PDA

View Full Version : Prodding Employees to Improve Themselves



Dustin07
04-14-2009, 05:19 PM
It would be great if every employee in the world went out of their way to constantly improve themselves, but it just doesn't happen :eek:

Do you have access to professional article that I could forward to my team to help politely prod them and encourage them into further increasing their own employability?

As my company grows, I'm afraid that my some of my employees:

a. don't know what the company does
b. dont' know what their customers do
c. don't know what THEY do or how it relates to their customers and our company.


I'm trying to find a polite way to solve this and to encourage them rather than making everything come across as disciplinary.

Dan Furman
04-14-2009, 05:46 PM
To begin, not everyone is going to care like you. They aren't going to care what the company does, what the customers want, etc. Most people work to get paid, and that's it.

On that note, if an employee improves, do they get paid more?

vangogh
04-14-2009, 06:13 PM
I'll echo what Dan said. I'll also add my own experience from when I was working for others. Article and things like that wouldn't have done much to get me to work harder. Two things would. One would be knowing that working harder would mean more money whether that was a raise of some overtime. Something that affected my wallet.

The second is if the boss earned my respect beyond a certain point. Years ago I worked for a man who treated his employees as people first and employees second. He'd let us go home early on a slow day while still paying us for the full day. He'd be the one to work late instead of telling employees they had to. Because of the way he treated us we all worked harder for him.

You can try to find an article, but I doubt it would do all that much. I'd sooner focus on what your employees would get for working harder and also being the kind of boss that makes them want to work harder for you specifically. Boss could also mean their most direct supervisor if it's not you.

Dustin07
04-14-2009, 08:02 PM
and if these types of things are in place are you guys implying that the remaining employees should be fired?

I think in the last 10 years more than ever the world has changed into this incredibly fast paced information era where people must constantly work to improve themselves. You can't sit idly, you have to improve just to maintain.

Blacktalon
04-14-2009, 08:36 PM
You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot force it to drink.

If you press your staff too much, they will become resistant and may, in fact, do the opposite of what you are trying to accomplish, thus creating more problems than anticipated solutions.

It depends on how you engage and let them be a direct part in the business's overall success. Do you give them autonomy in their duties? If you do all the decision-making and tell them how to do every aspect of their job, of course they won't be as "employable" as you would like them to be.

As hard as that may be, relinquishing control to your staff is a great way to boost their productivity and performance quality.

My professional experience and training has shown that the more you give them control and make them accountable for their actions, the more you'll be able to :

- filter out the bad performers from the great performers (the lazy ones will either leave or make it easier for you to terminate them)
- create new sources of revenue by engaging their own roster of talents, skills and perceptions gained from previous experience, and
- set a performance precedent for future staff who decide to join your team

As Dan above mentioned, how do you plan on compensating staff who do improve? Do you implement any form of profit-sharing so that whenever the team does well, they get rewarded accordingly? It is important to always provide that extra incentive whenever you wish to get more out of people, though not always in a monetary sense.

If you want a clear, concise manner by which to engage your staff further, then looking at my HR 3.0 business plan will provide you with the solutions you are looking for.

Cheers,

vangogh
04-14-2009, 11:43 PM
and if these types of things are in place are you guys implying that the remaining employees should be fired?

No. I don't know the specific jobs you're talking about, but I'm guessing we're not talking VP of the company. I'm guessing these might be lower end jobs in which case you can only expect so much. When I worked for minimum wage I was never worried about losing my job. There was always another minimum wage job around the corner. I assume the employees in question are above minimum wage, but I'm guessing they're closer to it than to VP of the company.


a. don't know what the company does
b. dont' know what their customers do
c. don't know what THEY do or how it relates to their customers and our company.

You're employees should definitely know each of the above, but I'd say all three are your responsibility and not theirs.

a. You should be able to get this across
b. Maybe some training to help employees understand why understanding their customers is important to their job
c. If they don't know what THEY do then maybe they should be fired.

Sean is right about leading a horse to water. There's only so much you can do. Educate employees about your company and train them to do their jobs better. At some point if they aren't getting it then yes they should be fired. It's a sellers market for jobs at the moment, which means you should have enough applicants to choose from for any new hire.

Dan Furman
04-15-2009, 12:17 AM
As Dan above mentioned, how do you plan on compensating staff who do improve? Do you implement any form of profit-sharing so that whenever the team does well, they get rewarded accordingly?

Ugh.... no. Unless profit sharing is augmented by "personal" stuff.

If *I* do well, *I* want to get paid more. I do not care about the team, etc etc. If I go above and beyond, pay me above and beyond. I generally do not want my pay tied to anyone's performance but my own. To me, that's not a real incentive.

I understand my attitude here does not work in larger settings. Feel free to dismiss accordingly. This is why I could never work in a union, or some job where I was part of a huge department.

Dan Furman
04-15-2009, 12:25 AM
and if these types of things are in place are you guys implying that the remaining employees should be fired?

I think in the last 10 years more than ever the world has changed into this incredibly fast paced information era where people must constantly work to improve themselves. You can't sit idly, you have to improve just to maintain.

I think every employer, for hundreds of years, has felt employees should constantly improve themselves.

One thing motivated me as an employee - money... ok, two things. Money and freedom.

The best job I ever had was running a retail store for a guy who said "I don't care when you come in, I don't care when you leave. If the numbers are good, just come in every Friday and pick up your paycheck".

Oh, and he paid me well, too. Easily 20% higher than comparable managers in other places got. Plus, he'd take me and the other managers out once a month for steaks and beers and shooting pool. And every now and then, there was a $50 bill alongside my paycheck.

The numbers were always good, because I worked really hard (and smart) for that guy. He paid (and treated) me like a professional, and that's exactly what he got.

Dustin - not saying the above is what you have to do. I do not know your business or whom you are looking to motivate. But I'm telling you what worked for (on, really) me.

KristineS
04-15-2009, 12:44 PM
You can't make someone want to improve themselves. You can offer them opportunities and offer to mentor them, but you can't make your employees take advantage of what is being offered.

I hate to be cynical, but it often comes down to what's in it for them. If they improve do they earn more? Could they qualify for a better job? Will they have more authority and/or freedom? If they put in the effort, what do they get in return?

Granted, you could present the benefit as increased employability and that may motivate some of them.

As for the issues you mentioned, teaching your employees what your company does and what your customers do and what they do and how it relates to the company as a whole is your responsibility. That message should be communicated at every opportunity. Those items are also not so much issues of employability are they are of communication.

Dan Furman
04-15-2009, 08:17 PM
I think you have your answer, Dustin. :)

Money money money money money money

orion_joel
04-15-2009, 11:46 PM
I think you are looking at things from the wrong point of view my self.

