Antiwork

[MontuckyFried]

This is career/job 101- if you want to move up then you need to show you are capable of taking on that next role, AND you need to make sure there is someone who can step in and fill your old roll. This means you need to make sure you are mentoring and training up your direct reports.

While you're absolutely correct in an ideal world, too often the Peter Principle is a very real thing. Even worse in the C-Suite where sheer incompetence can reign supreme and if you as a manager dare speak up then there will be hell to pay. Some of the higher ups do NOT like being told that they're less than gods, and there might be some issues they need to address.

But, yes. I 100% believe in training up, mentoring, and empowering your next in succession! I like seeing EVERYBODY on an upward trajectory.

[m2711c]

I’d rather see ‘em on the slopes…. though, not all at the same time.

[oldnew_guy]

I had this conversation with one of my staff who was very indignant about not getting the same promotions/pay as one of my other staff. The indignant one logs on at 915ish, off at 430ish, walks his dogs and takes a long lunch, separately, puts in minimal effort on QAQCing his own work, and generally does C+/B- work. The other works remotely from all over the world, but is online at 7, off at 4-430, always available during the workday, does great detailed work, actively solicits general knowledge from her superiors and is a stud.

It's fine to be anti work... Just don't be surprised when you fall behind harder workers.

Lots of people "work hard" or put in lots of hours, but still don't produce.

In your example (which hits way to close to home), the fastest way you can burn out the good employee is by having the poor employee produce some deliverable the good employee needs to stay on schedule or incorporate to other work only to find that it's late or requires significant rework and fail to adequately manage the poor employee. At least for me, it doesn't matter if you promote or reward me for good performance, if you stack the stress of working with someone who is making my work life harder I'm going to bail. I really struggle to work for managers and organizations that won't address poor performance.

I'm still anti-work in the sense that if I had enough money there is no way I would work.

[californiagrown]

Lots of people "work hard" or put in lots of hours, but still don't produce.

In your example (which hits way to close to home), the fastest way you can burn out the good employee is by having the poor employee produce some deliverable the good employee needs to stay on schedule or incorporate to other work only to find that it's late or requires significant rework and fail to adequately manage the poor employee. At least for me, it doesn't matter if you promote or reward me for good performance, if you stack the stress of working with someone who is making my work life harder I'm going to bail. I really struggle to work for managers and organizations that won't address poor performance.

I'm still anti-work in the sense that if I had enough money there is no way I would work.

Personally, I think shit should flow uphill and if someone isn't pulling their weight, then I need to adjust my timelines/schedules... Or I need to step in and pick up their slack. It should NOT fall solely on their peers to pick up the slack, though inevitably some of it will.

Imo, when there is a weak link and powers that be refuse to address it (additional hires, or firing and then hiring someone better), you have two realistic longterm choices: adjust output expectations accordingly, or find somewhere else to work.

But the firm I "grew up" in was different than most. We all valued play more than work and knew and acted like work was a means to our other ends. Perspective was typically kept and burnout was actively and consciously avoided by mgmt.

[liv2ski]

I am just so glad I worked in a commission sales field for my career. If I worked hard, my checks reflected that effort. After about 10 years, I figured out the sweet spot and worked about 30 hours a week and still had a comfortable life for the most part. Sure, there were the occasional periods where business sucked for 18-24 months, but we survived until it came screaming back again. Bosses were always happy to see me, no one fucked with me and it wasn't until the last few years of working for a company that I had to deal with the annual review BS. Once I went self employed that annoyance was gone too.

I always told my girls your time is money. Do something that pays $100 an hour rather than $25.

[MontuckyFried]

[jono]

[MontuckyFried]

Think this may have been mentioned somewhere here already, but this one is classic and sadly representative of modern hiring practices.
https://twitter.com/tiangolo/status/1281946592459853830

@tiangolo

I saw a job post the other day. ??????

It required 4+ years of experience in FastAPI. ??????

I couldn't apply as I only have 1.5+ years of experience since I created that thing. ??????

Maybe it's time to re-evaluate that "years of experience = skill level". ?
8:40 AM · Jul 11, 2020

While not quite THAT egregious, I too have suffered that with an HR dolt I interviewed with. They said their client was demanding 10+ years experience in what is pretty much new territory. When she told me I wasn't going to be a good fit and didn't want to waste either of our time, I attempted to save it by letting her know that what they were seeking likely didn't exist but how my background aligns precisely with the needs of the role. Hell, overqualified if anything. Didn't matter. She said hiring manager made it clear they had to be firm on the years+ in said (new) and yet to even be proven tech. WTF? And then corporate America is like "NoBOdy WanTS to WOrK ThesE DaYS!!!" Then I saw an article from MIT talking about exactly what I was pursuing and you know what? Apparently NOBODY has successfully done it yet. It's in its infancy and is still in the experimental/proof-of-concept phase. Yeah, good luck hiring for that then with said unicorn requirements, morans.