rtant position, the final result is left up to chance. Since the position is important, the final result could be very bad indeed.

How do we apply this concept? For now, I will give no more than two simple applications which I have chosen because of the frequency of occurrence as well as the importance. The first deals with optimizing an organization in terms of people and their respective people tasks. What one must first do is determine which “people tasks” within an organization are cri

People Inefficiencies: Organizations are run by individuals. Each individual who is part of the organization has some degree of responsibility for certain number of actions, processes, etc. Let us call these “people tasks.” For example, the hiring process requires the use of an interviewer; thus, the interview process is partly a people task. Each people task has the opportunity to be performed to a certain degree of efficiency—maximum efficiency being the actualization of their respective potentials. Effectiveness is usually considered to be a high degree of efficiency. An interviewer who hires right 95% of the time would no doubt be considered effective. In fact, one could even argue that the greatest true level of efficiency (practical rather than theoretical) in such and such a firm is no greater than 96% efficiency. However, this makes for a whole other topic in itself.

Back to our main concern: Logically, we find that the efficiency of these people tasks are in part a direct derivation of the person carrying them out. Further, we know that people may be very good at some things and not so good at others. It is in this concept that we find some of the greatest inefficiencies within organizations.

We find that many of the greatest inefficiencies of an organization are brought about by the incompatibility of the person and the task. Going back to the interviewer example, the task requires that the person have great interviewing skills. If the interviewer has no such skills, there is an incompatibility. Thus, in any case, we will find that incompatibility arises not out of the unfitness of the task with the person but always with the person in respect to the task.

Why is this all important? Because if you get the wrong person performing the wrong task, there can be dire consequences. The interviewer example could be such a case. If there exists a terrible interviewer in a situation where complex skills and knowledge are required for a very important position, the final result is left up to chance. Since the position is important, the final result could be very bad indeed.

How do we apply this concept? For now, I will give no more than two simple applications which I have chosen because of the frequency of occurrence as well as the importance. The first deals with optimizing an organization in terms of people and their respective people tasks. What one must first do is determine which “people tasks” within an organization are crit

ntials. Effectiveness is usually considered to be a high degree of efficiency. An interviewer who hires right 95% of the time would no doubt be considered effective. In fact, one could even argue that the greatest true level of efficiency (practical rather than theoretical) in such and such a firm is no greater than 96% efficiency. However, this makes for a whole other topic in itself.

Back to our main concern: Logically, we find that the efficiency of these people tasks are in part a direct derivation of the person carrying them out. Further, we know that people may be very good at some things and not so good at others. It is in this concept that we find some of the greatest inefficiencies within organizations.

We find that many of the greatest inefficiencies of an organization are brought about by the incompatibility of the person and the task. Going back to the interviewer example, the task requires that the person have great interviewing skills. If the interviewer has no such skills, there is an incompatibility. Thus, in any case, we will find that incompatibility arises not out of the unfitness of the task with the person but always with the person in respect to the task.

Why is this all important? Because if you get the wrong person performing the wrong task, there can be dire consequences. The interviewer example could be such a case. If there exists a terrible interviewer in a situation where complex skills and knowledge are required for a very important position, the final result is left up to chance. Since the position is important, the final result could be very bad indeed.

How do we apply this concept? For now, I will give no more than two simple applications which I have chosen because of the frequency of occurrence as well as the importance. The first deals with optimizing an organization in terms of people and their respective people tasks. What one must first do is determine which “people tasks” within an organization are cri

ect derivation of the person carrying them out. Further, we know that people may be very good at some things and not so good at others. It is in this concept that we find some of the greatest inefficiencies within organizations.

We find that many of the greatest inefficiencies of an organization are brought about by the incompatibility of the person and the task. Going back to the interviewer example, the task requires that the person have great interviewing skills. If the interviewer has no such skills, there is an incompatibility. Thus, in any case, we will find that incompatibility arises not out of the unfitness of the task with the person but always with the person in respect to the task.

Why is this all important? Because if you get the wrong person performing the wrong task, there can be dire consequences. The interviewer example could be such a case. If there exists a terrible interviewer in a situation where complex skills and knowledge are required for a very important position, the final result is left up to chance. Since the position is important, the final result could be very bad indeed.

How do we apply this concept? For now, I will give no more than two simple applications which I have chosen because of the frequency of occurrence as well as the importance. The first deals with optimizing an organization in terms of people and their respective people tasks. What one must first do is determine which “people tasks” within an organization are cri

no such skills, there is an incompatibility. Thus, in any case, we will find that incompatibility arises not out of the unfitness of the task with the person but always with the person in respect to the task.

Why is this all important? Because if you get the wrong person performing the wrong task, there can be dire consequences. The interviewer example could be such a case. If there exists a terrible interviewer in a situation where complex skills and knowledge are required for a very important position, the final result is left up to chance. Since the position is important, the final result could be very bad indeed.

How do we apply this concept? For now, I will give no more than two simple applications which I have chosen because of the frequency of occurrence as well as the importance. The first deals with optimizing an organization in terms of people and their respective people tasks. What one must first do is determine which “people tasks” within an organization are cri

rtant position, the final result is left up to chance. Since the position is important, the final result could be very bad indeed.

How do we apply this concept? For now, I will give no more than two simple applications which I have chosen because of the frequency of occurrence as well as the importance. The first deals with optimizing an organization in terms of people and their respective people tasks. What one must first do is determine which “people tasks” within an organization are critical. Once this has been done, one must do a compatibility assessment which simply means determining what tasks are being performed well and not so well and whether or not certain mal-performances are the result of incompatibility or other destructive forces. Sometimes, you may even find that a certain critical task isn’t even getting any attention whatsoever because the person responsible has other important responsibilities and he or she doesn’t have the desire, skills, and/or knowledge to perform this task in an effective manner. This can be very bad for an organization.

Thus, it follows that after you have determined what tasks are critical and which ones aren’t being performed effectively, you should attempt to fix these inefficiencies in the manner that is deemed most appropriate. This makes for another post, but you are surely able to do it yourself so long as you think.

Now, as far as fixing goes, we don’t do this for everything—only for important or necessary tasks. This is particularly because all humans, by nature, are prone to err occasionally and also cannot focus on too many details (i.e. Information overload)—especially small ones. Thus, we do not require absolute responsibility at all operating levels of an organization. To do so would require humans to perform in a manner that is contrary to their very nature, and consequently, hinder the organization.

This brings us to our second application. When hiring for a position, we must determine the essence of what is needed. It is always recommended that before hiring, the hirer determines the job description based upon the needs of the organization, and consequently, hires the person who fulfills not the extraneous and unimportant needs related to the position but rather the very essence of the need.

And that is all I have to say for now on people inefficiencies.