It should be "smart work," not "hard work." Hard implies it's all just the transfer of energy--what seems to excite MBAs--when all that should matter is delivering results. Isn't that what capitalism is supposed to be?
It should be "smart work," not "hard work." Hard implies it's all just the transfer of energy--what seems to excite MBAs--when all that should matter is delivering results. Isn't that what capitalism is supposed to be?
Because if you manage to finish the tasks early and leave at 2, they'll make sure you have enough tasks so that this doesn't happen again.
Yes. I've had managers get offended at the idea of taking a break when tasks are complete because you should be jumping on the next thing.
From what I've noticed, though, jumping on that next task doesn't help your career at Big Corp in any way and usually doesn't significantly lead to more personal accomplishment.
Taking some time to reflect can have a big impact on what you accomplish, though.
1. make sure you have "cover" as high up the chain as possible. Someone that signs your praises, defends you in the right meetings. Usually not your front line boss at larger corps.
Shipping and solving problems is harder
This book is pretty great! https://www.amazon.com/100-Tricks-Appear-Smart-Meetings/dp/1...
I don't think that is limited to the USA and IMHO the "ass-in-seats" mentality is as bad or worse in most other countries.
Moreover, the thing about the "results-only" approach is that it can lead to precarious employment where you get vicious "rank-and-yank" style management. The complaint in the article is that people are feeling that they can't get ahead even if they work hard.
Perhaps this isn't even really about "ass-in-seat" vs "results-only"? I think its about opportunities getting snubbed.