4 ms·

In an "at will" employment state - which I presume covers the vast majority of US based readers here - the final arbiter of whether someone is doing a "good job

In an "at will" employment state - which I presume covers the vast majority of US based readers here - the final arbiter of whether someone is doing a "good job" or not is their employer. If they're still paying the employee, they must be doing a good job according to the employer's standards even if by the employee's standard they are doing nothing.

jollybean 5y ago
This doesn't quite work because employee productivity assessment is very grey, and there's a lot of goodwill assumed in the equation. It's difficult to measure employee productivity. Sometimes, managers don't care. Sometimes employees make every effort to hide their lack of productivity. Despite that we might think of companies as 'evil' - most of them are not. We're all human, none of us like laying people off or firing them. It also comes with negative political consequences i.e. the person you fired may never be a good reference in the future. The manager may have negative incentive to let people go, as their 'worth' is founded on headcount. And truly the vast majority of employers just don't want to layoff or fire if that don't have to. What this means is that there is quite a lot of 'grey' in the system, and there's a lot of goodwill assumed by all parties. Everybody is saying that they want to do 'remote work' and at the same time signalling that they may 'want to do the least, because technically, I'm getting paid for that?' - in a situation wherein there is quite a lot of 'trust' expected? How do we expect employers to 'trust' workers in a 'very noisy productivity assessment channel' with this kind of approach? It just won't work. There isn't enough time in the world to be looking over each other's shoulders like that (I particularly don't like Amazon's approach for example). So the onus is on us to 'do a good job'. It doesn't mean 'break your back' - it means try to do what is expected, keep your chin up, grind through it. I feel that if people could see the big picture, and see that mountains are climbed one step at a time, that morale across the board would be higher. 'Passion and inspiration' are nice, but fleeting, whereas 'grinding' through the issues is how most things ultimately get done. In this way, they might be more personally incented to 'fix that bug' or 'get that build out'.
- quanticle 5y ago
  And truly the vast majority of employers just don't want to layoff or fire if that don't have to. I've seen far too many corporate moves that were driven by executives looking to goose the stock price to believe that. You can argue that it's the executive's job to goose the stock price, and thus they "have to" lay off people in order to avoid taking as much of a financial hit in a recession or whatever, but that just gets us back to the original position: the company has a minimum amount of loyalty to me, and, in return, I have a minimum amount of loyalty to the company.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    Layoffs to goose stock prices are not actually that common, it's also very short-sighted. In the face of a major recession, execs are not laying off to 'goose the stock' they are adjusting to the situation. Of course it does happen, but in the grand scheme of corporate development across all industries, it's not hugely common. There is a difference between 'loyalty' and 'doing a good job'. It's not expected that companies will keep contractors for the long term, but they still would be expected to 'do a good job'. And of course companies do not lay off talented people unless they have to - that makes no sense. Even the most darkly cynical and Machiavellian Execs will try to keep talent if they can, otherwise, they can't make money. So more appropriately, employees will at least be held onto to the extent that they materially create value. But again, even in that context 'Do A Good Job'. Honestly, if even it's a crap company, it still makes sense to 'Do A Good Job'. Even in the face of grind. The only time I think it makes sense to 'not' do a good job, is where it would be truly utterly futile or illegal etc.. If someone is in a bad situation, they can eventually move on to where their 'good work' is more appreciated / better compensated. Loyalty isn't a huge requirement, but doing good work is.
    - quanticle 5y ago
      I'm not sure what you mean by "do a good job". I will, of course, meet the requirements of the role as they are set out before me. I will do that even if the job is crap. But if you want me to come in earlier than 08:59:59 or leave later than 17:00:00, you'd better be offering something in return. My current employer, fortunately, does. Even before COVID, they were flexible w.r.t. work from home, and the management is more than willing to let you do your thing as long as you're delivering results. I will, and have, repaid that flexibility by going above and beyond in handling issues that weren't strictly my responsibility, working late on more than one occasion to ensure that deliverables got out the door in time. However, I have had the misfortune for working for less understanding management. I've had management say, with a straight face in a team meeting, "If you're working from home, you ain't working." I've worked for management that openly ridiculed employees who had to take time off for family medical emergencies. You can be sure that, in those situations, I clocked out exactly when I considered my shift over.

