> and most managers fail to punish at least some of these slow learners of theirs
False, they punish by not crediting that work as work.
Glue work, keeping things tidy, dealing with that annoyance that everyone else has been able to get away with suffering through (and ignoring), all of this will be worth approximately 0 at performance review time because your time is a zerosum game that is traded off with highly visible, political, and otherwise rewardable work.
It's been my experience that in larger companies you generally have to play in the framework.(I'd roughly draw the line at 1000+ employees), at quite small companies (or as a self employed / entrepreneur, roughly <200 employees) you should follow the path of highest EROI on your efforts regardless of who's job it is. In the gap you have to read the culture and management.
Presumably your official duty is not to make sure that the company does not fail, but something more circumscribed. Work on your responsibilities, and if your manager is nagging you to fix something that isn't that, have him make it official so you get recognized for it. If it should not be your job, push back.
If the entire company of thousands of employees stand or fall depending on your work alone, then you can find something which pays double your salary in less than a day. And thus pay your mortgage.
It can take years for the damn thing to fail even after the key support stops entirely. In that time you and your colleagues will suffer, and the people responsible will jump ship long before the full impact has been felt, learning nothing from the experience and likely blaming it on the person they leave holding the bag. You can try to get a job elsewhere but things which aren't appreciated at one company often times aren't appreciated at most. Doing a good job is often in your personal best interest regardless of what an out of touch middle manager thinks is more important.
This is only a viable strategy if you are under resourced. There’s a whole art to managing upward by crisis.
Successful communication strategy: There is too much work for the department. If we don’t scale up we’re going to have some kind of incident or failed delivery in the next few months. <explain expected failures, provide numbers>. I’m doing everything I can to keep this from happening, but there simply are not enough resources. I’ll email you a summary of all of this.
Then proceed to work a normal number of hours until a genuine incident occurs. Refer back to the earlier conversation (and email summary). Receive resources if the problem actually impacts the company. It may have just been acceptable risk for management.
Key mistake I see: Don’t work 80 hours a week to be a hero unless you have a specific strategic goal in mind. You’re actually hurting the company by hiding a resource allocation issue.
Worse, competent managers won’t promote you for persistent Herculean efforts. For a couple reasons. First, they would need to replace you with two people. Second, you are not exactly showing that you understand how to solve a problem with teamwork if you’re solving every problem by working unsustainable hours.
I agree that heroic effort can hide a resource allocation issue, but often the goals of those controlling resource allocation are not well aligned with the hero's goals. By no longer buying supplies for a student, a teacher is not going to get the school system to provide free supplies.
In terms of work in the job description, I could probably be replaced by 1.2 (1.1?) average competent workers. In terms of other benefits of my employment to coworkers and patrons, my impact is hard to estimate. Others bring in goodies for snacking, but I maintain a consistent but limited selection of snacks; others may spend as much or more money per year on snacks, but knowing that certain snacks will be available has significant value.
While I would have liked being promoted one level (from library page to library aide, from shelving only to shelving and check-in), higher positions have responsibilities I would have found extremely stressful. I was passed over twice for a promotion supported by my immediate supervisor (the decision was made by higher ups, the second time my supervisor was miffed that his input was not given more weight) and I had a meltdown at the interview for a third chance when technical issues (not working audio in an online interview) forced cancellation of the interview. I took my reaction as evidence that I was not ready for more responsibilities.
The first time I was not promoted, I was not especially bothered; the person getting the job was competent and went beyond minimal effort. The second time I was told that I would probably get the job (which I think was part of why my supervisor was not happy about my not even getting an interview) and the person getting the job seemed (after some observation) to be less competent and less enthusiatic than the previous transfer. (I think this estimate was not derived entirely from my disappointment: my first impression was "this is a library person" (glasses et al.). Perhaps seeing a library person not seeming enthusiastic about working at a library may have soured me more than if I had no hints of a kindred spirit.)
I like helping my coworkers (I like most of them and dislike none), but shelving books is not that team-oriented. I do not want to manage people (I am not good at it and do not enjoy it).
My advice likely does not universally apply outside of a reasonably well managed business with a P&L statement at the back of management’s minds.
Y’all have to answer to boards of various kinds with completely unreasonable expectations. (I have good friends who work in a library. We live in completely different worlds, you and I.)
I suspect a programmer working for a well managed business might be willing to work unpaid overtime to tidy up code from professional pride. Personal feelings do not generate monetary profit (at least not directly) but have value to workers; the worker's and the management's values are not completely aligned.