One thing that i know from managing large group of casual workers, is that it is very difficult to motivate people to exceed what they are currently doing if they are faced with getting for doing so. Eg if the people that work under me work hard it means they get less hours. That is hardly a motivating outcome. However the longer i work with them the more they realized with me if they worked harder i was willing to find other work they would do when it was available.

Some of the things that you need to do i think are not so much focused on motivating them, but being motivated yourself. Point A & B you need to put something together a presentation maybe like an induction. Something that outlines who you are as a company, who the people are that work there in management, What the company does and also who your customers are and what they do. This is something that many large companies do, and it at least gives the employees some sort of idea what is going on. Actually this could also incorporate point C as well.

Now knowing the above points will not always mean that it will motivate them to work harder any more though. This is something that you need to give them something to work towards. Set up systems of Key Performance Indicators (KPI's). If they are production or process workers, then these can be motivating if there is some incentive. Where i work follows the KPI idea however they have no motivation for employees to improve. As such they often dont. This will also give you a much better idea of how the business is tracking.

If anything my suggestion would be for you to look to articles and books to improve you vision of how to guide the employees.

rezzy
04-16-2009, 11:06 AM
I think thats a great idea joel. Money can only get you so far. I think money isnt really what we as small business owners want to create the incentive around.

I think its important to set milestones and create energy around achieving those milestones. For instance, if we make X amount of widgets, then a pizza party... i know its elementary idea, but some type of incentive for reaching their goals.

Spider
04-16-2009, 11:29 AM
It would be great if every employee in the world went out of their way to constantly improve themselves, but it just doesn't happen :eek:...Ah, but it does. Everyone wants to improve themselves - trouble is, most of that desired improvement is in their bowling scores, their pooltable skills, their fishing catches! I think, if you look closely, there are many companies whose employees are motivated and inspired to improve themselves at work. Maybe not everyone in the company, but many - even most, in some cases.

I can quote you an instance where nearly every employee was motivated and inspired to improve. I can only think of one out of the 40 or so employees who wasn't.

I started this company on the basis of it being profit-sharing. Profit-sharing, and the system, was written into the Articles of Association. Every employee, from Day One, participated. We developed a culture that this was "their" company. It wasn't only for the money (although that was a major factor) but I encouraged everyone to think in the interests of the company - because what was best for the company would be best for them.

Once we had our first one or two hires, we had no problem with recruiting suitable people because, as the company grew, I called upon present employees to find the extra crew needed. They decided who would be good workmates, who would would work hard and improve themselves. When (and it did happen) an employee failed to pull his weight (by being regularly late or not working as hard as the others) it was his workmates that pressured him to improve. Because they realized that anyone not contributing fully was going to adversely affect their own profit-share eventually. We never had to terminate anyone except at the behest of the workcrew, but usually, they just made it clear to the faulting party that he was not welcome and he left.

I remember one occasion when a foreman wanted to fire one of the crew, but the problem was he was the brother of one of our best workers. The fear being, of course, firing one would result in the resignation of the other. I said to discuss it with the whole crew, including the man's brother. All agreed that the poor worker should go, even the man's brother said he should be dismissed!

Needless to say, I am totally convinced of the efficacy of full and equal profit-sharing.



..Do you have access to professional article that I could forward to my team to help politely prod them and encourage them into further increasing their own employability?
..As my company grows, I'm afraid that my some of my employees:
a. don't know what the company does
b. dont' know what their customers do
c. don't know what THEY do or how it relates to their customers and our company.
..I'm trying to find a polite way to solve this and to encourage them rather than making everything come across as disciplinary.I don't believe giving employees something to read will serve any purpose. Nor will trying to drive them to it with discipline. What is needed is a change of culture. That requires a change in management attitude first and foremost.

That's something I can help you with, if needed.

vangogh
04-16-2009, 07:43 PM
Everyone wants to improve themselves

Yep. Maybe not 100% of everyone, but most people do want to improve themselves. However what they consider an improvement may not be the same thing you consider improvement.

I also agree about the solution being a change of culture. Asking an employee to read an article isn't going to change their behavior. Early in this thread I mentioned training classes. In part I meant that as a culture change.

A few years ago I worked for a company that had an ongoing training program. Every few weeks a new class would be offered and anyone could sign up. The classes were during work hours. Some lasted an hour or two and others were a couple of days. Having those classes said the company cared about my growth within the company and consequently I cared more about the growth of the company as well as learning how to do my job better.

Blacktalon
04-16-2009, 07:53 PM
One thing that i know from managing large group of casual workers, is that it is very difficult to motivate people to exceed what they are currently doing if they are faced with getting for doing so. Eg if the people that work under me work hard it means they get less hours. That is hardly a motivating outcome. However the longer i work with them the more they realized with me if they worked harder i was willing to find other work they would do when it was available.

Sounds like a unionized setting. I can vouche for that myself actually. I worked for ten years in a union shopped supermarket, and the hour fluctuations were just ridiculous. One week I'd get 24 hrs, the next I'd be lucky to get 5. At the same time the company and management want staff to extend themselves to the bone without giving anything in return.

Needless to say, our desire to put out even further was deeply shafted from those circumstances.

Key performance indicators are fine, however they are not the best way to measure and exact results from staff. One thing to realize is that not everyone is motivated by the same things. So where one thing might be a key motivator for one person, it doesn't mean that their colleagues are going to be motivated the same way.

Being the certified HR professional here, and the method by which I employ people and try to extract the finest from them, is to ultimately give them autonomy in their job. This, accompanied by accountability, will cause those who do care for the job to put in their best, and when recognition and rewards reflect this, then you'll get essentially what you are looking for.

That said, autonomy, accountability and self-directed working structures will give you that extra effort from staff.


Everyone wants to improve themselves
This is not true. There are people who do the minimum to get by. The reason being is they've probably had things handed to them throughout their lives, and never given the chance to fully fend for themselves.

Thus we return to the concept of autonomy and responsibility. Make staff accountable and responsible for their own actions, and they will either a) quit, or b) increase their performance after realizing that their jobs are on the line if they don't.

It's the basic principles of survival. When your security is threatened is only when someone must fight to improve their situation.

It's as simple as that.

Spider
04-16-2009, 10:14 PM
...It's the basic principles of survival. When your security is threatened is only when someone must fight to improve their situation. It's as simple as that.Sorry. I don't agree, Sean. Survival - by which I presume you mean nothing more than losing their job - is rarely a motivating factor for improvement. It can be, however, a motivating factor in trying to please the boss. That's not the same thing in my book.

Perhaps it comes down to what you mean by autonomy. I see autonomy in the workplace as having the ability to rearrange one's own workload. It should, but probably doesn't, mean having the freedon to prioritize one's own responsibilities - that still usually comes from the boss.

