An organization that suffers from this is distinguished by:
-its rewarding of top officials who do little compared to those who actually improve the bottom line and insure qaulity service and products
-rewarding those who meet certain quotas rather than those who contribute to more effective and effecient operations. Look at the government to see the perfumed princes who are promoted and get bonuses compared to those who actually safe money and insure productivity. Want to see people give up. Emulate the goverment.
-Base your standards on the expert advise of gender experts and race hustlers. Watch morale collapse, mandatory meetings and trainings featuring the latest fashions from sex harassment, LGVTHJ gurus and especially people like Fauci or Obama.
-Watch 90% of all recognition and bonuses go to those occupying the top 5% of any organization, except for the psychos in HR who act as management's hatchetmen.
Always remember these organizations regard you as expendible. Return the favor.
Unfortunately, doing your best is no guarantee of success either. I've had jobs where the more effort I put in, the *worse* the pushback was from coworkers and bosses alike. While I don't necessarily see myself as a proponnent of the "quiet quitting movement," in this day and age it looks to me like people are really "going Galt" by another name.
Hell yes. Just ask anyone subjected to corporate mandatory sex harassment, LBGQTYX lectures and brain washing sessions. Remember when corporations were concerned with the qaulity of their product and service? Now you have to get an insurance policy to insure your frig doesn't die after three weeks. Worse what corporation is concerned about its investors?
I've had job where putting in extra effort and doing your work well brought absolutely no reward. I recall one company where the boss straight up told me that all employees got the same raise, regardless of how hard they worked or how good they were, to be "fair". I've had other jobs where those who put in extra work were rewarded.
Yes, when there's no reward for working harder, there's no incentive. Why bother? Personally, I hated such jobs. Not just because I didn't get rewards I thought I deserved. But also because it naturally led me to not caring, and I hated that feeling.
I've always much preferred a job where I thought that I mattered to the success of the company, and the boss knew it and I knew it.
A government job or a position in a big corporation - two places I'd refuse to work, if anything else at all was available. Companies/businesses with 20 to 50 employees are going to treat their employees like royalty if said employees go above and beyond to get a job done right and on time. They will be honored and appreciated and paid well, too. Yes, the pay and perks may not be as grandiose, but nothing is free, and gov or corp perks cost the employee a lot - a battered ego, a lot of frustration, a sense of worthlessness, or being abused if one does go above and beyond. This is my experience, anyway.
I worked for a government agency that required three reviews per rating period. In thirty years this never occured. Worse each of my supervisors asked me to record my accomplishments for my rating. I found these were never mentioned in my rating but found their way into theirs. Worse I found the way to determine what kind of supervisor you were getting was to ask them to define average, subpar and outsatnding performance with firm guidelines. Not one would provide these goals.
By the end of my career when asked to my accomplishments I told my supervisor he must be aware of them because of his careful monitoring of my work. Government employees get ahead by covering the crimes of their supervisors and endless brown nosing. Merit and excellence died fifty years ago. If you doubt this ask yourself how we got John Keey and the Hiladeast as Secretaries of State and how 8 billion at State could be unaccounted for?
I saw Gina Winstanley being interviewed by Sen Cruz. She is now a high level State official. At Mexico she was so bad there were 3 IG inspections in two years. The norm is one in 6years. The head of the awards committee when an award involving her was submitted by the usual State professional said over my dead boy. The entire embassy was in a state of mutiny over her activities or lack thereof. But she meet the right quotas. This is true throughout the government.
What's wrong with a fair day's wage for a fair day's work?
I just left a job because:
1. The C-staff had no compunctions about calling me at all hours to rewrite whatever project-du-jour and have it ready by the next morning.
2 We were all about "talent and culture". That "culture" included making sure your name showed up on the latest corporate "save-the-world" social issue effort, most of which I disagreed with.
3. Of course I still had to bill my 8 hours each day to a customer.
I left, for those and many more reasons. I'm making more and can now schedule my own time (that is, the ~16 hours each day I'm not making money for the company). Many employers take advantage of FLSA-exemption and are not shy about using the "last person standing" approach to managing their people. And FLSA itself is grossly misused. My wife is an office manager and is salaried. I've never been able to figure out why her employer believes she's not able to keep time in an office with set operating hours. Probably because he expects her to be there the 9 hours the office is open (obviously not a reason for FLSA exemption).
