that scene from Office Space where he talks about "I do just enough not to get fired" may be relevant here.
There is something to be said for 'if you're going to be a rational economic actor and you have a salaried job, the optimal strategy is finish your job's tasks as fast as possible and work on a personal project which you control the upside to with all your extra energy'.
From a purely economic point of view, spending any effort beyond the minimum at a salaried job is a waste of effort - the expected value of that extra effort is nil, unless you own significant stock. This may be why many tech companies offer equity as part of their compensation.
OK, hire me, and if I over-perform and help you achieve a business target, I want a triple salary next month. Or better still, 20% of the extra profit.
No? Then you'll keep seeing what you call "mediocrity".
I am a pretty good programmer and have literally saved businesses, several times over the course of my career.
Never again though. A pat on the back is not enough of a reward.
Sorry to disappoint, but.. I don't want to hire you. I am a socialist, I find labor markets morally objectionable. The above is one reason, putting pursuit of profit above human excellence leads to mediocrity.
What benefit does excellence derive for the excellent then, other than feel-good bubbly feelings? If labor cannot differentiate itself then collectively it will do the minimum acceptable and everybody will be mediocre (unless autism).
> What benefit does excellence derive for the excellent then, other than feel-good bubbly feelings?
Ultimately anything can only give you feelings. I don't understand what else would you expect from (pursuing) being excellent (just to clarify, I define "being excellent" here as being extremely skilled at some ex ante selected task or creative process; both individuals and organizations can have that property).
But I get what you're saying. You feel like being excellent should give you money, fame and ladies. But you can get these things without being excellent. At some point, being excellent is a burden, and it's irrational to pursue it if you have those goals (of money, fame, etc.). (Someone else said in this thread that they want "a credit" for the excellence. Well if you want that, you don't need to be excellent, you just need to be good at pretending that you're, in front of people who you ask for the credit.)
Now, corporations (and private companies in general) are setup to pursuit profit, not excellency. If excellency gets in the way of profit, and mediocrity is sufficient, they won't pursue excellency, regardless what the individuals in those companies want. That's organizational laziness. Note that organizational laziness is rational (and we teach it to MBAs), because rationality only ever makes sense with respect to your goals (which here is pursuit of profit, not of excellency). But that also means, rationality is never gonna tell you which goals you should pursue. Therefore, to decide to want excellency will always be an inherently irrational act (therefore, you only do it for good feelings).
The point of the second comment I made was that yes, some people choose to build mediocre (capitalist) organizations (based on profit maximization and labor market) in pursuit of organizational excellency. To me as a socialist, this is a foolish mistake. If you're interested in excellency, you should build organizations of peers (like cooperatives) who intrinsically share that goal, not subordinates who have to be motivated extrinsically. I should also note, every organization will get parasites who have different goals, like work for less effort. Unless these people are somehow a burden on the goal of excellency, they are less problematic in organizations that pursue excellency than in capitalist organizations that pursue profit. Therefore, the organizations where the excellency maximization is a goal may seem to be collectively less efficient (more wasteful) than those where profit maximization is a goal. Again, this comes from the fact that being excellent is not necessarily the optimal way to pursue an extrinsic goal, such as profit.
Hand-wavy dismissals are not a discussion argument. I don't accept this as a rebuttal.
> You feel like being excellent should give you money, fame and ladies.
And that's called "tearing down a straw man". Why are you arguing in such a bad faith?
The only thing most of us who finally smartened up about the labor market is this: profit must correspond with reward.
You and others seem to conflate this pragmatic view with the suggestion that we do sloppy work. No, we do our work just fine and we do it well, reliably, and on schedule. What we do NOT do is to go above and beyond.
But you and others seem to get triggered on other topics (mostly about human excellence and "we as a society must all help") that have almost nothing to do with the discussed topic and give your takes not on it, but on these other things.
Finally, profit being an "extrinsic goal" is a needless philosophization and does not advance any discussion.
This. From worker's point of view it's irrational to work hard if the pay sucks. Good management should realize that, and demand less from underpaid workers. Embrace the culture of laziness, or pay a fair wage.
No, Office Space depicted a horrible office environment, most are not such. And minimalist work ethic is a poor one, regardless of hand wavy, trumped up, rationalizations.
> And minimalist work ethic is a poor one, regardless of hand wavy, trumped up, rationalizations.
That's a very protestant work ethic worldview. Doing what is expected from what you're being paid in the best way possible is not a poor work ethic, it's a pretty rational one.
The other side of it where one always strive to do more, to go above and beyond what you're being compensated for, and so forth can also be a quite poor one. God is not going to give you extra points, for some people doing their best work at current expectations is good enough, no need to spend more energy than required on a job, there's more to life than working and accumulating.
Trying to bring religion into this is beyond amusing. I guess the Japanese are all protestants? Hardly. And rationalizing poor behaviour by saying it's rational is another good one. Lastly, you're trying to shift the discussion by claiming "best way possible" as opposed to others saying "do the bare minimum". These are very often not the same.