I always flinch when I hear anyone from management talk of holding employees accountable without mentioning authority. You cannot hold anyone accountable for anything unless they have the authority to command the means to get it done. Ie.- You cannot hold me accountable for getting the company's product delivered unless I am givien the authority to control the trucking and the truckdrivers.

We never spoke of holding our people accountable - we let them hold themselves accountable. We treated them as partners in getting the end result that everyone expected. And that led to a highly successful company in great demand by our clients, and a fantastic group of motivated employees.

vangogh
04-17-2009, 02:27 AM
Sean I have to disagree too. Sure there are some people who do the minimum at work, but even that doesn't mean they don't want to improve themselves or their situation. I've worked plenty of jobs where it was obvious that no matter what I did at that job my situation there wasn't going to improve. I might have then done the minimum at work, but still worked to improve myself on my own time in order to get a better job.

Also the way I think Frederick originally meant that by everyone wants to improve themselves it was beyond a work thing. I think most people do want to improve themselves. I think that often they don't know how or the improvements they want to make may have nothing to do with their current job.

Doing the minimum at work isn't always about having things handed to people. I worked for more than one company where I received minimum wages and was shown minimum respect. Why would anyone expect me to give back more than the minimum under those conditions.

Dan Furman
04-17-2009, 04:18 PM
I worked for more than one company where I received minimum wages and was shown minimum respect. Why would anyone expect me to give back more than the minimum under those conditions.

I find this is the case more often than not.

The thing is, the business owner never sees it. They say things like "hey, you got a 3% raise last year..." or "you get health insurance... what are you complaining about?"

If you are paying an average salary for the position, you will get average people. And "average" is essentially a 5-10k window for jobs 75k and under. Meaning if comparable "managers" in your area make 35k, and you pay 37-40k, well, that's not a big deal. But if you pay 50k and give them some power and an extra week vacation than the norm? I guarantee you attract great managers more often than not.

It's really simple: Plum jobs generally get filled by plum people. And it almost has to be dollar related, at least to a certain point (maybe 5k better than the norm, some flex time, a little more vacation... that might do the trick, depending on the industry).

All the HR talk and pizza parties won't change that. Make your jobs plum jobs and you'll get better people.

vangogh
04-17-2009, 05:09 PM
One of my pet peeves with jobs I've had is how my employers would never even consider 2 weeks severance if they let you go, but expected 2 weeks notice if you were quitting. Why? They're essentially the same thing. A 2 week buffer till whatever comes next.

Dan I agree it's mostly about the money, though I also think other things do come into play. Take the manager making $35k vs $40k. If the $35k job treats you with more respect or has you working with people you enjoy being around you might still prefer it and work harder at it than at the $40k job.

Of course if a $60k jobs comes along you're probably still going to jump ship for the extra money.

I think money is the dominant factor, but I do think there are other factors at play. I know I could make more money right now if I were working for a large company, but I enjoy my day much more being in business for myself. The quality of life thing far outweighs the money thing for me. It usually did at most jobs I took. Money is an important factor, but it's not #1 on list of priorities.

huggytree
04-19-2009, 04:00 PM
here's the reasons i ALWAYS improved myself

1. know more/ do more = get a larger raise (do you do this? & let everyone know you do?)
2. the more valuable i become the more secure my job is.
3. the more i know the more marketable i am when the boss doesnt give me a good enough raise.

every company ive ever worked for i kept jumping towards the highest paid job. I also became the top guy in each job...i like competition.....

most people are just there to collect a check...they do the min. so they wont get fired. they are smart in one way...put the least into something to get the max out of it...

i always put the max into it just to get that slightly higher raise....a few times i felt screwed...one time the day shift guy got a higher raise and he did 1/2 the production of me....over 50 cents i slowed down and sat on the internet 4-5 hours a night...he got done 20 during the day...i did 20 that night....the boss lost $200 per night in lost production over paying me $4 extra per day.I quit 5 months later and went into what i do now..no one ever seemed to figure it out....You must be very careful not to cheap out on your top guys....some are like me...they take revenge on you....i give 110% and expect $ in return.

vangogh
04-19-2009, 05:22 PM
huggy, my experience was usually more like your example at the end. I didn't necessarily try to get revenge, but most places I worked it didn't matter how hard I worked. There wasn't a connection with how far I went in the company. Sure I might get that initial raise after a review, but that was about it.

I did continue to improve myself, but that improvement was to benefit me and not so much the company I worked for. In many cases it's the culture at the company that leads to unmotivated employees.

bwat05
04-19-2009, 05:35 PM
You can occasionally find an exceptional employee at whatever wage, but a huge number of workers are inherently lazy, aren’t courteous to customers or care about quality! It is hard to find an employee who will close a door or gate behind them or knock mud off their shoes before entering someone’s house.
I am primarily talking about your average hourly worker.

I work with two people that are complete opposites.
One is fairly new and is doing everything he can to learn how to do his job to the best of his ability. He can already do enough to get by with no complaints. However, he reads manuals and other training materials on his own time, works with different people to learn from each of them, and constantly asks questions to better himself for his job.

The other continually complains about not getting paid enough, yet he puts out minimal effort most of the time and won't study for state licensing exams, learn additional skills. He also wants off early every day. He places blame for his behavior on his employer or other workers - nothing is ever his fault. He doesn't want additional responsibility but he does want additional pay.

I personally work well with both of them but they don't work well together.
One deserves a raise and the other demands a raise.
One doesn't need any additional motivation, but if he got it he would excel.
The latter couldn't be motivated to improve himself even with a blank payroll check in his hand with his name on it.

I think more often than not that you can only motivate a person who wants to be motivated. The rest will sit back, staring at the ceiling offering only cynicism to their would-be motivators.

vangogh
04-19-2009, 06:05 PM
a huge number of workers are inherently lazy, aren’t courteous to customers or care about quality!

I disagree. Why should someone making a small hourly wage be motivated to work hard for a company. If someone is making minimum wage or close to it why should you expect them to go above and beyond. Sure they should kick mud off their shoes before entering your house, but most people who see hour workers as lazy, etc aren't looking at things from the perspective of the employee.

Hourly workers are often expected to put up with a lot of crap. I can tell you stories from when I worked hourly in retail. Many customers treated you like you were their personal servants. Your employers expected you to jump through hoops for minimum wage. You're also generally looking at a workforce who doesn't see their job as a career. It's usually a stepping stone to temporarily pay the bills, often because the pay is so low and the treatment so poor.