This seems to be a wisdom issue both for the worker (e.g., avoiding burnout or even just resentment) and the management (workers who have external principles can be more valuable but they can also be more difficult to manage even decently, i.e., with average ROI)
Your comment reminded me of Bunny the accountant's statement that Skeeve must charge the going rate to have the kingdom on a rational budget and Skeeve deciding to refund taxes to those who complained the most (in one of Robert Asprin's Myth Inc. books). What could possibly go wrong? :-)
maerF0x0 · · focus · HN ↗
False, they punish by not crediting that work as work.
Glue work, keeping things tidy, dealing with that annoyance that everyone else has been able to get away with suffering through (and ignoring), all of this will be worth approximately 0 at performance review time because your time is a zerosum game that is traded off with highly visible, political, and otherwise rewardable work.
It's been my experience that in larger companies you generally have to play in the framework.(I'd roughly draw the line at 1000+ employees), at quite small companies (or as a self employed / entrepreneur, roughly <200 employees) you should follow the path of highest EROI on your efforts regardless of who's job it is. In the gap you have to read the culture and management.
esafak · · focus · HN ↗
ozim · · focus · HN ↗
esafak · · focus · HN ↗
carlosjobim · · focus · HN ↗
maerF0x0 · · focus · HN ↗
Fully agree, enterprise failure is one of the most important mechanisms in market economies.
This also applies to gov't bailouts
jjk166 · · focus · HN ↗
iforgotmypasswo · · focus · HN ↗
Successful communication strategy: There is too much work for the department. If we don’t scale up we’re going to have some kind of incident or failed delivery in the next few months. <explain expected failures, provide numbers>. I’m doing everything I can to keep this from happening, but there simply are not enough resources. I’ll email you a summary of all of this.
Then proceed to work a normal number of hours until a genuine incident occurs. Refer back to the earlier conversation (and email summary). Receive resources if the problem actually impacts the company. It may have just been acceptable risk for management.
Key mistake I see: Don’t work 80 hours a week to be a hero unless you have a specific strategic goal in mind. You’re actually hurting the company by hiding a resource allocation issue.
Worse, competent managers won’t promote you for persistent Herculean efforts. For a couple reasons. First, they would need to replace you with two people. Second, you are not exactly showing that you understand how to solve a problem with teamwork if you’re solving every problem by working unsustainable hours.
Paul_Clayton · · focus · HN ↗
In terms of work in the job description, I could probably be replaced by 1.2 (1.1?) average competent workers. In terms of other benefits of my employment to coworkers and patrons, my impact is hard to estimate. Others bring in goodies for snacking, but I maintain a consistent but limited selection of snacks; others may spend as much or more money per year on snacks, but knowing that certain snacks will be available has significant value.
While I would have liked being promoted one level (from library page to library aide, from shelving only to shelving and check-in), higher positions have responsibilities I would have found extremely stressful. I was passed over twice for a promotion supported by my immediate supervisor (the decision was made by higher ups, the second time my supervisor was miffed that his input was not given more weight) and I had a meltdown at the interview for a third chance when technical issues (not working audio in an online interview) forced cancellation of the interview. I took my reaction as evidence that I was not ready for more responsibilities.
The first time I was not promoted, I was not especially bothered; the person getting the job was competent and went beyond minimal effort. The second time I was told that I would probably get the job (which I think was part of why my supervisor was not happy about my not even getting an interview) and the person getting the job seemed (after some observation) to be less competent and less enthusiatic than the previous transfer. (I think this estimate was not derived entirely from my disappointment: my first impression was "this is a library person" (glasses et al.). Perhaps seeing a library person not seeming enthusiastic about working at a library may have soured me more than if I had no hints of a kindred spirit.)
I like helping my coworkers (I like most of them and dislike none), but shelving books is not that team-oriented. I do not want to manage people (I am not good at it and do not enjoy it).
iforgotmypasswo · · focus · HN ↗
Y’all have to answer to boards of various kinds with completely unreasonable expectations. (I have good friends who work in a library. We live in completely different worlds, you and I.)
Paul_Clayton · · focus · HN ↗
This seems to be a wisdom issue both for the worker (e.g., avoiding burnout or even just resentment) and the management (workers who have external principles can be more valuable but they can also be more difficult to manage even decently, i.e., with average ROI)
Your comment reminded me of Bunny the accountant's statement that Skeeve must charge the going rate to have the kingdom on a rational budget and Skeeve deciding to refund taxes to those who complained the most (in one of Robert Asprin's Myth Inc. books). What could possibly go wrong? :-)