Work hard or hardly work?

[Maeglin]

Why try and rise above mediocrity? It’s like the dumbasses in high school who thought the kids who studdied all the time were wasting their time. Five years later, those study nerds went off to college to good careers while the dumbasses still work in bowling allys and local bars.

The same is true when you are an adult. Temp jobs are fine right out of college, but at some point you are going to want to get married or buy a house. How much pride will you have when you’re in your late 30s and still eating microwave dinners in a run down 1-bedroom apartment?

Stop right there, if you please. Tell me you believe that there is more than a little distinction between real education in school and “skill sets” in some shitty job.

Furthermore, my goal in life most manifestly is *not[/] to be married with a house by the time I am 30. I resent the implication that I should not be proud of my life and my accomplishments if I don’t have a white picket fence and an SUV.

If I have my degree, a tenure track job, and a published book by the time I am 30, I don’t give a rat’s ass where I will be living or what I will be eating. Or how I will appear at my ten year high school reunion.

MR

[Stoid]

*Originally posted by dalovindj *
** By the way, the way I slack off most of the day is to post here! **

Indeed. I am frequently AMAZED by the number of Dopers who post from work. Considering the amount of time it is possible to blow here, and how long it takes me to read and to post, I just cannot imagine even trying that at a regular job.

I work for MYSELF and I give myself shit about it.

stoid

[magdalene]

*Originally posted by msmith537 *
There is an important distinction between a job and a career.

Exactly what I said.

From what I can tell, magdalene, Lamia, DaLovinDJ, Acco40, and Maeglin have J-O-B jobs. That is no say: no oportunity for advancement, mundane tasks to complete, and professional managers who are really just babysitters. If I had a job like that (and I have) I’d put in the minimum amount of effort too.

Exactly what the OP and all the other temps said. Excellent.

On the other hand, Quicksilver, super_head and myself are career professionals. And from what I can tell, we also all happen to be some flavor of management consultant. The diference is that we work hard (although I sometimes slack on bad days as well) so that we can get ahead. At many firms in our profession, you have to work hard just to keep your job the following year.

I used to work in management consulting (the aforementioned “career”), so yes, this is true. Right now I temp for a communications consulting company. It’s really a great place to work. But I don’t want to get ahead there. I am working hard to get ahead in my chosen field at night and on weekends in addition to putting in my 40 down at the plant. Capisce?

The reward for us is that after a some years, we can make a shitload of money. We can also work for regular companies, but as a manager, director, or CEO.

That’s great for you. That’s not the path for everyone. Failing to follow that particular path doesn’t make one mediocre. You are following your goals and reaching them your way, I am trying to change careers, other people are working their way through school, or taking jobs in nonprofits because they believe in the cause, or need jobs with flexible hours so they can raise kids, or simply excel at and enjoy administrative work. You, the management consultant/CEO, are not superior to me, the future indpendent filmmaker, nor have you proven that one work ethic is stronger than another. Oh, and have you been talking to my mother?

Why try and rise above mediocrity? It’s like the dumbasses in high school who thought the kids who studdied all the time were wasting their time. Five years later, those study nerds went off to college to good careers while the dumbasses still work in bowling allys and local bars.

dalovindj might be a mediocre temp worker but a fantastic musician. Those bartenders you went to high school with might be great at what they do - and bartenders I know in Chicago make a ton of money. There is more than one definition of what a “good career” is. For you it’s management consulting. I’m one of those “study nerds” who went of to college and the possibility of a great career, and I’m choosing to do something that is closer to my own vision, and working this current job suits me because it gives me time, flexibility, and doesn’t suck energy that is better spent on creative pursuits. To assume that a person’s job description at any given point in his life makes him, by definition, mediocre is ridiculous.

The same is true when you are an adult. Temp jobs are fine right out of college, but at some point you are going to want to get married or buy a house. How much pride will you have when you’re in your late 30s and still eating microwave dinners in a run down 1-bedroom apartment?

This is a narrow assumption of what life and careers are about. If I’m in my late 30’s and have written a successful screenplay or produced a successful independent film, I’ll be happy.

In the end, we are all responsible for our own careers. You can blame your managers or the corporation or consultants or whoever, but it doesn’t matter. You are the only one who cares about your career so you better figure out how to advance in it.

