Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

People see it as more acceptable to make passionate employees do extra: study

fuqua.duke.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 120 posts

Re: People see it as more acceptable to make passionate employees do extra: study

#101

Post by klenwell »

kstenerud wrote: post #37

Since nobody is actually reading the article, let me sum it up: In a survey of regular people (not EvilCorp CEOs), "people consider it more legitimate to make passionate employees leave family to work on a weekend, work unpaid, and handle unrelated tasks that were not in the job description." "This finding extended to asking for work far beyond the job description, including leaving a day at the park with family and…

In the Company Hierarchy chart that is the cornerstone of the Gervais Principle, I take it these passionate employees make up the Clueless layer that is the essential middle of the pyramid:

https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...

As a congenital member of the Loser class, I guess it's nice to realize it does have some perks.

Re: People see it as more acceptable to make passionate employees do extra: study

#102

Post by aeternus »

abdullahkhalids wrote: post #88
ryanmonroe wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" In one study, participants who read that an artist was strongly passionate about his job said it was more legitimate for the boss to exploit the artist than those who read the artist wasn’t as passionate." If you know someone who loves painting and a mural needs to be painted on Saturday, is it really crazy to think it's less bad to ask them to paint the mural than it would be to ask someone who has no passion for…

> Isn't that true though? Not in the real world. 1. Like in any organization, the boss exploits the workers he doesn't like more than those he likes. Who he likes might be based a random factor like sense of humor/gender than ability. 2. People rarely drop out of phd programs (single digit percentage at most in my experience) because they don't want to fail. So, in actuality, the drop out rate difference exploitative…

Single digit drop out for PhD programs does not sound right, I've believe the stat is closer to 50%:

https://www.chronicle.com/article/PhD-Attrition-How-Much-Is/...

Re: People see it as more acceptable to make passionate employees do extra: study

#103

Post by walshemj »

Taniwha wrote: post #87
chongli wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who supplies the capital for worker co-ops? That's the problem, as I see it. Yeah, workers lose out on the surplus in typical company. However, workers aren't risking their own capital. If the company goes bankrupt, the worker only loses their job, not their investment (unless they took equity as part of a compensation package).

The workers of course - most small to medium sized law firms are worker co-ops where new members 'buy a seat', effectively adding their share of the working capital

Are they I though that was partnerships or really the v old guild mode.

Anteing is a very Spanish mondragon thing I haven't heard of it in the UK

Re: People see it as more acceptable to make passionate employees do extra: study

#104

Post by dragonwriter »

Taniwha wrote: post #87
chongli wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who supplies the capital for worker co-ops? That's the problem, as I see it. Yeah, workers lose out on the surplus in typical company. However, workers aren't risking their own capital. If the company goes bankrupt, the worker only loses their job, not their investment (unless they took equity as part of a compensation package).

The workers of course - most small to medium sized law firms are worker co-ops where new members 'buy a seat', effectively adding their share of the working capital

> most small to medium sized law firms are worker co-ops

Really? Paralegals, secretaries etc. are equal full partners?

A partnership of professionals with wage-labor support staff isn't a labor coop.

Re: People see it as more acceptable to make passionate employees do extra: study

#105

Post by harimau777 »

abdullahkhalids wrote: post #88
ryanmonroe wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" In one study, participants who read that an artist was strongly passionate about his job said it was more legitimate for the boss to exploit the artist than those who read the artist wasn’t as passionate." If you know someone who loves painting and a mural needs to be painted on Saturday, is it really crazy to think it's less bad to ask them to paint the mural than it would be to ask someone who has no passion for…

> Isn't that true though? Not in the real world. 1. Like in any organization, the boss exploits the workers he doesn't like more than those he likes. Who he likes might be based a random factor like sense of humor/gender than ability. 2. People rarely drop out of phd programs (single digit percentage at most in my experience) because they don't want to fail. So, in actuality, the drop out rate difference exploitative…

Also, if the student is there on a student visa than quitting could mean losing their visa.

Re: People see it as more acceptable to make passionate employees do extra: study

#106

Post by mc32 »

Arubis wrote: post #92
mc32 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So that’s why companies want “passionate” workers, so the non passionate ones have someone to offload problems to... I rue this era when HR mimics the tactics of marketing... we want passionate “ninjas,” (whatever the term of the day is) who “share our vision” “to make a better world”. You know what. Hire people to do the job description you post. All the other frills are just image marketing.

