This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I think the normal approach of employers is to ask the impossible.
For example, one might have productivity targets that are based on being pretty productive, all the time. But in reality, the employer demands something different: that we spend time training, supervising others, measuring our productivity and reporting on it, etc. But let's say, in this oh-so-hypothetical example, that then the productivity targets don't take account of any of this. So what we're being asked to do is be more productive than the agreed 'per unit of time' rate; which is probably set quite high and dependent on resources rather than just personal productivity. So, actually, the targets have been set to look achievable, but are actually not.
Now this approach just seems par for the course in any large organisation or business: set the requirements above what is reasonable in the hope that everyone will work really hard because they're being told they're underperforming. But is it the right approach?
Has anyone tested it? Has anyone ever compared the 'set the bar higher than reality allows' approach with a radically different approach of *genuinely* attempting to maximise job satisfaction throughout the ranks? What is really the motivation for taking this approach?
My suspicion is that people at the top of large organisations are brimming over with ambition, they work really really hard, work long hours and feel under stress and pressure. They think this is good, how life should be, what is required to succeed. If you're not losing sleep and longing for more time to do the things you love outside work, then you're lazy and inferior. The downside of creating perverse incentives to cheat and cut corners doesn't matter: that's just a part of being successful! Let's get the priorities straight, it's getting to the top that counts not how you get there, and that goes for the company as well as the individual.
Is it a good strategy to tell your workforce just to work harder, it can only improve results? Or are there better ways to achieve success, even if that's only the bottom line?
Post edited at 17:41
In reply to Jon Stewart:
My experience of top people is their lives are surprisingly normal and they only work a few notches harder than average: they can look super efficient as they are properly supported in their activities.
I also don't think most work targets for standard employees are that unmeetable in themselves, its the combination of all targets within the work context they function in that counts. This cannot reach impossible levels or significant numbers of the best will leave or 'break'. The problem is that they are too often unreasonable in that 'going the extra mile' is now sometimes seen as normal and those seeking reward as greedy (as if they are mere commodities rather than part and parcel of the creation of organisational success).
My experience of top people is their lives are surprisingly normal and they only work a few notches harder than average: they can look super efficient as they are properly supported in their activities.
I also don't think most work targets for standard employees are that unmeetable in themselves, its the combination of all targets within the work context they function in that counts. This cannot reach impossible levels or significant numbers of the best will leave or 'break'. The problem is that they are too often unreasonable in that 'going the extra mile' is now sometimes seen as normal and those seeking reward as greedy (as if they are mere commodities rather than part and parcel of the creation of organisational success).
Post edited at 18:04
In reply to Offwidth:
I'm proposing that it's normal for organisations to operate at just below this breaking point, where the average employee is tired and pissed off and would leave if it wasn't the same everywhere else. Essentially, the whole economy is depressed because of a universal overwork malaise.
> This cannot reach impossible levels or significant numbers of the best will leave or 'break'.
I'm proposing that it's normal for organisations to operate at just below this breaking point, where the average employee is tired and pissed off and would leave if it wasn't the same everywhere else. Essentially, the whole economy is depressed because of a universal overwork malaise.
Post edited at 18:07
In reply to Jon Stewart:
My former employer liked the tactic of increasing targets every month, far beyond what anyone at a store of our size could reasonably expected to achieve. The penalties were harsh, too. I appreciate that a carrot and stick approach can be effective, but not when it's all stick and the carrot is mouldy...
Fortunately I'm now self-employed and the only person who will yell at me if I slack off is Hannah
My former employer liked the tactic of increasing targets every month, far beyond what anyone at a store of our size could reasonably expected to achieve. The penalties were harsh, too. I appreciate that a carrot and stick approach can be effective, but not when it's all stick and the carrot is mouldy...
Fortunately I'm now self-employed and the only person who will yell at me if I slack off is Hannah
In reply to Jon Stewart (All of what you said)
Does anyone else who works in the same dept/area as you feel the targets are too tough?
Does anyone else who works in the same dept/area as you feel the targets are too tough?