I think this comes back to the difference between job and career. However, I’m not obligated to treat every job that comes along like a stepping stone for my career, as long as I turn out satisfactory work that meet the standards of my employer. And I don’t have to pretend that each job is giving me “useful skills” - most jobs teach you how to do that job. Finally, not everyone WANTS a career. Franz Kafka worked as an accountant his entire life and wrote at night. Should he have paid more attention to his accounting? My cousin left a successful career as an attorney to run her kids’ Montessori school. Is that mediocre? I’m not trying to attack you, because you make some good points, but I’m trying to show you how narrow your management consultant’s view of “success” and “career” appears to me.

[msmith537]

*Originally posted by Maeglin *
Stop right there, if you please. Tell me you believe that there is more than a little distinction between real education in school and “skill sets” in some shitty job.

Let me give you an example of what I’m talking about. At my last (non consulting) job, we had an army of consultants working alongside the permenant employees. Most of the company employees had been there 10-15 years. They always snickered at the consultants saying that they “kissed ass” and were crazy for working all that unpaid overtime. Then they always bitched about how the consultants had the best assaignments.

Now part of the problem was managements failure to grow their own employees, deciding instead to rely on consultants. But the other part of the problem was the employees fault. They didn’t want to put in any extra effort. A few years from now, most of those consultants will be much further along in their careers while those employees (those who weren’t laid off) are still wondering why they are squeeking by with 3% raises.

I tell you, these guys made me sick. Bitching constantly about work but lacking the balls to try to find something they wanted to do. Even when they anounced layoffs were coming, most of them just sat there hoping it wouldn’t be them.

*Originally posted by Maeglin *
Furthermore, my goal in life most manifestly is *not[/] to be married with a house by the time I am 30. I resent the implication that I should not be proud of my life and my accomplishments if I don’t have a white picket fence and an SUV.

If I have my degree, a tenure track job, and a published book by the time I am 30, I don’t give a rat’s ass where I will be living or what I will be eating. Or how I will appear at my ten year high school reunion.

MR **

I think your missing my point. The important thing is to have the long term goals and to be working towords them. Whether those goals are a six or seven figure salary, getting published, or DJing at Webster Hall are matters of personal preference.

If you’re in a job that is a dead end and isn’t teaching you anything, find something you like to do. Or take classes at night to learn a new career.

Take dalovindj for example. If he’s interested in being a DJ, why in the world would he work at an investment bank instead of a place related to the music industry like a record company or night club?

My last job sucked REAL bad. I did jack shit all day and was considered one of the most productive employees. But when I wasn’t posting online, I was doing homework from my evening classes. Two years later I’m in a job that will take me where I want to be.

[Maeglin]

msmith537, I think we are largely in agreement here.

Every individual is responsible for his/her career, and this does involve taking serious risks.

Now part of the problem was managements failure to grow their own employees, deciding instead to rely on consultants. But the other part of the problem was the employees fault. They didn’t want to put in any extra effort.

This certainly cuts both ways. In my last job, I simply did not feel that unpaid overtime was part of the contract or the understanding I had with my employers. I resented what I did have to do, in my opinion, quite rightly. In my current job, I often have to work excessive amounts of paid overtime. This was a condition for accepting the position, and one to which I gladly assented. I happen to like hard work from which I can derive satisfaction.

I will not, however, work in an environment where I have to compete with my coworkers in order to keep my job. Ideologues may argue that this is simple capitalism, but I would rather not let the Market be the most important organizing principle in my life.

I think your missing my point. The important thing is to have the long term goals and to be working towords them. Whether those goals are a six or seven figure salary, getting published, or DJing at Webster Hall are matters of personal preference.

Evidently I did miss your point, as this sums up exactly how I feel.

My last job sucked REAL bad. I did jack shit all day and was considered one of the most productive employees. But when I wasn’t posting online, I was doing homework from my evening classes. Two years later I’m in a job that will take me where I want to be.

That’s how I feel, though I wish I had the privacy to crack a book or work on some real writing. Gotta wait until I get home for that.

MR

[dalovindj]

msmith537:

Take dalovindj for example. If he’s interested in being a DJ, why in the world would he work at an investment bank instead of a place related to the music industry like a record company or night club?

Simple math:

DaLovin Dj’s bills in a month:

Rent: $1100
Metrocards:$70
Food: $600 at least (I never eat in)
Utilities: $100
Insurance: $140

So, that’s $2000 or so before you get into entertainment. And let me tell you, in New York it costs 20 bucks to blow your nose. $7 mixed drinks (before tip). $120 dinner for 2 type-o-checks. $10 movie tickets. Records? I don’t even want to talk about how much I spend on records.

