Enterprise: An ingenious tool for recovering profits without individual responsibility "- Ambrose Bierce
Disclaimer: The model described in this article does not apply to all companies. Rather, I have observed it in large companies to varying degrees. Although cynical enough, it is useful for understanding the dynamics and how to get the job done.
Our western society is based on the fundamental value of work. One only has to listen to the political debates to see that. An adult spends most of his or her days at work.
Some people are satisfied with their work and can thrive there, and if you are, it's very good and valuable, enjoy it.
But for many, it was also my case, many frustrations come with the work.
I was annoyed to see some colleagues who worked very hard, conscientiously, stagnating at their posts for years without increments or real recognition. While others, often much less conscientious and "producing" less, quickly rose up the hierarchy.
How? How? Quite simply by concentrating their efforts not on the real value but on the perceived value, i. e. on the image and visibility of their work.
And it's quite simple, it's enough to talk loudly in meetings, to send the right mails to take credit for the achievements (which are not totally ours), to create relational links with the hierarchy ("networking" or cronyism).
And to use his time to try to carry out visible "transversal actions", with reporting to the hierarchy. All this takes time, and is done instead of the real value production that other colleagues realize.
The actual value is quite different from the perceived value, and often its opposite. We could talk about the illusion of value.
Is that a problem? In any case, it creates great frustration among those who really work, and can lead some people (who don't want to play politics and cronyism) to give up and do the bare minimum.
There are three types of people in companies. Those who have understood that they can rise higher by doing politics rather than conscientious work. Others who have understood that coming to work and doing the bare minimum will pay the same. And those who don't realize either.
The company is not a living being and therefore has no human values (love, recognition). It is therefore the dynamics and "rules" (cultural and societal norms) that govern internal functioning.
These principles were theorized by MacLeod and Gervais' Principle and are very interesting to better understand the dynamics that govern the work. Obviously these "rules" do not apply everywhere, and often more strongly in large companies.
After explaining these principles, we will look at how to make it work.
Loser: It is the employee who produces more than he earns and who doesn't earn more if he exceeds his objectives (bad economic deal in the company).
There are actually three types of losers:
The over-performing loser, who works hard and makes his situation even less fair compensation level. He gradually slips into the role of ignorant (as his investment increases with loyalty, without realizing that he is not properly rewarded and valued). He will generally be promoted to a middle management role, having shown that he can work hard and be exploited without complaining or demanding more. He's corporate.
The loser who does the bare minimum. He realized that more investment will not bring any benefits (but the loss of a lot of energy and time). He knows that the company is not loyal and the dominant role of politics and cronyism in building (terrain d' excellence des "sociopathes"). He therefore behaves logically, doing the bare minimum to pocket his salary, and seeks his fulfillment and the meaning of his life outside work. To work more would be a behaviour of the "Ignorant" profile, because it would not be valued nor profitable.
The underperforming loser. This role is very difficult to play because it cannot be sustained and if it is detected, the employee will be dismissed. This is the provisional path that a future "sociopath" can take, using his time and energy to quickly put together a plan, play politics and cronyism to quickly climb up the hierarchy. This is the case of someone who realizes that investing in being over-performing is not worth it and then releases energy to concentrate on manoeuvring to seize a good opportunity. He knows that his approach is risky but does not intend to remain a "loser" for the rest of his life.