In reply to Run_Ross_Run:
I don't think anyone actually tries to achieve them! Dunno if anyone ever does. Thing is, I'm still training, and the employer has paid my fees so meeting their targets is in reality quite a long way down the agenda, but a pretence is made all the same...
The situation is that my peers are spread across lots of different branches with radically different throughput and customer bases, so universal targets are blatantly daft. It's being measured on something you're not in control of.
I don't think anyone actually tries to achieve them! Dunno if anyone ever does. Thing is, I'm still training, and the employer has paid my fees so meeting their targets is in reality quite a long way down the agenda, but a pretence is made all the same...
The situation is that my peers are spread across lots of different branches with radically different throughput and customer bases, so universal targets are blatantly daft. It's being measured on something you're not in control of.
Post edited at 18:43
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Normal for too many organisations maybe but not all and some of those that do exploit are apologising about the recession and saying once better times return they will improve the work/reward ratio. The better organisations still prosper more as long term exploitation of wealth generating employees simply doesn't create as much success as supportive environments. The biggest structural problems with targets are probably in the public sector and IMHO due to too much government interference (and possibly partly deliberate to encourage more private sector involvement).
Normal for too many organisations maybe but not all and some of those that do exploit are apologising about the recession and saying once better times return they will improve the work/reward ratio. The better organisations still prosper more as long term exploitation of wealth generating employees simply doesn't create as much success as supportive environments. The biggest structural problems with targets are probably in the public sector and IMHO due to too much government interference (and possibly partly deliberate to encourage more private sector involvement).
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Try seeing it from ur line managers point of view. A business is nothing without targets. They're probably under similar pressure and need to strike the balance between knowing what people can actually deliver and what they think their bosses will want them to deliver.
If you're training (and even if you're not) have an open and honest approach to targets. Speak to your line manager regularly and ask for feedback, that way they know you care about them. Ask them what they want you to do to ensure you hit them.
O
Try seeing it from ur line managers point of view. A business is nothing without targets. They're probably under similar pressure and need to strike the balance between knowing what people can actually deliver and what they think their bosses will want them to deliver.
If you're training (and even if you're not) have an open and honest approach to targets. Speak to your line manager regularly and ask for feedback, that way they know you care about them. Ask them what they want you to do to ensure you hit them.
O
In reply to Jon Stewart:
My experience : Just hire smart people and leave them alone, just give direction, and support if needed.
My experience : Just hire smart people and leave them alone, just give direction, and support if needed.
Post edited at 19:03
In reply to Run_Ross_Run:
I don't think you've got the idea. It's a huge organisation that sets targets centrally. My manager has to pretend that I can hit the targets, when it's simply not possible with the resources and with the reality of the place we work (where the customers don't have any money!). The only way I could really try to hit the targets is to lie and attempt to blatantly rip people off, which there is absolutely no way I'm going to do. I'm pretty sure some people would, and they would probably go far (as long as it didn't come back to bite them).
> If you're training (and even if you're not) have an open and honest approach to targets. Speak to your line manager regularly and ask for feedback, that way they know you care about them. Ask them what they want you to do to ensure you hit them.
I don't think you've got the idea. It's a huge organisation that sets targets centrally. My manager has to pretend that I can hit the targets, when it's simply not possible with the resources and with the reality of the place we work (where the customers don't have any money!). The only way I could really try to hit the targets is to lie and attempt to blatantly rip people off, which there is absolutely no way I'm going to do. I'm pretty sure some people would, and they would probably go far (as long as it didn't come back to bite them).
In reply to Jon Stewart:
In my vast experience of employment stretching back nearly to neolithic times, there is a huge variation is what is expected of people in different organisations and even different departments of the same organisation.
There are a few general rules that have become very clear over the years.
- The easier the job the more I get paid.
- A large proportion of the self-employed are unemployable.
- Most people don't ask why.
In my vast experience of employment stretching back nearly to neolithic times, there is a huge variation is what is expected of people in different organisations and even different departments of the same organisation.
There are a few general rules that have become very clear over the years.
- The easier the job the more I get paid.
- A large proportion of the self-employed are unemployable.
- Most people don't ask why.
