| Every time I read a variation of the "for the benefit of the org" phrase I cannot help but laugh at the absurdity of it. Do I own the org? If I produce 5x more, do I get rewarded 5x more? What about the other way around: will the org work "for my benefit" every step of the way? Folks, most people work where they work because they have to. You work or you starve, that's the deal society gives us. So many clueless managers buy into this crap and go on to become horrible managers "for the benefit of the org". This phrase is completely nonsensical because it implies that the employee, that has no real stake in the company (no, stock options don't count), should be altruistic and work in the benefit of the organization above his own interests. I say above his own interests because if the interests of the organization and the individual's were aligned, this would be a non-issue. The reality is that the absolute majority of organizations don't want to fix their incentives because it's cheaper and easier to label people "difficult employees" and fire them. After all, we're all replaceable. Anecdotal but I've never come across someone that was actively trying to harm their employers. Even the ones labelled "difficult". It was always about bad incentives from the organization. |