> “The workforce is currently under immense pressure to appear productive, even when it’s counterintuitive to actual productivity,”
I feel like the purpose of RTO mandates is mostly for performative show of work.
TimorousBestie · 3d ago
It’s Goodhart’s law all over again.
People don’t get promoted for the objective value of their work products. They get promoted for appearances, charisma and vibes.
Sure, one way to appear productive is to actually produce. But that’s not the only way.
bell-cot · 3d ago
> Sure, one way to appear productive is to actually produce. But that's not the only way.
It depends.
If you're in a "real-world" job - framing houses, stocking shelves, flying airplanes - then actually producing is just about the only way.
At the other end of the spectrum are "bullshit jobs" - where actual productivity is impossible, or could get you into hot water.
motorest · 2d ago
> If you're in a "real-world" job - framing houses, stocking shelves, flying airplanes - then actually producing is just about the only way.
I don't agree. There are plenty of behavioral aspects that turn an otherwise excellent employee into a clear no-hire. For example, being a toxic employee who is egregious or even outright aggressive towards clients and staff is reason enough to in the very least pass them on a promotion, no matter how many units of work they deliver within a timeframe.
The "actually produce" excuse is actually an attempt to ignore important or even critical aspects of an employee's performance in an attempt to game performance assessments to cherry-pick traits the complainer feels they fare better on.
TimorousBestie · 2d ago
I’ve worked in “real-world” jobs before and in my experience there’s not much of a correlation between who’s doing the work and who’s getting credit for it, haha.
motorest · 2d ago
> People don’t get promoted for the objective value of their work products. They get promoted for appearances, charisma and vibes.
I don't know about that. It sounds too much like cope from people that feel entitled to a promotion in spite of underperforming or not meeting the production bar. It reeks of "the fox and the grapes".
There are also some specializations of these dismissals when women are the ones being promoted.
I feel like the purpose of RTO mandates is mostly for performative show of work.
People don’t get promoted for the objective value of their work products. They get promoted for appearances, charisma and vibes.
Sure, one way to appear productive is to actually produce. But that’s not the only way.
It depends.
If you're in a "real-world" job - framing houses, stocking shelves, flying airplanes - then actually producing is just about the only way.
At the other end of the spectrum are "bullshit jobs" - where actual productivity is impossible, or could get you into hot water.
I don't agree. There are plenty of behavioral aspects that turn an otherwise excellent employee into a clear no-hire. For example, being a toxic employee who is egregious or even outright aggressive towards clients and staff is reason enough to in the very least pass them on a promotion, no matter how many units of work they deliver within a timeframe.
The "actually produce" excuse is actually an attempt to ignore important or even critical aspects of an employee's performance in an attempt to game performance assessments to cherry-pick traits the complainer feels they fare better on.
I don't know about that. It sounds too much like cope from people that feel entitled to a promotion in spite of underperforming or not meeting the production bar. It reeks of "the fox and the grapes".
There are also some specializations of these dismissals when women are the ones being promoted.