4 ms·

PSA for businesses: how about instead of spying on the deadweight you fire them and reward the productive employees. There are tons of work from home employees

by readme 7y ago

PSA for businesses: how about instead of spying on the deadweight you fire them and reward the productive employees. There are tons of work from home employees (who normally work from home) who are 10x more productive than the in-office ones, because they realize the value of what they have. It's too bad most people will only work when you're looking over their shoulder, but lets not keep that on life-support with spyware. Let it die and usher in a time when people actually take the initiative to do their work.

asveikau 7y ago
I think deciding which human being to label as "dead weight" and overfocus on that question is on the same path to paranoia as thinking you need to monitor them all closely. How many times have you seen contributing employees who are not understood by their bosses mislabelled as "dead weight"? I think it happens pretty often, especially in performance-review-obsessed cultures.
- Loughla 7y ago
  >especially in performance-review-obsessed cultures. I can't wait for performance reviews to just die. I'm middle-management at my institution, and I see my job as making sure my teams have what they need and are insulated from the bullshit enough to get done what they need to get done, how they see best to do it. And then performance reviews happen. I can't do their jobs. I don't want to do their jobs. That's the reason I hire them instead of doing it myself. How can I tell them they're not doing a good job or what to improve on? Their metrics are met, their clients are being appropriately serviced. WHY??? Because we need a way to quantify human performance when we have to downsize. That's why. It's dark, but I'm convinced that's what is at the root of corporate performance reviews across the US.
- readme 7y ago
  >contributing employees who are not understood by their bosses Indeed, this is a problem too. In that case I'd point the finger at the boss who can't recognize what is and isn't a valuable contribution. None of this is 100% exact science, but have you worked with someone who did nothing but somehow kept their job, no problem, not even an eyebrow raised? I have, and these types of people won't last if the performance metric changes from time in seat to work produced.
  - aidenn0 7y ago
    People are just naturally biased towards rewarding effort though. It feels really uncomfortable to label someone who gets into work before you, leaves work after you, and isn't ever seen to be doing obvious goof-off things as "dead weight"
  - asveikau 7y ago
    Most of the time when I have seen that situation, ignoring for a moment that my own assessment of the situation is also subjective, the person keeps the job despite there being performance review culture in place.
- VectorLock 7y ago
  Especially in these times anybody who indicates a decline in performance might be having serious personal issues that you might want to approach with empathy rather than cutting them off like a gangrenous limb.
- amznthrowaway5 7y ago
  For all the rage against algorithm programming interviews you see here on HN, at least those interviews are far more objective than perf and promo reviews.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by readme 7y ago

asveikau 7y ago

I think deciding which human being to label as "dead weight" and overfocus on that question is on the same path to paranoia as thinking you need to monitor them all closely. How many times have you seen contributing employees who are not understood by their bosses mislabelled as "dead weight"? I think it happens pretty often, especially in performance-review-obsessed cultures.

Loughla 7y ago
>especially in performance-review-obsessed cultures. I can't wait for performance reviews to just die. I'm middle-management at my institution, and I see my job as making sure my teams have what they need and are insulated from the bullshit enough to get done what they need to get done, how they see best to do it. And then performance reviews happen. I can't do their jobs. I don't want to do their jobs. That's the reason I hire them instead of doing it myself. How can I tell them they're not doing a good job or what to improve on? Their metrics are met, their clients are being appropriately serviced. WHY??? Because we need a way to quantify human performance when we have to downsize. That's why. It's dark, but I'm convinced that's what is at the root of corporate performance reviews across the US.
readme 7y ago
>contributing employees who are not understood by their bosses Indeed, this is a problem too. In that case I'd point the finger at the boss who can't recognize what is and isn't a valuable contribution. None of this is 100% exact science, but have you worked with someone who did nothing but somehow kept their job, no problem, not even an eyebrow raised? I have, and these types of people won't last if the performance metric changes from time in seat to work produced.
- aidenn0 7y ago
  People are just naturally biased towards rewarding effort though. It feels really uncomfortable to label someone who gets into work before you, leaves work after you, and isn't ever seen to be doing obvious goof-off things as "dead weight"
- asveikau 7y ago
  Most of the time when I have seen that situation, ignoring for a moment that my own assessment of the situation is also subjective, the person keeps the job despite there being performance review culture in place.
VectorLock 7y ago
Especially in these times anybody who indicates a decline in performance might be having serious personal issues that you might want to approach with empathy rather than cutting them off like a gangrenous limb.
amznthrowaway5 7y ago
For all the rage against algorithm programming interviews you see here on HN, at least those interviews are far more objective than perf and promo reviews.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]