I'm at the upper end of the spectrum (I expect to retire in 3 years) so perhaps my perspective is a bit different but there is a lot of truth to the adage "No one ever died saying 'I wish I spent more time at work.'"
If you're scaling back your commitment to your job because your superiors are abusive, I don't consider that "quiet quitting" either. I guess it's all about how you define it.
Employers have been dealing with laziness for time immemorial. Whatever has changed in the last few years, it's far more fundamental and disturbing to me than simply that.
It wasn't a better opportunity, it was to a company that doesn't intrude into my life. Where I am now, the only expectation is to bill the customer, e.g. bring in the revenue. It's refreshing to know that I can shut down at 5:00 PM and not have to spend my evenings waiting for a phone call to participate in the latest company sponsored feel-good twaddle.
I think it speaks to the article. People are evaluating their lives and finding they are not interested in employer-driven schemes to bring "culture" to the workplace and they are not interested in a "culture" that pulls them into 60-80 hour work weeks. I'll bill my hours and then I'm done. And that's not to say I'm averse to additional time for business development and other key functions that keep the company moving forward, just not every week.
Societally we've established the 40 hour work week as the standard. FLSA exemption doesn't move that marker to 60 hours a week.
I have no aspirations of starting my own company, becoming a 1099 employee, or a similar situation. I'm a government contractor so the company hires me and hands me off to some government agency for 40 hours a week. They make money in the space between what they bill for my hours and what I actually cost them as an employee and I'm fine with that arrangement, working for someone who has decided to take the leap into spending their time and effort to create and manage a company. But there's a gulf between the owner of the company and me. He expects to make good money through his ownership of the company. I'll never make millions building and selling a company. So I'm trading my 8 hours of work for a paycheck. It's a fair deal but, that is the deal - a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. I get my "culture" elsewhere. I don't need it from the company for which I work and I think that's the space where there's disagreement between employers and employees. I don't care to go "above and beyond" to improve my standing. If 8 hours a day of bringing in revenue (plus some occasional time to help improve the company's fortunes) isn't enough, that's a problem.
An organization that suffers from this is distinguished by:
-its rewarding of top officials who do little compared to those who actually improve the bottom line and insure qaulity service and products
-rewarding those who meet certain quotas rather than those who contribute to more effective and effecient operations. Look at the government to see the perfumed princes who are promoted and get bonuses compared to those who actually safe money and insure productivity. Want to see people give up. Emulate the goverment.
-Base your standards on the expert advise of gender experts and race hustlers. Watch morale collapse, mandatory meetings and trainings featuring the latest fashions from sex harassment, LGVTHJ gurus and especially people like Fauci or Obama.
-Watch 90% of all recognition and bonuses go to those occupying the top 5% of any organization, except for the psychos in HR who act as management's hatchetmen.
Always remember these organizations regard you as expendible. Return the favor.
Unfortunately, doing your best is no guarantee of success either. I've had jobs where the more effort I put in, the *worse* the pushback was from coworkers and bosses alike. While I don't necessarily see myself as a proponnent of the "quiet quitting movement," in this day and age it looks to me like people are really "going Galt" by another name.
Hell yes. Just ask anyone subjected to corporate mandatory sex harassment, LBGQTYX lectures and brain washing sessions. Remember when corporations were concerned with the qaulity of their product and service? Now you have to get an insurance policy to insure your frig doesn't die after three weeks. Worse what corporation is concerned about its investors?
I've had job where putting in extra effort and doing your work well brought absolutely no reward. I recall one company where the boss straight up told me that all employees got the same raise, regardless of how hard they worked or how good they were, to be "fair". I've had other jobs where those who put in extra work were rewarded.
Yes, when there's no reward for working harder, there's no incentive. Why bother? Personally, I hated such jobs. Not just because I didn't get rewards I thought I deserved. But also because it naturally led me to not caring, and I hated that feeling.
I've always much preferred a job where I thought that I mattered to the success of the company, and the boss knew it and I knew it.
A government job or a position in a big corporation - two places I'd refuse to work, if anything else at all was available. Companies/businesses with 20 to 50 employees are going to treat their employees like royalty if said employees go above and beyond to get a job done right and on time. They will be honored and appreciated and paid well, too. Yes, the pay and perks may not be as grandiose, but nothing is free, and gov or corp perks cost the employee a lot - a battered ego, a lot of frustration, a sense of worthlessness, or being abused if one does go above and beyond. This is my experience, anyway.
