Antiwork

[SB]

I like knot working 4 others.

[AdironRider]

I wrestle a bit with “quiet quitting.” On the one hand, it’s obvious that there is often (usually?) an unequal commitment between employer and employee. But… quiet quitting feels a little bit like lack of effort and disinterest in growth. At least that’s the message that seems to be too often heard/presented.

Example: I have a guy on one of my teams who has some educational background and a stated interest in statistical analysis. He doesn’t need that for the job he has and he doesn’t have any real credentials or experience in it, but when offered the opportunity to spend up to 25% of his time (not overtime, not extra unpaid time) on figuring out how we might apply some of his skillset to adjacent areas of his job, he kicks it back that he isn’t paid to do that. Fair, I guess, but we don’t need him to do that either. No skin off my nose if he’d rather just focus on his job, but if he’s interested in such a thing we literally offered him an opportunity to spend work time on it and see if he can’t carve out a role with a value proposition that he WOULD be paid for and that could kick his career into that direction. And even if it never ended up being something that made sense for us to resource beyond his side-hobby we’d happily support him by formalizing it enough with a title and whatever else so he could add that to his resume.

But no, he’s paid to be a clerk and I guess that’s all he’s interested in doing. He does a good job, but he isn’t setting himself up for any next steps that I can see and that’s frustrating.

By contrast: There’s another guy who has a different clerical role who has an interest in IT. We offered to let him “intern” for a couple months with the IT group at his current rate of pay, his time spent on equal parts training and ticket management such that he can achieve some basic IT certifications (that we’ll pay for) and a chance to move into the IT department full time, at an IT salary, if he’s successful and if we decide we want him on that team. That feels like a good thing, but runs contrary to the anti work movement.

Both are early 20’s. Both have radically different approaches to work. One will double his income within 2-3 years if he maintains his current pace. Sooner if he uses some of his free time to increase the pace of his training using resources we provide (which we aren’t asking him to do).

I struggle as well with scenarios like the first guy you presented. He's a clerk, and at least in the accounting world means he isn't making much money. And while he might have the training, I think it is at least somewhat legitimate for him to push back a bit in that you are trying to get higher level work out of a guy without paying just compensation for it.

On the flip side, I'm on the very oldest end of the millennial group, and paid my dues where the conceptual adage "dress for the job you want, not the one you have" still was in effect. I have definitely seen the benefit, as I think I'm a better employee and a better director as a result. I definitely have a higher skill set, and I don't think I would be in the position I am now if I hadn't gone that extra mile.

My personal management style seems to have settled on splitting the difference, tossing said clerk an extra buck or two an hour with the implication that you'll get paid much more if the trajectory holds. That seems to let me sleep at night as I look back on the years of extra value I provided at zero cost to the employer, and wanting to make things better for my employees. That said, they still don't even know what they don't know, so the expectation needs to be kept somewhat in check.

I think most of the anti-work and notably quiet quitting ignores that experience is not a binary thing, in the sense that someone with little doing the same work as someone with a lot has two different values to the employer. They just see task x should be paid y when the reality is the final product of task x can vary wildly, usually based on their experience level with the work.

[doebedoe]

I am in the middle of the millenial generation ... I had a young staff member say "well that sucks for you" when i informed them that one of their mistakes, that i didnt catch, cost us a significant redesign on our own dime.

I'm also in the middle of millenials. Have held managerial and director-level roles (still do, but used to too.) I've had staff tell me similar. Thing is -- if I didn't catch their fuck up and it cost us a bunch, that's shit is on me as a manager. Not on the employee.

I had an employee blow an allocation model that costs us a few hundred thousand in services that didn't get delivered to kids. That sucked. But if that employee is working for me and it was an honest mistake -- you own that as a manager until it becomes a pattern.

[oldnew_guy]

I am in the middle of the millenial generation and this is similar to my feelings on the anit-work and quiet-quitting, etc movements/fads. I have no problem with my staff doing their job, and nothing more. In fact that makes it really easy to manage them as i dont have to think about their growth, development, keeping them happy with opportunities for advancement, etc. The problem comes with people who are hired with the clear expectation that they will grow into the role/job title, but then show no ambition or motivation to grow beyond their previous level of expertise/workload. There was an explicit agreement that we are hiring them (or promoted them) into a role that is a step up for them, and they need to grow into that role, but instead of putting in the extra effort that it always takes to learn and grow into a new higher role, they do not feel the NEED to succeed. There is a lack of personal responsibility for their own success it seems... a lot of blame shifting which is really off-putting. I had a young staff member say "well that sucks for you" when i informed them that one of their mistakes, that i didnt catch, cost us a significant redesign on our own dime. That kind of attitude seems to be the undercurrent of this movement. They deserve success, and any challenges that come their way are the problem of their superiors who didnt set them up for success well enough.

The flip side of this is that lazy often equals bored and or a manager that is unable to motivate people.

For instance: Mr/Ms “sucks for you” was let go or was put on a correction plan? The person who is promoted and isn’t getting it done is getting remedial training, corrective direction or demoted?

