3 ms·

While I think it's healthy to not tie your identity and well-being to your job, I think it might be a bad habit to view everything through the lens of a financi

by bumby 4y ago

While I think it's healthy to not tie your identity and well-being to your job, I think it might be a bad habit to view everything through the lens of a financial transaction. We've all probably worked with people who will only lift a finger if it benefits them. Create an organization of people with this mindset and much of the necessary but un-glorious work never gets done. I suppose you could say people can play the long game and do that stuff in hopes of getting noticed, but if it doesn't and you have a transactional mindset, it's a recipe to be miserable. (We've probably all worked with those people too - the ones who feel slighted because they believe they've done all the hard work without getting rewarded).

BLKNSLVR 4y ago
> I think it might be a bad habit to view everything through the lens of a financial transaction Unless you want to get promoted into management... Hire new people to do the inglourious work.
- bumby 4y ago
  >Hire new people to do the inglourious work. But I'm assuming this means hiring people without the same transactional mindset? Otherwise, there will just be endless employee churn as they realize there's nothing in it for them. It's hard for me to get on-board with a management approach that effectively says, "I don't want to do this stuff because I want to get paid but it's okay for you to do it because I don't care whether you get paid or not." Either you think the work is worth doing or you don't, but it's a weak leadership style to say it's only worth doing if someone else is doing it. (That's different that strategically assigning duties to get the most out of the team.)
  - giantg2 4y ago
    "But I'm assuming this means hiring people without the same transactional mindset?" Our company tries to outsource the more boring/routine stuff to overseas contractors. The results vary.
brokenkebab2 4y ago
I don't think it's fair: it's absolutely possible to be motivated by the recognized fact that you provide for your family, and still have healthy friendly relations with colleagues, and be interested in a long-term success of your employer. It's also absolutely possible to create an ugly monster of organization while cheering up your team with whatever we-change-the-world mission.
- bumby 4y ago
  I agree with you that it's possible. It's just been my experience that the people who take that mindset tend to slack off once they realize they can get the same paycheck to provide for their family while also doing less work. If your internal utility function is to maximize money and minimize effort, that's going to occur more often than not. To buffer that, management needs to hold them accountable, but that's easier said than done, especially in large organizations.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    "It's just been my experience that the people who take that mindset tend to slack off once they realize they can get the same paycheck to provide for their family while also doing less work." I think it's mostly the people who realized the company has deceived them, either in the company values/mission or the "pay for performance" scheme being BS. There shouldn't be anything wrong with someone just doing their job for the salary. If their performance falls below what's expected (and clearly defined) for their level, then that's a problem. They shouldn't be penalized for not doing extra work when they aren't being rewarded. Employers need to have compensation models that make sense too. I was once told I could get a promotion if I consistently worked 1 hour longer everyday. That's a 13% increase in hours for a 7% pay raise, for a position with more responsibility and expectations. These managers are either idiots or predators - anyone with an MBA should understand that's a shitty value proposition. Either way, they lost my respect.
    - bumby 4y ago
      I think you hit on some very important points, but there's a couple issues. For one, not every singular duty can clearly defined. That's why many job descriptions will have a clause like "and other duties as assigned." Ultimately, we're hiring teammates in order to solve problems. I want to work with people who try to solve those problems irrespective if it adds to their personal identity or was meticulously defined in their job posting. If people are actively seeking out and solving problems, that's not the same as the transactional mindset I'm talking about. That mindset tends to actively avoid problems because they are work or "not their job". That's also not the same as framing the issue of "if you work X more, you'll get paid Y more". That time-transaction mindset leads to exactly what you alluded to. "If I spend 13% more time here, I should get 13% more pay." What that doesn't say is if those 13% more hours were spend solving previously unsolved issues for the organization.
giantg2 4y ago
"Create an organization of people with this mindset and much of the necessary but un-glorious work never gets done." I've done a lot of the work that nobody else wants to do. It wasn't any harder than the work others do. So it's not like I want to be rewarded more than them, but just not penalized for it. People who joined the company around the same time as me are managers and leads. I'm a midlevel. I've even filled the role of a lead for a year, but politics made it so my manager couldn't give me a high rating. After 10 years you'd think I'd at least be a senior and have a salary of $100k. I don't think I'm asking for the world here, and certainly many of the other 10 year employees are farther along because they're better than me.

