Different work ethics

[resqgeek]

Perhaps it is a generational thing, but it feels like the newer employees at my office have a different understanding about what constitutes an acceptable level of effort in performing their duties than I do.  I come to this realization based on conversations I’ve had with some of these employees directly and based on general statements my supervisor has made.  For many of these newer employees, they are satisfied if they can satisfy the minimum level of acceptable performance (as defined in our Performance Appraisal Plan).  While the plan includes financial incentives (i.e., awards) for achieving defined levels of exceptional performance, these employees don’t seem to find these to be sufficient motivation to put forth the extra effort.  They argue that they can make more money by working overtime at the minimum acceptable performance level.

I simply cannot understand this mindset.  For me, achieving the higher performance levels is a matter of pride.  While it is nice to get a bonus in my paycheck at the end of the year, that really isn’t my primary motivation.  I believe in always giving my best effort, and I would feel like I was cheating if I gave anything less than that.  I suspect that this approach to the job is part of the reason my supervisors and colleagues seem to respect me so much.  This translates into a great working relationship with them, one that allows me a great deal of autonomy, which helps minimize the stress related to the job.

I have made efforts to explain to some of these newer employees how putting forth your best effort each and every day can help foster positive relationships with supervisors and colleagues, which in turn can smooth the path for a long and enjoyable career.  Some seem to get it, and make an effort to change, but there are others who just don’t seem to get it.  I wonder why.

Comments

[melydia.livejournal.com]

I suppose it depends on where they've worked before. There are plenty of places where whether you do the minimum or you work your tail off, you still get paid the same in the end, with none of the intangible benefits you describe here - your boss and colleagues don't notice one way or the other. Or you work your tail off and everybody thinks you're great and you still get laid off. At my last two jobs, my boss didn't even know what I did all day, and wasn't all that interested either, so long as the customer didn't complain.

It's easy to become cynical, especially these days, when it's very rare for someone to stay with the same company for their entire career. A lot of employers don't even make an effort to get their best people to stay.

In this area in particular, money is very important. The starting salaries in the government are kind of low for the skillset required, and in many places (I don't know if this is true at the Patent Office but it's definitely true for DoD and the Intelligence Community), it's extremely difficult to get a raise, and whether you get promoted has a whole lot more to do with how well you write your personal assessment than what you actually do, because the people grading you often don't know you from Adam.

Does this mean you shouldn't work hard? Of course not. There are plenty of places where it does pay off. I'm just saying that if you've never worked in a place where you were valued for your personal contribution, it requires a change in mindset, one that doesn't happen overnight. And people who have been at the same job for decades telling you otherwise often isn't very convincing, since they haven't worked anywhere else recently, and thus have no real frame of reference.

Then again, it might just be that those folks really hate the work and cannot stand the thought of doing more than they absolutely have to. :)

[resqgeek]

Excellent points...I may have to consider my own perspectives and how they color the way I see this issue. I still that, at least for my own part, there is a component of this the reflects how I was brought up. Even when I was working jobs I hated during my summer breaks from college, I still chafed at the idea of doing "just enough"...to the point where it got me involved in a physical altercation with co-workers who felt threatened by my work ethic (I've written about that elsewhere...perhaps that's something else to copy here).

I also wonder if the common stereotype of the lazy government employee doesn't factor in as well. Perhaps for some people it influences their expectations of what to they need to do on the job? Just spitballing, but I could believe that at least some small number of people take government jobs because they see it as a safe and easy paycheck. Of course, the reality is somewhat different, at least where I work...

[6of8.livejournal.com]

I agreed with the basic concept of your original post, but I have to say that my personal experience is more along the lines of Melydia's. You and I are the same generation and I was raised to never give less than 110%, no matter what.

However, my current job has gradually eroded that -- which is a large part of the reason I am looking for something new. My current job expects a minimum of 150% all of the time (with no allowance for sickness or vacation in the quota) just to be considered "fully successful". Doing a half-a**ed job and passing the buck can actually get you to "outstanding achievement" level, because no one in management cares if you do your cases well, only how many. That means more work for other people down the line, but can get you a bonus and qualify you for available OT.

Whether or not you do extra, 99% of the time means nothing. It completely depends on who your direct supervisor is. My current supervisor is the best I have had in seven years (there have been five others) but he is not inclined to schmooze his superiors in order to nurture his own career, let alone the careers of his people, which is what it takes. Oh, and have I mentioned that I get no credit for the work I have completed until the next person on the food chain has done their own work on the case?! And they are in a position to sit on your work product for as long as they want, as long as they move a sufficient number of the total work they get from the six to ten people below them.

After a while, you wonder why you even bother. I have decided to sacrifice quantity (the big push at my office) for quality. But that means that to keep my job, during the 4th quarter I'm working off the clock more hours in the week than I am on the clock. And I will be lucky to achieve "fully successful".