Are some hourly workers lazy? Absolutely. In some cases their laziness is why their working low paying hourly jobs in the first place. But it's hardly true of all or the majority. A lot of it is that hourly workers are treated like crap by everyone, yet somehow expected to take it and return your crap with a smile.

bwat05
04-19-2009, 10:20 PM
It's usually a stepping stone to temporarily pay the bills, often because the pay is so low and the treatment so poor.


I agree with minimum wage workers being treated badly and being looked upon as such. Minimum wage jobs are great for employers and a good place for those people entering the work force or to earn extra income. I have left a few jobs where I was treated like crap and paid next to nothing.

I should clarify. I am talking less about minimum wage workers and more about your $10-$12 an hour to-start workers; jobs where the ability to advance exists and can be achieved in a reasonable period of time.
In the past couple of years it has been almost impossible to hire a person that didn’t have to be fired within a month. They were constantly late, got complaints from customers, or didn’t do a decent job at the task at hand. We would go through three or four people before finding one that worked out.
I guess it could be contributed to the general poor work ethic of many people in this day and age.
I probably embelished the facts a little about 'most workers being lazy', but it is very frustrating trying to get an employee to do a good job, let alone work to advance their position and increase their earnings.

vangogh
04-19-2009, 10:52 PM
$10-$12 is a bit different, though still not a great salary by any means, and I wouldn't be surprised if many are still looking at the job as a temp situation as opposed to a career. Constantly late and customer complaints shouldn't happen. I've had jobs I didn't care for and did eventually quit, but I still showed up on time and didn't take things out on customers.

I guess it was the use of the word 'most' that led to my post. I think the lazy ones stand out so it seems like there's more of them, but I really believe that most people are honest and decent and willing to work hard.

One thing to consider is that employees will never care as much about your business as you will. There's no way they can. And part of the nature of employee/management relations is the two sides are sometimes at odds. A company might set up advancement opportunities, but an employee might not feel they have an honest chance at advancement for any number of reasons. Maybe it's a poor relationship with their direct supervisor or maybe the advanced position holds little interest to them.

lav
04-19-2009, 11:17 PM
Why should someone making a small hourly wage be motivated to work hard for a companyWhy should a company pay more for an employee who isnt motivated to work for the company???? I think most business owners and managers are always on the lookout for those employees who are looking to take the step up and out of that "small hourly wage" position but the problem is that most have the attitude "why should I improve?.

Heres why they need to improve. Most business owners and managers will pay more for someone who shows the right attitude and performs well but very few of them will give pay rises to people in the hope they will improve. Many of my employees have said why should i do more if Im not getting paid more and my response was ... you WILL get paid more if you do more but why should I pay more if you are not doing more..?

Some of them would jump out of their skin and improve and get paid more but a lot of them would just continue along the same track even while knowing that they have the opportunity to show me what they are capable of.

Spider
04-20-2009, 09:04 AM
You can occasionally find an exceptional employee at whatever wage, but a huge number of workers are inherently lazy, aren’t courteous to customers or care about quality! It is hard to find an employee who will close a door or gate behind them or knock mud off their shoes before entering someone’s house...I totally disagree with that, and I totally agree with this...
...In many cases it's the culture at the company that leads to unmotivated employees.... except to say I believe it is in *all* cases, not just "many cases"

And the culture starts at the top. If you want better performing employees, your company needs a better CEO.

vangogh
04-20-2009, 11:22 AM
Most business owners and managers will pay more for someone who shows the right attitude and performs well but very few of them will give pay rises to people in the hope they will improve.

lav the problem is that's not usually true. I can only go on my own experience, but it was seldom true for me. When I did work hourly jobs I worked hard. I entered every new job with a great attitude and would usually do the work of two people. The only thing that lead to was expectations that I would always do the same. I watched people who did less advance ahead of me.

The truth is most companies don't reward people who work hard. They reward people with the right internal connections in the company. That may not be true with a lot of small businesses, but in corporate America it absolutely is true. You advance more based on a political game that's played within the company and less on your abilities and work ethic.

I'm not saying that's true for all companies, but it certainly was true for all the companies I worked for.

bwat05
04-20-2009, 04:47 PM
The only thing that lead to was expectations that I would always do the same. I watched people who did less advance ahead of me.



I definitely agree with this. It's the same for that person who continually volunteers to do dirtywork outside of their job description.
They become "dependable". In fact they are usually taken advantage of and are used as a workhorse for every unpleasant job that comes up. The supervisor and his buddies stand over in the corner watching Mr. Dependable work.

vangogh
04-20-2009, 07:21 PM
Sadly what I found a lot was if you did a good job you made your immediate supervisor look good. If that person was decent they would let their superiors know. If not they wouldn't want to say anything or let you be promoted since keeping you where you were made them look good.

I realize the way it should work is if you do a good job you should get more money and a promotion, but unfortunately it doesn't always work that way. Too much of your career path is in the hands of people who don't see your best interest meshing with theirs.

Dan Furman
04-20-2009, 07:51 PM
Heres why they need to improve. Most business owners and managers will pay more for someone who shows the right attitude and performs well

I have found, in my own experiences anyway, that this is usually not the case.

For the most part, people are going to earn close to the average for their job title - no matter how well they perform. And if you increase skills? Well, your raise will almost always be based on your current salary, not on your skill level.

I once worked as an e-commerce (EDI/ERP systems) programmer. A year into my tenure, I also took over web operations for the company (we were paying an outside vendor to handle webmaster duties). Not only did I save them tens of thousands in fees, I then rebuilt the online store and made it do 8x what it was doing before. This was in addition to my old duties (which I honed to the point that I had free time to take on more).

So, did I get paid accordingly? No, I did not. I was told I would get a 4% raise, instead of the customary 2.5% they usually gave out, as to "not upset the salary structure". You know what? That's pure corporate BS. Basically, they were saying what I did was worth 1.5% more than I was doing previously.

I'm sure the employer felt they were doing good by me (after all, I got the biggest raise, percentage wise, in the place.... so they said), but in my mind, they shortchanged me. It pissed me off. My attitude went south, and from that moment forward, I did not a scant bit more than I was paid for.

This is one example of many. As you can tell, I'm generally anti-employer. It's a big reason I choose to work for myself.

huggytree
04-20-2009, 08:51 PM
i worked at a large printer before i became a plumber...

i worked my *ss off and looked at the guy next to me doing nothing...raise time came...we got the same..i quit working hard for them....

years later i became the lead man on my crew...i was told...sorry no raise today, but when raise time comes you'll get extra.....6 months later raise time comes.....' sorry it didnt work out, you get the same'....i put in a transfer to another department that day.

ill never be a sucker like that again....

ive always found the only time you get a great raise is when you quit and go somewhere else...once they get you then your back to 50 cents or less a year....i knew a guy who quit and came back the same year and got $5....if he would have gotten $5 before he left he wouldnt have left....just bosses screwed up logic i guess...

if i get a guy who makes me lots of money i will always treat him well....i want him for life!

vangogh
04-20-2009, 10:30 PM
ive always found the only time you get a great raise is when you quit and go somewhere else.

