Well, I’m wondering if that’s not why Ron Livingston’s character in Office Space is named Peter.
The only problem with that theory is that people don’t have fixed levels of competance. You can be promoted to a position that you are not competant at, but you can still grow into it.
Exactly. I am currently working on becoming more of an entrepreneur, because I fully realize that I will never be paid what I’m worth (especially as I mature and develop all my soft skills as well), but it still bugs me to be taken advantage of by employers. I remember when I started out working; I was so gung-ho and eager to do all I could for an employer. That got me absolutely nowhere. Now I just want to put in my hours, do the bare minimum, and work on developing my own business.
(Airman, I have read “The Peter Principle.” It is a good read.)
I’ve worked temp assignments where it was VERY clearly to my advantage to not work as fast I possibly could. So I didn’t. If you have Internet access, pull up a window to visit your favorite sites, and hide it behind your work window. If you are lucky enough to have tabbed browsing, you can even pull up a work-related tab on the window and keep that one in the forefront if you are not actually using it. Do whatever amount of work you feel is appropriate first, then get on the fun stuff. Turn out the work at reasonable intervals so it looks like you’re working consistently.
As long as you stay off porn site or sites with lots of graphics that clearly are not work related, you should be OK. But this very much a proceed at your own risk strategy. It has worked very well for me however.
They wanted you to help in anything you could for years at one place. I remember the day the owner said “This isn’t your job don’t help them.” I said you spent the last five years telling us to help someone, if we could. She said “Well I don’t want you doing their job for them.” The place also had a maximum wage you could earn which I was at. I then stopped doing anything not discribed in my job.
I have very successfully used this at temp jobs in the past, too. When you’re hired for a temp job, it is for a very specific set of tasks, and when your employer thinks that because you’re there and you’re able to do more than he’s paying for, you’re obligated to do it, and the temp agency won’t back you up, I made it my business to make sure they didn’t get more than their money’s worth from me.
What if you underestimate a little bit how much you need to be reasonably happy? Presumably you have a long life ahead of you. What about a retirement you need to save for, a sick loved one to care for, an period of unemployment etc. How thrilled do you think society should be to cover those expenses for you because you “thought you worked as hard as you had to?” Do you feel good knowing your taxes go to pay for things for people who didn’t apply themselves?
I know several people who were unemployed during the last downturn. Quite a few I expect were doing the minimum to get by before they were let go, and are looking for another opportunity to do the minimum. I don’t have a whole lot of sympathy for them.
Find a job where you feel your contribution is meaningful. Or apply yourself at a job that uses your talents fully and give the money to a cause you find meaningful.
My first job out of school was a 36-week contract. I finished everything related to that task in about 3 hours.
I mean everything! Show up, get the orientation, find the bathrooms and the office supplies, get used to the computer systems, learn the specific formats required, sit down and do all the data entry and layout, print it up in the special format, triple check for accuracy, run it by the legal department, and I was finished in time to go to lunch.
I then went to my boss, presented my fait accompli, and asked what else he had for me to do. He looked sick.
I spent the next few months surfing the net.
I assume this is addressed to me. 
This argument would be valid if there were a precise correlation between the amount of effort put into a job and the rewards it gave. But the point the OP is making, and which those of us on her (his?) side would agree with, is that it doesn’t work like that. The essense of employment is - in our experience - to get the maximum amount of benefit from your workers for the minimum expenditure. As don’t ask says - “no-one can pay them 5 times as much”. Until they can, and do - until those of us who are competent but unambitious are rewarded for our skills at a fair rate, compared to the incompetent but ambitious - then we’ll stick with doing what we’re paid for, and nothing else.
I’m more than happy to work “as hard as I have to”. I don’t see why I should work as hard as I can when it doesn’t benefit me.
And that’s a perfectly fine attitude to have, just don’t get upset when you fall behind the promotion/pay scales. I mean, that’s a fair bargain you offered: if you don’t want to do more than what you’re paid for, then I don’t need to pay you more.
I don’t know how you define “ambitious” but as somebody who looks for such people, I define it as a person who is interested in how their tasks fit into the overall corporate structure, and industry, and how they can (in order of, imho, importance)
Anybody who brings in or saves me money gets my attention. I don’t care if you know a better way of filing accounting records, I want to know if you know a way to file accounting records that will save me $5,000/year. You’re far more likely to capture my attention if, while working in my mailing services business, you tell your cousin who is opening up a pizza place about all those fliers we print up and mail ( 
) than if you take 1 fewer smoke break a day ( :rolleyes: ).
But, yeah - if you don’t want to do any more than the job requirements, we’ll need you too. After all, a company can have too many ambitious people as well.
Oh, there is one thing you can do with your “extra” time when you’re slacking off to keep a job going. (Because one of the things the Pollyannas on this thread aren’t owning up to is that getting your work done too fast can get you let go too early, from your POV. The employer who welcomes intiative is the exception, not the rule).
Anyway, I always find that the one thing you should do is give your work one extra proofing with some of hat extra time, even if you’ve proofed it thoroughly already and are sure you didn’t miss anything. I don’t know how many times that little habit has saved me from turning in work with screwups in it, or given me a chance to catch someone else’s error, making me look extra sharp. Plus, if your work comes in consistently flawless, they’ll cut yo extra slack – they’ll trust you. That can come in handy at times.
By the bye, this is pretty much the reason Google is so successful today. It was never about building a better search engine or promoting thier products well. It was all about finding the people who could work 10x faster than everyone else and paying them 10x the money.
I think about this at times also.
I have a coworker in my dept with a very simple job that he can barely do. He works really hard, long hours, and just can’t grasp the simplest of concepts. I have trained him over and over, answered the same questions over and over.
I can do his job in addition to my own (alot of the time I actually do). Why not just fire him, give me all his work, and give me a raise equalling half his salary? Company saves money, work gets done faster and better, and I get to be fairly compensated.
Never going to happen…
I have been there, and I have done that, and I have been taught my current attitude by my former employers. Some of you still seem to believe that you are going to be rewarded for your extra effort and your amazing accomplishments. I used to think that, too. I don’t any more. My reward for going above and beyond has never been raises and promotions; my reward for doing such good work has always been to get more work for the same pay. I feel justified in my attitude at this point. As I have also mentioned up-thread, I am also taking steps to get OUT of the corporate world, as embittered as I am by it.
Y’all need to read this. I just bought an issue, and am very much enjoying “war on work”.
I could not disagree more. The true path to employment nirvana is: become indispensable for one task, and be incompetent at everything else.
I read somewhere that if you can’t be replaced, you can’t be promoted. For what it’s worth.
I agree. Can’t tell you how many times I’ve run into that particular scenario – like last month, for example :rolleyes:
Look for a job at another company. When you find one, tell your current boss something along the lines of “Company X offered me Y to work for them. Can you match that or offer me something similar e.g. more vacation days” If they can’t, bon voyage.
I have seen a few examples of this as well. People who are very smart and very good at what they do getting passed on promotions and transfers, simply because management can’t afford to lose them in their current role.
Anyone have any suggestions as to how to solve this problem?
The last place I worked at would say “Have fun at the new job.”, when employees gave them a chance to make a counter offer. I would let the employees I liked know to always leave the owner a way to save face or they’d be gone after the discussion.