[oldnew_guy]

I struggle as well with scenarios like the first guy you presented. He's a clerk, and at least in the accounting world means he isn't making much money. And while he might have the training, I think it is at least somewhat legitimate for him to push back a bit in that you are trying to get higher level work out of a guy without paying just compensation for it.

On the flip side, I'm on the very oldest end of the millennial group, and paid my dues where the conceptual adage "dress for the job you want, not the one you have" still was in effect. I have definitely seen the benefit, as I think I'm a better employee and a better director as a result. I definitely have a higher skill set, and I don't think I would be in the position I am now if I hadn't gone that extra mile.

My personal management style seems to have settled on splitting the difference, tossing said clerk an extra buck or two an hour with the implication that you'll get paid much more if the trajectory holds. That seems to let me sleep at night as I look back on the years of extra value I provided at zero cost to the employer, and wanting to make things better for my employees. That said, they still don't even know what they don't know, so the expectation needs to be kept somewhat in check.

I think most of the anti-work and notably quiet quitting ignores that experience is not a binary thing, in the sense that someone with little doing the same work as someone with a lot has two different values to the employer. They just see task x should be paid y when the reality is the final product of task x can vary wildly, usually based on their experience level with the work.

Adiron gets it.

The other reality is many many people have experienced their coworkers leaving or getting fired/downsized and the workload not changing and being expected to pick up three peoples critical duties, resulting in stress, working outside of position description yet no bonus, extra time off or pay.

[californiagrown]

I'm also in the middle of millenials. Have held managerial and director-level roles (still do, but used to too.) I've had staff tell me similar. Thing is -- if I didn't catch their fuck up and it cost us a bunch, that's shit is on me as a manager. Not on the employee.

I had an employee blow an allocation model that costs us a few hundred thousand in services that didn't get delivered to kids. That sucked. But if that employee is working for me and it was an honest mistake -- you own that as a manager until it becomes a pattern.

100% i owned it. My stamp is on the final product, i am liable.

But, that kind of attitude is so fucking shitty and seems to fit in with my perception of the antiwork/quiet-quitting movement.

[skaredshtles]

I like knot working.

Fixed for me.

[Mustonen]

I struggle as well with scenarios like the first guy you presented. He's a clerk, and at least in the accounting world means he isn't making much money. And while he might have the training, I think it is at least somewhat legitimate for him to push back a bit in that you are trying to get higher level work out of a guy without paying just compensation for it.

On the flip side, I'm on the very oldest end of the millennial group, and paid my dues where the conceptual adage "dress for the job you want, not the one you have" still was in effect. I have definitely seen the benefit, as I think I'm a better employee and a better director as a result. I definitely have a higher skill set, and I don't think I would be in the position I am now if I hadn't gone that extra mile.

My personal management style seems to have settled on splitting the difference, tossing said clerk an extra buck or two an hour with the implication that you'll get paid much more if the trajectory holds.

When he’s able to provide value with his analysis, then he’ll get paid for it, but I don’t need him to do anything other than the job he was hired for. In the meantime, the limited stuff he has come up with is greenhorn shit that doesn’t do anything for us. I’ll happily work with him to build something, though, and even toss some resources his way (like 25% of his paycheck plus training and software development tools) to turn something he’s interested in into his career.

And likewise - I’m an old millennial and would currently be making a quarter of my salary if all I ever did was the job I was hired to do.

[The AD]

The term "quiet quitting" as just about as dumb as "police defunding." To me it sounds like you're still taking pay, but not actually doing the job, and I'm sure that's what some people are doing, but I don't think that's supposed to be the basic premise.

[Mazderati]

Congratulations, last few posters, your metamorphosis into 'nobody wants to work anymore' guy is complete.

[oldnew_guy]

When he’s able to provide value with his analysis, then he’ll get paid for it, but I don’t need him to do anything other than the job he was hired for. In the meantime, the limited stuff he has come up with is greenhorn shit that doesn’t do anything for us. I’ll happily work with him to build something, though, and even toss some resources his way (like 25% of his paycheck plus training and software development tools) to turn something he’s interested in into his career.

And likewise - I’m an old millennial and would currently be making a quarter of my salary if all I ever did was the job I was hired to do.

Maybe this person is just dumb? The alternative for them is to spend time outside work and probably pay for training right?

[californiagrown]

The flip side of this is that lazy often equals bored and or a manager that is unable to motivate people.

For instance: Mr/Ms “sucks for you” was let go or was put on a correction plan? The person who is promoted and isn’t getting it done is getting remedial training, corrective direction or demoted?

Thats a very fair point. But how much responsibility does the employee have for self motivation/ambition in this equation? It can't all be on the manager, especially early in a promotion when the manager and other team members have to pick up the slack for the newly promoted person until they get up to speed.

People dont like the strategy of only getting promoted once they prove they can do the job (which means being underpaid/overworked for a time), but the other option is to promote a person in the hopes that they will step up and do the job (which IME results in many people feeling they dont need to earn the promotion anymore). I would bet that many people unwilling to be underpaid/overworked for a time to get a promotion would also be the people who didnt feel the need to earn a promotion after it was given to them.