In reply to Run_Ross_Run:
Oh, OK. The point of the OP was to ask whether raising the bar above where reality provides a ceiling is the best approach in general, or whether it's counterproductive. Wasn't really after advice to talk to my LM if I wasn't hitting my targets - it's more a thing for future than now.
> Thats the point I am trying to get to.
> :/
Oh, OK. The point of the OP was to ask whether raising the bar above where reality provides a ceiling is the best approach in general, or whether it's counterproductive. Wasn't really after advice to talk to my LM if I wasn't hitting my targets - it's more a thing for future than now.
In reply to Jon Stewart: of course it's not a good idea, for either those at the top or the bottom.
If you're at the bottom you'll soon be pissed off. Your complain is that it's the same everywhere - it isn't , and anyone any good will soon be off.
The upshot of that is that whats left is the less than top notch , who will now be even further from the target, plus they're pissed off so their motivation sags and they go even further back.
You now have a manager/system that inherently cannot reach it's aggressive targets and itself is made to look like a failure
If you're at the bottom you'll soon be pissed off. Your complain is that it's the same everywhere - it isn't , and anyone any good will soon be off.
The upshot of that is that whats left is the less than top notch , who will now be even further from the target, plus they're pissed off so their motivation sags and they go even further back.
You now have a manager/system that inherently cannot reach it's aggressive targets and itself is made to look like a failure
In reply to Jon Stewart:
http://inspguilfoyle.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/understanding-targets-for-the...
Systems thinking....
http://inspguilfoyle.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/understanding-targets-for-the...
Systems thinking....
In reply to Jon Stewart:
<<Now this approach just seems par for the course in any large organisation or business: set the requirements above what is reasonable in the hope that everyone will work really hard because they're being told they're underperforming. But is it the right approach?>>
I've worked for 7 organisations in my working life (well, worked for 6 and owned 1). Four of these were quite large (ie thousands to hundreds of thousands of employees) and I don't recognise this scenario at all, except for perhaps the first organisation I worked for from college, which was very "top down" and prescriptive.
The others have pretty well all been run on the lines of "hire motivated people and let them get on with it". My current department does have a budget, with turnover and profit targets, but those are the only targets we have, and we're not pressured to achive them at all costs....they're just guidelines as to what we might reasonably be expected to achieve given current market conditions.
If I overwork, which I do quite often, it's my own doing for getting involved in too many things that interest me and being unable to say "no" if something looks a bit challenging. I could turn round and say "I don't have the time or resource to do that" and it would go to someone else. Other people in my organisation do that without stigma.
Most of my jobs have been in organisations that have genuinely tried to maximise job satisfaction across the board.
<<Now this approach just seems par for the course in any large organisation or business: set the requirements above what is reasonable in the hope that everyone will work really hard because they're being told they're underperforming. But is it the right approach?>>
I've worked for 7 organisations in my working life (well, worked for 6 and owned 1). Four of these were quite large (ie thousands to hundreds of thousands of employees) and I don't recognise this scenario at all, except for perhaps the first organisation I worked for from college, which was very "top down" and prescriptive.
The others have pretty well all been run on the lines of "hire motivated people and let them get on with it". My current department does have a budget, with turnover and profit targets, but those are the only targets we have, and we're not pressured to achive them at all costs....they're just guidelines as to what we might reasonably be expected to achieve given current market conditions.
If I overwork, which I do quite often, it's my own doing for getting involved in too many things that interest me and being unable to say "no" if something looks a bit challenging. I could turn round and say "I don't have the time or resource to do that" and it would go to someone else. Other people in my organisation do that without stigma.
Most of my jobs have been in organisations that have genuinely tried to maximise job satisfaction across the board.
In reply to Jon Stewart:
.....
My suspicion is that people at the top of large organisations are brimming over with ambition, they work really really hard, work long hours and feel under stress and pressure. They think this is good, how life should be, what is required to succeed. If you're not losing sleep and longing for more time to do the things you love outside work, then you're lazy and inferior. The downside of creating perverse incentives to cheat and cut corners doesn't matter: that's just a part of being successful! Let's get the priorities straight, it's getting to the top that counts not how you get there, and that goes for the company as well as the individual.
.....
I think it depends on the organisation and the people at the top.
.....
