4 ms·

It seems intuitive to me that the thing you pour your intellect, attention, and care into for 7-9 hours a day 5 days a week should be meaningful and fulfilling.

It seems intuitive to me that the thing you pour your intellect, attention, and care into for 7-9 hours a day 5 days a week should be meaningful and fulfilling. On the other hand, hanging meaning and mission over one's head seems like a great way to manipulate and underpay them, and being susceptible to this seems like a great way to become a useful idiot. Squaring these two views is something I struggle with.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
Not everybody can have a job doing something they find meaningful and fulfilling, best not to delude yourself into thinking yours is if it isn't.
- brianwawok 8y ago
  The counter to this is one can find meaning and fulfillment in any task, by doing it well and to the best of ones ability.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    But why do that if it only makes things worse for you in the end? Better to find meaning in things you don't have to delude yourself about and view your job as what it probably is: just a means to sustain your quality of life.
    - Vraxx 8y ago
      good point, I think GP's counter is a counter only if you accept as a premise that you must find fulfillment in your work. Otherwise this point undercuts it by attacking that implicit premise.
ollerac 8y ago
I think it's easier to cope with this tension if you embrace the other parts of your life that are meaningful, as OP is alluding to. It's a lot harder for a company to manipulate someone if they have alternate ways to derive meaning and emotional support. For me, this involves always having a side project that's fulfilling. I think this sincere desire for unexploitable meaning is why a lot of engineers try to start startups.
koonsolo 8y ago
I might have a solution for you: Look at yourself as an independent contractor, even if you are an employee. This way you can put out your best work & work on things that excite you, but are still protected from manipulation and underpay. Your customer is your employer. He's also the main person that needs to be pleased with your work. Companies try to push the "This company is all of us" mentality, but in some situations it becomes painfully clear that it wasn't.
- Vraxx 8y ago
  It's tough because I think the group mentality is part of what can really make a company able to produce the value it can (more than just the sum of its parts and all that), so I feel that mentality can come from a genuine place, but it is also used manipulatively. How we tell the difference is a problem I'm currently incapable of solving.
  - koonsolo 8y ago
    It's a fine line indeed, and it's probably impossible to draw a hard line like that. Sometimes you're above it, sometimes below. But the main thing is that you guard yourself from feeling disappointed afterwards. This disappointment comes from a wrong view on the whole situation. So basically anything that you do extra for the company, you do because it gives you gratification at the moment. Don't expect to be compensated afterwards, because you won't. But of course compensation for your work is more than money alone, and it's perfectly fine to get gratification from seeing what you created, working on something that excites you, etc.
apohn 8y ago
In trying to find this balance, it helps to understand what you can and cannot emotionally detach from. For example, it may be important to feel you are doing meaningful work. But it's important you emotionally detach from "under all circumstances." Many people use manipulation and guilt to get other people to do what they want under totally unreasonable/unrealistic circumstances. If you are able to emotionally detach from being affected by this type of behavior, they lose the control they have over you. You're then in a much better position to dictate a situation where you can a) work on stuff you find meaningful, b) provide high value to the company) and c) do it on your terms. Sometimes the only way to do this is to switch managers and/or jobs.
tvanantwerp 8y ago
I work at a nonprofit (thankfully not for peanuts), and I know that many of them take advantage of this. They use the "passion" of the employees as an excuse to pay way less than market rates, even if they've actually got the money. One friend of mine is a developer at a nonprofit, and I know he's earning in the 25th percentile for his skills and experience in this region. I am certain his passion for the cause helped lead to this. Ironically, this situation has, over time, eroded his passion for the cause! Nonprofits lose a lot of good people doing this, but they don't seem to care. Maybe because they've always got fresh meat ready to take someone's place? Maybe because donors always pressure for low overhead costs? Hard to say, but it's foolish. Only harms everyone involved.
- NickM 8y ago
  I mostly agree with you, but I wouldn't entirely blame nonprofits. There's a lot of public pressure on nonprofits to reduce costs as much as possible because everyone is obsessed with "overhead". This TED talk explains the problems with this situation really well: https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_abou... Choice quote: "so in the for-profit sector, the more value you produce the more money you can make, but we don't like non-profits to use money to incentive people to produce more in social service. We have a visceral reaction to the idea that anyone would make much money helping other people; interesting that we don't have a visceral reaction to the notion that people would make a lot of money not helping other people."
  - tvanantwerp 8y ago
    Strongly agree. The external pressure from well-meaning but uninformed donors to "cut costs" isn't helping the situation.
  - taphangum 8y ago
    "Interesting that we don't have a visceral reaction to the notion that people would make a lot of money not helping other people." If for-profits didn't help people, they literally would not exist.
mmcnl 8y ago
I have my own personal goals. The company has some goals. As long as there's some overlap between those, and I can achieve both goals at the same time, then we're all good.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago

