10 ms·

if the belief is that employees using sit/stand workstations will improve productivity and output, it's a business' own choice not to do so for employees who ha

if the belief is that employees using sit/stand workstations will improve productivity and output, it's a business' own choice not to do so for employees who have collective bargaining. there is also a cost associated with maintaining different workspaces and equipment for employees of different status, and it's a company's choice to take that on. typically when discussing working conditions, you're talking about minimum standards. it's not very smart to refuse to improve working conditions across the board. you said in a reply further down that you were an executive level manager, you should have told HR to shove it because your individual performance would be impacted by the collective output of your employees, and the costs of improving working conditions would be returned in several multiples, some of which you might receive as a bonus. it was, however, your choice and right not to do this. :)

maerF0x0 4y ago
> you said in a reply further down that you were an executive level manager, you should have told HR to shove it because your individual performance would be impacted by the collective output of your employees, and the costs of improving working conditions would be returned in several multiples, some of which you might receive as a bonus. This assumes the EMgr is compensated/recognized more on performance of collective output than on politics and relationships. I dont know specifically about Apple, but plenty of orgs are imperfect enough that relationships are actually more highly rewarded/recognized than optimal collective outcomes (which are disparate and difficult to take credit for.) This is part of the reason why "glue" workers[1] are usually overlooked and kept back. They neither please anyone, nor have a specific item to take credit for, usually simply boosting the outcomes of others who take all the credit for their work, plus some for that of the glue worker. [1]: (ones which keep a team functioning well, but do nothing particularly stunning of their own)
- Consultant32452 4y ago
  I highly recommend the "glue" worker path. The catch phrase I use is "a rising tide raises all ships." When I was a young buck I took the "shooting star" path where I'd knock out user stories at 10x or more compared to the team average. Basically everyone hated me. Then I chose the "rising tide" path and most people loved me. All of my greatest $ opportunities came from people I raised up. Even little behaviors like instead of speaking up in meetings I DM people to offer suggestions/corrections to things they've said in meetings. And then they can seamlessly take credit for my ideas by incorporating them as they continue to talk. If you care about promotions, it's important to also do this for leadership. If you measure my work by lines of code or user stories completed, etc. I will come up short for sure. But teams love having me around and I never lack for opportunity.
  - maerF0x0 4y ago
    I appreciate you sharing your experience. Mine has been essentially the opposite, but I suspect the root cause being working for a company with a terrible culture. Any tips out rooting out the companies that actually reward this virtuous behavior?
    - novok 4y ago
      You do it in a way where you're helping the careers of people, not doing it because you think is abstractly best. Where having you around is good for them, and not having your around is bad for them. Where if you're gone, it's fuck, now my life is going to be harder. Some might call it 'relationships', but maybe it's more about choosing what has more effective impact? Also a lot of glue people are missing the marketing aspect, and I think that is why it is unappreciated. If you never made a sound, do you exist? Glue people exist outside of the typical marketing machine for most employees, which in lies its power too, because the opportunity set is also richer. The parallels to business and sales is very apt. You can't just make a product and expect adoption with no marketing, and the same applies when you're doing a job too. If you think you shouldn't do it, your essentially saying someone should do it for you, and they can, to a point, but you are your own best marketer, because you work with your work 24/7, while your manager has 5 to 25 other people to also think about.
    - Consultant32452 4y ago
      In addition to what novok said, I would say keeping score is a detriment. Most of the people I "raised" provided absolutely nothing tangible in return and I don't feel any negative emotion about that. I'm glad they are better off in some capacity because I was in their life and that is its own reward. Keeping score is the path to bitterness and negative attitude which people will see through. Can you speak more specifically about what you experienced that you found so terrible? That might help me offer a more useful response.
  - StopHammoTime 4y ago
    +1 on this. If someone is as smart as they think they are, building up the team is always the best option. If you’re always going to be ahead of the curve hours out how you can make everyone perform better as a force multiplier rather than just your own performance. I will say, I think this is a negative aspect of performance culture though: if you’re average are you going to help someone who is going to be pipped instead of you? Probably not.

maerF0x0 4y ago

> you said in a reply further down that you were an executive level manager, you should have told HR to shove it because your individual performance would be impacted by the collective output of your employees, and the costs of improving working conditions would be returned in several multiples, some of which you might receive as a bonus. This assumes the EMgr is compensated/recognized more on performance of collective output than on politics and relationships. I dont know specifically about Apple, but plenty of orgs are imperfect enough that relationships are actually more highly rewarded/recognized than optimal collective outcomes (which are disparate and difficult to take credit for.) This is part of the reason why "glue" workers[1] are usually overlooked and kept back. They neither please anyone, nor have a specific item to take credit for, usually simply boosting the outcomes of others who take all the credit for their work, plus some for that of the glue worker. [1]: (ones which keep a team functioning well, but do nothing particularly stunning of their own)

Consultant32452 4y ago
I highly recommend the "glue" worker path. The catch phrase I use is "a rising tide raises all ships." When I was a young buck I took the "shooting star" path where I'd knock out user stories at 10x or more compared to the team average. Basically everyone hated me. Then I chose the "rising tide" path and most people loved me. All of my greatest $ opportunities came from people I raised up. Even little behaviors like instead of speaking up in meetings I DM people to offer suggestions/corrections to things they've said in meetings. And then they can seamlessly take credit for my ideas by incorporating them as they continue to talk. If you care about promotions, it's important to also do this for leadership. If you measure my work by lines of code or user stories completed, etc. I will come up short for sure. But teams love having me around and I never lack for opportunity.
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  I appreciate you sharing your experience. Mine has been essentially the opposite, but I suspect the root cause being working for a company with a terrible culture. Any tips out rooting out the companies that actually reward this virtuous behavior?
  - novok 4y ago
    You do it in a way where you're helping the careers of people, not doing it because you think is abstractly best. Where having you around is good for them, and not having your around is bad for them. Where if you're gone, it's fuck, now my life is going to be harder. Some might call it 'relationships', but maybe it's more about choosing what has more effective impact? Also a lot of glue people are missing the marketing aspect, and I think that is why it is unappreciated. If you never made a sound, do you exist? Glue people exist outside of the typical marketing machine for most employees, which in lies its power too, because the opportunity set is also richer. The parallels to business and sales is very apt. You can't just make a product and expect adoption with no marketing, and the same applies when you're doing a job too. If you think you shouldn't do it, your essentially saying someone should do it for you, and they can, to a point, but you are your own best marketer, because you work with your work 24/7, while your manager has 5 to 25 other people to also think about.
  - Consultant32452 4y ago
    In addition to what novok said, I would say keeping score is a detriment. Most of the people I "raised" provided absolutely nothing tangible in return and I don't feel any negative emotion about that. I'm glad they are better off in some capacity because I was in their life and that is its own reward. Keeping score is the path to bitterness and negative attitude which people will see through. Can you speak more specifically about what you experienced that you found so terrible? That might help me offer a more useful response.
- StopHammoTime 4y ago
  +1 on this. If someone is as smart as they think they are, building up the team is always the best option. If you’re always going to be ahead of the curve hours out how you can make everyone perform better as a force multiplier rather than just your own performance. I will say, I think this is a negative aspect of performance culture though: if you’re average are you going to help someone who is going to be pipped instead of you? Probably not.