![]() The alternative is that career success is 100% opaque and based on the feelings of one person. Other managers can provide oversight on this. Managers need to actually document what you did and why that aligns with whatever level on these frameworks. > You aren't completely at the whim of your manager. Somebody insists that their work is just obviously impactful and therefore they don't need to measure anything but they are forced to measure it due to framework requirements and, surprise surprise, what they did wasn't that important after all. If you can make the company do better without pleasing the framework, then the framework may be wrong or perhaps your priorities are wrong. This is hard and requires careful language and training, but in an ideal world these sorts of frameworks allow people to align their personal career goals with the goals of the company. It can help shift priorities for an organization that is working on the wrong stuff. ![]() I'm glad to have a framework than to just go based on my feelings, because my feelings are often wrong.ģ. It helps me as a manager do performance evaluations. The alternative is that career success is 100% opaque and based on the feelings of one person.Ģ. You aren't completely at the whim of your manager. There are limitations and the frameworks can be misaligned with the ideal goals, but in general it provides the following benefits.ġ. If you like having systems like this in your organization, what is it that you like about it? > I'm genuinely wondering what people on the other side of this debate think about this. Constant good work is more valuable to me that irregular exceptional. Not exceptional, and exceptional isn't always needed. I'm saying that cooperation and inter team competition are orthogonal, but in my experience competition can demotivate people who otherwise deliver regular, good work. ![]() It's worst when the company instills the feeling that I'm replaceable at a whim if I don't put it 110%.Īgain, I'm not saying you think that way. ![]() If have the feeling I constantly have to outsmart and outdo everyone else just to keep my job and stagnate, my appreciation for the company drops. But not at the expense of my physical or mental health. ![]() Getting regular raises for contributing to the everyday work of a company is appreciation, and I gladly continue to the company if I feel valued. Even if I only do the menial work those go-getters deem not worth their time. Mutual advantage to me is exactly that, even if I know someone else is smarter than me and can produce more quality work than me, the fact that I still contribute to the team success should mean I also get regular raises. > People are different, we have diverse motivations and personalities, and we have to find ways to use this diversity to our mutual advantage, instead of trying saying that some of those are right and some are wrong. I'm not saying you do that, and I'm not saying I believe that, because: Why should I contribute to a team if person A tries to "win teamwork". I strongly disagree, constant competition and a desire to be the best/most payed in a team dissolves cooperation. I find this worldview to be very detrimental to teamwork. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |