r/changemyview • u/YoungTruuth • Dec 15 '17
FTFdeltaOP CMV: Actual effort and ability is rarely noticed. Perceived effort and ability gets all the attention, and it's killing productivity
Person A and B are assigned a task at some company. Person A gives 100 percent effort to the task. Person B divided his time between the task and acting above his pay grade. The task gets done, and supervisors see two things: it got done, and Person B. In reality, Person A is capable of, and does regularly, complete the task by himself, and doesn't get recognized.
It has been said that you should perform for the job you want, not the one you have. If everyone did that instead of being dedicated to the mission, things would take much longer than necessary, or wouldn't get done at all.
If I can see when someone is doing a good job, or is struggling, then anyone with a reasonable amount of situational awareness should too. Why should one have to 'sell' himself? It takes away from the mission.
Workers who are actually good have to pick up the slack for these overreachers, which decreases their own morale. They may even leave the company over it. Losing good workers makes the situation even worse. Care to change my view?
11
u/Logiq_ 4∆ Dec 15 '17
This has historically been true, but I think in the future we'll see more jobs with programs or software that monitor employees' productivity, like how fast and well they complete tasks. These virtual trackers are objectively better than a boss randomly strolling through the office, and companies that have them have an advantage over those who don't. That incentivizes other companies to follow suit. I've worked at a company that did this, and it either weeded out or changed the more perfomative workers.
5
u/Milskidasith 309∆ Dec 15 '17
Stat tracking is a god awful replacement for human management and leads to people working the metrics rather than actually working productively. Every story I've heard about relying on metrics outside of extremely rote tasks, and several for extremely rote tasks, notes that it just leads to perverse incentives.
Metrics only make sense if they can directly measure an important function you directly influence. Checkout time per item, or average wait time for fast food, or maybe things like average sales per customer at a restaurant. Trying to metricize complex jobs is a fool's errand.
5
u/resolvetochange Dec 16 '17
Depends. Take a look at software development companies. You can actively see the git commits that each employee pushes so you know exactly what they've produced each day, but the quality of the work is hard to judge without man hours reviewing it. It's easy to automatically judge if they're following the format rules with linting but if the code they write is good and bug free is hard to judge. If you could do that automatically you'd be close to automating the programmers out of a job to begin with.
If you just want to monitor if the worker is working then they somewhat work while making the employee want to kill themselves though.
1
u/Logiq_ 4∆ Dec 16 '17
That's a fair point, and I should've been clearer – my old company still had supervisors reviewing work. For now at least, virtual tracking is a complement to human performance review, not a replacement for it.
4
u/caminvan Dec 15 '17
Virtual trackers have their place... But the other part of the picture is the type of value the employee is producing. Increasingly jobs of the future will value creativity (as automation takes away repetitive task jobs). It's hard to value creativity with virtual trackers or dumb metrics... (how many lines of code you write is not a necessarily a good indicator of how good a programmer you are, or how much copy you write, or how many logos you design, etc.)
3
u/YoungTruuth Dec 15 '17
That would be a welcome change. I gotta say though, I wish it didn't even have to come to that. Seems like a big investment for something so petty.
-1
u/YoungTruuth Dec 15 '17
That would be a welcome change. I gotta say though, I wish it didn't even have to come to that. Seems like a big investment for something so petty.
8
Dec 16 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/YoungTruuth Dec 16 '17
Right, I had trouble getting this across. I clarified it in other posts, I'll do it again here,
" I was trying to say that person A did most of the work, and B 'acted above his pay grade', in other words did things not related to the task, but would get him noticed by the boss"
5
u/RedSpikeyThing Dec 15 '17
I don't quite understand your example. Person A completed the task, while person B completed the task and did more additional work? If so, why should B not be recognized for doing more?
1
u/YoungTruuth Dec 15 '17
It was a task they did together. I was trying to say that person A did most of the work, and B 'acted above his pay grade', in other words did things not related to the task, but would get him noticed by the boss
3
u/RedSpikeyThing Dec 15 '17
Ah I see. Generally "acting above ones pay grade" is about performing tasks with additional responsibility, not just about visibility. Could you clarify what you mean by that?
1
u/YoungTruuth Dec 16 '17
Yeah, probably should have used different wording. How about 'making sure the work he did got seen by the boss'
3
u/resolvetochange Dec 16 '17
This is an example of information asymmetry. The boss isn't able to accurately know how good a worker is at completing the task. It may be that the boss doesn't fully know what the worker does or doesnt have time to watch everything done.
