3 ms·

> It feels like almost everyone in every position has this vague fog of do-nothing about them. This is in every part of society. Almost every post. I just find

by n_ary 3y ago

> It feels like almost everyone in every position has this vague fog of do-nothing about them. This is in every part of society. Almost every post. I just find it baffling. The amount of getting things done is very low. Working hard is no longer rewarded in current world anymore. Period. If you observe carefully, most ambitious people at work are the busiest of people, and everyone knows that, to get something done, work should be delegated or connected to them. Hardwork has the habit of raising expectations and when you want to stop to breath, people will be bummed. From my own experience of 10+ years of work in tech at least, the loud mouthed sloths who can play at office politics and rubs shoulders with management are highest paid and promoted and given raised more frequently than head-down-gets-things-done people. In fact, 100% of the time, the people I saw who got most done were least paid and were always piled on with most work. These folks are unfortunately honest and don't realize their value, so they are constantly exploited. After seeing this for over a decade, I don't see any value in doing anything more than mere minimum. Only reward you get taking your work seriously is more stress, less recognition and more negative feedback(because you do 10x and now you are expected to perform at that pace or all hell breaks lose). I think, most people who are not serious have also experienced this, so no wonder this is becoming prevalent. It is hard for me to see this change, unless rewards are correct. I mean, "back-in-days", my dad and grandpa used to talk about how they worked hard to go up the ladder quick, now, you work hard to signal that you are to be exploited more.

systemvoltage 3y ago
Isn't hard work sort of orthogonal to impact?
rcarr 3y ago
There's a theory, I think it's from the book Systemantics if I remember right but I might be wrong, that when a system reaches a given size it essentially splits into two - one half of the system dedicated to the original function of the system and the other half that exists solely to maintaining the systems existence, regardless of what it does, as well as their power over it. The second half of the theory is that the people in the second camp always have more power than the first. Engineers and people who actually want to get shit done tend to fall into the first camp and management and HR tend to fall into the latter. It goes someway to explaining why after a few decades, big companies can often end up in a field or selling a product completely different to the one they started out with. Edit: It might have been Ackoff's F-Laws and not Systemantics, I'm struggling to remember, hopefully someone else can chime in if it rings a bell.

by n_ary 3y ago

systemvoltage 3y ago

Isn't hard work sort of orthogonal to impact?

rcarr 3y ago

There's a theory, I think it's from the book Systemantics if I remember right but I might be wrong, that when a system reaches a given size it essentially splits into two - one half of the system dedicated to the original function of the system and the other half that exists solely to maintaining the systems existence, regardless of what it does, as well as their power over it. The second half of the theory is that the people in the second camp always have more power than the first. Engineers and people who actually want to get shit done tend to fall into the first camp and management and HR tend to fall into the latter. It goes someway to explaining why after a few decades, big companies can often end up in a field or selling a product completely different to the one they started out with. Edit: It might have been Ackoff's F-Laws and not Systemantics, I'm struggling to remember, hopefully someone else can chime in if it rings a bell.