4 ms·

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 relat

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
      "If people are actively seeking out and solving problems, that's not the same as the transactional mindset I'm talking about." At least at my company, there's no differentiation. I do look for problems to solve. I have volunteered for extra roles and responsibilities that others didn't want. So why do the the people that are too smart to take on the role of application security champion for the team get promoted, while those security champions are passed over? It seems you're describing that engagement is better than transactional mindset. That's true from the employer's perspective. That's only true from the employee's perspective if the employer is rewarding that. The promotion I was talking about was brought up because I was already performing at the next level and was engaged- filling the lead role for the team the prior year and volunteering for additional projects. So yeah, the problems and work that I did would have gone undone or the team's work would be uncoordinated. 'That time-transaction mindset leads to exactly what you alluded to. "If I spend 13% more time here, I should get 13% more pay."' To be real, that's the company's mindset that they should require you to work an extra 13% for a 7% raise, a rate decrease. The defined expectations for that next level are demonstratably higher. Arguably those higher expectations should be matched with a higher rate not a lower one. This concept is critical to understand

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
    "If people are actively seeking out and solving problems, that's not the same as the transactional mindset I'm talking about." At least at my company, there's no differentiation. I do look for problems to solve. I have volunteered for extra roles and responsibilities that others didn't want. So why do the the people that are too smart to take on the role of application security champion for the team get promoted, while those security champions are passed over? It seems you're describing that engagement is better than transactional mindset. That's true from the employer's perspective. That's only true from the employee's perspective if the employer is rewarding that. The promotion I was talking about was brought up because I was already performing at the next level and was engaged- filling the lead role for the team the prior year and volunteering for additional projects. So yeah, the problems and work that I did would have gone undone or the team's work would be uncoordinated. 'That time-transaction mindset leads to exactly what you alluded to. "If I spend 13% more time here, I should get 13% more pay."' To be real, that's the company's mindset that they should require you to work an extra 13% for a 7% raise, a rate decrease. The defined expectations for that next level are demonstratably higher. Arguably those higher expectations should be matched with a higher rate not a lower one. This concept is critical to understand