My suspicion is that people at the top of large organisations are brimming over with ambition, they work really really hard, work long hours and feel under stress and pressure. They think this is good, how life should be, what is required to succeed. If you're not losing sleep and longing for more time to do the things you love outside work, then you're lazy and inferior. The downside of creating perverse incentives to cheat and cut corners doesn't matter: that's just a part of being successful! Let's get the priorities straight, it's getting to the top that counts not how you get there, and that goes for the company as well as the individual.
.....
I think it depends on the organisation and the people at the top.
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I see this a lot in my current job. Last year the number of hours put in by IT was around 120% of their scheduled hours to get everything done. We where scheduled to projects for 80% of the year, leaving up to 20% of the year for general maintenance, releases, incidents, problems and admin work. We also had to fit in training and planning for a major upgrade (that wasn't included in the project plan). There simply was just not enough time to do it, however this year we are scheduled to 90% of the year to projects... well we managed 80% last year to 90% must be fine!
I see this a lot in my current job. Last year the number of hours put in by IT was around 120% of their scheduled hours to get everything done. We where scheduled to projects for 80% of the year, leaving up to 20% of the year for general maintenance, releases, incidents, problems and admin work. We also had to fit in training and planning for a major upgrade (that wasn't included in the project plan). There simply was just not enough time to do it, however this year we are scheduled to 90% of the year to projects... well we managed 80% last year to 90% must be fine!
In reply to Only a hill:
I hope there will be times when you'll yell at yourself.
> Fortunately I'm now self-employed and the only person who will yell at me if I slack off is Hannah
I hope there will be times when you'll yell at yourself.
In reply to Jon Stewart:
There are a few insights into "Systems thinking" in this bloghttp://flowchainsensei.wordpress.com/2014/08/24/managers-options/
And our own Yves Chouinard covered a lot in "Let my people go surfing"
Things can be better.
sjm
There are a few insights into "Systems thinking" in this bloghttp://flowchainsensei.wordpress.com/2014/08/24/managers-options/
And our own Yves Chouinard covered a lot in "Let my people go surfing"
Things can be better.
sjm
In reply to Offwidth:
You mean like 110%?
> My experience of top people is their lives are surprisingly normal and they only work a few notches harder than average:
You mean like 110%?
In reply to JoshOvki:
(emphasis mine)
This really grinds my gears.
I've been an IT service owner within companies for over a decade now and when people fail to realise that services need to be upgraded/refreshed/renewed and that this has an associated timescale and cost they are cheating themselves and their customers.
I've seen internal development sitting there working merrily churning away producing customer functionality and not bothering to examine whether there was the need for an OS or database upgrade in the next budgetary period. They then get a hell of a shock when suddenly they have to fit one (or inevitably both) into their delivery plan and costs.
This just smacks of bad management.
> ... leaving up to 20% of the year for general maintenance, releases, incidents, problems and admin work. We also had to fit in ... planning for a major upgrade (that wasn't included in the project plan).
(emphasis mine)
This really grinds my gears.
I've been an IT service owner within companies for over a decade now and when people fail to realise that services need to be upgraded/refreshed/renewed and that this has an associated timescale and cost they are cheating themselves and their customers.
I've seen internal development sitting there working merrily churning away producing customer functionality and not bothering to examine whether there was the need for an OS or database upgrade in the next budgetary period. They then get a hell of a shock when suddenly they have to fit one (or inevitably both) into their delivery plan and costs.
This just smacks of bad management.
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Having recently lost my job thanks in part to being the person that pointed out that setting goals based on a 100% right first time rate and then communicating these to shareholders as a definite deadline was somewhat disingenuous I found a fair bit of your post rang true. The senior management were not exactly receptive to the idea that running an R&D group on the principles of CATNIP and "It'll be alright on the night" was somewhat risky.
Different organisations seem to adopt different approaches to managing work and expectations; within the pharmaceutical industry it seems common to set concrete deadlines, apply a fixed number of man hours and simply do as much as possible with what you have. I presume this is the case in similar high cost and time pressured industries like consumer electronics. That said this requires a good understanding of the risks and a large amount of confidence of the principles.
