Hacker News Reader

Comment by lawn | Hacker News Reader

What happens when a skilled and very hard worker gets the same raise as someone who's not as skilled and not working very hard?

For example if the skilled one solves the hard problems the less skilled one cannot solve. And if the lazy one spends a bunch of time on facebook.

It isn't about the salary in absolute terms. It's about recognition and to be appreciated for the good work he's doing. But instead he gets the lesson that it doesn't matter.

Now there are two options:

1. Get a new job

2. Stop working so hard and stop caring about the work you do

Both are very bad options for the employer. This can only work if everyone are of similar skill and motivation.

View on HN

It's interesting that apparently this effect you describe doesn't seem to apply just as simply as we'd expect, however convincing it sounds.

At least according to the book "Drive" by Daniel Pink (2011), for any cognitively demanding work, financial incentives have a counter-productive effect. People literally become less smart by dangling the money carrot in front of them.

I guess that wouldn't imply that people being just plain lazy are accepted, but I feel that's a different discussion.

The book concludes with recommending that cognitively demanding work should be rewarded loosely adequately, and then get the whole topic out of sight, in favor focus on the interesting work.

This is something I have thought about before.

If the raise is "good" (well above inflation, at least as good as market rate), then it doesn't matter. Other motivations (pursuit of mastery, desire to do a good job etc.) have a more powerful effect than competition.

The problem comes when the raise is "bad" (at or below inflation, below market rate). At that point, the feeling of being undervalued kicks in and can have a more powerful effect than other motivators.

It is the difference between feeling like you are being treated like the best employee vs. feeling like you are being treated like the worst employee.

In a customer service job, I was once scolded for not doing someone else's work (in another department!) after finishing my own work early. I had been trying to go home early because I had a test the next day. I finished 15 minutes early and was on the way out the door when I was told to do someone else's work who had sat around most of the day.

I refused, and was called into the office the next day with 3 managers. By the end of the meeting, I told them that I would "work at the same, slow, plodding pace as all the rest of the workers and this situation will never happen again."

They actually accepted that as a success on their part. Amazed, I left the office and made good on my promise for the rest of the time I worked there.

This hurt to read, got hosed on my last performance review/raise because my supervisor threw me under the bus for things he never voiced as issues when HIS boss started asking questions he didn't know the answer to (because I do all the work).

Got the same raise/bonus as someone he referred to as "retarded", so I've been working on #1 because I've already caught myself doing #2 because even after voicing concerns and trying to fix communication issues, management hasn't changed at all.

The shitty part about #2 is that a lot of times you don't catch yourself doing it at first. It starts off as just having a bad productivity day, then you stop caring about busting your ass for a deadline because it's never recognized, then you stop trying to chase after people to answer your emails despite getting told that, rather than programming, I need to reply faster...Slippery slope of apathy. I think I liked my job at some point.

> someone he referred to as "retarded"

Yikes. Even if I had gotten a huge raise, 25% or higher, if I heard my manager say this I'd be looking for a new job that day. There's no way that person is fit for their position. If they're willing to say that about someone in front of you, you have to assume they're willing to say the same thing about you in front of someone else. The point being that that behavior is very toxic, very unprofessional, and is nothing but a giant red flag to get out.

In the same conversation, he said "You're friends with <coworker> outside of work, right? Look, don't tell him this, but we can get 10 of him, we can't find many of you" then still gave me a 2.5% raise. I literally don't get what sort of person you have to be to confirm that someone's my friend, then proceed to shit on them in a professional setting. Head of the department (his direct boss) was sitting there too. The co-worker in question has basically been single-handedly tackling security and busts his ass, but luckily his supervisor isn't terrible and goes to bat so he at least got the raise he deserved (he's still looking for other jobs too, don't worry).

Been looking (not as hard as I should be) for a new job since that review, unfortunately being stubborn about staying in central New Jersey isn't doing me any favors. Just trying to maintain my sanity in the meantime while I look around :/

That's honestly insane. I mean, you know that people like that are a dime a dozen, and that they're obviously out there in companies all throughout departments as rank and file and in management and executive positions. I guess it's just a little bit extra terrifying to wake up one day and realize it's your boss, and from what you're saying it's his boss, too.

> unfortunately being stubborn about staying in central New Jersey isn't doing me any favors. Just trying to maintain my sanity in the meantime while I look around :/

I know that all too well. I'm not dealing with managers who are as outwardly assholish as you are but there's more problems than solutions where I work. My current flavor of employment handcuffs are a full-time remote position. The job itself isn't that bad, but I'm underpaid and overworked. The full-time remote plus the little bit of autonomy that I have in my work keeps me from looking too hard. Complacency, by any other name.

A team of equally skilled and motivated people is bad as it can not achieve more than any individual in the team, the less skilled and less motivated should be removed.

A team works best when its different people with different skills and different motivations as they can achieve more than the sum of their parts.

The developer feels they are the one making the product and brining in the money for the business, obviously they contribute more than the janitor.

The janitor feels they contribute more as they shove their hand down a toilet to unblock it while the developer sits in a comfy chair on facebook.

How do you quantify the contribution of two different jobs? Salary is often used to justify contribution but generally based on supply vs demand it has little to do with contribution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com