Record companies want you to start as an intern. If they don’t ask you to work for free, at most your looking at $10/hour to start. Night club jobs that pay are coveted, and the competition fierce. I need more skills on the tables before I can make a living at it. That takes practice and practice takes time. So:

2000 / 4 = $500 a week (plus entertainment money) I have to come up with (after taxes).

To clear $500 a week I have to make around $700.

$700 / $10 = 70 Hours I would have to work. Even if they paid you overtime (time and a half) it’s still 60 hours a week. Or 12 hours a day. Now:

$700 / $25 (what my rate is)= 28 Hours

I can make the same money in half the time, and then use the free time to advance the parts of my life I do care about. I work a 40 hour week and I even have some cash left over for records and an IRA.

What I save in time is well worth what I lack in job satisfaction.

DaLovin’ Dj

[QuickSilver]

*Originally posted by Maeglin *
**Quicksilver, I think you have been reading too many management training handbooks. If I wanted to hear the same hackneyed employer-oriented philosophy, I would have read it in some Tom Peters pulp.

Sorry folks. Been too busy working all day to post here.

In my own defense:
a) I have never in my life read a motivational employer-motivated philosophy book. Attended a seminar or listened to it on video or audio tape. I detest that kind of brain washing crap.

b) I am not a manager. Well, okay, I am. I manage myself. I’m also the president, CEO, CIO, CFO, HR director, Marketing rep and office lackey of my own company. Number of employees, in case you missed it, is one.

c) I’m an independant IT consultant. I enjoy what I do. I try not to let it define me. I do it 40 hours a week because I enjoy the company of my family and friends even more than my work. I sometimes work overtime but that is rarely necessary. I take time off to compensate.

d) I’m not a mindless production machine. As my post count will attest, I do take time off to mess around on the board from time to time. I do this when I can afford to spend the time and when I know my work will not suffer.

As to the job vs career debate. Yes, there is a distiction. My feeling is that if you find a job that you like then you would probably be more willing to make it your career. I don’t mean to trivialize some people’s bad job situations. Sometimes with bills and other realities of life, it is difficult to pick up and quit a job. In some small markets, it’s hard to find other work. But I’m not sure these are good enough reasons for habitual mediocrity. Of course, I shouldn’t make it a habit to descourage mediocrity. Those kinds of lax attitude keep my contracts rolling in.

[LacticAcid]

I say this find a job you like work at it until you don’t like it any more and then move on. BUT DON"T BE A SLACKER I HATE LOOKING AT A GUY WHO JUST DOESN"T CARE. MAKES ME SICK.I’m not busting my A$$ but I’m pulling my load. Seems a shame that everone just dosn’t get it. Pull your load and everyone is happy.

[xanakis]

wow interesting debate.

I think for half the people here the earning of money is the prime objective. The acquisition of more money is an objective in itself.

For the other half of the people the prime objective is earning the minimum amount of money required and thereafter it is a matter of what you do with that money. For these people this is the important issue - what you do when you are not earning money.

For the former group, the important issue is what you do when you are earning money. And how can you earn more.

Im with group B. I dont really need money to live (ok of course I need some to pay bills, buy food etc).

But whats the difference between me, sitting in my little house, and Bill Gates, sitting in his mansion? We’re both just two human males sitting in rooms.

Ok one room may be larger than the other but the size of the room one sits in has no effect on ones biological or emotional state.

The essential ingredients of life are the same whether you have $1 or $1,000,000.

xanakis

[dude]

If you went to your boss and said ‘i just got a client to pay us the same money for less product’ he would say ‘fantastic’.

Your just doing it to him.

I think a lot of this depends on if you can measure productivity and reward it, if your firm don’t then its not going to be a fairish environment anyway.

do what you want, its your risk

[Acco40]

Originally posted by Maeglin:

I will not, however, work in an environment where I have to compete with my coworkers in order to keep my job.

---

A little aside:

Is it common for employers to expect workers to work unpaid O.T.? If an employee doesn’t put in that extra time, is that grounds for being fired? Or do they have to tell you beforehand?

---

Also, I’d like to thank LacticAcid for that poignant, eloquent retort.

[Dinsdale]

Underlying much of this discussion seems to be the question of whether you are obligated to maximize your potential at work.

Many of the folk on this board have, may I say, somewhat above average talents and abilities in certain intellectual and creative areas.