Having recently lost my job thanks in part to being the person that pointed out that setting goals based on a 100% right first time rate and then communicating these to shareholders as a definite deadline was somewhat disingenuous I found a fair bit of your post rang true. The senior management were not exactly receptive to the idea that running an R&D group on the principles of CATNIP and "It'll be alright on the night" was somewhat risky.
Different organisations seem to adopt different approaches to managing work and expectations; within the pharmaceutical industry it seems common to set concrete deadlines, apply a fixed number of man hours and simply do as much as possible with what you have. I presume this is the case in similar high cost and time pressured industries like consumer electronics. That said this requires a good understanding of the risks and a large amount of confidence of the principles.
In reply to Morgan Woods:
More that those in professional pay brackets working a standard working week are rare and at the bottom end of the pay scale some need 2 or more jobs just to make ends meet. We all can go up to 11 now! The execs I know have family lives, hobbies/sports/interests and holidays, even if the lines of work often blur.
More that those in professional pay brackets working a standard working week are rare and at the bottom end of the pay scale some need 2 or more jobs just to make ends meet. We all can go up to 11 now! The execs I know have family lives, hobbies/sports/interests and holidays, even if the lines of work often blur.
In reply to Offwidth:
Unfortunately, in my experience "their activities" are generally centred on "How can I climb to the next rung (usually via making the team beneath me hit targets)", rather than "How can I make the system work better and lead my team"
> My experience of top people is their lives are surprisingly normal and they only work a few notches harder than average: they can look super efficient as they are properly supported in their activities.
Unfortunately, in my experience "their activities" are generally centred on "How can I climb to the next rung (usually via making the team beneath me hit targets)", rather than "How can I make the system work better and lead my team"
In reply to all:
It's heartening to hear that my outlook isn't universal by any means. I guess I hang out with too many teachers, who are always being told that whatever they do is not good enough. Looking back to when I worked in large public sector organisations things were actually very different: the work was so vague that it was impossible to set targets and so it just boiled down to stupid people and bad management wasting resources and nothing being achieved. Now I'm in a huge corporation, I'm suffering the other side of the coin.
Thankfully it isn't a frying pan/fire scenario because whatever my employer might like me to think, meeting their targets is not the sole purpose of my job - I have something intrinsically worthwhile to do while I'm there, and if that results in loads of sales then meh and if it doesn't then meh as far as I'm concerned. What sales depend on is who walks through the door, not how well I do my job (which I'm perfectly happy to do their way) although the employer would like it to be different. Obviously I'm not going to succumb to the perverse incentive of treating those customers who are going to contribute to my sales target favourably compared to those who are just going to cost us money - in my job, it is those who cost us money that most require the service and for whom I can make a difference, and that is what I'll be guided by. Of course, if I followed the incentives I'd last longer in the company and go further, but after a few weeks I've already ruled that out!
It's heartening to hear that my outlook isn't universal by any means. I guess I hang out with too many teachers, who are always being told that whatever they do is not good enough. Looking back to when I worked in large public sector organisations things were actually very different: the work was so vague that it was impossible to set targets and so it just boiled down to stupid people and bad management wasting resources and nothing being achieved. Now I'm in a huge corporation, I'm suffering the other side of the coin.
Thankfully it isn't a frying pan/fire scenario because whatever my employer might like me to think, meeting their targets is not the sole purpose of my job - I have something intrinsically worthwhile to do while I'm there, and if that results in loads of sales then meh and if it doesn't then meh as far as I'm concerned. What sales depend on is who walks through the door, not how well I do my job (which I'm perfectly happy to do their way) although the employer would like it to be different. Obviously I'm not going to succumb to the perverse incentive of treating those customers who are going to contribute to my sales target favourably compared to those who are just going to cost us money - in my job, it is those who cost us money that most require the service and for whom I can make a difference, and that is what I'll be guided by. Of course, if I followed the incentives I'd last longer in the company and go further, but after a few weeks I've already ruled that out!
In reply to off-duty:
Not if they are already top people. Brown nosers are as old as organisiational heiaracies and they need more than that to get to the very top.
Not if they are already top people. Brown nosers are as old as organisiational heiaracies and they need more than that to get to the very top.
