3 ms·

Oh yes you are 4 times better than everyone else but treated just the same. Are you sure about that? Maybe some introspection needed? Also - the issue is not

• Draiken 3y ago
  >Oh yes you are 4 times better than everyone else but treated just the same. I never said that. It's clear you're not arguing in good faith so this will be my last reply. Not to mention that completely misses the point. Even if you have to work 1.5x more than everyone else to get promoted, only to get a 10% salary increase, that's already a bad bargain. >The person who wrote the article is making the ‘bad faith’ argument passing on cynical stupid delusions. Sorry but that's not an argument. You're saying it's wrong without saying why. If I were to guess you identified as a Clueless and you're angry at it. It's okay. It's normal. >This idea that most orgs promote willy nilly is ridiculously wrong. It’s a contradiction of reality. Yes, most orgs promote the people that double down on bad bargains. Of course, as with anything, there are exceptions. As an example, it's extremely common to promote people that do unpaid overtime. It doesn't matter the quality of that work or that it's clearly exploitative. What matters is that it signals to the company that you can take advantage of that person. They demonstrate willingness to take on more work, responsibilities and/or bad conditions for a small increase in pay (sometimes just a bit more power). That's the most profitable bargain the company can get so it absolutely makes logical sense. Maybe you've experienced exceptional companies where only the people that deserve get promoted and they do so without having to get exploited for it. But that's not always the case and I've seen that multiple times in my career.
  • jasmer 3y ago
    "Sorry but that's not an argument. You're saying it's wrong without saying why." No - it's not my job to disprove totally made up fantasy. The delusional author and his naive followers are the group perpetuating completely unsubstantiated theories about the workplace, which have zero scientific backing whatsoever. The author did not even attempt to 'prove' anything (because he can't) - there is zero worked required to undo that. Here is the source of the problem with your argument: You have not defended his thesis at all, rather you keep bringing up arguments about how 'companies can be bad actors' and 'people can be duped'. Yes - of course, we know that. What the author is doing is constructing a deluded, fantastical bit of structured that plays into your view that 'companies can do bad things'. Imagine you 'Trust Trump' so much that you are willing to believe his lie that the 'Election Was Stolen'. If you start from that premise, it's extremely easy for him to make up a set of ridiculous fantasies about how the gov. is broken, evil and 'out to get him'. As it turns out, the 'election steal' is a lie. By saying to someone 'But there are election irregularities! Look over here!' - only proves that they occur, which we know, but not at some scale and by some nefarious pattern of election stealing. So yes - welcome to adulthood - companies and orgs of all kinds sometimes do nefarious things, and there are 'deluded corporate warriors' who on some level don't recognize that. It's fun to point that out. However - the vast, vast majority of work and corporations are not that. In fact, orgs can do 'life saving' things at the same time they are 'bad'. Best example are drug companies who sometimes charge more than they could get away with, and FYI sometimes it's an inherent moral dilemma. The second point of emotional leverage that the author is using (i.e. not just against our derision of sneaky corps) - is the fact we live in a political workplace and most of do not like being told what to do. 'Effective Managers' are not necessarily liked, or respected, and that's just reality. A lot of people lack the maturity and self awareness / objectivity to evaluate their position. By far the most common thing among workers is a total lack of understanding of how hard managing is, and the nuances of it. Having been a manager of people myself, I have a completely different set of criteria by which I tend to evaluate managers. In short: the author is a conspiratorial nihilist populist. In reality, most systems are 'crudely meritocratic'. Usually, better people are promoted, but you first have to understand that 'better' in your mind may not be 'better' in the mind of the people making the decision. Yes, people at the top have a few more psychopathic character traits than the rest of the population, but that's actually just a function of the system. Usually, they are not idiots. Finally - there is no such thing as a 'great team' as a matter of perception, but if you step back and see how things actually work, and that if the company 'did not exist' how it would be bad for a lot of people, then you recognize the funny, imperfect way in which social systems work and respect that they are never going to 'seem' perfect. People who 'believe' in the ridiculous 'principles' (completely unscientific and unsubstantiated) put forth by the author, have been duped, unfortunately.