There's some nuance and complication there, of course--putting aside the marketspeak for "ninjas" (which has been bullshit since it was first termed; I think that, and similar terms, are at last dead and buried, no?), if you're a mission- or social impact-oriented organization, a fair number of your potential hires are actively seeing a source of fulfillment in their work, and providing them with an outlet for that c…

> if you're a mission- or social impact-oriented organization, a fair number of your potential hires are actively seeing a source of fulfillment in their work..."

I suppose, but I think there are a great number of Non-profits and Volunteer orgs who don't rely on lofty language in order to attract talent. I still think these things should fit the job expected to be carried out. Google and others have these kinds of messages in order to corner talent, but it's not necessary, Microsoft is just as capable and they do not resort to lofty flowery language to achieve their goals and they are no worse than Google for it (in either what they do or what they stand for).

Re: People see it as more acceptable to make passionate employees do extra: study

#107

Post by abdullahkhalids »

aeternus wrote: post #102
abdullahkhalids wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't that true though? Not in the real world. 1. Like in any organization, the boss exploits the workers he doesn't like more than those he likes. Who he likes might be based a random factor like sense of humor/gender than ability. 2. People rarely drop out of phd programs (single digit percentage at most in my experience) because they don't want to fail. So, in actuality, the drop out rate difference exploitative…

Single digit drop out for PhD programs does not sound right, I've believe the stat is closer to 50%: https://www.chronicle.com/article/PhD-Attrition-How-Much-Is/...

The dropout rate varies significantly by discipline. My experience is only with the natural sciences where in North America at least, most students are funded by their program+advisor, compared to the humanities where funding opportunities are few and far in between.

I would guess that students who are funded by their advisor are much more likely to be exploited compared to the self-funded student because of the monetary exchange going on. But funded students are also less likely to quit because they have a relatively comfy job for five years that protects them from the "real world".

Re: People see it as more acceptable to make passionate employees do extra: study

#108

Post by rexpop »

sokoloff wrote: post #96
rexpop wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you love your job, but hate your politicians, and your company's investors are laundering their profits through PACs to purchase said politicians, then your employer is—perhaps not so clearly—taking advantage of you. And you should be paid more. Have you ever counted out how much political money comes out of your paycheck before it reaches your house?

Taxes, FICA, health insurance and other benefits paid on my behalf come out of my paycheck. What any investors or executives do with money that was never mine (aka “their profits”) is not “coming out of my paycheck.”

> money that was never mine is not “coming out of my paycheck.”

That's a funny way of looking at it. All value originates in the labor of people like you and me. It's only an accounting trick that any of it appears to end up in others' hands.

Re: People see it as more acceptable to make passionate employees do extra: study

#109

Post by funkymike »

mc32 wrote: post #74
kstenerud wrote: post #37

Since nobody is actually reading the article, let me sum it up: In a survey of regular people (not EvilCorp CEOs), "people consider it more legitimate to make passionate employees leave family to work on a weekend, work unpaid, and handle unrelated tasks that were not in the job description." "This finding extended to asking for work far beyond the job description, including leaving a day at the park with family and…

So that’s why companies want “passionate” workers, so the non passionate ones have someone to offload problems to... I rue this era when HR mimics the tactics of marketing... we want passionate “ninjas,” (whatever the term of the day is) who “share our vision” “to make a better world”. You know what. Hire people to do the job description you post. All the other frills are just image marketing.

Having people like that also enables management to then set expectations based on the work of the outliers. If you aren't being abused then you aren't being a team player. The same way that "unlimited vacation" can easily turn into a competition of who takes the least vacation in order to look the most dedicated.

Re: People see it as more acceptable to make passionate employees do extra: study

#110

Post by sokoloff »

rexpop wrote: post #108
sokoloff wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxes, FICA, health insurance and other benefits paid on my behalf come out of my paycheck. What any investors or executives do with money that was never mine (aka “their profits”) is not “coming out of my paycheck.”

> money that was never mine is not “coming out of my paycheck.” That's a funny way of looking at it. All value originates in the labor of people like you and me. It's only an accounting trick that any of it appears to end up in others' hands.

IMO, it's a more funny way of looking at it to think that money that no one ever agreed to pay me when I freely negotiated for my salary was somehow originally "mine".
Post reply on HN