When I thought I wasn't getting a raise I deserved I would think about the position that was next up the ladder and then go apply for it at another company.

Oddly this seems to also be the way large companies treat us as customers. If you're not currently a customer you can get a great discount for signing up, but if you're a loyal existing customer you get nothing.

billbenson
04-20-2009, 10:46 PM
After reading some of the posts, I went back and read the original post again. This has drifted quite a ways off track. It sounds like the employees that Dustin is referring to are salaried employees who could use their position to advance their career or salary. Instead, a significant portion are just fat dumb and happy in their jobs.

Take a possible analogy of a Customer Service Rep. I've seen this position used to move into marketing, training, sales, and engineering. I've also seen people who just like being a CSR. It sounds like Dustin may be hiring the wrong people for the job. A lot of motivation flows down from the top as well.

Continuing the CSR analogy, I would think the objective would be to create an exciting environment like Google. There are a lot of places where people just love to go to work; like Google but on a much smaller scale.

I would concentrate on hiring people who are dynamic movers and shakers. Peers may do a better job of motivating people than supervisors or management. I would try to implement employee suggestions. Anything that could make the position more exciting or a stepping stone. Some of the CSR's may want to travel some. Make them an expert on a new product and travel with the regional sales people both training the salesman on the product and doing customer presentations or classes. Etc.

I don't buy the argument that if you do something outstanding as a CSR, you get an incredible raise. A CSR job makes a certain salary range. Offer a competitive industry salary, a great working environment and the chance for advancement.

vangogh
04-21-2009, 02:07 AM
Oh yeah, we went off track. Don't we always in these long threads? That's what Dustin gets for not checking back in sooner.

I wasn't sure what kind of employees he was referring to. He mentioned a team, but I don't know if that meant salaried employees or not. Maybe it did, but I don't really know.


I don't buy the argument that if you do something outstanding as a CSR, you get an incredible raise.

I'll nitpick on the word outstanding. I think if you do something that makes a company a lot of money they should give you back some of that money or risk losing you. I'll give you an seo analogy. People ask me to work on their site in order to make them tens of thousands a month. They would like to pay me a one time fee of about $200 for all that work. It would make more sense for me to copy their site and work on it for myself. My investment is the same, but my reward is greater in the second case.

Getting back to the job. If my efforts will make my boss a lot of money and I won't see any of it why would go above and beyond the next time. My experience when working was that I was going to get the same back from the company if I gave them everything I had or if I gave them the minimum they expected from the position. I won't say that was true of every job, but it was true of the vast majority. If an employer was going to give me the same thing regardless of my effort it didn't make sense to put in all that much effort.

I wish it were otherwise, but in my experience it wasn't.

billbenson
04-21-2009, 02:24 AM
My first job out of college was in field service in San Jose CA. I answered phone calls from customers, repaired equipment, training, and did installs world wide. I made 16k (this was a long time ago). One of the executives made a comment in passing that there was a sales position open, why don't I apply. I did, got the job; base of 35k on a 100k package. This is contrary to a couple of posts here. If you want to look at just the base pay, I doubled my salary in the same company. If you want to look at the whole package I made more than 6 times my salary my first year. All of this came about because I did a good job in field service even though it would never pay me much more than I was making at the time.

vangogh
04-21-2009, 02:34 AM
I guess that just wasn't my experience. And again I don't want to knock every company in the world. Obviously you had a good experience. Didn't work that way for me. Probably depends a lot on the specific company and job within the company.

It's good to know there are some companies that reward good work. One thing I would say is this was your first job out of college so it is a number of years ago. It seemed to me over the years the situation has been changing more toward the not rewarding good work, but again that's based on my experience.

bwat05
04-21-2009, 08:03 AM
ive always found the only time you get a great raise is when you quit and go somewhere else...

Veering more off topic here I imagine, but I have read that an individual can make 40% more money over their working life by taking their marketable skills from job to job. As opposed to staying put and getting those small raises over the course of ones career.

vangogh
04-21-2009, 11:02 AM
I remember reading something like that as well. Not sure it was the same %, but the sentiment was the same.

KristineS
04-21-2009, 12:38 PM
I think a lot of times it comes down to this

As an employee, it's your responsibility to try and get the best deal you can get for yourself. As an employer, it's your responsibility to try to get the best deal you can for yourself. Those two goals are not always mutually exclusive, but they often are. As much as most of us don't like to admit it, everyone is looking out for themselves.

Spider
04-21-2009, 02:06 PM
...I can quote you an instance where nearly every employee was motivated and inspired to improve. ... started this company on the basis of it being profit-sharing. ...Every one of the employee horror stories in this thread were bad news for the employers at the time. Now, everyone posting here (or most, I think) are employers themselves. What have you learned from your experience? Are you treating YOUR employees in the same way?

What is more, everyone of these horror stories would not have happened had a real profit-sharing program been in place.

How many of you have a profit-sharing program for your current employees?

Dustin07
04-21-2009, 06:08 PM
What a pathetic world we live in.

I appreciate your responses, everyone. The underlying theme that I am hearing is that nobody is interested in doing a good job for the sake of doing a good job.

When I worked for other people I still busted my ass to do a good job, and if I felt like I was being taken advantage of, I found another job. I gave my notice, I told them why, and I left. But I always did the best I could wherever I was.


In a world where college education is preached as a 'must have' for any job whatsoever, I am disapointed to find that employees to not spend personal time researching corporate software, products, policies, or customers and vendors.

when I was a kid my dad told me to never ask for a raise. He said if I deserved one, I'd get it. It would either come from my boss, or another employer who recognized my hard work and skills. He was right.

huggytree
04-21-2009, 06:16 PM
i always did the best job i could until i felt slighted...usually a money issue...i always told the boss exactly what the problem was...the bosses never did a thing....it was always like talking to a wall....if a guy feels like he should have gotten a better raise you need to listen to him...if you dont give in or explain the reason why, your asking for a good employee to become a bad one....Ive always become the best at everything ive ever done and i expect to be paid well for the extra product i produce....being cheap with raises when i knew they were making (in some cases) $200 per hour extra profit off of me and then denying a .50 cent raise when i asked for it make me not care.

good work = compensation......real compensation & yes when someday i get employees i will give my best guys the world.....ill give a % of their profits...they achieve whatever level they want to and decide what their paycheck will be.

I have a brother who's boss gives him 45% of the profit on all work over a set dollar amount. he makes $500 extra per week because he is an achiever....he has pushed himself even further now to make more and the boss is making more profit than before this policy...his boss didnt get greedy....he got fair!