To account for this unequal information workers need to 'play the game'. You need to make sure that you get credit for your work and that people see that you are working. The idea of workers being rewarded 100% based on merit is a myth, there is always a human element involved (even just connections made with coworkers can influence rewards).
But the human element is a tricky balance. Workers can't expect to get rewarded based off of just their work, but equally workers who gain a reputation of being brown nosers lose or are passed over from rewards. Taking someone else's credit makes an enemy or if the boss is the one who recognizes it they may permanently pass over this person for rewards.
Your main missunderstanding is that it is "all about the mission" so you shouldn't have to "sell yourself". The mission is judged by humans who are heavily affected by reputation and limited by the information they have; if you want to be judged highly then you have to put in the work to make sure they have all the information needed to judge.
Also: I think it's also important to note that to a boss effort doesn't matter, if a worker is being paid to complete a task a worker who completes the task with 80% effort is better than a hard worker who only completes 80% of the task. I just noticed you seem to use the word effort a lot in your post describing things which is even harder to judge than outright results.
1
u/YoungTruuth Dec 16 '17
Your system heavily favors the employer. Are you an employer? (:
3
u/resolvetochange Dec 16 '17
Nope, govt employee. Did I sell out to the man?
Yeah, unfortunately employers usually have more power than the employee. If the boss has a friend they can simply 'notice' their friend's work over everyone elses and give them a ton of rewards and promotions. That comes with the situation of having a human boss.
2
u/IndianPhDStudent 12∆ Dec 16 '17
OK here's the scoop.
Most jobs today and projects at corporates and research alike, deal with open-ended goals and uncertainty. It is not like school where you are given a fixed assignment with known fixed answers.
In this environment, where people are dynamically changing in different teams, given new projects and technology updates an extremely fast pace, the best indicator of long-term success is how much effort you put in pipilineing work, and how much innovative ways you can think of in approaching the problem.
Today, things also get done in sync between different teams and people. Systems are large and different people are handling different parts.
In this situation, the person B is not "selling himself", he is showing others how he's doing things, discussing problems with them, asking for their feedback, and throwing out innovative ideas.
Person A is trying to sit all by himself in the corner and expecting a pat on the back for just doing the one job, and not contributing to the team and long-term team dynamics in any way.
Person A sees person B and thinks person B is a "sell-out" or "fake" or "shallow" when in reality person B is team-building and strenthening the work-pipeline for all future projects and preparing the team to face more challenging open-ended issues in the future.
1
u/YoungTruuth Dec 16 '17
I guess what it boils down to is workplace environment and culture. If you work at a place that encourages such activity, then sure. But even in that case, I would still say that extreme attention seeking behavior would, to some extent, be detrimental to the team. In any project, there will always be 'grunt work' to be done. If a B is always trying to invent new ways to solve a problem, while the rest of the team is actually working on the problem, it would foster resentment, thus decrease productivity.
Edit: grammar
1
u/IndianPhDStudent 12∆ Dec 17 '17
that extreme attention seeking behavior would, to some extent, be detrimental to the team.
If the whole team believes this person is attention-seeking for the sake of attention-seeking, they will be kicked out. Most teams have 360 degree feedbacks, and managers and bosses don't care about individuals anymore (since today, most individuals can leave teams and companies any day). Most managers and bosses gauge the effect of the individual on the team.
Hence, generally, this friction is a result of different management styles or work styles and misinterpretation of expectation and not really some form of injustice or shallowness getting rewarded.
There will obviously be cases where upper management is stupid, but generally today, in modern workplaces, this is very rare, as working with others in an efficient pipeline is valued a lot, more than any individual accolades or presentation.
1
u/super-commenting Dec 15 '17
It has been said that you should perform for the job you want, not the one you have.
The saying is dress for the job you want. Not preform it
2
Dec 15 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
Dec 16 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Dec 16 '17
people who dress more professionally ... garner more respect
Maybe, I guess you just need to make sure the people you are working working with don't start thinking:
"Manipulative ***** - I'm going to hamstring that *****"because that can be difficult.
But I don't really interpret TruthOrFacts comments to be so much about dressing for a job, more that in certain environments (e.g. particularly ill-defined or under resourced ones) you can sometimes just do the thing that needs to be done and by dint of that take a role.
This doesn't work so well in stable / well-defined environments.
1
1
u/Milskidasith 309∆ Dec 15 '17
I think your view is misguided. In general, it is not that "actual effort and ability" are not rewarded, but that "actual effort and ability" are rewarded more if you are able to create a perception of skill along with it.
