I had a catch up today with an ex-employee of mine. We've both since left the company, although she only recently, and me ten years ago, so it was interesting to compare notes about how things have changed (or not) in that time.
She commented that part of her reason for leaving was her continued dissatisfaction at being asked to do work delegated by her Manager, which was widely known to be expected to be delivered BY the manager not her direct reports. This included a fair amount of community involvement and public speaking. It would seem the manager never had a particular gift for this and would pass it on at every opportunity.
It got me wondering about how well businesses manage transition and change in a role, when the same people are still holding the position. Particularly at management level when prior experience is hard to replace or acquite at short notice. Is it fair to expect a person employed, say, to be a processor, to evolve into a salesperson? Large businesses are particularly good at changing the key performances indicators in a job without a whole lot of thought going into whether the incumbent is actually right for the job. It creates a whole lot of work upskilling or coaching, or having to deal with an underperforming or unhappy staff member (few if any simply retrench or release the people that no longer suit).
In my years of recruitment I have always looked at ''fit'' first. Will this person fit in to the existing team, the work environment and the customer expectation models. Then I look at their qualifications and experience. And one of the key attributes has got to be flexibility and openness to change - because these days, few jobs stay the same for very long.
If you are looking for staff, or are looking for a new job yourself, how flexible are you? If the role changed within a year or two, would you be able to adjust, or would you be back in the job market?