In the workplace, leaders like employees who are capable, good at business, and can do things well. Everyone can see this clearly. Since leaders rely heavily on them, they will naturally not "treat" such employees badly.
However, why do leaders keep putting down tasks even though they know that employees have heavy responsibilities? Isn't this the leader's intention to embarrass employees?
I want to tell you: the leaders are also very helpless, which can be said to be "unbearable". The capable employees have already made "major contributions" to the leaders, but the leaders do not reward them and continue to "squeeze them". "For employees, superficial phenomena often obscure their eyes. That's because the leader has "no one available"! On the surface, leaders are "treating" and "squeezing" employees badly; in essence, leaders are "training" and "promoting" employees!
There is a point of view in the workplace: the leader's subordinates are just acquaintances and friends, so you can greet them and let them take care of them!
Excuse me: How do leaders take care of me? Should you arrange relaxed and leisurely work for your subordinates, or should you place a heavier burden on your subordinates?
(1) "Bottom-level thinking": It must be to ask the leader to arrange a "fat job" for his subordinates. The work is easy and the salary is high.
(2) "Pattern thinking": Let leaders arrange subordinates to positions that can best train their abilities and put them on top of their shoulders.
If you understand the difference between "bottom-level thinking" and "pattern thinking", you will understand: leaders continue to put burdens on employees. In addition to superficial "squeezing", are they intentionally training and testing employees? , Cultivate employees? To take a step back, even if the leader has no intention of nurturing, if employees can "resist pressure" and persevere, the employees themselves will benefit. They can use the company's platform and resources to improve their abilities, accumulate their own operations, and save their own money. Make connections and train your thinking, why not!
Some people may refute: If the leader only works more and does not give a salary increase, who can persevere? Please believe that when most capable employees cannot persist, when they are ready to change jobs and leave, their abilities are enough to find the next position with a higher salary. 3. “Don’t worry about scarcity but inequality”: “low-cost” labor force
“The able ones work harder”, leaders may think so, and colleagues will certainly say so.
Many employees may say: Don’t think so well of leaders. There are countless cases of leaders “extracting” value in the workplace!
I admit that leaders continue to put more workload on employees. In addition to reassurance and cultivation, perhaps the more important consideration is: zero "extra cost".
The implication is that as long as the employee's position and level are the same as those of ordinary employees, no matter how much work they do, theoretically they will not get a penny more. This is determined by the company's compensation mechanism and no one can change it without authorization. This is the "flexibility mechanism" in the workplace: Although employees have signed a labor contract with the company, and although their job attributes are clearly defined, the specific workload during the work period cannot be measured or specified.
Therefore, this kind of work "flexibility mechanism" leaves a lot of room for leaders to operate. There is no specific standard for how much task volume is appropriate. Therefore, from the perspective of performance, leaders put burdens on highly capable employees without the need to provide additional compensation, and employees must obey unconditionally. This is the consideration behind the leadership: "low-cost" labor!
Leaders also have another consideration, which is to "worry not about scarcity but about inequality", and the targets are other employees and subordinates.
For an enterprise, the fundamental power to unite people's hearts lies in "fairness". Once it is tilted, it will cause a "butterfly effect" and the stability of the team will be affected.
If we analyze it from the perspective of employees: Colleagues often say to employees with strong abilities, "The able ones work harder." It seems that the employees with strong abilities should bear more responsibilities. Because of their lack of ability, they Naturally, we should "give way" and let the urgent, difficult and dangerous tasks be pushed forward. However, once they know that the more capable employees receive more salary or bonuses, they will immediately "blow up" because they will feel that no matter how much work the capable employees do, it is within the scope of their duties and should not be done. Any special treatment.
This is the psychological cognition of other employees. At this time, "the capable person works harder" is no longer a "reward", but a "natural". Because he is capable, he must take more responsibilities; Because they are not very capable, there is nothing unreasonable about taking less responsibility. Summary: "Don't worry about scarcity, but worry about inequality." This is the traditional understanding deep in the hearts of employees in the workplace, and it still affects the thinking of people in the workplace. "Those who can do more work" are a typical manifestation. Leaders continue to put burdens on employees from the perspective of cost savings, and colleagues feel that it is natural for employees to take on more responsibilities from the perspective of fairness. 4. Silence is not "gold": fighting for rights
People in the workplace work hard to give themselves more protection, to be able to get a salary increase and promotion, and to give a safe support to the family behind them.