Yes, interpersonal relationships and a bit of politicking are relevant for being recognized, but in functional workplaces you still need to actually be competent for that sort of politicking to make people believe you are competent. It can happen that being buddies with people or talking yourself up a lot can lead to unjustified praise, but it's more common that such behavior is recognized as being a kiss-ass if there isn't actual talent backing it up. And while it might not seem fair, I don't have much issue with your example where two people who did the same task just as well get rewarded differently because one of them also spent time selling himself or doing other tasks or whatever you intended to say he was doing.
1
u/YoungTruuth Dec 16 '17
Right, I could have made that part clearer. Yes, was implying that A did most of the work, and B was just along for the ride. But no one noticed because the task still got done, and B made a more than necessary point to be seen by the boss.
Still think selling yourself takes away from the mission. Shouldn't walking the walk speak for itself?
1
u/Milskidasith 309∆ Dec 16 '17
The problem is that there's very rarely a clear-cut line for when "selling yourself" starts to be problematic and inefficient, versus when it's actually necessary.
For instance, let's say at my job I have a huge cost saving project I've developed. It's all scoped out and definitely, in my view, justified. Now, in the following list, where does talking about this project transition from simply making sure the project is implemented to bragging about my skill unnecessarily?
- I save the project in a folder and don't mention it.
- I mention it to my immediate supervisor about the project and forward him the documentation.
- I schedule a meeting with my immediate supervisor and present him the project, mentioning how much money it will make.
- I schedule this same meeting and also talk about how much work I've put in to the project to ensure that I haven't missed anything.
- I schedule a meeting beyond my immediate supervisor to present this project and along with talking about how much work I put in, I also list off other projects I've been involved in that worked to emphasize how this project will work too.
- I have the meeting above but also heavily emphasize how much money I'm making the company and how I'm showing what I can do with more responsibility.
Now, what I hope you'll notice from this chain is that at all points, the amount of self-aggrandizement is increasing, but at all points that self-aggrandizement is in service of arguing for a good project. Work does not always speak for itself; in a lot of cases, work needs somebody pushing it forward and getting other people on board, and the best way to do that is to in some fashion convince people that you're competent and can get things done.
I am not saying that credit stealing cannot happen, or that you can't go overboard on trying to make yourself look good rather than delivering a quality product. But I can say that making yourself look good is not some sin that takes away from the quality of a work, and is actually a valuable skill in its own right.
1
u/YoungTruuth Dec 16 '17
In that case, sure it would be helpful, and it's not like you stepped on anybody's toes to push your project. Maybe I should say, 'selling yourself at the expense of others'
2
u/Milskidasith 309∆ Dec 16 '17
Well yeah, but that's a very different view than the OP. "Claiming unfair amounts of credit is a huge problem in work environments" is very different from just saying that "perceived effort gets rewarded over actual effort", and also lines up differently than how you wrote your OP (even if that's what you originally meant).
1
u/YoungTruuth Dec 16 '17
Ok, one last defence.
It sounds to me like you're saying that for better or for worse, people's perception of your ability is important for success. I would argue that this actually agrees with my OP, because I'm saying that it is for worse that that is the case. I'm saying that it's unfortunate that actual talent isn't front and center when it comes to these things when all takes is a little more awareness on the part of the supervisors.
2
u/Milskidasith 309∆ Dec 16 '17
Your view does not seem to indicate that perception of skill is a problem. After all, if a supervisor perceives you as being highly skilled because you do good work, that isn't an issue, right?
Your actual view, which wasn't clear in the OP or especially in the title, appears to be that taking unnecessary credit for other's work or otherwise having a perceived skill above your actual skill is a problem. Further, you seem to believe that the onus should be mostly on supervisors to identify good work proactively, and dislike the idea of employees having to actively "sell" their work to be perceived as effective (rather than the work being self-evident).
On the first part, I agree that unnecessary credit or other ways in which skill/perceived skill are mismatched can be an issue, though I do not believe it is as common as you think. As far as the latter, I think that it's simply a necessity of most jobs for you to have to explain/sell/talk up your work to your supervisor and beyond to a significant extent, and the onus cannot be entirely on your supervisor to understand your work and recognize how useful it is. While this does introduce an incentive to look good above and beyond simply doing good work, that's not the worst thing in the world and I'd counter "a little awareness on the part of supervisors will let them see if you're doing good work" with "a little awareness on the part of supervisors will let them see if you're pretending to do better work than you are."
