What to Do with Our Cognitive Surplus? A Friday Funny
By Michelle Malay Carter on May 8, 2008
Paul Hebert at Fistful of Talent does a nice job of summarizing the issue of “cognitive surplus” that he ran across on Barry L. Ritholtz’s The Big Picture blog.?
One in Five Employees is Underutilized
These ideas line up nicely with my posts this week and our research that says 1 in 5 employees is underutilized.? If people are not using their full capability at work, they will seek other venues.
The Proof is in Our Pastimes
Heberts says:? “There is a “cognitive surplus” in the world that has been ignored and underutilized for quite a while – and the new social and participative technologies are starting to unleash it. He [Ritholtz]?makes the point on his post that Wikipedia represents about 100 million hours of “volunteer” time. He further says that television watching in the US amounts to about 200 billion hours of time. That’s billion with a “B.” Therefore, we have the cognitive surplus in the US alone to create 2,000 Wikipedias. He mentions that just on a weekend the US spends 100 million hours just watching the ads on TV.”
What Does Underutilization Look Like?
Different temperaments will manifest their untapped capability differently.? Sometimes underutilized employees become the office practical jokester, like Jim Halpert on The Office.? Take 56 seconds out for a laugh today.
Have you ever been underutilized at work?? How did you channel your excess capability?
Filed Under Employee Engagement, High Potential, Requisite Organization, Talent Management
Comments
6 Responses to “What to Do with Our Cognitive Surplus? A Friday Funny”
Subscribe in a reader
I found other things to do; created electronic versions of the letterhead and put them in common docs, researched and created proposals for changing procedures, vendors, workflows. I looked at whatever had not been looked at in a long while and worked to get it updated, eliminated, truncated, or related.
Hi Robyn,
Thanks for stopping by. Yes, there can be positive manifestations for under-utilization as well. Some people do, in fact, find extra things to do. Sounds like you handled things with more grace and maturity than I did back in my underutilized days.
A problem that can creep up in this situation is that generally when an underutilized person is doing extra work, it is higher level work than the job calls for. So, likely the pay for the role will begin to feel unfair over time. It’s human nature to want to be paid fairly for the value you are bringing. When you bring extra value day-in and day-out, it can become tiresome to be paid for a lesser contribution.
Regards,
Michelle
If pastimes are an indicator: in the past seven years I’ve done my highschool maths (I dropped them at highschool), learnt Biblical Hebrew and modern Persian, set up three courses for a friend of mine who has a school for adult education (on Islam, the Crusades and the Bible), written a book and taken care of a homeless friend (Ok, the latter isn’t exaclty a ‘pasttime’).
Would you think this makes me ‘overhired’?
The thing is: I wouldn’t want my boss’ job at any pay, because I don’t consider it a challenge. I indeed wouldn’t be bored (far from that), but I would be massively stressed out…
Maybe this is why I’m still hesitant about your work-levels approach. To me it seems one-dimensional, whereas I suspect the real problem is two-dimensional: People with a higher cognitive capacity should move up in your model, whereas I suspect some may prefer to move right or left.
Am I making sense?
Richard,
Thanks for stopping by. You sound like a busy man, and you bring up a very good point. Some people are voluntarily under employed and willingly choose not to move up. It’s generally people who use their full capacity outside work by choice or by life circumstance.
For example, I know many professional women who have chosen not to move up because they have young children and the move up requires longer hours, more travel, etc.
My matching people to roles model has three points. One is work levels. Another is values and temperament. If you don’t value the work in a role, you won’t apply yourself there. So in your example, if you don’t value your boss’ job, you wouldn’t care to apply your capability there.
I run on and on about work levels because most people are unaware of them, but you’re right, it’s not the only factor in job success.
Thanks for the comment.
Regards,
Michelle
Ah! That clarifies a lot! “If you don’t value your boss’ job” is of course the right way to put it.
I’ll be changing jobs next june, so maybe I may still move ‘up’ in time…
Hi Richard,
Glad it makes more sense. We certainly want to be multi dimensional here!
Michelle