3 ms·
I would argue that “not engaged” isn’t the worst thing in the world. The expectation that we devote our lives to work is one of the biggest things that dissolve
by wayoutthere 5y ago
I would argue that “not engaged” isn’t the worst thing in the world. The expectation that we devote our lives to work is one of the biggest things that dissolved during the pandemic. I am far less engaged at my job than I have been in years, which actually makes me better at it because I’m almost never stressed out anymore.
- ineptech 5y ago"Engaged" and "disengaged" are terms of art in management which refer to whether someone is totally checked out or not. Someone who spends most of the day on Facebook is "disengaged", even if they're very competent and get more done in an hour than their teammates do in eight. Someone who basically takes their job seriously and puts in a reasonable effort is "engaged", even if they're a total idiot with net negative productivity.
- blacksmith_tb 5y agoAnd they're apparently pretty approximate, if being 'disengaged' means that you're only 18% less productive than your 'engaged' coworkers. And then they provide the striking statistic that it will cost an employer up to 2X the annual salary of the 'disengaged' worker to replace them - that's equivalent to ten years of their not working hard, doesn't seem worth it, somehow.
- ineptech 5y agoTotally agree, the numbers in this article strike me as ranging from "suspect" to "bullshit". I should've clarified that I was defining how I and (I think) other real managers use those terms. For example, my guess would be that the lost value from a disengaged employee is closer to 100% of their salary than 18%, because of how they drag the rest of the team down by generating bugs, derailing conversations, needing constant help to un-fuck their local env, etc.