Assume they are in a job that does not exactly stretch their capabilities. Further assume that promotions and raises are awarded (almost entirely) on a strict seniority basis - at least, there is no direct correlation between “do more work, get more money/promotion/etc.” Further, let’s say the workers’ output is clearly quantifiable, but that compensation does not vvary depending on output. Assume the job tasks provide the worker absolutely no personal satisfaction, but the pay supports a very comfortable standard of living, and the employee cannot imagine any “more fulfilling” job that would pay anywhere close. Further, assume the job infringes upon the employee’s personal life far less than any alternatives that would pay anywhere close. These alternatives, while demanding more time and effort, would provide no more fulfillment.

I do not believe the employee is obligated to do significantly more than the average output, simply because he is capable of doing it. I would suggest doing somewhat more than average, just for insulation. But if you are getting the same pay and the same raises as someone who is doing X, I do not believe you are obligated to do 2X or 3X, simply because you can.

Any of you who have found jobs that you find very rewarding, consider yourselves extremely fortunate. My hat is off to you. Personally, if I did not need the money, I would not be working. And I do not believe I am unique in that regard. If you want to feel that you are “better” than me in any respect because of this, feel free to do so.

A couple of final points:

Many of the posts contra to the OP assume “smart management”, which I submit is not universally found.

Finally, I have considerable experience with highly paid professionals who are treated simply as income producing assets. When times are good, they prosper along with the company. When times change, they are discarded without a second thought.

[msmith537]

*Originally posted by dude *
If you went to your boss and said ‘i just got a client to pay us the same money for less product’ he would say ‘fantastic’.

Your just doing it to him.

No, you are not doing the same to him. Imagine if you bought a TV and it only displayed 75% of the picture. Or if you bought a carton of eggs and half were missing. That is what you are doing.

*Originally posted by dude *
I think a lot of this depends on if you can measure productivity and reward it, if your firm don’t then its not going to be a fairish environment anyway.

That’s why I get paid a lot of money to do what I do.

Originally posted by Maeglin:
I will not, however, work in an environment where I have to compete with my coworkers in order to keep my job.

You already do. In any work environment, employers try to keep the top performers and lose the bottom. Even if it is not formalized, you are being evaluated next to your peers.

*Originally posted by Acco40 *
Is it common for employers to expect workers to work unpaid O.T.? If an employee doesn’t put in that extra time, is that grounds for being fired? Or do they have to tell you beforehand?

Generally in most salaried positions, unpaid OT is expected. The amount of OT is usually communicated to you when you interview. At the very least, you should have an idea of the hours expected for your industry. For example, if you went into law or investment banking expecting to work leisurely 40 hour weeks, you’re in for a rude awakening.

As for grounds for dismissal, it depends. Often you won’t be able to complete your work without OT. Or you could be labeled as not a team player and then you will either sit in Office Space land or be councelled out. In consulting, you may find yourself ‘sitting the bench’ (not billing at a client) for long periods of time.

[dalovindj]

dinsdale:

Many of the posts contra to the OP assume “smart management”, which I submit is not universally found.

That’s an understatement. LOL.

DaLovin’Dj

[amarinth]

*Originally posted by msmith537 *
No, you are not doing the same to him. Imagine if you bought a TV and it only displayed 75% of the picture. Or if you bought a carton of eggs and half were missing. That is what you are doing.

No, it isn’t about doing less than what is expected, it is about failure to do more.

In otherwords, coming home and finding exactly 12 eggs, instead of being pleasantly surprised by 15. Or buying a TV and finding exactly what the box said it would do - instead of getting a VCR attached and picture in picture features.

Perhaps it is industry specific - and in your industry, you contract to give all your talents to the company, so failure to do that would be short changing someone. In every industry I’ve been in, I contract to do a certain job in a certain amount of time, if using all my talents isn’t necessary to get that done, I don’t feel I owe it to them.

[Maeglin]

You already do. In any work environment, employers try to keep the top performers and lose the bottom. Even if it is not formalized, you are being evaluated next to your peers.

Where I work, I will be retained provided I meet a qualitative standard of work and provided that it is done on time. While I may be compared to my coworkers, I certainly am not competing against them in order to keep my job. If that were really the case, my position would not even exist: my firm would simply foist more work on those who were in my position before I was hired.

I am needed, hence I was hired in the first place. One of my coworkers even confirmed this:

The attorneys will love you as long as you don’t suck.

I don’t suck.

MR

[QuickSilver]

*Originally posted by Dinsdale *
Many of the posts contra to the OP assume “smart management”, which I submit is not universally found.