I worked for a government agency that required three reviews per rating period. In thirty years this never occured. Worse each of my supervisors asked me to record my accomplishments for my rating. I found these were never mentioned in my rating but found their way into theirs. Worse I found the way to determine what kind of supervisor you were getting was to ask them to define average, subpar and outsatnding performance with firm guidelines. Not one would provide these goals.
By the end of my career when asked to my accomplishments I told my supervisor he must be aware of them because of his careful monitoring of my work. Government employees get ahead by covering the crimes of their supervisors and endless brown nosing. Merit and excellence died fifty years ago. If you doubt this ask yourself how we got John Keey and the Hiladeast as Secretaries of State and how 8 billion at State could be unaccounted for?
I saw Gina Winstanley being interviewed by Sen Cruz. She is now a high level State official. At Mexico she was so bad there were 3 IG inspections in two years. The norm is one in 6years. The head of the awards committee when an award involving her was submitted by the usual State professional said over my dead boy. The entire embassy was in a state of mutiny over her activities or lack thereof. But she meet the right quotas. This is true throughout the government.
What's wrong with a fair day's wage for a fair day's work?
I just left a job because:
1. The C-staff had no compunctions about calling me at all hours to rewrite whatever project-du-jour and have it ready by the next morning.
2 We were all about "talent and culture". That "culture" included making sure your name showed up on the latest corporate "save-the-world" social issue effort, most of which I disagreed with.
3. Of course I still had to bill my 8 hours each day to a customer.
I left, for those and many more reasons. I'm making more and can now schedule my own time (that is, the ~16 hours each day I'm not making money for the company). Many employers take advantage of FLSA-exemption and are not shy about using the "last person standing" approach to managing their people. And FLSA itself is grossly misused. My wife is an office manager and is salaried. I've never been able to figure out why her employer believes she's not able to keep time in an office with set operating hours. Probably because he expects her to be there the 9 hours the office is open (obviously not a reason for FLSA exemption).
I'm at the upper end of the spectrum (I expect to retire in 3 years) so perhaps my perspective is a bit different but there is a lot of truth to the adage "No one ever died saying 'I wish I spent more time at work.'"
If you left a job because you had a better opportunity, you're not engaged in "quiet quitting."
If you're scaling back your commitment to your job because your superiors are abusive, I don't consider that "quiet quitting" either. I guess it's all about how you define it.
Employers have been dealing with laziness for time immemorial. Whatever has changed in the last few years, it's far more fundamental and disturbing to me than simply that.
It wasn't a better opportunity, it was to a company that doesn't intrude into my life. Where I am now, the only expectation is to bill the customer, e.g. bring in the revenue. It's refreshing to know that I can shut down at 5:00 PM and not have to spend my evenings waiting for a phone call to participate in the latest company sponsored feel-good twaddle.
I think it speaks to the article. People are evaluating their lives and finding they are not interested in employer-driven schemes to bring "culture" to the workplace and they are not interested in a "culture" that pulls them into 60-80 hour work weeks. I'll bill my hours and then I'm done. And that's not to say I'm averse to additional time for business development and other key functions that keep the company moving forward, just not every week.
Societally we've established the 40 hour work week as the standard. FLSA exemption doesn't move that marker to 60 hours a week.
I have no aspirations of starting my own company, becoming a 1099 employee, or a similar situation. I'm a government contractor so the company hires me and hands me off to some government agency for 40 hours a week. They make money in the space between what they bill for my hours and what I actually cost them as an employee and I'm fine with that arrangement, working for someone who has decided to take the leap into spending their time and effort to create and manage a company. But there's a gulf between the owner of the company and me. He expects to make good money through his ownership of the company. I'll never make millions building and selling a company. So I'm trading my 8 hours of work for a paycheck. It's a fair deal but, that is the deal - a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. I get my "culture" elsewhere. I don't need it from the company for which I work and I think that's the space where there's disagreement between employers and employees. I don't care to go "above and beyond" to improve my standing. If 8 hours a day of bringing in revenue (plus some occasional time to help improve the company's fortunes) isn't enough, that's a problem.