I wonder if there would be any benefit to allowing each to take a peek into the other's world? I am not sure how it could be done, but some way to allow them to try on the other's role for a day so they can see a full picture of what their co-workers do.
I've worked at companies on both ends of this spectrum, so I can speak to this with some authority.
Company A(CA) had tons of open channels between sales, engineering and machining. Sakes reps had to spend time with the service dept every few months, helping with repairs and what not. One sales guy opted to do it more often because it helped him understand the products better, which helped him sell. Engineering and machining were constantly showing each other different things that could improve production. We barely needed management, leavjng them to focus on administrative crap nobody else wanted to do. It was quite wonderful and remarkably effective. I miss that job, actually.
Company B(CB) did the opposite. All departments, and I mean all had walls between them, both metaphorical and physical. Department heads were the only conduits and they were unreliable at moving info between depts, not to mention reluctant to work with each other. Things constantly had to be reworked, tons of money wasted on parts nobody could use, quality assurance was always an after-thought, etc. The company suffered and the customers suffered more, but under all that was embitterment between the engineers and the production team. Everyone felt miserable and micromanaged to death. It was nonsense, and even resulted in a short alternation just before I left the company.
So, guess who is still in business? CA or CB? Both shops are the same size and offered very similar products and services. Those are just two of my examples, too. I've been with a handful of shops for a long time, and the latter is always a hellscape to work in.
> Company A(CA) [...] was quite wonderful and remarkably effective. I miss that job, actually.
> Company B(CB) did the opposite. [...] The company suffered and the customers suffered more, but under all that was embitterment between the engineers and the production team. Everyone felt miserable and micromanaged to death.
> So, guess who is still in business? CA or CB?
Murphy's law says Company B. :-(
(Please, please tell us different!)
> It was nonsense, and even resulted in a short alternation just before I left the company.
This is a hard business decision to make as it doesn't directly increase revenues and directly reduces productivity.
Might be smart in many instances to do cross training, and on the job perspective expanding, but at the end of the day: it's usually better to let the animous live...and the spice flow.
Somewhat ironically you are underestimating the amount of effort it takes to be as universally reviled as that person. Presumably because you, like most people, have never been in that field.
This is a pretty ignorant attempt at a spicy take.
Before you can even have this conversation, you need to define what "work" is and take into account the stressors of that work, the abilities of the workers, etc. This mentality of "us vs them" when someone wants to ask "who works harder" accomplishes nothing aside from pointing out disgruntled laborers who got suckered into punishing jobs for laughable compensation.
It stems from this a twisted pride, typically from the laborer side of things, that I have seen so many times I've come to just expect it from them. The problem with that stance is that it falls apart with any scrutiny, after the laborer who wants to call someone else out for "not working as hard as they do" realizes that they are being exploited, which is nothing to be prideful about.
It's silly, as was your contribution to this conversation. I recommend reframing it as each position being important to the team, but requiring different demands and skill sets to which different people can contribute. It's not a competition and nobody wins by trying to diminish the contribution of others.
There’s plenty of psychologists that think those are immutable traits (e.g., how disciplined someone is may be related to their genetic disposition for conscientiousness), so I’m not sure about it being a wholly moral argument.
