3 ms·

how is he taking it on himself to decide what work needs to be done? He was hired to perform a set of tasks, and has written a script to accomplish them. You co

how is he taking it on himself to decide what work needs to be done? He was hired to perform a set of tasks, and has written a script to accomplish them. You could argue he has taken it upon himself to decide how the required work is done and then one could say "so what?". If the business is happy with his output then everyone is a winner. To think its an employees job to suicide their employment is not the actions a rational actor takes. If that is the case, OP would be incentivized to destroy his script and return the prior method of manually processing files which he specified was not keeping pace with business needs. Society has reached a strange place when bottom of the food chain employees are expected to suffer financial hardship for the good of the company execs.

neom 5y ago
Employees are resources to the business, as the work changes, the resources change, it's not his job to decide how he should be resourced in the business. It's literally why HR is called HR.
- antihero 5y ago
  If an employee is a resource, what exactly do they owe them? Why should a "resource" have any sort of respect at all. It's fundamentally adversarial - the resource must maximise their gain from their position and the company most maximise their gain from their "resource". You're just sour that the resource is winning for once.
- wonderwonder 5y ago
  Friend what you are suggesting is a very slippery slope and leads to employees not making any suggestions at all to improve business processes as its not part of their job description. You are essentially saying that OP would be better off just never attempting to automate the process at all and to just continue the existing process that was not working after all its the role of whoever is in charge of efficiency to come up with better solutions. The business would still experience delays but OP would not be "stealing". Your position actually incentivizes employees to work as slowly as possible as long as they meet the letter of their employment contract.
  - neom 5y ago
    "Hey folks, I'm going to implement this script, I'm concerned in doing so, you will just fire me and keep the script, I enjoy my job and working with you all, is there a way we can find additional tasks for me to do in the business" is a fine conversation to have with your manager, sure.. you don't have to, but in my humble opinion, then pretending you're not stealing from the company knowing what you know, is questionable at best.
    - wonderwonder 5y ago
      ok, lets go with that. What happens when the manager says "yes, implement the script and then we are going to fire you". What if Op refuses to implement the script then and just quits? A logical employee with rational self interest would never have that conversation because they know it likely ends with their termination. So in reality your proposal actually leads to the employee never implementing or recommending the script for fear of losing their job and the employer continuing to suffer as the prior manual process leads to missed deadlines. Your suggestion can only end with a lose / lose scenario. This is a prisoners dilemma where OP is incentivized not to discuss his solution with the employer and is really his only rational option.
      - neom 5y ago
        Fire the employee and hire someone off fiver to look at the script and explain it, and then get an intern to run it once a week. If the script isn't written, I now know I can hire a consultant to write the script once. Sounds like a win for me. Except that's not how it would play out in one of my orgs, I'd chat with the employee and find a solution, if they're not excited about ANY other work in my business at all, I'm not sure they are a good fit for my business. As big boy buffet said. Price is what you pay, but value is what you get, the terms of that deal should be pretty clear imo.
        Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
        I've read through this thread and you're doing a pretty poor job of convincing me the employee should speak up. The employee has two choices: 1. Say nothing and keep collecting a paycheck. 2. Speak up about the script and start a conversation that has the possibility of leading towards termination. It's a pretty big no-brainer for what they should do.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- CRConrad 5y ago
  If employees are just "resources", then they can obviously only have the same responsibility towards the employer to make themselves redundant as any other resource has. So please drop this line for now, and get back to us the next time a brick, a hammer, or a forklift truck takes such an initiative.

neom 5y ago

Employees are resources to the business, as the work changes, the resources change, it's not his job to decide how he should be resourced in the business. It's literally why HR is called HR.

antihero 5y ago
If an employee is a resource, what exactly do they owe them? Why should a "resource" have any sort of respect at all. It's fundamentally adversarial - the resource must maximise their gain from their position and the company most maximise their gain from their "resource". You're just sour that the resource is winning for once.
wonderwonder 5y ago
Friend what you are suggesting is a very slippery slope and leads to employees not making any suggestions at all to improve business processes as its not part of their job description. You are essentially saying that OP would be better off just never attempting to automate the process at all and to just continue the existing process that was not working after all its the role of whoever is in charge of efficiency to come up with better solutions. The business would still experience delays but OP would not be "stealing". Your position actually incentivizes employees to work as slowly as possible as long as they meet the letter of their employment contract.
- neom 5y ago
  "Hey folks, I'm going to implement this script, I'm concerned in doing so, you will just fire me and keep the script, I enjoy my job and working with you all, is there a way we can find additional tasks for me to do in the business" is a fine conversation to have with your manager, sure.. you don't have to, but in my humble opinion, then pretending you're not stealing from the company knowing what you know, is questionable at best.
  - wonderwonder 5y ago
    ok, lets go with that. What happens when the manager says "yes, implement the script and then we are going to fire you". What if Op refuses to implement the script then and just quits? A logical employee with rational self interest would never have that conversation because they know it likely ends with their termination. So in reality your proposal actually leads to the employee never implementing or recommending the script for fear of losing their job and the employer continuing to suffer as the prior manual process leads to missed deadlines. Your suggestion can only end with a lose / lose scenario. This is a prisoners dilemma where OP is incentivized not to discuss his solution with the employer and is really his only rational option.
    - neom 5y ago
      Fire the employee and hire someone off fiver to look at the script and explain it, and then get an intern to run it once a week. If the script isn't written, I now know I can hire a consultant to write the script once. Sounds like a win for me. Except that's not how it would play out in one of my orgs, I'd chat with the employee and find a solution, if they're not excited about ANY other work in my business at all, I'm not sure they are a good fit for my business. As big boy buffet said. Price is what you pay, but value is what you get, the terms of that deal should be pretty clear imo.
      - Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
        I've read through this thread and you're doing a pretty poor job of convincing me the employee should speak up. The employee has two choices: 1. Say nothing and keep collecting a paycheck. 2. Speak up about the script and start a conversation that has the possibility of leading towards termination. It's a pretty big no-brainer for what they should do.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
CRConrad 5y ago
If employees are just "resources", then they can obviously only have the same responsibility towards the employer to make themselves redundant as any other resource has. So please drop this line for now, and get back to us the next time a brick, a hammer, or a forklift truck takes such an initiative.