Before you get too smug, the same is equally true of rank and file employees. Working in the proletariat (as it were) class does not suddenly make you the oppressed genius working for the fat capitalist pig. It may be satisfying to believe that but it’s far from the truth. Stupidity transends all ranks but I’m betting it’s concentrated in the lower echelons. One can hardly call Gates, Trump, Soros and any other successful industrialist/businessman of our time “stupid”.

*Originally posted by Dinsdale *
Finally, I have considerable experience with highly paid professionals who are treated simply as income producing assets. When times are good, they prosper along with the company. When times change, they are discarded without a second thought.

Psst. Guess what. I’m that guy. I’m the highly paid professional who is treated as an income producing asset. I come into an organization with a very specific set of skills. I know by business well and I’m good at it. Better than most. That’s why they hire me.

Often times, even before my work is done (sadly, this happens to be one of those times) the management decides that they need to cut costs. They start at the bottom and when that does not seem enough, they start to trim at the top. Unfortunately (on these occasions), my rates make me stick out like a sore thumb. They weigh the pros and cons of letting me go and about 50% of the time they make a short sighted decision to terminate my contract. I’d like to think that months down the road they live to regret it but by that time I’m involved in another project to care one way or the other. It doesn’t make me want to make less of an effort at my job. It doesn’t make me condemn all management as being stupid (though clearly some are). On every site I make it a point to learn something new. Something to add to my set of skills. Thus, when I leave, through choice or through circumstance I always have something new to offer the next client. As an added bonus, in the 12 years I’ve done this, my rate has always gone up quite significantly. The current economy may put an end to that trend, but only temporarily.

Look, I’m not going to judge people for the effort they put into their career/job. It’s entirely a personal matter. But I do think that you are kidding yourself if you think that nobody knows that you sit around all day and consistantly perform at 50%. In doing this, you limit yourself to opportunities which you may never know exist.

*Originally posted by xanakis *
But whats the difference between me, sitting in my little house, and Bill Gates, sitting in his mansion? We’re both just two human males sitting in rooms.

Ok one room may be larger than the other but the size of the room one sits in has no effect on ones biological or emotional state.

The essential ingredients of life are the same whether you have $1 or $1,000,000.

On the other hand, you may be happy being that man, sitting in that small room, with $1 in his pocket. After all, what’s the difference between you and Bill Gates, indeed?
It’s not for me to judge.

[Dinsdale]

*Originally posted by QuickSilver *
Before you get too smug, the same is equally true of rank and file employees. Working in the proletariat (as it were) class does not suddenly make you the oppressed genius working for the fat capitalist pig.

Not sure what portion of my post led you to imply smugness, or a sense of oppression on my behalf. I apologize I misinterpreted and no derogation was intended towards me. If, however, you failed to foresee my misinterpretation of your comments, I would suggest that youir word choice in this portion of your post is out of character with the well-crafted remainder of your posts. If you did intend to call me names, feel free to do so elsewhere.

One can hardly call Gates, Trump, Soros and any other successful industrialist/businessman of our time “stupid”.

I don’t recall saying anyone in particular was “stupid.” One can hardly call your 3 examples characteristic of all management either.

Much of your posts seemed (to me) to presume competent management which would reward individual effort. I’d suggest a significant portion of management (I have no idea as to percentages) is primarily interested in improving their individual position. At times that has good results for their company. At others it is good for their staff. But I submit that in many cases, such beneficial byproduct is coincidental, rather than the primary intent. Also, many supervisors are wary of change or innovation, and fear their underlings as potential competitors.

I would have thought that an acknowledgment of general employee mediocrity was obvious in my initial statement that the SDMB posters were “above average” (do you disagree?), and my observation that my employer expects only X - what they can reasonably expect to get from an average employee, while I personally might be able to do considerably more. Sorry if I unintentially came off as a believer in the infinite merits pervasive throughout the working class.

Psst. Guess what. I’m that guy. I’m the highly paid professional who is treated as an income producing asset. I come into an organization with a very specific set of skills. I know by business well and I’m good at it. Better than most. That’s why they hire me.

By your own description, you are what might be called “a hired gun.” You work for yourself. It seems as tho you enter specific consulting gigs with no clear expectation of how long that particular gig may last. But you are confident in your ability to obtain a new job when it ends.

I applaud your work effort, and am very happy for you that you enjoy your life. But your point of view is not shared by a major portion of the workforce who are not as flexible as you.

Not everyone desires that type of existence. Not everyone has what it takes to be self employed. Many folk consider the prospect of obtaining new employment extremely stressful. It is this type of professional I was speaking of. Folks who work their butts off, with every hope of making their careers with a particular employer. Yet what loyalty are they afforded when the employer considers it more economical, at least in the short run, to let them go? (Note, these professionals also include many managers. Not only rank and file workers are unceremoniously let go.)

