Being emotionally detached from really stupid leadership decisions is harder than it seems
this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
38 points (93.2% liked)
Asklemmy
53962 readers
328 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
Took me a lot of years to not think it's my company that is being run into the ground. I should not - and nowadays could not - care any less.
The book The Responsibility Virus helped me a lot with this. Most people are over-responsible for the choices of others, specifically ones they can't reasonably influence, anyway.
I found out that https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ explains a lot of the dysfunctions that one finds in an office / corporate environment.
Yes. This lies among the reasons I find it easier not to blame enterprises for their dysfunctions. The unsustained growth imperative of our economic systems makes the Gervais Principle behavior the path of least resistance. Indeed, the only way to stop it seems to come down to the heroism of one key influential person who chooses differently.
This also accounts for why I stopped trying to fix enterprises and instead focus on helping the well-meaning people who otherwise would need to fend for themselves.
The company doesn't care about you. The company doesn't care about you. The company doesn't care about you.
The most important traits for doing well at work (in this order):
- clear, effective, and efficient communication
- taking ownership of problems
- having your boss and team members like you on a personal level
- competence at your tasks
Your employer does not care about you. You are not important or irreplaceable
Take your time and energy and put it into your life, not their business
I have had coworkers die (not work related) and by the time you hear about it (like the next day) they have already worked out who will get the work done so the machine doesn't have to stop
That dealing with the bullshit of clique social groups and the fallout of not falling in with them doesn't end with high school. In fact, it gets even worse in the workplace.
Your employer is ALWAYS looking for a way to either get more work out of you for the same compensation, or replace you with some one or some process that produces the equivalent output for less cost. The entire idea that employees should be loyal to their employers is one of the most successful propaganda campaigns ever spawned by capitalism.
There is no ideal place to work where they "do it right", whatever kind of "right" you care about right now. When you change jobs, you merely exchange one set of problems for another.
You don't have to run the rat race to get promoted. You don't have to be at your desk at 7am and leave at 7pm to put on a show. Just be competent. Most people are not. You'll eventually get promoted once you are old and white enough.
HR protect the company first, the employees second.
Just remember what hr stands for. You are a resource. No more than a stapler, that can be replaced at any time
Well, sure. Unless you're talking about a red Swingline. I can't compete with that.
Success is mainly about sucking up to the right people. No matter how good you are at your job, you have to know how to play work politics. Most bosses don't know how to evaluate actual ability, and they're much less objective than they think. Usually they favor more likeable employees over capable ones if forced to choose. Human life is a popularity contest, always has been, always will be. That's the side effect of being a highly social species...
I don't think you're entirely wrong, but I think maybe you downplay the importance of a good team dynamic when choosing people. I'd take someone less skilled over a highly skilled but unapproachable jerk for the long-term health of the crew. In that way, I don't think it's bad to favor the more likable one depending on how we're defining likable, and I don't think that makes it simply a popularity contest either.
People in your workplace don't know shit. There are a few who know stuff but the majority is dumb, careless or the combination of the two. Surprisingly the higher you go the more dumb and careless there are. We are designing monster billion dollar construction projects and some of my colleagues have problems with understanding written english. Others cannot learn a software that has literally 3 buttons in them they have to press. I don't even know sometimes why I am trying.
There's no such thing as quiet quitting. I prefer acting your wage.
Dominant personalities and work styles almost always make it up to management.
*Sociopathic personalities.
Thr trick is to do all the work on the weekends and submit them all on Monday
That way you're at work during the week while not doing anything productive for yourself or the company and you then spend your free time actually working for your employer. Great idea.