3 ms·

Yes, definitely, for professionals anyone needing to ask the question might consider some introspection.

by jasmer 3y ago

ProjectArcturis 3y ago
It seems from your answer that you have a self-image as a "professional" and that motivates you to work hard even though it may have minimal impact on your compensation. Have you considered the economic rationality of that stance?
- jasmer 3y ago
  'Nothing good' happens by 'self-oriented individuals doing the least', in fact I would go further and say 'almost nothing' happens at all. If you've ever been on a 'decent team' you'll see that there are many 'in between' elements of an operating situation that have to be accommodated, and it takes a bit of extra focus and goodwill by everyone if it's going to work out. This applies not only to tight-knit groups, but large teams, and also to contractors, and can be extended to the system overall, aka companies working with each other, individuals, public servants etc. We generally have to keep our chins up, and 'try to do our jobs as we can' not the 'minimum we can get away with', knowing full well that it's not going to work out all the time, that some situations are better than others, and that there will be a lot of variables for which your 'expected bonus of 4%' or whatever is only one small part. This doesn't mean we 'die on a hill for someone else's cause' or work ourselves in a grind for no reason, nor does it mean accepting negative behaviour on the part of employers, and definitely 'some days are better than others' - but 'life is long' and 'consistency over time' does matter. It doesn't even mean fake emotional posture (you know those people who are always in a good mood!), but rather just 'doing it'. In most corporate situations, the bar for 'minimum' is actually fairly low and so pragmatically, if we want to be 'trusted' as individuals, there has to be a general expectation that we will do 'it' not the 'minimum' or it just won't work. Obviously, things will be uneven in so many ways - some people's 'minimum' will be better than other's 'best effort', but that's life - that's all part of it. It's an issue of productivity, but arguably, morality as well. It's actually a bit troubling that people would even need to ask the question, I hope this level of selfish orientation is a niche mentality and not some kind of new, secular social trend. It's also hard to even grasp that people could be so cynical - I feel sorry for people in that posture, because either they've literally never 'been on a team' and have no internalization of those dynamics, or a are just depressed or have a negative life outlook. I'm not very athletic myself, but over the years I've gravitated towards people who do play sports, especially team sports, as having more of an innate sense for those things. Even 'toxic' people are more often than not just misfits, at least they are interesting. It's a sad kind of organizational problem as well - the people who are overtly bad or toxic are easy to let go of, but the pernicious malignancy of 'do the least' is worse. 'Doing the thing' it usually doesn't cost any more material time, just focus. If you're going to do it, then do it.
  - sirwhinesalot 3y ago
    It is not immoral to not give 120% to an amoral organization that 1) will only reward the extra work with more work and 2) considers you a replaceable cog. It is a business transaction. You should treat it as such. The company is not your family and your colleagues are not your brothers. You are one mass layoff away from learning that. And no, your "extra productivity" won't save you from it, but bootlicking just might. It's not about how hard you work, but how your work is perceived. You're far more likely to go up in the ladder from becoming buddies with your manager than you are by being the guy that gets his hands dirty and fixes everything when the project catches fire. It is to the company's detriment to promote such a person.
  - m_rpn 3y ago
    I think that actually the one that might have a wrong perception of what "being a professional" means might actually be you, no offense intended, i'll explain my point: First a couple questions: when you go to you grocer and order and pay 5 apples, do you get exactly 5 apples or do you get 6, or even 7? When you call a professional plumber to fix your sink do they charge you less at the end of the work, or do they charge exactly what their job entailed(or even more)? Being a professional means exchanging skills and time for money, then why is it that we have developed a company culture in which if you "just" do your job you are seen as a slacker and a terrible employee/person? This is complete nonsense obviously, and this also one of the tricks that the elites are using since time immemorial to get exponentially richer by exploiting the workers, everyday we are giving away our time and money to enrich the someone else, but at least there needs to be some fairness, it maybe was there in the 1990s but clearly not anymore. Not every situation is the same, but company dynamics are widely studied and understood by many now, and i suppose we can all agree that getting a 2% raise after pouring many hours of good work everyday is just a complete joke. Please stop defending practices that just favour the rich and powerful and start taking pride in our value as persons, as opposed to the value that HR attributes us.
    - jasmer 3y ago
      Thanks for bringing up the plumber, because it's something we think of as 'transactional' but in reality it is not. Plumbing is artisinal, Carpentry, even more so. There are no two situations the same, and it'd be easy to a builder, carpenter, plumber, electrician to 'cheat' (aka the minimum) and do less than a great job - and - get away with it. In fact, I have family members who are Carpenters, and this is probably where I get this from because it's more tangible. 'Crap work' is either a function of 'lack of skill' (quite common), but otherwise just poor professionalism and it's bad. If you want to see the true character of an electrician, look behind the drywall to see the quality of the work. By the way - there are some carpenters/plubmers/builders who take it way to far on the quality side and build something that could withstand a nuclear war which is not necessary - but this is something else. The community only works if people are doing 'good work' - not 'the minimum'. And by the way, sometimes these things are enforced with regulations, but even just conventions, ethos, professional standards. You can see this if you visit a 'not rich nation', like Mexico. Go to that country and look at the construction - you will see not 'a cut corner' - but a 'million little things' that contribute to the building being shit. Or go look at those 'China Housing' videos on YouTube. You can see here that there is a 'broader picture' - one that transcends even the mores of a singular project or company. Let's use the notion of a sports team: You, as 'guard' are not in a 'transactional relationship' with the 'centre' of the team - it's a 'team effort', which is what is meant by 'trust' and 'got your back', expectations of 'goodwill'. In the military, you're 100% sure that the Medic will do everything possible to save your life, without that trust it would fall apart. Corporate organizations are obviously not the same, but very similar. People are there to work as a team to do something, 'profit' to shareholders are just one of the factors involved, the other forces are value to supplies, customers and other team members. As a side note consider that most of the value created by corporations does not even go to shareholders - it goes to customers, suppliers and staff. (If a drug company stopped making a drug, the 'harm' would be felt far more buy customers than investors, similarly for most company formations, private or ngo) Finally, the 2%. Yes, 'comp' is a part of the equation, obviously, if someone is not getting paid what they want or expect, that's not good - of course a company cannot pay $5/hour for something that would normally cost $50/hr - but - those are the terms of work, not the terms of 'how well we work' (for the most part). A raise of 2% is just 'comp'. That's not 'evil' or even 'bad' - it's just how the comp structure works. And for reference your notion that '2% is not enough' in some objective way, is not true at all. It's definitely less than inflation, but the sad reality is it's entirely possible the workforce is overpaid right now. Much like the French Pres. having to raise retirement from 62 to 64 and people putting up a fuss, unwilling to accept that reality, the 'inflation' reality is 1) we print money during COVID to keep the patient alive and 2) there are still supply chain problems 3) 'de-globalization' is happening and 4) we're heading into higher interest rates and 5) for many years there was very low inflation, but wages rose a lot. That means we're going to contract a bit relative to where we were, and it's going to happen throughout the system. To be clear, that's only a factor driving 'only 2%' there are obviously others, and to add a final bit of nuance, the FED actually does target 2% inflation - that is their goal on average, which is probably where the 2% standard wage increase comes from. So again 'my pay' is just part of comp, one part of the much bigger picture. Inn the end, if it's not working out well, then you can move on - that's to be expected and that's what keeps prices working well, churn is normal and healthy - but none of that means you 'do the minimum' where you are, or where you go in the future.

