3 ms·

> We value people who are loyal. We think about them in positive terms. They get awarded often. It's not just the negative side If the managers also award loya

by whack 4y ago

> We value people who are loyal. We think about them in positive terms. They get awarded often. It's not just the negative side If the managers also award loyal workers in various ways, it would hardly be exploitative. As a manager, if something absolutely needs to get done outside of normal work hours, of course I would lean towards asking the person most likely to say yes. And of course I would also give that person a larger end-of-year salary increase, bonus, or fast-tracked promotion to recognize their efforts and commitment. It seems odd for the study to focus purely on the additional work the loyal workers are doing, and ignore the various ways in which they would be rewarded for it.

klabb3 4y ago
Yeah, it’s obvious as a last resort for judging employees. If you know nothing about the work itself, all you can confidently assess is responsiveness and agreeableness. But beware of the incentives this can create. When managers reward looking busy and sacrificial rituals, you also end up with short-termism. A team can tread water for years, being constantly “rescued” by “heroes” when a fire starts. This may not be the best people to promote. Wanting to be helpful and being helpful are not the same things. In software and product development, the best performing teams, in my experience, are small. They have a well defined area of responsibility and a strong culture of ownership. It takes time and commitment to build that up, but when it’s in a good state, it runs on its own like a well maintained clockwork. Not only is this much more relaxing and fun to work with, it also performs so much better in the long run, and requires very little hands-on management.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
Doesn't seem so obvious to me. The story of the dedicated employee who's often overlooked despite their efforts is as old as humanity.
- swagasaurus-rex 4y ago
  The prodigal son

by whack 4y ago

klabb3 4y ago

Yeah, it’s obvious as a last resort for judging employees. If you know nothing about the work itself, all you can confidently assess is responsiveness and agreeableness. But beware of the incentives this can create. When managers reward looking busy and sacrificial rituals, you also end up with short-termism. A team can tread water for years, being constantly “rescued” by “heroes” when a fire starts. This may not be the best people to promote. Wanting to be helpful and being helpful are not the same things. In software and product development, the best performing teams, in my experience, are small. They have a well defined area of responsibility and a strong culture of ownership. It takes time and commitment to build that up, but when it’s in a good state, it runs on its own like a well maintained clockwork. Not only is this much more relaxing and fun to work with, it also performs so much better in the long run, and requires very little hands-on management.

matheusmoreira 4y ago

Doesn't seem so obvious to me. The story of the dedicated employee who's often overlooked despite their efforts is as old as humanity.

swagasaurus-rex 4y ago
The prodigal son