In reply to Offwidth:
It's very different from "brown nosing" (though there will likely be an element of that).
It is the unquestioning/unthinking allegiance to the current policies of those who have the power to promote them. This resuits in the manipulation of stats to hit targets, as well as almost blindly following other procedures, with the goal of self promotion, NOT a goal of making the organisation perform better.
It's reflected in an outdated "competency based" promotion system that provides almost a tick box score chart for promotion - so clearly you work to achieve those check boxes in preference to improving organisational performance which will bring you into conflict with current policies implemented by those who will be making promotion decisions.
I
> Not if they are already top people. Brown nosers are as old as organisiational heiaracies and they need more than that to get to the very top.
It's very different from "brown nosing" (though there will likely be an element of that).
It is the unquestioning/unthinking allegiance to the current policies of those who have the power to promote them. This resuits in the manipulation of stats to hit targets, as well as almost blindly following other procedures, with the goal of self promotion, NOT a goal of making the organisation perform better.
It's reflected in an outdated "competency based" promotion system that provides almost a tick box score chart for promotion - so clearly you work to achieve those check boxes in preference to improving organisational performance which will bring you into conflict with current policies implemented by those who will be making promotion decisions.
I
In reply to off-duty:
In the large public sector organisations I've worked in, with one exception, the people who went a long way were unpleasant, dishonest and self-serving. Because nothing is really achieved in the civil service, the only motivation that leads to success is the motivation to climb the ladder. If that becomes the core purpose of going to work for you, you'll go far. Try to achieve anything of intrinsic value, and you'll go off sick with mental health problems.
In a corporation, it seems that to go far you just have to be a massively cheesy bastard (see "Our Values") and get really excited (or pretend to) about the latest shallow ploy to make more money. If you can convince yourself that this is fulfilling - enough to convince others (or at least demonstrate the skill to make other people pretend that they're convinced) - then you're destined for great things.
In the large public sector organisations I've worked in, with one exception, the people who went a long way were unpleasant, dishonest and self-serving. Because nothing is really achieved in the civil service, the only motivation that leads to success is the motivation to climb the ladder. If that becomes the core purpose of going to work for you, you'll go far. Try to achieve anything of intrinsic value, and you'll go off sick with mental health problems.
In a corporation, it seems that to go far you just have to be a massively cheesy bastard (see "Our Values") and get really excited (or pretend to) about the latest shallow ploy to make more money. If you can convince yourself that this is fulfilling - enough to convince others (or at least demonstrate the skill to make other people pretend that they're convinced) - then you're destined for great things.
Post edited at 15:58
In reply to Jon Stewart:
For me the important thing about work is autonomy. Being able to make my own decisions in how things get done is quite central to my job satisfaction. Not being in an office situation is a great boon to this autonomy as I do not have a boss sitting two desks away.
For me the important thing about work is autonomy. Being able to make my own decisions in how things get done is quite central to my job satisfaction. Not being in an office situation is a great boon to this autonomy as I do not have a boss sitting two desks away.
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Your situation appears similar to my previous employer, who I left because of their attitude, one manifestation of this was:
1. We are a high performing team, we employ good people and expect them to achieve. We expect them to be self-motivated, intelligent people who will do their best for the company.
2. However we also fit the performance results to a bell curve, which means that 25% of people *must* be graded "cr@p" and an additional 5% graded "so cr@p that they get put on performance improvement plans".
They did not, unfortunately, see the inherent problem in the two statements above.
Your situation appears similar to my previous employer, who I left because of their attitude, one manifestation of this was:
1. We are a high performing team, we employ good people and expect them to achieve. We expect them to be self-motivated, intelligent people who will do their best for the company.
2. However we also fit the performance results to a bell curve, which means that 25% of people *must* be graded "cr@p" and an additional 5% graded "so cr@p that they get put on performance improvement plans".
They did not, unfortunately, see the inherent problem in the two statements above.
In reply to John_Hat:
This is the exact problem I was trying to highlight in the OP. I'm basically told "to work for us you must commit to do these things" and I say "OK". "And you must also achieve these things", and I say "err, yeah, whatever" while I think "you're asking me to commit to two mutually exclusive statements".