jollybean 5y ago

This doesn't quite work because employee productivity assessment is very grey, and there's a lot of goodwill assumed in the equation. It's difficult to measure employee productivity. Sometimes, managers don't care. Sometimes employees make every effort to hide their lack of productivity. Despite that we might think of companies as 'evil' - most of them are not. We're all human, none of us like laying people off or firing them. It also comes with negative political consequences i.e. the person you fired may never be a good reference in the future. The manager may have negative incentive to let people go, as their 'worth' is founded on headcount. And truly the vast majority of employers just don't want to layoff or fire if that don't have to. What this means is that there is quite a lot of 'grey' in the system, and there's a lot of goodwill assumed by all parties. Everybody is saying that they want to do 'remote work' and at the same time signalling that they may 'want to do the least, because technically, I'm getting paid for that?' - in a situation wherein there is quite a lot of 'trust' expected? How do we expect employers to 'trust' workers in a 'very noisy productivity assessment channel' with this kind of approach? It just won't work. There isn't enough time in the world to be looking over each other's shoulders like that (I particularly don't like Amazon's approach for example). So the onus is on us to 'do a good job'. It doesn't mean 'break your back' - it means try to do what is expected, keep your chin up, grind through it. I feel that if people could see the big picture, and see that mountains are climbed one step at a time, that morale across the board would be higher. 'Passion and inspiration' are nice, but fleeting, whereas 'grinding' through the issues is how most things ultimately get done. In this way, they might be more personally incented to 'fix that bug' or 'get that build out'.

quanticle 5y ago
And truly the vast majority of employers just don't want to layoff or fire if that don't have to. I've seen far too many corporate moves that were driven by executives looking to goose the stock price to believe that. You can argue that it's the executive's job to goose the stock price, and thus they "have to" lay off people in order to avoid taking as much of a financial hit in a recession or whatever, but that just gets us back to the original position: the company has a minimum amount of loyalty to me, and, in return, I have a minimum amount of loyalty to the company.
- jollybean 5y ago
  Layoffs to goose stock prices are not actually that common, it's also very short-sighted. In the face of a major recession, execs are not laying off to 'goose the stock' they are adjusting to the situation. Of course it does happen, but in the grand scheme of corporate development across all industries, it's not hugely common. There is a difference between 'loyalty' and 'doing a good job'. It's not expected that companies will keep contractors for the long term, but they still would be expected to 'do a good job'. And of course companies do not lay off talented people unless they have to - that makes no sense. Even the most darkly cynical and Machiavellian Execs will try to keep talent if they can, otherwise, they can't make money. So more appropriately, employees will at least be held onto to the extent that they materially create value. But again, even in that context 'Do A Good Job'. Honestly, if even it's a crap company, it still makes sense to 'Do A Good Job'. Even in the face of grind. The only time I think it makes sense to 'not' do a good job, is where it would be truly utterly futile or illegal etc.. If someone is in a bad situation, they can eventually move on to where their 'good work' is more appreciated / better compensated. Loyalty isn't a huge requirement, but doing good work is.
  - quanticle 5y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean by "do a good job". I will, of course, meet the requirements of the role as they are set out before me. I will do that even if the job is crap. But if you want me to come in earlier than 08:59:59 or leave later than 17:00:00, you'd better be offering something in return. My current employer, fortunately, does. Even before COVID, they were flexible w.r.t. work from home, and the management is more than willing to let you do your thing as long as you're delivering results. I will, and have, repaid that flexibility by going above and beyond in handling issues that weren't strictly my responsibility, working late on more than one occasion to ensure that deliverables got out the door in time. However, I have had the misfortune for working for less understanding management. I've had management say, with a straight face in a team meeting, "If you're working from home, you ain't working." I've worked for management that openly ridiculed employees who had to take time off for family medical emergencies. You can be sure that, in those situations, I clocked out exactly when I considered my shift over.