Yes, definitely, for professionals anyone needing to ask the question might consider some introspection.

by jasmer 3y ago

Yes, definitely, for professionals anyone needing to ask the question might consider some introspection.

It seems from your answer that you have a self-image as a "professional" and that motivates you to work hard even though it may have minimal impact on your compensation. Have you considered the economic rationality of that stance?

jasmer 3y ago
'Nothing good' happens by 'self-oriented individuals doing the least', in fact I would go further and say 'almost nothing' happens at all. If you've ever been on a 'decent team' you'll see that there are many 'in between' elements of an operating situation that have to be accommodated, and it takes a bit of extra focus and goodwill by everyone if it's going to work out. This applies not only to tight-knit groups, but large teams, and also to contractors, and can be extended to the system overall, aka companies working with each other, individuals, public servants etc. We generally have to keep our chins up, and 'try to do our jobs as we can' not the 'minimum we can get away with', knowing full well that it's not going to work out all the time, that some situations are better than others, and that there will be a lot of variables for which your 'expected bonus of 4%' or whatever is only one small part. This doesn't mean we 'die on a hill for someone else's cause' or work ourselves in a grind for no reason, nor does it mean accepting negative behaviour on the part of employers, and definitely 'some days are better than others' - but 'life is long' and 'consistency over time' does matter. It doesn't even mean fake emotional posture (you know those people who are always in a good mood!), but rather just 'doing it'. In most corporate situations, the bar for 'minimum' is actually fairly low and so pragmatically, if we want to be 'trusted' as individuals, there has to be a general expectation that we will do 'it' not the 'minimum' or it just won't work. Obviously, things will be uneven in so many ways - some people's 'minimum' will be better than other's 'best effort', but that's life - that's all part of it. It's an issue of productivity, but arguably, morality as well. It's actually a bit troubling that people would even need to ask the question, I hope this level of selfish orientation is a niche mentality and not some kind of new, secular social trend. It's also hard to even grasp that people could be so cynical - I feel sorry for people in that posture, because either they've literally never 'been on a team' and have no internalization of those dynamics, or a are just depressed or have a negative life outlook. I'm not very athletic myself, but over the years I've gravitated towards people who do play sports, especially team sports, as having more of an innate sense for those things. Even 'toxic' people are more often than not just misfits, at least they are interesting. It's a sad kind of organizational problem as well - the people who are overtly bad or toxic are easy to let go of, but the pernicious malignancy of 'do the least' is worse. 'Doing the thing' it usually doesn't cost any more material time, just focus. If you're going to do it, then do it.
- sirwhinesalot 3y ago
  It is not immoral to not give 120% to an amoral organization that 1) will only reward the extra work with more work and 2) considers you a replaceable cog. It is a business transaction. You should treat it as such. The company is not your family and your colleagues are not your brothers. You are one mass layoff away from learning that. And no, your "extra productivity" won't save you from it, but bootlicking just might. It's not about how hard you work, but how your work is perceived. You're far more likely to go up in the ladder from becoming buddies with your manager than you are by being the guy that gets his hands dirty and fixes everything when the project catches fire. It is to the company's detriment to promote such a person.
- m_rpn 3y ago
  I think that actually the one that might have a wrong perception of what "being a professional" means might actually be you, no offense intended, i'll explain my point: First a couple questions: when you go to you grocer and order and pay 5 apples, do you get exactly 5 apples or do you get 6, or even 7? When you call a professional plumber to fix your sink do they charge you less at the end of the work, or do they charge exactly what their job entailed(or even more)? Being a professional means exchanging skills and time for money, then why is it that we have developed a company culture in which if you "just" do your job you are seen as a slacker and a terrible employee/person? This is complete nonsense obviously, and this also one of the tricks that the elites are using since time immemorial to get exponentially richer by exploiting the workers, everyday we are giving away our time and money to enrich the someone else, but at least there needs to be some fairness, it maybe was there in the 1990s but clearly not anymore. Not every situation is the same, but company dynamics are widely studied and understood by many now, and i suppose we can all agree that getting a 2% raise after pouring many hours of good work everyday is just a complete joke. Please stop defending practices that just favour the rich and powerful and start taking pride in our value as persons, as opposed to the value that HR attributes us.
