Trigger Question #163:
Let’s assume there are three types of people at work. There are those who do what their job requires; there are those you do less; and there are those who do more.
Do you remember what we called those kids who constantly did more than the teacher asked? Well, forget it. This is not school. At least, not that sort of school. This is the school of life. One of its big life lessons is that the love you get is equal to the love you give. (I know Paul McCartney worded it differently, but I’m not writing a song.)
At work, that roughly translates to the reward you get is equal to the value you add. (At least, in theory. And depending on your type of boss.)
Let’s assume there is some sort of law of equilibrium at work here. So, if you do less than your job requires, you are adding less value than the rewards you receive. Your boss will work to establish equilibrium, either to get you to contribute more or to get you out.
If you do more than your job requires, you are adding more value than you receive. Now, equilibrium can only be established if you are paid more. Or promoted.
I know, I know, if only it happens that smoothly. But you get the idea, don’t you?
Here’s the tricky bit for your boss. If you consistently underperform, the solution is obvious. And if you routinely over perform, the solution is simple. But what if you habitually do exactly as told? What then? Your boss has no reason to fire you and no reason to promote you; no reason to worry about you and no reason to watch over you.
Don’t get me wrong. Workers who do what they are told to do, day in and day out, are a boon to any organization. Normally.
The problem comes in when you do exactly as told.
Strictly speaking, there is nothing wrong with doing exactly what the boss demands. Nor is there anything wrong with not reporting something important; or with knowingly allowing something to go wrong; or with swamping a boss, who wants to know everything, with details, documents and reports.
Obviously, there is nothing right about it either. That’s why it’s called malicious compliance.
Yes, sometimes we are tempted to stick to the letter and to ignore the spirit of the contract between workers and management. Don’t do that. It might be an equilibrium. But it’s an equilibrium at a shabby standard.
Welcome to my side of the nonsense divide.
. . .