[tacitusarc]

I think this characterization implies a dichotomy that bothers me.

Work is certainly not my top priority, but I spend a ton of my time on my job, and I would like to feel fulfilled and happy doing it. Have capable colleagues that you can trust to pull their weight is a big part of that.

In general, I’ve found that the clock-in, clock-out types seem to take their mediocrity as almost a badge of honor, with this feeling that by not working hard or accomplishing a lot, they ensure the business is not getting overmuch value out of them.

This is so sad, IMO. If at all possible, work should be fun. As programmers, we have more opportunity for that than most, and should take advantage. Is that perspective “Live to Work”?

[disambiguation]

The person I replied to claims their work based social interactions are totally utilitarian and transactional - very Patrick Bateman. Should work be fun? Of course, in fact every part of life should be good and fun for everyone all the time, yes? But realistically, I wouldn't have any fun working with this guy. If other peoples "mediocrity" is spoiling the "fun" for you, then you should consider building your own fun zone - no boring, mediocre people allowed.

[tacitusarc]

The quotations feel unnecessarily petty. Do you enjoy working with people who are incompetent? Is there anywhere you’d draw the line with regards to competence, at which point you’d rather not have to deal with them?

[disambiguation]

Apologies for coming across as heated and getting carried away - my intent was not to convey pettiness, but rather highlight how those notions are highly subjective. Everyone has their own idea of what's fun and what's competent.

In the context of the original reply, I dislike it when colleagues are so ideologically intense and rigid about work because it puts me on the defensive; I have to impress them on whatever made up criteria they have. Maybe they think they're being right and fair, but I didn't ask to be judged, and more often than not their attitude is really just an ego trip - picking on the flaws of others rather than self reflecting. It's easiest to deal with these types by flattering their egos and staying out of their way; they'll eventually "fly to close to the sun."

In terms of working with incompetent people, I don't view it as binary, or even linear. When referring to incompetence what's usually meant is someone who is unmotivated or unknowledgable, but they don't take personal responsibility for helping them and investing in the team as a whole. I have never felt at the mercy of an incompetent colleague, there is always a path forward. Any perceived hindrance or drag is just that: perspective. And as a dev, it's just not my problem. It's up to management to decide what's an acceptable level of productivity and drag. That said, while I don't think I'm seen as incompetent, I'm not a rock star either or work on a rock star team. I can see this being more pertienent to someone in that kind of environment. For myself, I subscribe to the David Graeber philosophy, that a lot of our industry is "bullshit" jobs. It's hard to care about competence when the work doesn't really matter in the first place. Regardless, the word incompetent just isn't part of my vocabulary, it only facilitates complaining and doesn't serve a productive purpose.

[mushroomba]

I would say that you are in a unique place of privilege in that regard. I believe the common experience of many people is that any task, if it be work, cannot be pleasing. The requirement to continue to complete any task in exchange for the necessities of life induces a disparity of spirit that will dull even the most hedonic of activities. The snuffing out of the freedom to choose to do the task is what induces pain into the experience.

For my part, I choose to have a good attitude about work. I am grateful for the opportunity to work. I do the best I can so that I can be proud of how I have spent my life. But I would never expect any job or any work to provide me fulfillment or happiness.

[taurath]

I think your statements belie a sense of honor in both trying to find enjoyment and in developing master with what you do. But I also don't think the underlying dichotomy is the how the GP phrased their characterization of others as "bad" and "making it someone elses problem".

That implies not only a value judgement dichotomy but also an added heap of shame of the morality on those on the wrong side of that value judgement.

Those are not the same things as being okay doing the work you're paid for and not reaching higher - people who do that may have a much better sense of the business value they are providing, and may be trying to avoid an experience of being exploited, or prioritizing their health and well being for the long term rather than the short term needs of the organization that pays them. There's often not a good way to know who is who.

Most of the time when enticed with a reward, people will work harder. When they aren't enticed enough, they tend not to, and that level is different for everyone. Companies seek those who have internal reward structures so they don't have to offer very much to entice people.

[tacitusarc]

I think there is a nuanced but discernible difference between people who are talented and time constrained, and those who are mediocre/lazy/disinterested.

I used to think the incentive structure was a dominant factor, but my opinion on that has shifted over the past ten years. I think companies need to incentivize capable employees to stay, because they will often have many other opportunities elsewhere. But in most cases I don’t think those incentives cause people to work harder or more effectively than they would otherwise.