3 ms·

“Growth” at the individual level has become a euphemism It really means extrinsic motivation. It means being willing to play the game to hit whatever milestone

“Growth” at the individual level has become a euphemism It really means extrinsic motivation. It means being willing to play the game to hit whatever milestones are laid out for you. To push yourself for those milestones to reach a reward. Not because those goals are intrinsically rewarding - but because you want to demonstrate what you need for promotion or raise. If the goals were intrinsically rewarding, we would need to internalize them and fully believe in them. And I don’t think that’s possible - or not even desirable - for many jobs. Because after all 90% of goals are given to you, not co-created with you. Even when managers feel like there’s co-creation happening they don’t see how heavily they mold that process, how the power dynamic leads to the employee trying to guess what the manager actually wants, then adjust their goals to please the manager for the next career milestone. See Googles graveyard of failed products - all to hit the next promotion - abandoned when people check that box, lose interest, and move on. Google thinks it’s a sign of growth mindset. In reality it’s a case of employees seeing a behavior-“shipping new products”- being rewarded.

xyzelement 4y ago
In my experience, the "goals" you hit are really capabilities. Can you design bigger systems? Can you lead bigger teams? Can you define winning strategy? Those aren't artificial milestones, they are real things (eg, you'd need them if you ran your own company) and growing from someone who "can't" to someone who "can" is exhilarating.
- scottLobster 4y ago
  Maybe in an ideal world, but in my experience most corporate "goals" are just "influential" people playing political games with minimal if any real-world productivity attached. They might as well be playing Monopoly but with real money. None of them ever get fired even in abject, catestrophic failure. The only "capability" for them to cultivate is convincing enough other influential people to give them resources through various political means so that they have the biggest chair when the music stops or they retire. It's largely up the ICs to produce the "real things" as best they can given circumstances foisted upon them. Maybe at some companies "designing bigger systems", "leading bigger teams" and "defining winning strategy" is correlated with said resource extraction, but that's all. The moment those capabilities aren't in sync with resource extraction, they become worthless. The ideal company abuses its workers and robs its customers, and will get as close to that ideal as it's allowed. It's only force of popular will that keeps that in check, and the rare decent person who makes it into leadership.
  - classified 4y ago
    As much as I hate to hear it, what you describe is all too common.
- nitwit005 4y ago
  Those aren't goals. They're just describing giving someone more responsibility. It'd be nice if managers could determine who can handle more responsibility, but it's basically a crapshoot.
- greenyoda 4y ago
  > Can you design bigger systems? Bigger systems don't necessarily meet customer needs better than smaller systems. They may just contain a lot of extraneous complexity. > Can you lead bigger teams? Bigger teams don't necessarily accomplish more than small, focused teams. The more people on the team, the higher the communication overhead, and the harder it is to maintain "conceptual integrity" in the product. Brooks described these issues in The Mythical Man-Month: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month If employees get rewarded for building bigger systems and leading bigger teams, they'll have a bias toward doing those things ("empire building"), even when they may be against the better interest of the company and its customers.
gtop3 4y ago
"Growth" isn't a euphemism for extrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation is a broader term than the way you are using it. A person can be extrinsically motivated to not smoke, to be charitable, or countless other behaviors that would generally be spoken about in a more positive connotation than my parent comment's tone. Some psychology books, and some individuals, put a moral spin on their favorite type of motivation (intrinsic and extrinsic). The truth is both can lead to healthy and unhealthy behavior.

xyzelement 4y ago

In my experience, the "goals" you hit are really capabilities. Can you design bigger systems? Can you lead bigger teams? Can you define winning strategy? Those aren't artificial milestones, they are real things (eg, you'd need them if you ran your own company) and growing from someone who "can't" to someone who "can" is exhilarating.

scottLobster 4y ago
Maybe in an ideal world, but in my experience most corporate "goals" are just "influential" people playing political games with minimal if any real-world productivity attached. They might as well be playing Monopoly but with real money. None of them ever get fired even in abject, catestrophic failure. The only "capability" for them to cultivate is convincing enough other influential people to give them resources through various political means so that they have the biggest chair when the music stops or they retire. It's largely up the ICs to produce the "real things" as best they can given circumstances foisted upon them. Maybe at some companies "designing bigger systems", "leading bigger teams" and "defining winning strategy" is correlated with said resource extraction, but that's all. The moment those capabilities aren't in sync with resource extraction, they become worthless. The ideal company abuses its workers and robs its customers, and will get as close to that ideal as it's allowed. It's only force of popular will that keeps that in check, and the rare decent person who makes it into leadership.
- classified 4y ago
  As much as I hate to hear it, what you describe is all too common.
nitwit005 4y ago
Those aren't goals. They're just describing giving someone more responsibility. It'd be nice if managers could determine who can handle more responsibility, but it's basically a crapshoot.
greenyoda 4y ago
> Can you design bigger systems? Bigger systems don't necessarily meet customer needs better than smaller systems. They may just contain a lot of extraneous complexity. > Can you lead bigger teams? Bigger teams don't necessarily accomplish more than small, focused teams. The more people on the team, the higher the communication overhead, and the harder it is to maintain "conceptual integrity" in the product. Brooks described these issues in The Mythical Man-Month: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month If employees get rewarded for building bigger systems and leading bigger teams, they'll have a bias toward doing those things ("empire building"), even when they may be against the better interest of the company and its customers.

gtop3 4y ago

"Growth" isn't a euphemism for extrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation is a broader term than the way you are using it. A person can be extrinsically motivated to not smoke, to be charitable, or countless other behaviors that would generally be spoken about in a more positive connotation than my parent comment's tone. Some psychology books, and some individuals, put a moral spin on their favorite type of motivation (intrinsic and extrinsic). The truth is both can lead to healthy and unhealthy behavior.