4 ms·

I feel people who need to be above others, in pay and output, can be verz detrimental to a work environment. Yes, as long as a person contributes to a company f

I feel people who need to be above others, in pay and output, can be verz detrimental to a work environment. Yes, as long as a person contributes to a company functioning, they should be part of its success. And that means getting a raise simply for keeping things running. I feel the urge to constantly outdo oneself and everybody else tends to burn people out (it has burned out me), and innovation or change just to complete a checkmark on a CV can lead to unnecessary and abandoned projects. Like it happens a lot at Google for example.

golergka 5y ago
> I feel people who need to be above others, in pay and output, can be verz detrimental to a work environment. I find this worldview to be very detrimental to teamwork. People are different, we have diverse motivations and personalities, and we have to find ways to use this diversity to our mutual advantage, instead of trying saying that some of those are right and some are wrong.
- remuskaos 5y ago
  > I find this worldview to be very detrimental to teamwork. I strongly disagree, constant competition and a desire to be the best/most payed in a team dissolves cooperation. Why should I contribute to a team if person A tries to "win teamwork". I'm not saying you do that, and I'm not saying I believe that, because: > People are different, we have diverse motivations and personalities, and we have to find ways to use this diversity to our mutual advantage, instead of trying saying that some of those are right and some are wrong. I absolute agree with that statement. Mutual advantage to me is exactly that, even if I know someone else is smarter than me and can produce more quality work than me, the fact that I still contribute to the team success should mean I also get regular raises. Even if I only do the menial work those go-getters deem not worth their time. Getting regular raises for contributing to the everyday work of a company is appreciation, and I gladly continue to the company if I feel valued. But not at the expense of my physical or mental health. If have the feeling I constantly have to outsmart and outdo everyone else just to keep my job and stagnate, my appreciation for the company drops. It's worst when the company instills the feeling that I'm replaceable at a whim if I don't put it 110%. Again, I'm not saying you think that way. I'm saying that cooperation and inter team competition are orthogonal, but in my experience competition can demotivate people who otherwise deliver regular, good work. Not exceptional, and exceptional isn't always needed. Constant good work is more valuable to me that irregular exceptional.
  - golergka 5y ago
    I look at the way you describe competitive people, and I understand why you think this way. But in my experience, people who have competitive personality have a lot more variation, and don't really fit the picture that you paint. There are certainly some people like that; but there's plenty of toxic and demotivating people with opposite personality traits, too. I understand that you wouldn't be motivated by competition, and that's fine. I wouldn't want to work in a company that forces everybody to compete. That's actually my point: working in a company that builds it motivation structure that suits only one personality type is wrong, whatever personality type that is.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    I am fairly competitive by nature, but I my work competitiveness is me against my best possible and our company against our competitors. When I do well, I expect to be paid well for it. I don’t care what you pay someone else (so long as you’re convinced the company is getting an overlay on that deal), but I care a lot of what you pay me. What you pay me changes my family experience, so I care deeply about it. What you pay someone else doesn’t, so I don’t care about the latter.
draw_down 5y ago
Sure, but you have to realize that Google is not exactly a cautionary tale to a business person. For all its faults as a product org, it is an extremely, extremely successful business. So to argue “you don’t want to be like them!” is 180° incorrect. That’s online-brain stuff.
mrfredward 5y ago
The downside of seniority based pay is that people who show little to no motivation can end up the highest paid on a team if they simply avoid getting in trouble for 20 years. I know someone who quit a job at Boeing years ago in part because he was at the bottom of the pay ladder doing tons of work while the highest paid non-manager in his department didn't do anything except keep the printers stocked with paper. Throwing incentives on competitive people can be toxic, but the opposite problem is that when high performers don't get rewarded the organization will rot.

golergka 5y ago

> I feel people who need to be above others, in pay and output, can be verz detrimental to a work environment. I find this worldview to be very detrimental to teamwork. People are different, we have diverse motivations and personalities, and we have to find ways to use this diversity to our mutual advantage, instead of trying saying that some of those are right and some are wrong.

remuskaos 5y ago
> I find this worldview to be very detrimental to teamwork. I strongly disagree, constant competition and a desire to be the best/most payed in a team dissolves cooperation. Why should I contribute to a team if person A tries to "win teamwork". I'm not saying you do that, and I'm not saying I believe that, because: > People are different, we have diverse motivations and personalities, and we have to find ways to use this diversity to our mutual advantage, instead of trying saying that some of those are right and some are wrong. I absolute agree with that statement. Mutual advantage to me is exactly that, even if I know someone else is smarter than me and can produce more quality work than me, the fact that I still contribute to the team success should mean I also get regular raises. Even if I only do the menial work those go-getters deem not worth their time. Getting regular raises for contributing to the everyday work of a company is appreciation, and I gladly continue to the company if I feel valued. But not at the expense of my physical or mental health. If have the feeling I constantly have to outsmart and outdo everyone else just to keep my job and stagnate, my appreciation for the company drops. It's worst when the company instills the feeling that I'm replaceable at a whim if I don't put it 110%. Again, I'm not saying you think that way. I'm saying that cooperation and inter team competition are orthogonal, but in my experience competition can demotivate people who otherwise deliver regular, good work. Not exceptional, and exceptional isn't always needed. Constant good work is more valuable to me that irregular exceptional.
- golergka 5y ago
  I look at the way you describe competitive people, and I understand why you think this way. But in my experience, people who have competitive personality have a lot more variation, and don't really fit the picture that you paint. There are certainly some people like that; but there's plenty of toxic and demotivating people with opposite personality traits, too. I understand that you wouldn't be motivated by competition, and that's fine. I wouldn't want to work in a company that forces everybody to compete. That's actually my point: working in a company that builds it motivation structure that suits only one personality type is wrong, whatever personality type that is.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  I am fairly competitive by nature, but I my work competitiveness is me against my best possible and our company against our competitors. When I do well, I expect to be paid well for it. I don’t care what you pay someone else (so long as you’re convinced the company is getting an overlay on that deal), but I care a lot of what you pay me. What you pay me changes my family experience, so I care deeply about it. What you pay someone else doesn’t, so I don’t care about the latter.

draw_down 5y ago

Sure, but you have to realize that Google is not exactly a cautionary tale to a business person. For all its faults as a product org, it is an extremely, extremely successful business. So to argue “you don’t want to be like them!” is 180° incorrect. That’s online-brain stuff.

mrfredward 5y ago

The downside of seniority based pay is that people who show little to no motivation can end up the highest paid on a team if they simply avoid getting in trouble for 20 years. I know someone who quit a job at Boeing years ago in part because he was at the bottom of the pay ladder doing tons of work while the highest paid non-manager in his department didn't do anything except keep the printers stocked with paper. Throwing incentives on competitive people can be toxic, but the opposite problem is that when high performers don't get rewarded the organization will rot.