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

111–120 of 120 posts

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

#111

Post by mc32 »

funkymike wrote: post #109
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.

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.

You touched upon a great invidious point. There should be no reason to mention you have a “great work-life balance”. Manage people well and ensure you foster a culture of people putting in their work or time and then get in with your life the rest of the day. I understand there are people for whom work is their life, but these are the people who need the intervention to see what out there beside work.

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

#112

Post by roenxi »

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…

> 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.

Much more likely to exploit workers who are hard working and competent. There isn't much to be gained exploiting unfriendly and unproductive people.

It wouldn't be a surprise if the boss like people who are the most hard working and competent and exploits them the most.

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

#113

Post by diN0bot »

duxup wrote: post #12

I've worked jobs where I loved that exact job and I was willing to compromise and make less money than I otherwise might elsewhere to stay in that situation. Everyone understood that to be the case, me, employer. I don't think the employer was taking advantage of me, they were creating the exact environment that I really enjoyed.... that was the trade. I was also involved in a situation where we had some inters we hi…

Yes AND if you could be doing that same passionate work that you want to do anyway AND get more compensation for it, would you not also want that?

There's a grey layer of advocating for ourselves that we're not taught in school, and I think that is what some folks are keying in to. If you're putting in overtime or working outside your job description, then talk to your boss about _also_ getting compensated for that.

I started a company to do negotiation and self-advocacy coaching so I'm a little biased, but in my experience we do a disservice to paint "self-advocacy" as a false dichotomy or an extreme of ego vs self-sacrifice. Self-advocacy is simply part of all healthy relationships, including professional ones.

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

#114

Post by musicale »

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.

Passionate Code Ninjas Wanted!

We seek compliant, disposable robots who will work excessive hours for below-market pay and no advancement, sacrificing their health, happiness, sanity, and years of their lives in order to deliver massive value to the company owners!

Does this sound like YOU? Submit your application today!

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

#115

Post by rexpop »

sokoloff wrote: post #110
rexpop wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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".

It's a well-known fact that most people under-negotiate.

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

#116

Post by benchaney »

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.

That is a bizzare POV. Labor has no inherent value on its own, it is only valuable in contexts when it can be used to benefit others. Constructing those contexts often requires capital expenditure. Labor believing that capital is unnecessary makes about as much sense as sales believing engineering is unnecessary (because we bring in all the money) or vice versa.

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

#117

Post by Taniwha »

dragonwriter wrote: post #104
Taniwha wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're right of course - the partners however do work this way, mostly I was trying to point out that a worker coop is not a new thing, or necessarily a communist lefty thing - forms of it have long been part and parcel of business

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

#119

Post by TeMPOraL »

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

But are you? The "make a better world" phrase is frequently - especially in this industry - abused to try to sell the most bullshit or even socially negative jobs to people.

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

#120

Post by jeena »

jeena wrote: post #80
scardine wrote: post #5

If you hate your job, someone may be taking advantage of you. If you love your job, someone may be taking advantage of you. Someone may be taking advantage of you. Or not. Who knows?

Exploitation of labour is one of the basic concepts in capitalism. It is a social relationship based on an asymmetry in a power relationship between workers and their employers. Therefor it is independent of the fact if you love or hate your job.

Interesting that the comment got down-voted when it's practically a copy of the definition from wikipedia.
Post reply on HN