by bumby 4y ago

BLKNSLVR 4y ago

> I think it might be a bad habit to view everything through the lens of a financial transaction Unless you want to get promoted into management... Hire new people to do the inglourious work.

bumby 4y ago
>Hire new people to do the inglourious work. But I'm assuming this means hiring people without the same transactional mindset? Otherwise, there will just be endless employee churn as they realize there's nothing in it for them. It's hard for me to get on-board with a management approach that effectively says, "I don't want to do this stuff because I want to get paid but it's okay for you to do it because I don't care whether you get paid or not." Either you think the work is worth doing or you don't, but it's a weak leadership style to say it's only worth doing if someone else is doing it. (That's different that strategically assigning duties to get the most out of the team.)
- giantg2 4y ago
  "But I'm assuming this means hiring people without the same transactional mindset?" Our company tries to outsource the more boring/routine stuff to overseas contractors. The results vary.

brokenkebab2 4y ago

I don't think it's fair: it's absolutely possible to be motivated by the recognized fact that you provide for your family, and still have healthy friendly relations with colleagues, and be interested in a long-term success of your employer. It's also absolutely possible to create an ugly monster of organization while cheering up your team with whatever we-change-the-world mission.

bumby 4y ago
I agree with you that it's possible. It's just been my experience that the people who take that mindset tend to slack off once they realize they can get the same paycheck to provide for their family while also doing less work. If your internal utility function is to maximize money and minimize effort, that's going to occur more often than not. To buffer that, management needs to hold them accountable, but that's easier said than done, especially in large organizations.
- giantg2 4y ago
  "It's just been my experience that the people who take that mindset tend to slack off once they realize they can get the same paycheck to provide for their family while also doing less work." I think it's mostly the people who realized the company has deceived them, either in the company values/mission or the "pay for performance" scheme being BS. There shouldn't be anything wrong with someone just doing their job for the salary. If their performance falls below what's expected (and clearly defined) for their level, then that's a problem. They shouldn't be penalized for not doing extra work when they aren't being rewarded. Employers need to have compensation models that make sense too. I was once told I could get a promotion if I consistently worked 1 hour longer everyday. That's a 13% increase in hours for a 7% pay raise, for a position with more responsibility and expectations. These managers are either idiots or predators - anyone with an MBA should understand that's a shitty value proposition. Either way, they lost my respect.
  - bumby 4y ago
    I think you hit on some very important points, but there's a couple issues. For one, not every singular duty can clearly defined. That's why many job descriptions will have a clause like "and other duties as assigned." Ultimately, we're hiring teammates in order to solve problems. I want to work with people who try to solve those problems irrespective if it adds to their personal identity or was meticulously defined in their job posting. If people are actively seeking out and solving problems, that's not the same as the transactional mindset I'm talking about. That mindset tends to actively avoid problems because they are work or "not their job". That's also not the same as framing the issue of "if you work X more, you'll get paid Y more". That time-transaction mindset leads to exactly what you alluded to. "If I spend 13% more time here, I should get 13% more pay." What that doesn't say is if those 13% more hours were spend solving previously unsolved issues for the organization.

giantg2 4y ago

"Create an organization of people with this mindset and much of the necessary but un-glorious work never gets done." I've done a lot of the work that nobody else wants to do. It wasn't any harder than the work others do. So it's not like I want to be rewarded more than them, but just not penalized for it. People who joined the company around the same time as me are managers and leads. I'm a midlevel. I've even filled the role of a lead for a year, but politics made it so my manager couldn't give me a high rating. After 10 years you'd think I'd at least be a senior and have a salary of $100k. I don't think I'm asking for the world here, and certainly many of the other 10 year employees are farther along because they're better than me.