If your work involves using a computer all day, but you can’t be arsed to learn how to use it, I’m going to assume the rest of your output is incompetent too. I see this way too often.
In the case of my colleague he’s expert-level in the software tools we need for our actual job, but he struggles with basic office tools like MS word and excel.
The more I read here the more all these people come off as being super insecure and jealous that their skills are just to help people with real skills do basic computer stuff
I’d say it has more to do with feeling under-appreciated for what they do to help workforce. To their colleagues they’re treated as little more than lowly keyboard jockeys until they’re needed for an IT problem, then they’re sent back to languish in the computer mines.
At the end of the day it’s more a managerial problem, as they arent treated as an equal contributor to the group. Despite how much they contribute to overall efficiency and productivity.
In a capitalist landscape we are trained to only ever be good at one thing. If you do more than one thing, you are worth less because then clearly youre not as good at your primary profession. Even if those other skills benefit that primary profession.
There are, of course, exceptions where managers understand that well-rounded employees provide a bulwark against mistakes and thus inefficiency. But for the most part, if youre not spending time on things that are not your primary responsibility, like learning tangential skills, youre losing them money.
If your work involves using a computer all day, but you can’t be arsed to learn how to use it, I’m going to assume the rest of your output is incompetent too. I see this way too often.
In the case of my colleague he’s expert-level in the software tools we need for our actual job, but he struggles with basic office tools like MS word and excel.
The more I read here the more all these people come off as being super insecure and jealous that their skills are just to help people with real skills do basic computer stuff
I’d say it has more to do with feeling under-appreciated for what they do to help workforce. To their colleagues they’re treated as little more than lowly keyboard jockeys until they’re needed for an IT problem, then they’re sent back to languish in the computer mines.
At the end of the day it’s more a managerial problem, as they arent treated as an equal contributor to the group. Despite how much they contribute to overall efficiency and productivity.
We’re almost always seen as a burden because we don’t directly generate revenue. That is, unless someone in the C-suite has an IT background.
In a capitalist landscape we are trained to only ever be good at one thing. If you do more than one thing, you are worth less because then clearly youre not as good at your primary profession. Even if those other skills benefit that primary profession.
There are, of course, exceptions where managers understand that well-rounded employees provide a bulwark against mistakes and thus inefficiency. But for the most part, if youre not spending time on things that are not your primary responsibility, like learning tangential skills, youre losing them money.