So, employees with strong abilities should not be "bound" by the secular view that "the capable work harder". The ratio of effort and gain must be an "equivalent relationship", but it cannot be "too disparate". big"!
My suggestion is: capable employees should dare to fight for their legitimate rights and interests. Temporary "overload" work is okay. If it is long-term and persistent "full load" work, then There needs to be an “explanation”!
Based on my 11 years of workplace experience, I believe that highly capable employees can adopt the following three methods: (1) "Work deceleration method"
Don't directly refuse the leader's task arrangements , This not only makes the leader lose "face" and loses face, but also offends the leader, thinking that you are deliberately going against him, thus giving the leader a bad impression of you.
My suggestion is: don’t use “hard methods” and use “soft methods” appropriately. When the leader assigns work, naturally agree to it, but you must slow down, get off work on time, and don't work overtime. Otherwise, the leader and colleagues will think that it is natural for you to work overtime because your work has not been completed.
So, slow down the progress of the work, slow down the frequency of the work, if it cannot be completed, it will not be completed. Two out of three tasks are completed, and three out of five tasks are completed. The leader cannot say anything, as long as it is completed. If the workload is at the same level as that of ordinary employees, there will be no problem. (2) "Humorous and humorous method"
In the workplace, employees take the initiative to ask their leaders for a salary increase. No matter how great the performance of the employees is, this is a very sensitive matter for the leaders.
There are two reasons why few employees take the initiative to apply for a salary increase from their leaders:
(1) A salary increase is something that " affects the whole body." If Giving a salary increase to only one employee will inevitably cause a "psychological rebound" for other employees. If not handled properly, it will affect the stability of the entire team.
(2) Salary increase cannot be decided by the leader alone or at the moment. If the leader has this intention, the leader can immediately agree when the employee proposes it, and the specific amount is not very critical; and if the leader If the employee suddenly brings up the idea, the leader will be surprised. Direct rejection will hurt the employee's enthusiasm, and not raising salary will undermine the employee's self-motivation, creating a dilemma.
In short, after employees take the initiative to propose a salary increase, an "awkward" atmosphere is likely to arise between leaders and employees. In order to avoid this phenomenon, employees can express their inner demands to their leaders in "informal" situations, such as during meals or private chats, in a humorous tone and in a joking way.
The advantages of this method are: (1) It allows employees to escape from the embarrassing atmosphere, so that when the leader does not agree to a salary increase or is unable to raise the salary, employees will be embarrassed and unable to step down. The same goes for leaders. (2) When employees raise psychological appeals in this informal way, it is tantamount to throwing the problem to the leader. It depends on how the leader handles it. If the leader also catches the problem in a "joking" way, it is likely to be useless; if the leader's mood or attitude changes, it means that the leader has listened to the employees' demands, and the possibility of a salary increase will be greater. . (3) "Application for Progress Method"
In the workplace, employees taking the initiative to ask for a "salary increase" and actively requesting "progress" are two completely different conditions.
"Salary increase", after all, involves money, and it seems to have a "sensitivity" inherent in it, which even makes leaders feel "disgusted" and creates a bad view and impression of employees.
As for "progress", this condition is very "euphemistic" and has a "positive" atmosphere. It seems that employees mainly want to realize their workplace value, not for money. Leaders will not have too much emotional reaction to employees, because promotion and promotion of positions seem to be matters that leaders can consider and control.
Therefore, I suggest that employees with strong abilities should not ask for a salary increase, but apply for advancement from their leaders. Conclusion
The leaders know that the workload of employees is very heavy and has exceeded the "load", but they still continue to add tasks and burdens. The main reasons are as follows: First, the mentality of "the capable do more" , the second is the reality of “no one available”, and the third is the consideration of “low-cost” labor.
"He who can do more work" and "No one is available" are internal logics that go back and forth. It seems that behind them are zero contributions of "extra costs" and duties within the scope of "normal responsibilities". From a leadership level, employees with strong abilities can do things with confidence and steadfastness, and after all, no one can use them; from an employee perspective, it is natural for employees with strong abilities to take on more responsibilities. As long as there is no salary increase, this kind of The status quo can be maintained. This is the "fair mentality" of "worrying not about scarcity but about inequality". In fact, this is the "unfair" reality.
Therefore, highly capable employees must not adopt the attitude of "silence is golden" and must dare to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests. Therefore, persistent "overload" efforts must be "equal" "return". I have three suggestions: one is the "work slowdown method", the other is the "humor method", and the third is the "apply for progress method".