Blacktalon
04-21-2009, 06:42 PM
Sorry. I don't agree, Sean. Survival - by which I presume you mean nothing more than losing their job - is rarely a motivating factor for improvement. It can be, however, a motivating factor in trying to please the boss. That's not the same thing in my book.
You're approaching it wrong.

Any environment where your imminent "death" can happen at any minute is primarily a motive for improvement. It's the basic principles of evolutionary theory: thrive or die. That's how humans have been able to survive for so long because of our hard-lined resilience to opposition and manoeuvering of harsh environments.

If staff had autonomy, then there'd be no "impressing the boss" but rather impressing themselves and the stakeholders involved.

In workplaces where people are thrust against the elements and their (financial) survival depends on every action they make (or don't make), they would most likely be willing to use any resource and tool available to them in order to maintain their position for another day. They'll work harder that way than someone who earns a static wage in a cushy environment.

Salespeople, recruiters even small businesses for gosh sakes...are always in "survival" mode merely because the harder they work and move the more they will reap. The harder they work, the more they get because if they don't, then they won't thrive, and they will fall.

You all here should know that. If you don't act in making sales, then your business will fail. You're always on "survival" mode whether you like it or not.


Perhaps it comes down to what you mean by autonomy. I see autonomy in the workplace as having the ability to rearrange one's own workload. It should, but probably doesn't, mean having the freedon to prioritize one's own responsibilities - that still usually comes from the boss.
Have there been days where you could initiate a process or gain access to specific resources but your boss prevented you from doing so, even though you knew that this specific process would aid your business unit or department futher?

I'd like to wager that you have (probably the reason why you've chosen to become an entrepreneur: to assert more control, or autonomy, over the decisions that affect your life and business and their outcome).

Thus the mandate of autonomy. Having the control over the resources, decision making and tools in order to deliver a quality output and get the appropriate reward from it.

In all honesty, we're all in an autonomous situation and because of this, we're working harder than you probably did when you were employed by someone else. Mainly because we're getting rewarded for the work we do without having been told how to do it by a complacent figure who has no direct bearing on


I always flinch when I hear anyone from management talk of holding employees accountable without mentioning authority. You cannot hold anyone accountable for anything unless they have the authority to command the means to get it done. Ie.- You cannot hold me accountable for getting the company's product delivered unless I am givien the authority to control the trucking and the truckdrivers
That is where autonomy comes in. When staff assert control and have the authority to exercise specific decisions relating to their job, then holding staff accountable is sound. Otherwise it's a bunch of rhetoric that no one seems to pay attention to at the end of the day and runs contraband to what they want to accomplish.

This is also a huge risk many organizations take. On one point, they're striving for optimal performance. Yet on the other, they aren't giving the proper tools, or control, in order for staff to do such a thing. Like huggytree stated, he grew frustrated because he weasn't getting properly recognized for his output. This leads to quality talent leaving and joining either with another organization, or becoming a competitor themselves.

Thus the concept of autonomy. Thrust people against the elements and they will react accordingly. You'll get top quality and gain access to perspectives and skills that were not available to you before under restrictive top-down management structures.

Otherwise, you're just preaching a lot of worthless rhetoric to a group of staff who are experiencing a rather cushy job.

Cushiness leads to comfort, which is probably why the OP's staff are reneging on their performance. Why improve when there's no reason to?


What is more, everyone of these horror stories would not have happened had a real profit-sharing program been in place.
You'd think that this would be implemented a lot more, but surprisingly it's not.

As for profit sharing, it's my core principle in my organization and practice. It's what I tell my clients to consider if they want to create additional capital and staunch employee performance without having to spend additional money.

vangogh
04-21-2009, 07:10 PM
The underlying theme that I am hearing is that nobody is interested in doing a good job for the sake of doing a good job.

Dustin sorry if that's the impression I gave. It wasn't how I meant my comments. I always started every job trying to do the best job I could for not other reason than I want to do my best. That got bread out of me by employers who took my best and then took advantage of me. I wish it were different, but that was my experience more often than not.

With every job I ever had I went in hoping it would be the last job I ever looked for. I worked my hardest and and looked to rise within the company. The problem is what I usually found was working my hardest meant I was then expected to always work just as hard. Say I was getting 60% more done than the person next to me. When it came time for raises I'd watch that guy get paid more because he was with the company longer. Say then instead of doing 60% more I only did 40% more. I would then be lectured how I wasn't pulling my weight or something like that.

That's pretty disheartening to be working more than the person next to you and get lectured for not working hard enough while the he gets a raise. After awhile you don't want to work as hard. It got to the point when I would start a new job I first tried to understand what was expected of me in order not to do too much. Sad.

That's why I work for myself now. I do want to do my best just for the sake of doing my best. The only way I saw to do that and keep my sanity was to work for myself.

I think the experience a lot of us have had is where we did try our best with the idea that it would be rewarded. When it wasn't we picked up and moved on. I don't think it was meant to imply that we didn't try or want to do our best, but there comes a point where you do feel like you're being taken advantage of.

I'd also point out that you can do your best and improve yourself without it specifically being for your employer. The last job I held I would come home after work and spend several hours teaching myself how to design and develop websites. I did still work hard and do my best. I just did it for myself instead of an unappreciative employer.

Blacktalon
04-21-2009, 08:13 PM
Steve, it's a big shame but that's the risk many individuals take whenever they decide to work in a very rigid top-down corporate structure where everyone is practically treated as a number.

Look at companies in the Silicon Valley, hell, look at Google. One of the most innovative organizations to exist, aside from 3M and I suppose you could say GE, but these organizations have proven that top-down institutions and structures cannot accelerate in growth to the extent that these companies do.

Why?

They value each and every staff member and allow them to contribute to the overall execution of the business strategy with greater autonomy, up-to-date facilities and a strong compensation system that reinforces excellence.

It's the epitamy of what an organization ought to resemble. And because of this, they are capable of attracting, and retaining, the skills and talent that enables them to have that strategic edge.

vangogh
04-21-2009, 08:26 PM
Who said I was working for rigid top-down corporations. Some of the jobs I'm talking about involved small businesses more closely related to mom and pop than large corporation.

My whole point in all this was never to complain about my employment history, but rather to counter a few people who implied workers were lazy. I don't think you can generalize either way.

Still let's say we are talking corporate America here. Why should a company expect an employee to give his or her all when the company itself won't give it's all back to the employee. Shouldn't it go both ways. Isn't the ideal a win-win where an employee works hard, makes the company money, and rises within the organization.

