Get best of the week

How many years taiga go - understand no

I've been doing a lot of improving efficiency, but sometimes I get a blow to its importance - someone's effectiveness is growing by itself. No, it happens, of course, that everything is understandable - a person gets caught - well done, works, tries, changes something in his approaches and philosophy, so I learn from him what I can.

But it happens - bam! - and nifiga is not clear. Efficiency is growing, but the reasons are not clear. You look - like, man, like man. Or a process, like a process. Nothing special. And the results are a rod.

And the secret is revealed in the kitchen. And all there, damn it, is not easy. I offer you some puzzles of efficiency. With clues wrapped in spoilers. Who knows, suddenly interesting.

Intern


There was one girl in one office. Young, pretty, just from college. She came as an intern, developed a couple of months according to the general program, showed average results - like everyone else.

And then something happened. She suddenly began to produce a performance almost equal to what experienced programmers did.

What is interesting - she had a structure of work, almost like that of experienced ones. Usually, trainees are thrown into all kinds of nonsense - small boring work, which sensible guys can’t handle. And here - such normal tasks are straightforward, on serious projects.

And the worst thing - she did it all. Whatever the task - well, not to say that success is direct in the hall of fame, but everything is done, on time, neatly, there is nothing to complain about.

And then again - and failure. That's all, lost productivity. 2-3 times fell. In appearance - nothing has changed. Those trainees who came with her already managed to grow into decent specialists, and make up the pride of the company. And our heroine, somehow, it seems, can do something, but something doesn’t work out in the same way.

What do you think?

Owner


One owner had a manufacturing enterprise. Everything somehow went, developed - not to say that it’s straight chic, but no worse than that of others. That’s normal.

And then suddenly everything changed. Sharply flooded several directions at once - sales, production, supply, development of new products. It’s so sharp that the company began to grow twice every year.

Of the visible changes - only the dismissal of the director. He drove out, but did not appoint a new one. It seems like he performed his functions, he was not looking for a new one.

Yes, but in other areas - for example, finance, accounting, economists - there were no changes.

What do you think?

Programmer in the corner


At the factory, a programmer was sitting. Really in the corner - not visible, not heard. He sits for himself, performs tasks. But somehow strange.

The solution to any of its tasks appeared at about the appointed time. Well, it seems like everyone did, but there were no intermediate results. The rest of the programmers, at least in the framework of the tests, threw their code in order to drive on almost real data, but not here. Immediately ready code, and right on time.

And, strangely, the code is always in a different style. But always consistent with what has already been written by others.

What do you think? Well, everything is simple.

Strange aunt


Aunt was the financial director of a large manufacturing enterprise. And at this enterprise, directions such as economics and finance simply miraculously developed.

Aunt was subordinate to several departments - accounting, finance, economists and, oddly enough, IT. But amazing growth was only in the financial and economic department.

Another oddity: all the subordinate aunt departments were led by men. But only 2 out of 4 departments worked smartly.

What do you think?

Okay, now guesses.

Guesses
- ? ?


. , , , – , , . , .

- , … , , , - . .

: , , . , .

. , , . – , , . – .

– , , , – , . , . , .

- – . – . , , .
– , . , .

. – . – , – -. , , , – . « ».

– , - - . – , , , , , , , .

. , . . . .

, , - . , – , , 350 .

, , , . . .


. : (- ), – ( ), (, , ) ---- (, , ).

, , , - , . , .

, , . .
– . , , (), , , //, , , … , , « , !».

, . , , , .. « , , , ». , .

, - . , , – , . . .

, - ( 30 35) . – , – , . , .

, , . – , RnD, , – , , , . , - .

– , . .

, , . . , , . , .

– . , «». , . , – .


, . . , , .

1, – . , , . , .

. , . , , . , , , .


. , .

– , – . , , – ..

. .. – . , , . , , , . .


Now it's your turn to tell an interesting personnel story.

Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/undefined/

More articles:


All Articles