  - jasmer 3y ago
    Thanks for bringing up the plumber, because it's something we think of as 'transactional' but in reality it is not. Plumbing is artisinal, Carpentry, even more so. There are no two situations the same, and it'd be easy to a builder, carpenter, plumber, electrician to 'cheat' (aka the minimum) and do less than a great job - and - get away with it. In fact, I have family members who are Carpenters, and this is probably where I get this from because it's more tangible. 'Crap work' is either a function of 'lack of skill' (quite common), but otherwise just poor professionalism and it's bad. If you want to see the true character of an electrician, look behind the drywall to see the quality of the work. By the way - there are some carpenters/plubmers/builders who take it way to far on the quality side and build something that could withstand a nuclear war which is not necessary - but this is something else. The community only works if people are doing 'good work' - not 'the minimum'. And by the way, sometimes these things are enforced with regulations, but even just conventions, ethos, professional standards. You can see this if you visit a 'not rich nation', like Mexico. Go to that country and look at the construction - you will see not 'a cut corner' - but a 'million little things' that contribute to the building being shit. Or go look at those 'China Housing' videos on YouTube. You can see here that there is a 'broader picture' - one that transcends even the mores of a singular project or company. Let's use the notion of a sports team: You, as 'guard' are not in a 'transactional relationship' with the 'centre' of the team - it's a 'team effort', which is what is meant by 'trust' and 'got your back', expectations of 'goodwill'. In the military, you're 100% sure that the Medic will do everything possible to save your life, without that trust it would fall apart. Corporate organizations are obviously not the same, but very similar. People are there to work as a team to do something, 'profit' to shareholders are just one of the factors involved, the other forces are value to supplies, customers and other team members. As a side note consider that most of the value created by corporations does not even go to shareholders - it goes to customers, suppliers and staff. (If a drug company stopped making a drug, the 'harm' would be felt far more buy customers than investors, similarly for most company formations, private or ngo) Finally, the 2%. Yes, 'comp' is a part of the equation, obviously, if someone is not getting paid what they want or expect, that's not good - of course a company cannot pay $5/hour for something that would normally cost $50/hr - but - those are the terms of work, not the terms of 'how well we work' (for the most part). A raise of 2% is just 'comp'. That's not 'evil' or even 'bad' - it's just how the comp structure works. And for reference your notion that '2% is not enough' in some objective way, is not true at all. It's definitely less than inflation, but the sad reality is it's entirely possible the workforce is overpaid right now. Much like the French Pres. having to raise retirement from 62 to 64 and people putting up a fuss, unwilling to accept that reality, the 'inflation' reality is 1) we print money during COVID to keep the patient alive and 2) there are still supply chain problems 3) 'de-globalization' is happening and 4) we're heading into higher interest rates and 5) for many years there was very low inflation, but wages rose a lot. That means we're going to contract a bit relative to where we were, and it's going to happen throughout the system. To be clear, that's only a factor driving 'only 2%' there are obviously others, and to add a final bit of nuance, the FED actually does target 2% inflation - that is their goal on average, which is probably where the 2% standard wage increase comes from. So again 'my pay' is just part of comp, one part of the much bigger picture. Inn the end, if it's not working out well, then you can move on - that's to be expected and that's what keeps prices working well, churn is normal and healthy - but none of that means you 'do the minimum' where you are, or where you go in the future.