[doebedoe]

The term "quiet quitting" as just about as dumb as "police defunding." To me it sounds like you're still taking pay, but not actually doing the job, and I'm sure that's what some people are doing, but I don't think that's supposed to be the basic premise.

Honestly -- kudos to anyone who stops doing the work and still gets paid. That's not an employee problem. That's an organizational failure.

[The AD]

Honestly -- kudos to anyone who stops doing the work and still gets paid. That's not an employee problem. That's an organizational failure.

I'd say it's both. Shouldn't there be an expectation that as an employee you actually do your job?

[oldnew_guy]

100% i owned it. My stamp is on the final product, i am liable.

But, that kind of attitude is so fucking shitty and seems to fit in with my perception of the antiwork/quiet-quitting movement.

This story doesn’t make sense.

Yes, you own the ultimate responsibility, but that person needs to understand that their attitude isn’t acceptable. People like this are not new to the workforce and the only way they learn is to get some sort of correction.

[Mustonen]

Congratulations, last few posters, your metamorphosis into 'nobody wants to work anymore' guy is complete.

Not sure if you’re directing that my way, but that isn’t my take at all. I don’t think people are really different than they ever were, but the weird shit people have always come up with is trending toward some of this “quiet quitting” with general validation in social media. And we’re talking about that right here. I see it and I advocate for work/life balance and worker rights and all that, but it often doesn’t seem to serve their long-term interests very well.

[Mustonen]

Maybe this person is just dumb? The alternative for them is to spend time outside work and probably pay for training right?

That’s my take. He’s just kind of an idiot about this. But to some degree he’s being fed this “quiet quitting” sort of line and it isn’t doing him the service he thinks it might be.

[oldnew_guy]

Thats a very fair point. But how much responsibility does the employee have for self motivation/ambition in this equation? It can't all be on the manager, especially early in a promotion when the manager and other team members have to pick up the slack for the newly promoted person until they get up to speed.

People dont like the strategy of only getting promoted once they prove they can do the job (which means being underpaid/overworked for a time), but the other option is to promote a person in the hopes that they will step up and do the job (which IME results in many people feeling they dont need to earn the promotion anymore). I would bet that many people unwilling to be underpaid/overworked for a time to get a promotion would also be the people who didnt feel the need to earn a promotion after it was given to them.

My position is that promoting capable people into positions they don’t have 100% of the skills for is fine as long as the organization needs it, there isn’t another better candidate and the organization is willing to recognize they made a mistake via corrective action, feedback, training and ultimately termination if a mistake was made.

[cravenmorhead]

I'm a big fan of rebranding "quiet quitting" as "acting your wage."

[m2711c]

Honestly -- kudos to anyone who stops doing the work and still gets paid. That's not an employee problem. That's an organizational failure.

fact.

[Supermoon]

My understanding of quiet quitting is that you stop putting in 50 hours/week, working outside your pay structure, set boundaries, etc. the fact that our work culture feels like putting in 40 hours a week, doing what you’re paid to do, and having more work/life balance is slacking off says a lot.

Employers have expectations of people that aren’t sustainable, and even when you grow in your career the reality do how bad you’re exploited is still very apparent to workers.

I work for myself now, but I had a lot of corporate jobs where all my manager cared about was how long I was at my desk. There was a whole level of middle management who had nothing to contribute and were only interested in covering their asses. These are the same people who can’t fathom staying WFH cause all they know how to do is desk watch their employees and play kiss ass with VPs.

There are going to be tons of people in every generation who are burnouts and lazy and not committed to the job or whatever, but this movement on quiet quitting has been more about high performers stepping back cause the juice isn’t worth the squeeze.

[m2711c]

there’s nothing new about work to rule… get off my lawn!


damn kids.

[nickwm21]

Thats a very fair point. But how much responsibility does the employee have for self motivation/ambition in this equation? It can't all be on the manager, especially early in a promotion when the manager and other team members have to pick up the slack for the newly promoted person until they get up to speed.

People dont like the strategy of only getting promoted once they prove they can do the job (which means being underpaid/overworked for a time), but the other option is to promote a person in the hopes that they will step up and do the job (which IME results in many people feeling they dont need to earn the promotion anymore). I would bet that many people unwilling to be underpaid/overworked for a time to get a promotion would also be the people who didnt feel the need to earn a promotion after it was given to them.

IMHO you should never give someone a title until they have proven they are there.

I’m biased, because the company I have worked for basically my entire career operates that way and it’s hardly an issue. You move someone into a new role, you give them clear expectations and a timeline for a promotion and money, then you follow through on each others commitments. Black and white. Done.

Doing it the other way does not make any sense in my mind….


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[californiagrown]

high performers stepping back cause the juice isn’t worth the squeeze.

I get the feeling that most of these folks expect the same amount of juice, with less squeezing.

[Mazderati]

I get the feeling that most of these folks expect the same amount of juice, with less squeezing.

You sound like a 40 year old boomer.