6 ms·

Is there really anything wrong with the fact that some people don't care to achieve anything more than what's required of them at their job? I think it's unfort

• 2chen 11y ago
  There's nothing inherently wrong with that kind of person. The problem arises when you mix the two types of people in a demanding environment where more than the status quo is expected (e.g., at a startup). If you want to coast, stick to defense.
  • ivanhoe 11y ago
    The problem arises when managers have unrealistic expectations. If you hire someone to do 9-5 job and you expect them to do more than that, it's your fault if that fails, not theirs. Different people have different priorities in life, some will be ready to work more to finish more tasks, others will be ready to work just 8h but will be more productive in that timeframe. Or will produce better quality of code during that time or solve harder problems. Not all tasks are the same, nor all programmers produce equal quality of code, so the number of closed tickets in a unit of time is not a very good metric and definitely shouldn't be the only one that matters for an IT company.
    • grrowl 11y ago
      > If you hire someone to do 9-5 job and you expect them to do more than that, it's your fault if that fails, not theirs. I think the biggest teller of an unmotivated person is a generally negative, problem-focussed attitude. No matter the hour of the day, "We can't do x, because..." will destroy nearby "We can do this, if...." people, eventually.
  • Retric 11y ago
    Startups can operate just fine with 9-5 workers. The real limit is startups are generally spinning there wheels on unimportant crap.
  • kenko 11y ago
    The idea that working 9-5 is ipso facto "coasting" is absurd. If you actually need people to work long hours, then ... you aren't doing it right.
• tensor 11y ago
  It feels a bit selfish to do the minimum you can at a job because you too afraid to actually try for something you enjoy. Of course, if what you enjoy is doing nothing, then I guess I don't have much sympathy. But if you are passionate about making a change in the world, or even just doing an amazing job at one small thing you love, then you are in the right place. Be in the right place. Don't treat others and yourself poorly by being in a job you hate.
  • rifung 11y ago
    Who was asking for your sympathy?
  • aaronbrethorst 11y ago
    It feels a bit selfish to do the minimum you can at a job because you too afraid to actually try for something you enjoy. Maybe I have other things outside of work that are far more important to me than trying to ensure that the company that I'll have a 0.025% equity stake in in four years becomes the next unicorn. Honestly: why should I care about my founder/CEO becoming a multi-millionaire? What's in it for me?
    • tdkl 11y ago
      Job/income stability ?
      • yummybear 11y ago
        What makes you think your CEO's income is a guarantee for job security?
      • UK-AL 11y ago
        There are a lot better ways of ensuring that that than working yourself silly. Ensuring you have significant savings, skills, connections, being prepared to switch jobs, and being good at negotiations will result in far better results. All of which require time outside of work. Theres nothing wrong fullfilling your agreed work hours, with a reasonable expected work amout and spending time with family.
• realrocker 11y ago
  True there are many who take a job to survive. But I think you are confusing "passion" with motivation. A motivated team member would not sit back while her teammates are passionate about the work.
  • quanticle 11y ago
    Isn't that just a recipe for self-exploitation? I'm motivated to do my work. But if you discover "passion" and start putting in 80 hours a week, don't expect me to run myself into the ground alongside you.
    • realrocker 11y ago
      I guess it's about doing the best you can within your comfortable time frame. For e.g last week, a colleague of mine was trying to execute a statically compiled program like an executable i.e. ./myprogram.go and then raised hell over how bad Go is and we should rewrite everything in Python. That's the kind of attitude I am talking about.
• bsbechtel 11y ago
  >>Is there really anything wrong with the fact that some people don't care to achieve anything more than what's required of them at their job? If you are trying to build a company of any scale at all, yes, everything, if these are the people you hire. For those individuals, there is nothing wrong with this attitude towards work, but over the long run it will most definitely affect their job security and lifetime earnings. If that's the price they are willing to pay, then that's perfectly fine.
  • chii 11y ago
    > If you are trying to build a company of any scale at all, yes, everything, if these are the people you hire i take offense at this sort of attitude, because it implies that the employees are beholden to make _you/the boss_ successful. I imagine that they aren't doing more than what's required because that's what they are paid. I imagine they don't get shares of the company, nor reap the profit if it was successful (and also don't take the risk when it's not). If a boss tries to make me do more work, but don't offer the equivalent in rewards (which, in my eyes, must be some form of equity and/or profit sharing scheme), then either i won't do it, or will just get by. Unless the company is truly doing something i believe in, or i have something personal, it's not worth it.
    • redblacktree 11y ago
      > [employees] also don't take the risk when it's not [successful] This line, which always seems to come from founders, is to my mind pure and utter bullshit. Taking a job with a company that may fail soon is absolutely a big risk, particularly if it's paying below market. Even more so if this person is "passionate" and spends every waking moment thinking about that company's problems, as so many founders love to encourage employees to do. I fail to see how this is any less risky than spending someone else's money (investors) to pursue the creation of a new company. The fact that employees don't share in that reward is just a matter of who was able to get their names on the paperwork, and it has nothing to do with who takes on more risk.
      • bsbechtel 11y ago
• pcurve 11y ago
  "Is there really anything wrong with the fact that some people don't care to achieve anything more than what's required of them at their job?" It's not an issue as long as your top-tier performance is recognized and rewarded on consistent and equitable basis. However, we don't live in such perfect world. In a world of stack-ranking and office politics, you will never get top marks year after year, and get compensation that is inline with your contribution. Slowly, it becomes a mentally toxic environment for high achievers, which is a real shame because I think it's possible for them to co-exist happily. Chances are though, management itself is also complacent if you have department full of 9/5 ers.
• tootie 11y ago
  When you're managing a team, contributors can be in one of three positions: 1) they require constant monitoring and adjustment to stay on task, 2) they stay on task as long you keep handing them a task, 3) they understand what is needed for the project to succeed and take initiative beyond their own tasks. The first needs time from me, the second doesn't, the third saves me time. Being a 2 is fine, but don't expect promotions or recognition.
  • jansenvt 11y ago
    VERY well said
  • nlawalker 11y ago
    I like the way this is worded because it's fair and it captures the idea of good contributors actually adding value and not just "giving 110%," working extra hours or generally "wearing more than the minimum flair." [1] That said, this is simple and eloquent, but in practice it's not always this straightforward. The question is, can the 3's expect fair and consistent promotions and recognition, and do they feel that you understand what is needed for the project to succeed? Your superstar 3 may be a single "we know you've done great work here but we just can't get you on that project/we don't have the budget for a promotion/there's no one else available to do this maintenance work right now" from becoming a middling 2 or a no-longer-works-here, and those situations may not always be in your control. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJtrLKGZZFg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJtrLKGZZFg
• ytpete 11y ago
  Personally, I didn't take "motivated" in the original article to mean just how many hours are worked. One person can spend an 8 hour workday taking the initiative - spotting gaps and proactively jumping in to pick up the slack, learning new concepts when needed, suggesting new product ideas, etc. Another person can spend the same 8 hours passively doing only what was assigned to them and passing the buck whenever possible. I worked on a team at one point where someone sat on a high-priority bug for a couple weeks without saying anything. Someone finally asked if he was making any progress, and his response was just: "Well someone else wrote that code, so..." He hadn't even tried to look at it. His response after that conversation was to start emailing other people asking if they could fix it, instead of trying to learn that part of the code base. You can spend hours doing that sort of thing, but it's not time well spent.
• PopeOfNope 11y ago
  This. There's also the assumption being made that unmotivated people are just lazy or don't care about their jobs. What if they were people who used to be motivated, but burned out?