, is to me, irresponsible.
In our computer dependent business world, anybody bigger than a "Mom and Pop" store has more than one geek on board. Even if they are specialized, they can cross over and cover. It might be ugly, but it is doable. Or they have a service they can call to cover in case of an emergency.
For internal payrolls, there is always a back up person in case the primary is out. Or, once again, there is a service that can be called in to handle it.
So, for smart business, there is a "PLAN" in place for these kinds of emergencies. A contingency plan so things can keep moving under "worse case scenarios."
And yet, I witness critical areas that are owned by one person, and one person only. No backup, and no cross training to cover. An entire organization with a solitary person being in charge of a critical position.
I don't get it.
A small company, that can't support even one person to cover each and every need, usually has their people wear "many hats". "If the printer is acting up, call Sam. If that doesn't work, call for Carol. If they can't get it, call the service people." My HOME runs like that. There are primary people and secondary people. Dudette tries, then calls for me (or vice versa), and if that doesn't work, call in a pro. We have a plan.
But a single person? I don't get it.
You don't necessarily need a second person, just a secondary person. Someone who can step in and maybe handle things during an absence. That way, you are at least partially covered. With crossed fingers and the use of a wishbone, maybe you miss getting to the "showstopper" stage. Businesses only make money when they are functional.
You have to have a "Sam", a "Carol", or a "Pro" on stand by. There has to be a plan in case your "one and only" gets hit by a meteorite while skinny-dipping in the city hall fountain at 2am.
For some reason, there isn't.
I don't get it.
This isn't really a rant. Though it may come out and sound like one. It is confusion on my part. I do understand business in a "global" sense. But this makes no sense to me.
And to keep it a pondering, anyone care to offer an explanation for this behavior? One that makes sense?
Cause, I don't get it.
"Why do they do that?" happens.