4 ms·

Regarding #1, why do I need to make any excuse to anybody about the content of my LinkedIn profile?

PragmaticPulp 5y ago
You don't have to have a LinkedIn profile at all. I really don't care. But if someone has clearly gone through the trouble of setting up a LinkedIn, listing all of their jobs and details on it, and collecting a lot of connections, but for some reason they must continue listing their previous employer as their current employer, it's worth further investigation.
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  Why?
  - PragmaticPulp 5y ago
    If someone joins your company as a remote employee but publicly advertises themselves as working for someone else, you investigate further. The "why" is in the linked article: It's in the playbook of people trying to manipulate you into letting them work half as much as their coworkers (thereby screwing over coworkers, who are forced to pick up the slack). If you care about your team, you don't sit idle while one of the employees is slacking off, putting in half the effort as their peers, or manipulating their way into doing less than others.
    - actually_a_dog 5y ago
      > If you care about your team, you don't sit idle while one of the employees is slacking off. There we go! "Slacking off" is not relevant. What's relevant is that you, as my manager at a company I already work for, are happy with my work, or not. It shouldn't matter whether it takes 100%, 80%, 50%, or 20% of my capacity to make you happy. This would be completely non-controversial in the vast majority of jobs.
      - PragmaticPulp 5y ago
        In the real world, managers don't look at a task and schedule out exactly 40 hours of work each week. We trust our employees to give us feedback and healthy estimates. Truth is, double job workers are usually caught because they're underperforming. But smart managers give employees the benefit of the doubt and don't go firing people at first signs of underperformance. If someone has a legitimate reason for falling behind for a while (maybe overleveled during hiring, maybe struggling with real life issues, etc.) then we work with them. If they have a manipulative/deceptive reason (working two jobs, avoiding work) then it's better off that we replace them with someone who cares. If you think that a job is a simple matter of "do fixed pile of work every week", that's not how 95% of software jobs work. We rely on a 2-way communication with employees to establish what's reasonable, and if someone is manipulating us into lowering expectations (literally the title of this article) then they must go and be replaced with someone who cares.
        actually_a_dog 5y ago
        It's not "do fixed pile of work every week." It's "provide a multiple of N worth of your salary value to the company." The amount of work necessary to do so is (should be) irrelevant. Effort is not relevant, and you don't get to demand I commit body and soul to please you if I'm providing a reasonable amount of value.
        PragmaticPulp 5y ago
        No, it's about "Is this employee occupying headcount and payroll that would be better used on someone more deserving". And you've still misunderstand the 2-way feedback loop about effort estimation. You have this misconception that a job is an isolated 1:1 relationship with an employer where units of work are passed in isolation back and forth. In the real world, something like this does huge damage to the team by forcing everyone else to compensate for the deliberate underperformance.
        actually_a_dog 5y ago
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      > as their coworkers (thereby screwing over coworkers, who are forced to pick up the slack) Why is it their coworkers responsibility to make sure enough total labor is present? According to you, anyone not giving 100% is slacking and doing something wrong, so I assume their coworkers are already giving 100%. Why should they have to work harder than 100% because management is bad at getting workers?

You don't have to have a LinkedIn profile at all. I really don't care. But if someone has clearly gone through the trouble of setting up a LinkedIn, listing all of their jobs and details on it, and collecting a lot of connections, but for some reason they must continue listing their previous employer as their current employer, it's worth further investigation.

actually_a_dog 5y ago
Why?
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  If someone joins your company as a remote employee but publicly advertises themselves as working for someone else, you investigate further. The "why" is in the linked article: It's in the playbook of people trying to manipulate you into letting them work half as much as their coworkers (thereby screwing over coworkers, who are forced to pick up the slack). If you care about your team, you don't sit idle while one of the employees is slacking off, putting in half the effort as their peers, or manipulating their way into doing less than others.
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    > If you care about your team, you don't sit idle while one of the employees is slacking off. There we go! "Slacking off" is not relevant. What's relevant is that you, as my manager at a company I already work for, are happy with my work, or not. It shouldn't matter whether it takes 100%, 80%, 50%, or 20% of my capacity to make you happy. This would be completely non-controversial in the vast majority of jobs.
    - PragmaticPulp 5y ago
      In the real world, managers don't look at a task and schedule out exactly 40 hours of work each week. We trust our employees to give us feedback and healthy estimates. Truth is, double job workers are usually caught because they're underperforming. But smart managers give employees the benefit of the doubt and don't go firing people at first signs of underperformance. If someone has a legitimate reason for falling behind for a while (maybe overleveled during hiring, maybe struggling with real life issues, etc.) then we work with them. If they have a manipulative/deceptive reason (working two jobs, avoiding work) then it's better off that we replace them with someone who cares. If you think that a job is a simple matter of "do fixed pile of work every week", that's not how 95% of software jobs work. We rely on a 2-way communication with employees to establish what's reasonable, and if someone is manipulating us into lowering expectations (literally the title of this article) then they must go and be replaced with someone who cares.
      - actually_a_dog 5y ago
        It's not "do fixed pile of work every week." It's "provide a multiple of N worth of your salary value to the company." The amount of work necessary to do so is (should be) irrelevant. Effort is not relevant, and you don't get to demand I commit body and soul to please you if I'm providing a reasonable amount of value.
        PragmaticPulp 5y ago
        No, it's about "Is this employee occupying headcount and payroll that would be better used on someone more deserving". And you've still misunderstand the 2-way feedback loop about effort estimation. You have this misconception that a job is an isolated 1:1 relationship with an employer where units of work are passed in isolation back and forth. In the real world, something like this does huge damage to the team by forcing everyone else to compensate for the deliberate underperformance.
        actually_a_dog 5y ago
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    > as their coworkers (thereby screwing over coworkers, who are forced to pick up the slack) Why is it their coworkers responsibility to make sure enough total labor is present? According to you, anyone not giving 100% is slacking and doing something wrong, so I assume their coworkers are already giving 100%. Why should they have to work harder than 100% because management is bad at getting workers?