[dividefuel]

In a lot of modern corporate jobs, how hard you turn the crank of effort is almost completely disconnected from the outcomes that you see.

Beyond a small minimum requirement, turning the crank more only leads to the expectation that you will continue to turn that crank that much. Rewards for going beyond -- money, security, autonomy -- are rarely present and almost never in proportion to how much you turn the crank. Plus, one day the company will decide it no longer needs you to turn the crank anymore, and without so much as a "thank you" you're on your own.

[giantg2]

"In a lot of modern corporate jobs, how hard you turn the crank of effort is almost completely disconnected from the outcomes that you see."

100%

I was a hard worker and a high performer for years and didn't see advancement due to politics. Now I have a bad rating, I'm likely to get PIP'd, but I'm simultaneously on the short list for a double promotion. How schizophrenic does your performance management have to be have someone either getting PIP'd or double promoted?

[giantg2]

Looks like I'm not getting the double promotion. I guess I'll be getting PIP'd soon.

[autobodie]

Exactly. If management communicated clear expectations and measured performance accordingly, this would all be resolved, but they encourage living in fear instead. What do they expect as a result?

[jimbokun]

In a large corporation, I don't think it's possible.

In a small company, can look at revenues and profits, and maybe breakdown by product line, and then create a bonus pool according to how well the company did and let managers decide how to divvy it up based on their evaluation of their reports.

At a very large corporation, how can you trace back credit for overall corporate performance to individuals? If individual contributors own stock in the company or RSUs, how do they know whether their actions are increasing the corporation's value?

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

<< almost completely disconnected from the outcomes that you see.

I will push it a little further, because I suppose I personally am going through a period of disengagement the article is writing about. In the last major project I was a part of, I actually saw the opposite correlation: the more effort I gave, the more messy things were becoming ( sadly, it makes sense; in that project I was finding issues left and right; if I am going above and beyond, a lot will be discovered as broken ). Eventually, it gets to you.

<< Rewards for going beyond -- money, security, autonomy -- are rarely present and almost never in proportion to how much you turn the crank.

This is the other part. I got very little out of this project for pointing out all the issues and trying to somehow resolve them. If anything, I made myself a fair amount of 'enemies', who did not appreciate me holding up the process. Once you realize what is being rewarded ( and it is not doing things well ), you optimize for it.

And can you guess what is the metric that is being rewarded? Closing projects. Not completing them well. Not making it so that they work. No. Closing a lot of them and on time. So what if is done wrong? Fixing it is another project..

I used to think that approach is an exception, but I am starting to think this it is more of a rule now. That anything gets done is nothing short of a miracle.

[jazz9k]

If you want this, get into sales or start your own business.

[bb88]

> Rewards for going beyond -- money, security, autonomy

Yeah, I agree with this, but really it comes down to money. With enough money, the other two won't matter so much. An MBA that can hold labor costs down one year might get a significant bonus, and get the corporate jet to take on vacation to Hawaii.

On the other hand if you're not management and you save the company $6million per year, well, good luck seeing a bonus from that. I'm sure it will go to the MBA's above you, including the private jet vacation to Hawaii.