3 ms·

Those are the consequences for line-level workers caught doing something bad, too. The company fires you and refuses to give you a good recommendation. Worst

Those are the consequences for line-level workers caught doing something bad, too. The company fires you and refuses to give you a good recommendation. Worst case, you might get hauled in front of court to answer questions. The difference is entirely in how people view those consequences. For most line-level workers, getting fired or laid off is a source of intense shame, as well as a big logistical inconvenience. As a result, they'll do almost anything to avoid it, including making bad economic decisions for job security. For CEOs, it's an opportunity to do the same shit to other people. As a result, they have no inhibition toward taking risks that might potentially get them fired, as long as the payoff is worth it. And then part of the reason why CEO searches are so challenging and CEOs get paid so much is that it's hard to find someone who is rational about this - willing to take risks when the payoff is high, but prudent about it so they don't tank the company on a whim.

burkaman 5y ago
I'm sorry, are you serious? You think most workers don't want to get fired because of the shame and inconvenience? You can't think of any more significant motivators?
- handrous 5y ago
  I read that as ironic understatement (though the "logistical" part doesn't seem quite right) but perhaps that's not how it was intended.
  - spurgu 5y ago
    > getting fired or laid off is a source of intense shame, as well as a big logistical inconvenience I read this as that it's inconvenient both from a psychological as well as a practical perspective. You want to avoid shame/guilt, and you want to avoid the hassle of having to run to job interviews, get recommendation letters from old jobs, perhaps move to a new place closer to better employment, get a haircut etc. There are a lot of practical inconveniences to getting fired that could be classified as "logistical". (the above is just my interpretation of what OP said)
- spurgu 5y ago
  You have other reasons for why people don't do stupid shit and fuck around at work (like they would with friends or family)? Sure there is also a bit of pride and sense of responsibility involved but shame and complications are strong drivers. What do you think motivates people to avoid messing up at work?
  - burkaman 5y ago
    Loss of healthcare, loss of income risking food insecurity, homelessness, debt, etc. Shame is a driver, but if you ask the average person why they don't want to get fired, they'll accurately say "because I need money to live", not "it would be inconvenient and I'd be embarrassed", even if that's a secondary concern. I guess I'm assuming an American perspective because we were talking about an American company, but maybe others are not. I realize the stuff I'm saying does not apply in many other countries.
    - thoraway52843 5y ago
      This is a failure to break down goals into subgoals, which IMHO the OP is correct in ascribing to shame. Or perhaps they're wrong about shame specifically, but it's some strong emotion that keep most people from analyzing the situation properly. There are plenty of other jobs that will provide both healthcare and a good income. You get them by making yourself seem indispensable to the people with hiring authority. How do you do that? It varies by field. In software engineering you usually just need to seem personable and confident, ace all the Leetcode interviews, and have some basic subject matter relevant to the job. In finance, you need to know rich people, and you need to convince them to give you money to manage, which usually means feeding them some potentially profitable insight that they didn't think of themselves but can trade on and then offering to manage part of their portfolio in exchange for 2 & 20. In sales, you're doing this all the time (for your employer's product, not for yourself), so the interview is the job and the job is the interview. You don't need to actually be good at the job but you need to plant the idea in their head that you'd be better at it than they are, and so it's worth paying you to do it for them. In other words, be shameless. Rational people, when they get fired, think "Oh, it's time to fall back on this algorithm until I get a new job." Irrational but normal people think it's a personal failing that they got fired and tend to avoid dealing with it until desperation (their bank statement) sets in. That also makes normal people very averse to being fired, but this makes them lack practice in the skills that will get a new job.

burkaman 5y ago

I'm sorry, are you serious? You think most workers don't want to get fired because of the shame and inconvenience? You can't think of any more significant motivators?

handrous 5y ago
I read that as ironic understatement (though the "logistical" part doesn't seem quite right) but perhaps that's not how it was intended.
- spurgu 5y ago
  > getting fired or laid off is a source of intense shame, as well as a big logistical inconvenience I read this as that it's inconvenient both from a psychological as well as a practical perspective. You want to avoid shame/guilt, and you want to avoid the hassle of having to run to job interviews, get recommendation letters from old jobs, perhaps move to a new place closer to better employment, get a haircut etc. There are a lot of practical inconveniences to getting fired that could be classified as "logistical". (the above is just my interpretation of what OP said)
spurgu 5y ago
You have other reasons for why people don't do stupid shit and fuck around at work (like they would with friends or family)? Sure there is also a bit of pride and sense of responsibility involved but shame and complications are strong drivers. What do you think motivates people to avoid messing up at work?
- burkaman 5y ago
  Loss of healthcare, loss of income risking food insecurity, homelessness, debt, etc. Shame is a driver, but if you ask the average person why they don't want to get fired, they'll accurately say "because I need money to live", not "it would be inconvenient and I'd be embarrassed", even if that's a secondary concern. I guess I'm assuming an American perspective because we were talking about an American company, but maybe others are not. I realize the stuff I'm saying does not apply in many other countries.
  - thoraway52843 5y ago
    This is a failure to break down goals into subgoals, which IMHO the OP is correct in ascribing to shame. Or perhaps they're wrong about shame specifically, but it's some strong emotion that keep most people from analyzing the situation properly. There are plenty of other jobs that will provide both healthcare and a good income. You get them by making yourself seem indispensable to the people with hiring authority. How do you do that? It varies by field. In software engineering you usually just need to seem personable and confident, ace all the Leetcode interviews, and have some basic subject matter relevant to the job. In finance, you need to know rich people, and you need to convince them to give you money to manage, which usually means feeding them some potentially profitable insight that they didn't think of themselves but can trade on and then offering to manage part of their portfolio in exchange for 2 & 20. In sales, you're doing this all the time (for your employer's product, not for yourself), so the interview is the job and the job is the interview. You don't need to actually be good at the job but you need to plant the idea in their head that you'd be better at it than they are, and so it's worth paying you to do it for them. In other words, be shameless. Rational people, when they get fired, think "Oh, it's time to fall back on this algorithm until I get a new job." Irrational but normal people think it's a personal failing that they got fired and tend to avoid dealing with it until desperation (their bank statement) sets in. That also makes normal people very averse to being fired, but this makes them lack practice in the skills that will get a new job.