Thus, the moon on a stick, setting goals above the ceiling provided by reality.
On the plus side, I recently went on an incredibly good training course provided by them, the likes of which will be instrumental in me becoming fully qualified and inevitably taking my skills elsewhere.
They'd better not be reading this!!
This is the exact problem I was trying to highlight in the OP. I'm basically told "to work for us you must commit to do these things" and I say "OK". "And you must also achieve these things", and I say "err, yeah, whatever" while I think "you're asking me to commit to two mutually exclusive statements".
Thus, the moon on a stick, setting goals above the ceiling provided by reality.
On the plus side, I recently went on an incredibly good training course provided by them, the likes of which will be instrumental in me becoming fully qualified and inevitably taking my skills elsewhere.
They'd better not be reading this!!
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Yep the management are best motivated by huge salaries, and their performance measured by getting others to work harder for less salary. The motivation to work harder for less is fear for their livelihood.
Yep the management are best motivated by huge salaries, and their performance measured by getting others to work harder for less salary. The motivation to work harder for less is fear for their livelihood.
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
The brilliant Whitehall research into longevity of civil servamts showed that to be THE key factor.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehall_Study
Everyone expected the bosses to be the most affected by work related stress and it turned out to be those with the lowest autonomy.
The brilliant Whitehall research into longevity of civil servamts showed that to be THE key factor.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehall_Study
Everyone expected the bosses to be the most affected by work related stress and it turned out to be those with the lowest autonomy.
Post edited at 17:57
In reply to Offwidth:
On this theme this series is pretty interesting
youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc&
sjm
On this theme this series is pretty interesting
youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc&
sjm
In reply to Removed User:
Do you have targets lard? I set them every year at my appraisal then forget to look at them until a week before my appraisal - targets rarely achieved.......
Do you have targets lard? I set them every year at my appraisal then forget to look at them until a week before my appraisal - targets rarely achieved.......
In reply to sjminfife:
Cheers, not come across that before...the most fun summary I've seem of some of the counter-intutive research results when looking at incentives in complex work. Shame they missed out the big daddy of Bell Labs and the Transistor though.
Cheers, not come across that before...the most fun summary I've seem of some of the counter-intutive research results when looking at incentives in complex work. Shame they missed out the big daddy of Bell Labs and the Transistor though.
In reply to Offwidth:
Or Shockley and the boys decamping to Stanford and the boys then deciding to go into "chips"...where was that all heading
sjm
Or Shockley and the boys decamping to Stanford and the boys then deciding to go into "chips"...where was that all heading
sjm
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
Well I'm in an office situation but have a similar requirement. At present my boss is 7000 miles away from where I'm sitting, but even when he's 9 yards away I'm generally left to get on with it and pretty-well select what I want to do and when. He does like me to occasionally *inform* him .
He was close enough for me to hear, when the Chief Accountant of the Group called up to query a £50 expense item of mine, his comment: "You're the Group Chief Accountant of a Group with over 4000 employees and nearly £700 million turnover. If you've got the time to be personally investigating a £50 claim that I've already signed off, for one of my staff who's just secured a $2.3 million contract for us, then I suggest you don't have enough work to do". And put the phone down. Then said "Twat".
I quite like my boss.
> For me the important thing about work is autonomy. Being able to make my own decisions in how things get done is quite central to my job satisfaction. Not being in an office situation is a great boon to this autonomy as I do not have a boss sitting two desks away.
Well I'm in an office situation but have a similar requirement. At present my boss is 7000 miles away from where I'm sitting, but even when he's 9 yards away I'm generally left to get on with it and pretty-well select what I want to do and when. He does like me to occasionally *inform* him .
He was close enough for me to hear, when the Chief Accountant of the Group called up to query a £50 expense item of mine, his comment: "You're the Group Chief Accountant of a Group with over 4000 employees and nearly £700 million turnover. If you've got the time to be personally investigating a £50 claim that I've already signed off, for one of my staff who's just secured a $2.3 million contract for us, then I suggest you don't have enough work to do". And put the phone down. Then said "Twat".
I quite like my boss.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...