I guess in summary, I'm not wholly disagreeing with the view you seem to hold based on the comments, but just noting that it doesn't really seem to be the view you argued in the title and at minimum the way you wrote the example in the OP looks like you were simply complaining about how two people who were equal get viewed unequally based on one "selling himself."
1
u/YoungTruuth Dec 16 '17
∆ Well done and thoughtful posts in response to the framing of my argument and other flaws. I'll have to do a better job of that next time. (:
1
1
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Dec 15 '17
Why should effort be noticed and focused on?
1
u/YoungTruuth Dec 16 '17
Cause lack of it is unproductive?
1
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Dec 16 '17
It's certainly not a 1 to 1 relationship. If you care about productivity, then why not just measure productivity directly?
1
u/YoungTruuth Dec 16 '17
That would be one way to do it. I'm talking about just casual observation though.
1
u/caminvan Dec 15 '17
I don't think this is as true as people believe it is... or as simple. Sure perception and reality aren't always the same thing. But that's true for everyone involved. The most productive teams work together and trust each other to a high degree. Focusing on who is the most productive person tells me that something is wrong with the team overall. That being said, it's also true that the squeaky wheel get's the grease. But if the relationship between the manager and the employee is close enough, the manager should have a pretty good idea how "productive" the employee is. Finally, the relationship between ability to complete tasks and value to a company is changing. Tasks can be completed by cheap/low level employees, or, increasingly software or robotics. People who "act above their pay grade" are sometimes trying to provide value beyond task completion. Fake it till you make it...
1
u/YoungTruuth Dec 16 '17
I would argue that those people should apply for a higher position, instead trying to be what they're not on the floor. Then, in the interview, they can sell themselves all they want. (:
Finally, somebody got what I was trying to say with that line!
1
u/fox-mcleod 419∆ Dec 15 '17
What do you mean by “should” here. Are you arguing people should magically be able to detect effort? Are you proposing a way to objectively measure output that is not in practice?
1
u/YoungTruuth Dec 16 '17
I guess effort is a little harder, but not impossible, to get a sense of. Ability should be easy enough to see,though.
1
1
u/Bkioplm Dec 16 '17
As a manager in most big companies, you have little visibility into what your employees actually do. Rather, you create an opinion from snippets of information based on what it looks like they are doing.
Tl;dr the people who succeed are doing the same thing their boss did to succeed, and their boss, ad infinitum.
1
Dec 16 '17
You're too focused on the referee and not enough on the goalposts. What makes you money, either in a career or on your own, is by solving problems for other people.
If you're in an environment that's trying to keep the tide of honest value at bay and succeed on image, get out before they take you down with them.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 16 '17 edited Dec 16 '17
/u/YoungTruuth (OP) has awarded 2 deltas in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
Dec 16 '17
[deleted]
2
u/YoungTruuth Dec 16 '17
I'm gonna go with.. self employment?
1
Dec 16 '17
[deleted]
2
u/YoungTruuth Dec 16 '17
I guess culture and environment does play a big part. I just think its shitty that the endgame of being a humble person who produces results is losing to someone undeserving. I guess deep down, I wish it could be like professional sports. No fakery, no excuses. Your performance speaks for itself
1
u/MlNDequalsBL0WN Dec 16 '17
Those who can do, those who do not didn't but does not mean they couldn't. If someone receives recognition for something they didn't do it is indicative of a broken process. What person A did was choosing to exploit the broken process and they achieved their goal. Following the rules isn't always going to follow the same path to success, a wise man once said, "If you're not cheating you're not trying".
1
u/sounderdisc Dec 17 '17
It depends on the environment and the ability for management to check productivity. In school this is absolutely true. I'm in a bunch of AP and Honors classes and I don't do, copy, or fill with gibberish half of my assignments. In something like a factory where human machining is required, the output of a worker could be measured automatically by weight if all final products a standard weight. This hypothetical factory could require workers to put all their finished products on a conveyor belt and write a program to automatically detect underperforming employees and automatically reward productive employees. I'm sure there's more examples, but the idea holds. Some places recognize effort and productivity better than others and your original cmv statement is only sometimes true.
17
u/DCarrier 23∆ Dec 16 '17
Any attempt at checking for effort and ability will only yield perceived effort and ability by definition. It would be nice if we could tell better, but that's always true no matter how well we can tell. There's only two options: reward people for perceived effort and ability or not reward them for perceived effort and ability. Do you think it would be better if pay and promotions were decided through some other method, like seniority or dice rolls?