• Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 years ago

      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.

        • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 years ago

          Reading about it, it seems they are in fact all the same. Even the white haribo mice. TIL.

          Yeah, in a way. As in, I don’t feel like I have any responsibility in things in the company going to shits (which I would if it were, well, my company).

    • jbrains@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 years ago

      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.

        • jbrains@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 years ago

          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.

    • ME5SENGER_24@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 years ago

      My uncle spent years preaching to me about the need to be loyal to a company. I never drank the Kool-Aid. He spent 21 years working for an investment banking company in their IT department. 4 years before he was set to retire with a full pension, etc. his company was acquired by a larger bank. He lost everything except his 401k. He then spent the next 12 years working to get his time back so he’d be able to retire. He died 2 years ago and the company sent a bouquet of flowers.

      THE COMPANY DOESN’T CARE ABOUT YOU!!

    • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 years ago

      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.

      • Skaryon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 years ago

        I had a prof twisting himself into knots trying to argue that human resources really is a positive term because companies care about and maintain their resources

    • XEAL@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      Not even if you do valuable or efficent stuff for the company. You’re disposable.

      • Lettuce eat lettuce@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 years ago

        The company is always on the lookout for ways to replace you with somebody who will do more for less.

        And in the meantime, they will squeeze you for every drop of effort they think they can get away with.

        • Chapo0114 [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 years ago

          Or less for less. I know a woman who is a manager of a dialysis clinic, as soon as she was making over 100k she started getting pushback from higher ups, having more oversight, and having her funds for extra services to patients / staff cut. It’s clear they want her out even though she has the lowest mortality in the region, because they don’t need more than beds filled (Medicaid pays) and legally required minimums to be met.

  • masterspace@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    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
    • AFK BRB Chocolate (CA version)@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      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.

    • severien@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      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.

      • AFK BRB Chocolate (CA version)@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 years ago

        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.

        • severien@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 years ago

          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.

  • incogtino@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 years ago

    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

    • ButtBidet [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 years ago

      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.

  • Polymath - lemm.ee@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 years ago

    The longer you work anywhere – and I mean ANYWHERE – the more you see the bullshit and corruption and crappy rules or policies and inequality all over.
    For me it has been about the 3 year mark anywhere I’ve worked: once you get past that, you fade away from “damn I’m glad to have a job and be making money!” and towards “this is absolute bulls#!t that [boss] did [thing] and hurt the workers in the process!” or similar

    • darkstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 years ago

      Funny, that’s actually what motivated me at my last job. Things were fucked up, but not so fucked up that it was overwhelming. It was the Goldilocks zone of just fucked up enough that I think I can not only fix it, but look good if I do. It was a fun journey, all told, but there were definitely frustrations, even ones that lasted years.

      • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 years ago

        “Quiet quitting” is a term made up my small business tyrants in the United States to describe workers doing their job as it is described on the contract, and not going “above and beyond”. They somehow believe they’re owed more than they pay for.

      • Resonosity@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 years ago

        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.

  • Waldowal@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 years ago

    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.

    • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      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.

      • TheDarkKnight@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 years ago

        tbh its pretty common in IT to find your squad (and your squad leader) and follow ‘em everywhere.

    • PeachMan@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      It should be noted that this is advice specific to white men in Western countries 😆 but yes, it’s true.

  • demlet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 years ago

    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…

    • techt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 years ago

      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.

    • Elw@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 years ago

      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.

    • Bandananaan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 years ago

      Just remember what hr stands for. You are a resource. No more than a stapler, that can be replaced at any time

  • jbrains@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 years ago

    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.

    • thedrivingcrooner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      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.

      • _number8_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 years ago

        i worked at all the pizza chains delivering ---- the absolute shittiest ones were a nightmare, for the same 3 reasons:

        1. 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.

        2. 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.

        3. being overworked for low pay, especially being made to drive when exhausted [literally dangerous and life threatening!!]

  • dansity@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 years ago

    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.

  • Signtist@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 years ago

    Efficient workers get more work if you’re in the office. I work from home, and that allows me to work efficiently until my work is done, set up scheduled emails to go out at the time I would’ve otherwise been done, then do what I want until then.

    • Black_Gulaman@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 years ago

      I see your work doesn’t have invasive programs that check idle mouse and idle keyboard behaviors.

      this is an old one but i can’t help thinking, what if they installed it without my knowledge, after all, my work laptop was given to me already pre prepared by our IT department.

      • PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 years ago

        There is an entire department at my work that employs thousands of moderators to review desktop screenshots of all employees every 5 minutes to make sure no one is “idle”.

        Makes me want to scream when I think about it.

    • psud@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      It’s a double edged sword. I was very efficient, and did get more work, which got me noticed and eventually promoted out of a doing position into a leading position

      It’s a nice change, the work is light, the people side of the work is easy. I have higher pay and much more free time

  • krayj@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 years ago

    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.

  • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 years ago

    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.

    • Noughmad@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      Can confirm, not in retail but a fully remote programmer, managers are still very often concerned that “everybody has something to do” much more than “everything gets done”.