But I do think that you are kidding yourself if you think that nobody knows that you sit around all day and consistantly perform at 50%. In doing this, you limit yourself to opportunities which you may never know exist.

In my experience, not all jobs provide for the type of “opportunities” you suggest. In many cases, the reward of doing more work is simply more work. Not more interesting work. Not better work conditions. Not more $. Simply more work. “Thank you, sir. May I have another?”

I expect nothing more from my employer than my check and benefits, and give him nothing more than the minimum I feel ensures continuance of the two.

[Acco40]

Originally posted by Dinsdale

Also, many supervisors are wary of change or innovation, and fear their underlings as potential competitors.

This hits on a point I was trying to make earlier in this thread. Office politics/corporate culture is soooo influential in the workplace… well, my workplace.

There is an unspoken agreement we workers have with our manager. It goes something like this: "If you don’t make me look bad, I won’t give you a hard time."

In other words, “Don’t threaten or question my authority, and (as long as I don’t get yelled at about your performance) you can do whatever the hell you want back there.”

This latitude I’m given is a crutch, I know. On one hand, I’m free to straight dope for hours on end at work, work a bit now and then, go here, go there… la la la la la.
But on the other hand, there is no challenge to improve. There is no chance for a promotion. In short, there is no motivation to work harder. In fact, I’d go as far to say there is negative reinforcement for sticking my neck out to do more - my manager thinks I’m trying to show her up! How fucked up is that?

So, office politics/culture play just as big a role in the individual worker’s obligation to “work hard” or “hardly work” as anything else.

[QuickSilver]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Dinsdale *
Not sure what portion of my post led you to imply smugness, or a sense of oppression on my behalf. I apologize I misinterpreted and no derogation was intended towards me.
[\quote]

No derogation was intended towards you in the least. I was mearely responding to the assertion that management is often considered stupid or out of touch by most employees. This is true in many cases but I would not go as far as to say most. Also, to be honest, we should be more specific about the level of management we are talking about. I find a higher incidence of incompetence in lower management but they tend to get smarter (at what they do) as you go higher up the ladder. A good skill to learn is to understand what they recognize as an asset and present yourself and your work to them in those terms. Make it seem that promoting you is in their best interest as well as yours.

But I think we are talking such wide generalities here that it’s hard for either of us to really nail a point.

*Originally posted by Dinsdale *
If, however, you failed to foresee my misinterpretation of your comments, I would suggest that youir word choice in this portion of your post is out of character with the well-crafted remainder of your posts. If you did intend to call me names, feel free to do so elsewhere.

I have no quarrel with you.

*Originally posted by Dinsdale *
Much of your posts seemed (to me) to presume competent management which would reward individual effort. I’d suggest a significant portion of management (I have no idea as to percentages) is primarily interested in improving their individual position. At times that has good results for their company. At others it is good for their staff. But I submit that in many cases, such beneficial byproduct is coincidental, rather than the primary intent. Also, many supervisors are wary of change or innovation, and fear their underlings as potential competitors.

My somewhat unique take on the situation permits me to view this from a different perspective. If you don’t like your job, find another one that you like better. Perhaps that’s not a completely realistic expectation to have of everyone in every case.

*Originally posted by Dinsdale *
I would have thought that an acknowledgment of general employee mediocrity was obvious in my initial statement that the SDMB posters were “above average” (do you disagree?),

I have no data to support or deny that assumption. We (@ SDMB) all seem to take great pride in clapping ourselves on the back for being clever with ideas and words. How that reflects in our daily work is hard for me to speculate accurately about.

*Originally posted by Dinsdale *
and my observation that my employer expects only X - what they can reasonably expect to get from an average employee, while I personally might be able to do considerably more. Sorry if I unintentially came off as a believer in the infinite merits pervasive throughout the working class.

I merely suggest that there is nothing that ties one down to only match the average minimum expectation. You can choose to do more, less or just enough.

*Originally posted by Dinsdale *
In my experience, not all jobs provide for the type of “opportunities” you suggest. In many cases, the reward of doing more work is simply more work. Not more interesting work. Not better work conditions. Not more $. Simply more work. “Thank you, sir. May I have another?”

I guess I have certain expectations from a job that some other people don’t. I avoid accepting jobs where I feel those expectations will not be met. After a few years of consulting you tend to reconize dead end job signs early in the interview process.