My point is let's not trash employees for not giving all they can to a company without also talking about companies that don't give back to employees. This thread started because Dustin was looking for a way to motivate employees. My thought then and now is that asking them to read an article or two wouldn't help. I think the best way to motivate employees is to reward hard work, while disciplining poor work and creating a culture where employees are seen as more than just a commodity.

I agree with you about a company like Google. The idea that they allow employees 20% time to work on their own projects is great and a true win-win. The employee gets to work on things they want to work on while feeling they are contributing something to the company. Google gets some great ideas. Lot's of Google apps we enjoy started out in the 20% time.

KristineS
04-22-2009, 12:41 PM
What a pathetic world we live in.

I appreciate your responses, everyone. The underlying theme that I am hearing is that nobody is interested in doing a good job for the sake of doing a good job.

when I was a kid my dad told me to never ask for a raise. He said if I deserved one, I'd get it. It would either come from my boss, or another employer who recognized my hard work and skills. He was right.

Dustin, I was taught the same thing as you, but my employment experience has not borne that out. We have to acknowledge that it's a different employment landscape today. The days of starting on the ground floor of one company and rising through the ranks and having one employer your entire working life are pretty much over. It just doesn't happen that way anymore.

I am another, like Steve, who always started every job giving 110%. I usually became the resident expert at my company and I always went above and beyond to try and make the company better. It rarely paid off in increased salary or promotion. That might have been because the area where I live is a more rural area and the companies are more Mom and Pop companies, but I also think it had to do with employers constantly asking for more for the same compensation.

If an employer treats me fairly and rewards me for my efforts I'll bust through walls for them. If that doesn't happen, I've learned to spend my energies in other areas. I don't think that means I'm unwilling to work or shirking my duties, it just means I'm unwilling to spend all my energy on activities that primarily benefit someone else.

As to expecting employees to research company information, customers etc. on their off time, you might see salespeople doing that, but that could be of benefit to them. I'm guessing you won't, with rare exceptions, see anyone else doing that sort of thing.

Blacktalon
04-22-2009, 02:01 PM
Who said I was working for rigid top-down corporations. Some of the jobs I'm talking about involved small businesses more closely related to mom and pop than large corporation.

Even if you yourself didn't work in a tall top-down structure, you still witnessed these types of problems with a smaller organization of a handful of people.

The whole problem can be summed up in the neglect and a present deficit of understanding of basic HR and organizational behavioural concepts when operating a business. Managing people is one of the most important function in any organization. The more you mistreat your staff, the more it costs you. It's a cost that goes unnoticed despite it's huge impact on the bottom line.

Back on track, the main issue here is that the original poster of this thread is having difficulty in managing and motivating their people.

This can easily be remedied with effective HR 3.0 practices (employee involvement) that are easily implemented to help you to avoid these issues and unwanted costs.

Dustin, or anyone else for that matter, if you would like to my input and assistance in finding a way to properly address and resolve this issue for a minimal investment, I'd be more than happy to provide my services at a reduced rate to you.

Only you have the capability of making the decisions that affect your business. But if the opportunity came along to improve the way your staff worked and contributed, would you take it?

Dan Furman
04-23-2009, 02:51 AM
What a pathetic world we live in.

I appreciate your responses, everyone. The underlying theme that I am hearing is that nobody is interested in doing a good job for the sake of doing a good job.

Plenty of people are interested. You're talking to a bunch of them right here. It's why I work for myself.

If we depended on employers to reward people, we'd be back in sweatshops.

When I was young, I gave my all in every job. Best guy at every job I worked at, without exception. Know what happened? I got exploited. Numerous times. Sorry, but I do not trust employers to look out for anyone but themselves.

I learned - you want my best? Then pay me. All of a sudden, they didn't want my best all that bad. They wanted average, because that's all they paid. They pay average, I give average.

vangogh
04-23-2009, 03:38 AM
It's why I work for myself too.

Employers expect their employees to give everything they can. Why then don't employers give employees back everything they can as well? It has to work both ways. If the employer isn't giving back an equal amount then it's exploiting it's workers. It's not that I didn't want to do my best. I just didn't appreciate being exploited.

Looking back over my work history I don't think I was generally paid a fair value for what I gave to the companies I worked for. A few times yes, and for those companies I worked very hard. For the companies that didn't compensate me fairly I saw no reason to give them more than they were giving me.

I think the only difference Dan and I might have about this is that factors other than money came into play for me. Money was one of the most important factors, but just as important was how I was treated as a person.

Dustin getting back to your original question are the employees you're talking about hourly or salaried? Are they people who you think expect to work for you 10 years from now? Are they people you think want to work for you 10 years from now?

Dan Furman
04-23-2009, 11:40 AM
I think the only difference Dan and I might have about this is that factors other than money came into play for me. Money was one of the most important factors, but just as important was how I was treated as a person.


Oh, that's important to me, too. But I found they usually go hand in hand.

vangogh
04-23-2009, 11:49 AM
Sorry. Didn't mean to imply it wasn't important to you. I guess I've had jobs where I knew there wasn't going to be much money coming my way just because of the nature of the job, but since my boss treated me so well I was willing to put up with low pay more than I would elsewhere. In the end the low pay could only last so long before I'd move on, but the other factors might keep me around longer.

billbenson
04-23-2009, 02:17 PM
When I was young, I gave my all in every job. Best guy at every job I worked at, without exception. Know what happened? I got exploited. Numerous times. Sorry, but I do not trust employers to look out for anyone but themselves.

I learned - you want my best? Then pay me. All of a sudden, they didn't want my best all that bad. They wanted average, because that's all they paid. They pay average, I give average.

I took a different approach. I made friends out of my employer. This extends back to college jobs. I also did a good job. It probably didn't get me more money as there were constraints on that, but it made the working environment far more enjoyable.

There came a time when I was in field sales that two divisions of the company merged. It left another sales guy and myself covering the same territory. Both of us were doing well. Most of the business was in the northeast near the other employee. I was in FL They had to get rid of somebody and because of geography, I was the most likely candidate. Because I had done a good job and had made friends with my boss, they created a position covering Latin America for me. I didn't speak spanish at the time. I wasn't really qualified for the job. I was successful at that job as well.

I think there is a little to much complaining about the company and not enough looking in the mirror in this thread. You can create or dramatically influence your own success within a company in many cases. It just takes some salesmanship.

Come to think of this, I even did this in college. We used to take one of the instructors water skiing with us. Made friends with him and were respected by the other professors. I'm sure it didn't hurt grades!

vangogh
04-23-2009, 05:20 PM
Bill I think your experience shows it's not what you know, but who you know. Adding to that I think you sometimes need to play the political office games to get on the good side of the 'who'

Personally I don't want to play those games and quite often the boss hasn't been someone who you could get to know. I've worked in larger organizations where you could never get access to the person making decisions. In other places I did have a very good relationship with my immediate supervisor and then that person left or was let go. Next thing I know there's a new person in charge with a different group of friends who are getting the perks and the promotions.

