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. :)