The problem is, people don't "get it". There are people in this thread protesting about "doing poor quality work", eg, "racking up tech debt". Why?
Because it eats at them. Because they are in this to build, and build that which holds, which has value.
They have pride in their work! Yet the response some have here is simply don't do the best you can do. These two things are counter to one another!
I am advocating that yes, do the best you can do. Take joy, deep internal joy in doing your job correctly, because of what you build. This indeed does not mean doing the bare minimum, by some broken, made up rationalized excuse.
As I said, a good work ethic is not a protestant thing, it is a human thing.
We can expand this to everything. What are you being compensated for? Are your ethics formed around what's profitable?! Madness!
It's also interesting that you bring the Japanese into this. While they certainly to care a lot about producing high quality work, they also have one of the world's highest suicide rates.
I understand taking pride in what you build.
However:
1) it's important to not let that destroy the rest of your life
2) it's a lot easier to take pride in what you build when you're working on something you own[0]. As I believe I alluded to in other comments on this thread, and was kind of insinuating with the original comment that you replied to, deciding that extra effort spent on a dysfunctional enterprise project micro-managed by 3 competing orgs who spend their time changing requirements in order to win minor political victories (yes, this is an extreme example, please bear with me) is better spent on a personal open-source project, or even building something like a sport club or happy family seems to be the logical course of action when you care about what you build.
Which isn't to say don't do the best you can at work - ship the code they ask you to ship, write it well, add unit tests, all that jazz.
But then once that's done, you can either focus on being the best employee for Megacorp, which is likely to be soul-crushing, because you'll have extremely little reward for your effort, or you can be the best employee of You, LLC, where you natural human desire to make something beautiful can express itself in a way that is much more rewarding for you, both financially and emotionally.
What is seen as "good work ethic" is absolutely a cultural thing, and at least partially explains economic success (or lack of) in many countries. The Japanese aren't protestant, but they have other elements in their culture that encourage hard work as a virtue.
I take joy in projects that I actually find meaningful. Being an underpaid cog in the machine, working on JIRA tasks visioned by someone else isn't meaningful. Lack of adequate pay makes me feel underappreciated, and frankly destroys any motivation I could otherwise have. So no, I'm doing the bare minimum and don't feel bad about it. I treat my employer like it treats me, that's called justice.
It's not beyond amusing, the protestant work ethic is the tradition from where a lot of nations have derived their work ethic from. Just like the Japanese derived their work ethic from their traditions, bringing it up is just clearing the way that yes, it's a religion-originated way of thinking about work, there's nothing wrong about that and you getting hung up on it is what's truly beyond amusing.
> Lastly, you're trying to shift the discussion by claiming "best way possible" as opposed to others saying "do the bare minimum". These are very often not the same.
Because the discussion gets murky exactly at this point. Doing the bare minimum means not going out of the way to solve issues for others, like Americans working outside of their working hours and bosses expecting that should be done. I have many work colleagues in the USA who are beyond annoying by trying to prove themselves by working outside of what they are paid for, with the thought they should go "above and beyond" instilled in their minds. It just creates issues for other cultures who do not prize themselves in sacrificing their lives for the job.
The other side of it is doing the best work you are willing to do, with the limitations you currently have (skill, health [physical or mental], time, etc.), that's what I call "bare minimum" for myself. I won't be wasting my time trying to come up with new products, new paths of generating revenue, simply because I'm not paid for that, when I am in that spot I definitely offer the best help I can but I won't be fighting political infights, depriving myself of a life to work another 2h/day to setup a new project for some higher ups, and so on.
> I am advocating that yes, do the best you can do. Take joy, deep internal joy in doing your job correctly, because of what you build. This indeed does not mean doing the bare minimum, by some broken, made up rationalized excuse.
You don't need to take deep internal joy of doing your job correctly, at all, one just need to have a work ethic that doing your job correctly is the right thing to do, it's what I'm being paid for, and that's the bare minimum. If that means I can slack off a little bit because I'm aware I can deliver what's expected so be it.
Perhaps we are talking past each other here because I do not disagree mostly with you, I probably just disagree with your approach to it (and hence what I called a derivative of the protestant work ethic).
> As I said, a good work ethic is not a protestant thing, it is a human thing.
Not necessarily, if your work is bullshit and you are not paid enough for it without much chance to do something else because of life's circumstances there's absolutely no inner motivation to have good work ethic.
> We can expand this to everything. What are you being compensated for? Are your ethics formed around what's profitable?! Madness!
Much the opposite, what's profitable is usually the least of my concerns ethically-wise, I would even say it is most times detrimental to ethical behaviour.
There is something to be said for 'if you're going to be a rational economic actor and you have a salaried job, the optimal strategy is finish your job's tasks as fast as possible and work on a personal project which you control the upside to with all your extra energy'.
From a purely economic point of view, spending any effort beyond the minimum at a salaried job is a waste of effort - the expected value of that extra effort is nil, unless you own significant stock. This may be why many tech companies offer equity as part of their compensation.