I don't know that we're saying you can't influence your success within a company. It's that some of us would rather that success be based on merit. And also that many times it really is out of your control as to how far you go in a company. This thread started with the idea of motivating employees to do more. Again if you want employees to do more you have to reward them for doing more.

Look again at your case. Did the position in Latin America have to do with the job you did or because you had made friends with the boss. Sounds like both came into play. I've worked in many places where the doing the good job part was irrelevant. It was only the making friends with the boss part that mattered. So what's the message that company was sending me?

billbenson
04-24-2009, 01:41 AM
I agree with everything you said VG. I read Dilbert everyday to remind me of why I'm glad I'm not in a corporation anymore.

However, I'm not sympathetic to most that choose the corporate environment and complain about it. If you are going to be in that environment, you should play the game if you want to be happy and succeed. The game will vary a bit from company to company as well. You, VG and Dan weren't the right people for the job. Perhaps you shouldn't have been there. That's both your fault and the companies. On the other hand, maybe you learned more than you realize while working there and it was a good stepping stone in spite of the fact you didn't like it.

As for access to the decision maker or having someone leave and have a new fish in the pond, hopefully you can hedge your bet by having more than one lower level manager / friend. As described below, figure out who the key players are and sell yourself to them.

When I was selling telecom equipment domestically, there were 7 regional Bell Operating companies, each with a grouping of states. I sold a million dollar switching product. I had a two million quota. I had a year to close two sales essentially. It was essential to do a multi tiered sell. I sold to regional manager, planning people, purchasing, and then to field engineers. I probably had 30 or 40 people I was calling on at various levels to make the sale. Probably the most influential people in the sell process were lower level engineers, field people, or others who just happened to command a lot of respect within the company. They were the ones that really sold the higher level managers. Without their approval, I wasn't going to have any success.

I think the above sell process is very much the way you need to approach working for a large organization. For that matter any organization within reason. Do a good job and sell yourself at all levels.

How is this applicable to Dustin. I suspect the answer is hire the right people. Most of the people posting here aren't a good fit. Others thrive in the more structured companies.

I don't recall in any interviews any questions that would lead to a decision of whether I would fit into the company. More importantly, questions should be asked to determine your skill at playing the corporate game as it applies to the company you are interviewing with.

vangogh
04-24-2009, 02:38 AM
Bill just to make clear, none of my comments in this thread were in any way meant as a complaint about where I did or didn't go in the corporate world. If it's coming across that way it's my bad. It's not my intention.

My comments have really been a reaction to a few mentions of workers being lazy and I don't think that's the reason you may not see your employees not working to your expectations. Too often I've seen companies not fairly compensate employees.

A simple example. Most retail chains pay an hourly wage. They expect employees to give two weeks notice when quitting. Yet those companies won't give a two week severance if they let you go. Why? Both are the same thing. A two week buffer before parting ways. To me that's an unfair inequity. I generally did not give two weeks notice when quitting.

I also think you have to take into consideration that people have to work in order to pay for life's expenses. Starting your own business is not an easy thing and not everyone has the interest to start their own business. Many people don't even have a great desire to rise in the corporate environment. They want to be paid and treated fairly for doing an honest day's work. If they aren't being paid and treated fairly why should an employer expect them to give more than they are getting. To me this discussion has never been about rising up the corporate ladder. It's been about motivating employees to do more. All I've been trying to say is that you have to offer real incentive to employees if you want to to motivate them to do more. If an employer isn't compensating the extra effort they shouldn't expect to see that effort.

Yes, I think people should take pride in what they do and want to do their best. But I also think if you're not being compensated fairly you lose the motivation to do your best at work. You'll do your best on your own time instead. I don't think you have to want a promotion to want to do your best, but I do think poor wages and poor treatment will quickly take away the desire to do your best for your employer.

In Dustin's case I still don't know what kind of employees we're talking about. Are these warehouse workers making $7.50 an hour or are these salaried employees. It's a completely different kind of employee and will take different things to motivate them

billbenson
04-24-2009, 12:29 PM
I really wasn't referring to retail because I don't think Dustin was.

My college job was security at Sears. This was before cameras so we were floor detectives in every sense of the word. This is late 70's. At that time, most of the employees were kids and this was likely their first job. They came and went. It was by no means meant as a career position. They got paid what they got paid.

There were some middle aged women who had been working there forever. I have no idea why they stayed on or if they were on a different salary structure. They were probably just comfortable.

And there were the people that sell washers and driers or other big ticket items who were commissioned and could make $60k or so even back then.

There was lateral mobility. You could move to different functions that had a better pay and respect etc.

I have no idea how things are structured today. My point is that even in retail, there can be some advancement and salary increase. It generally takes a change in job function though.

Patrysha
04-24-2009, 01:01 PM
I've been watching this thread...it's been interesting.

In my last job, before returning home again, I was told in my performance review that I "research too much" and was to "city-fied" in my sales approach...that I was spending too much time with clients and should have had a higher closing rate. It was then I started making plans to leave because my best and their best really didn't mesh.

I was motivated and I was a hard worker. And during my stay there I was top seller for all but one month. I was rewarded on performance in that it was 100% commission. I also provided them with at least five revenue generating ideas that would've been easy for them to implement which they chose to ignore.

It made me wonder why I thought I'd be a good employee in the first place. I had been out of the workforce for the most part for 10 years when I took the job and I wasn't really looking when I found it -except that it sounded so cool and so "me" that I had to see if I could. Plus the lure of less bookkeeping and paperwork (which was not the case...there was tons of paperwork and most of it pointless!) and more social interaction appealed to me at the time.

vangogh
04-24-2009, 01:29 PM
I really wasn't referring to retail because I don't think Dustin was

Bill I think part of the reason for the disagreement in this thread is that we're all talking about different kinds of jobs and people with different goals at those jobs. Most of the jobs I've been talking about have been low hourly retail jobs, but I've also been talking about a few other types.

And I won't disagree that there are ways to move up even at those jobs, though it can be very dependent on who's in charge. Most of the retail jobs I've held, promotions were based 100% on seniority. Unfortunately the people who stayed the longest were the people who couldn't do much else so you had the least at the top.

Patrysha I think your experience is more similar to mine. Working hard and thinking I was doing a good job, but not getting anywhere without any explanation for what I wasn't doing right. Very frustrating.

graphic designer
05-19-2009, 11:06 AM
Be honest. Make it fun. Make your own article. Tell them what you'd like to see in a nice playful way this way it doesn't come off as harsh. Put a cartoon on it perhaps. And put here are our goals.