Not everybody can have a job doing something they find meaningful and fulfilling, best not to delude yourself into thinking yours is if it isn't.

brianwawok 8y ago
The counter to this is one can find meaning and fulfillment in any task, by doing it well and to the best of ones ability.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  But why do that if it only makes things worse for you in the end? Better to find meaning in things you don't have to delude yourself about and view your job as what it probably is: just a means to sustain your quality of life.
  - Vraxx 8y ago
    good point, I think GP's counter is a counter only if you accept as a premise that you must find fulfillment in your work. Otherwise this point undercuts it by attacking that implicit premise.

ollerac 8y ago

I think it's easier to cope with this tension if you embrace the other parts of your life that are meaningful, as OP is alluding to. It's a lot harder for a company to manipulate someone if they have alternate ways to derive meaning and emotional support. For me, this involves always having a side project that's fulfilling. I think this sincere desire for unexploitable meaning is why a lot of engineers try to start startups.

koonsolo 8y ago

I might have a solution for you: Look at yourself as an independent contractor, even if you are an employee. This way you can put out your best work & work on things that excite you, but are still protected from manipulation and underpay. Your customer is your employer. He's also the main person that needs to be pleased with your work. Companies try to push the "This company is all of us" mentality, but in some situations it becomes painfully clear that it wasn't.

Vraxx 8y ago
It's tough because I think the group mentality is part of what can really make a company able to produce the value it can (more than just the sum of its parts and all that), so I feel that mentality can come from a genuine place, but it is also used manipulatively. How we tell the difference is a problem I'm currently incapable of solving.
- koonsolo 8y ago
  It's a fine line indeed, and it's probably impossible to draw a hard line like that. Sometimes you're above it, sometimes below. But the main thing is that you guard yourself from feeling disappointed afterwards. This disappointment comes from a wrong view on the whole situation. So basically anything that you do extra for the company, you do because it gives you gratification at the moment. Don't expect to be compensated afterwards, because you won't. But of course compensation for your work is more than money alone, and it's perfectly fine to get gratification from seeing what you created, working on something that excites you, etc.

apohn 8y ago

In trying to find this balance, it helps to understand what you can and cannot emotionally detach from. For example, it may be important to feel you are doing meaningful work. But it's important you emotionally detach from "under all circumstances." Many people use manipulation and guilt to get other people to do what they want under totally unreasonable/unrealistic circumstances. If you are able to emotionally detach from being affected by this type of behavior, they lose the control they have over you. You're then in a much better position to dictate a situation where you can a) work on stuff you find meaningful, b) provide high value to the company) and c) do it on your terms. Sometimes the only way to do this is to switch managers and/or jobs.

tvanantwerp 8y ago

I work at a nonprofit (thankfully not for peanuts), and I know that many of them take advantage of this. They use the "passion" of the employees as an excuse to pay way less than market rates, even if they've actually got the money. One friend of mine is a developer at a nonprofit, and I know he's earning in the 25th percentile for his skills and experience in this region. I am certain his passion for the cause helped lead to this. Ironically, this situation has, over time, eroded his passion for the cause! Nonprofits lose a lot of good people doing this, but they don't seem to care. Maybe because they've always got fresh meat ready to take someone's place? Maybe because donors always pressure for low overhead costs? Hard to say, but it's foolish. Only harms everyone involved.

NickM 8y ago
I mostly agree with you, but I wouldn't entirely blame nonprofits. There's a lot of public pressure on nonprofits to reduce costs as much as possible because everyone is obsessed with "overhead". This TED talk explains the problems with this situation really well: https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_abou... Choice quote: "so in the for-profit sector, the more value you produce the more money you can make, but we don't like non-profits to use money to incentive people to produce more in social service. We have a visceral reaction to the idea that anyone would make much money helping other people; interesting that we don't have a visceral reaction to the notion that people would make a lot of money not helping other people."
- tvanantwerp 8y ago
  Strongly agree. The external pressure from well-meaning but uninformed donors to "cut costs" isn't helping the situation.
- taphangum 8y ago
  "Interesting that we don't have a visceral reaction to the notion that people would make a lot of money not helping other people." If for-profits didn't help people, they literally would not exist.

mmcnl 8y ago

I have my own personal goals. The company has some goals. As long as there's some overlap between those, and I can achieve both goals at the same time, then we're all good.