Being emotionally detached from really stupid leadership decisions is harder than it seems
this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
45 points (94.1% liked)
Asklemmy
55016 readers
383 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.
They refer to you as .... HUMAN RESOURCES
You aren't a person, you are an instrument the company uses to make more money for itself. If you die or can no longer work, you will be replaced by another human resource.
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
I had a workmate develop a chronic illness after an infection of COVID, and he had to leave under hardship. People that hung out with him as best mates for years stopped talking to him in a matter of days.
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
I'm halfway through scrolling this long thread, and this is the first comment I've seen that isn't overly cynical. It's also correct.
I've been working for 38 years, and I've been someone who makes promotion decisions for 15 of them. The third one is helpful, not essential, but the others are super important. The people who rise to leadership positions aren't necessarily the top technical people, they're the ones who do those things with a good attitude.
The other thing I'd add is that they're people who are able to see the big picture and how the details relate to it, which is part of strategic thinking.
I'm not sure if the competence is really in the last place. I'd say it's on the equal level. Great communication and ownership of the problems means little if you can't really solve the problems.
People have those things in spectrums, not all or nothing. You have to have at least some of all of them, but I'd argue that mediocre competency with really good communication and accountability is a better combination that really good competency with one of the others being mediocre.
I still kinda disagree. We're talking here about engineering role after all. I have a colleague who is a code wizard, but has kinda problem with (under)communicating. He's still widely respected as a very good engineer, people know his communication style and adapt to it.
But if you're a mediocre problem solver, you can't really make up for it with communication skills. That kinda moves you into non-engineering role like PO, SM or perhaps support engineer.
But I would say this - once you reach a certain high level of competence, then the communication skills, leadership, ownership can become the real differentiating factors. But you can't really get there without the high level of competence first.
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.
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.
100%. The rebranding of some HR departments as "People Officers" or "People Team" drives me bonkers. When push comes to shove, they will always protect the interests of the business before the interests of the employee. Full stop.
You are right, but to be fair. "Human Ressources" was an awful name to begin with.
Yeah, neither is great. Needs to be called something like "Employee Business Relations" maybe?
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.
Begrudgingly given upvote. Sigh.
There's no such thing as quiet quitting. I prefer acting your wage.
Explanation please? Not a native speaker here...
There was a phenomenon in the US labor market during 2022/2023 called "quiet quitting" where laborers across the market realized that companies weren't paying wages adequately or to a level that reflected the kind of work laborers would perform.
It was thought that companies paid their workers short of what the workers are owed, and in response to that, a large number of people, many trending young, started behaving according to those wages.
This often meant reducing work speed or efficiency, reducing communication, etc. Laborers would claim that they were doing the bare minimum to match their wage compensation.
The other side of this is that the US labor market at that time favored laborers over companies. Workers had more leverage about getting job offers and negotiating terms than companies had, partly due to a rebound from COVID.
This meant that there wasn't as much of an anxiety of workers being fired from their position since they would find it easy to get another job. So people did look for other jobs, often while working, to see if they might improve their circumstances and land a job that pays better.
The "quiet" part was about sliding back on performance or even job tasks themselves, and the "quitting" part was about workers possibly leaving companies for other offers.
I might have conflated The Great Resignation with this, but both phenomena affect the other.
Sometimes it's better if your employer doesn't know everything you can do. If you're not careful you'll end up Inventory Controller/shipper/IT services/reception/Safety officer, and you'll only ever be paid for whatever your initial position was.
I wanted to be a system engineer, I got hired as a devops, I started doing a bit of system engineer, called hr and said that I'm working on infrastructure and I need my title changed or else I won't be able to continue my work, my title was changed, no I do system engineer stuff and less of devops, this was a very rare occasion but it can happen from time to time.
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.
Having worked 7 different jobs that all were in the same field made me have some backbone of standards that nobody else could have built without going through that, though. It's a blessing and a curse, so be warned. The things I picked up on that I never realized I would care so much about in the healthcare field is good office administration and Director of Care leadership. The morale is just as important as the pay rate.
i worked at all the pizza chains delivering ---- the absolute shittiest ones were a nightmare, for the same 3 reasons:
-
not letting employees make food themselves. it's a restaurant, you have abundant food, it's cheap, we all know it's cheap, we work long shifts, come on. the cobbler's son should have good shoes.
-
overemphasis on dress code -- if you genuinely give a shit if the pizza guy has his hat backwards, you should literally be sent to the gulags.
-
being overworked for low pay, especially being made to drive when exhausted [literally dangerous and life threatening!!]
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.
I must not be old enough because I've never been promoted even though I'm practically white as a ghost. Every promotion I have ever received is from getting a new job at a new company and ending up making significantly more money that way.
Just be friends with the manager. That's who I found was promoted the most in my career.
tbh its pretty common in IT to find your squad (and your squad leader) and follow โem everywhere.
It should be noted that this is advice specific to white men in Western countries ๐ but yes, it's true.
That, given the chance, always choose a smaller company: having a direct contact with the person that pays your salary gives you a better shot in terms of professional growth
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.
Yeah, looking busy is way more important than being productive a lot of the time. You always need to be doing something, so you just go through the motions of doing things because otherwise you'll get shit from your employers. Waiting in good faith for more real tasks to emerge isn't enough, so you must invent chores.
At least, that was very consistently my experience in retail.
Hold on dearly to any leverage you might have over your employer
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.