Employee Morale

Originally posted by dadudemon
Indeed. I'm decently familiar with the research as I've spent the last 2 ****ing years studying it (it is dry...very very dry...and feels like a subjective pile of shit, half of the time). What research shows and what happens in the real world are two-different things, at times. They do not necessarily have to be and I sometimes want to refute what research shows (such as receiving words of affirmation for the work you do vs. a fat raise).

Off hand that sounds like a matter of diminishing returns.

Going from treating people like shit to a being decent is a big jump. From decent to nice is smaller. From nice to really nice isn't worth much at all, especially when you're expected to not enjoy working.

I heard the Chinese know quite something about worker morale.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Indeed. I'm decently familiar with the research as I've spent the last 2 ****ing years studying it (it is dry...very very dry...and feels like a subjective pile of shit, half of the time). What research shows and what happens in the real world are two-different things, at times. They do not necessarily have to be and I sometimes want to refute what research shows (such as receiving words of affirmation for the work you do vs. a fat raise).

Originally posted by Mindship
How was this research done? Forced choice format? "Which would you rather have: blah-blah-blah or yada-yada-yada?" It is not uncommon, in such research formats, for people to consciously/unconsciously pick the socially "more appealing" option, whether it's true or not. Eg, while most people would really like the extra $$$, many might respond they'd prefer the praise so they seem somehow "more honorable" or "less greedy."

No idea how it was actually conducted because it shows up in several of the books, with an in-text reference to the research with a footnote or end note that cites the actual study/studies. I am the type to not follow-up on such things. I cannot be bothered. 😠

But looking up the methods would be a good idea...actually.

Originally posted by Impediment
I don't quite understand the question. Will you rephrase, please?

Would you rather them give you a bonus, on a check, by splitting up the cost of the company picnic across all the employees or would you rather them spend the money?

For instance, my father's former company threw an annual picnic. It costed the organization $2,000,000 a year to rent a park, buy the food, and supply the tickets to all the employees. There was a total of 8000 employees. If they were to bonus their employees for the cost of the picnic, per employee, instead of spending it on a picnic, it would directly cost the organization $250 per person, assuming they had exactly 8000 employees. That's a bonus.

That does not sound like much but it would save the company quite a bit in indirect costs (the picnics have many man hours spent in planning and coordination which makes the actual costs significantly higher than a direct $2,000,000).

This company tried to reduce the costs of this annual picnic by polling the employees and getting a firm headcount. This did not always work out either because sometimes employees have things come up and cannot make the picnic: they forgot, had an emergency, wanted the company to pay for it but knew they were not going (there are more of these types than you would think), or the weather was not favorable to them.

So, yeah, I would prefer the bonus. $250 is actually more value than the cost of the company picnic. At the amusement park that organization rented, it was $20, per person, per ticket. A family of four would pay $80. One meal, per person, costs around $10 per person. So that's $120, total value, for an employee to go to the picnic. Not to mention the money that the person would spend above and beyond (like souvenirs and the like). So, the value for the employee is much much greater if they just take the bonus. They also save on gas and having to walk several miles in the hot summer sun while their children slowly descend into grumpy maelstroms. $250 to save all that money and avoid all that hassle. Sounds like a bargain.

Originally posted by Impediment
Personally, if it means a pay raise for me, then I would absolutely do extra work for more money. The meat of my pay check is made form overtime and per diem, not to mention that my work isn't TOO strenuous to tackle extra. I'd gladly x-ray more welds and do other NDT for a 25% raise!

Yeah, me too. Most definitely. For me, it is an easy decision. But some people do not handle stress very well and it spills over into their personal life quite readily. I would not advise those types take a deal like that.

Originally posted by Impediment
We have safety meeting roughly every 60 days and I have an excellent relationship with my three bosses (branch manager, radiation safety officer, and dispatch manager) all of whom I get along with splendidly.

However, since I'm a whore and want money, I would rather them ignore me and just give me an annual raise every year.

I'm not so shallow and needy that I need a compliment from my managers to boost my morale; I know what the f*ck I'm capable of.

Again, we agree. My morale is boosted more by an annual raise that directly correlates to my performance rather than empty words. I already know if I am doing a good job or a bad job. I am much more critical of my work than most others are. So I do not need a compliment to "get me through the day" like others. Some people need that, though. They crave positive reinforcement. If they do not get it, their morale drops quite steadily.

I worked for a company that wanted to have a picnic for employees and family, it never took place due to lack of feedback. In most workplaces unless a high knowledge is required, its based on who you know and if you are liked at the interview. And then you will get all the support you need.

Do both, bring out the circus tents for a picnic and hand out a 2k check. Got that one year. Stay out of the sun though can get a real bad sunburn.

Originally posted by dadudemon

1. If your company does a very large, annual company picnic, would you rather have that money spent as a bonus or do you like that money?

company picnics are stupid. nothing says "thanks for the hard work" like a fat check. not ****ing volleyball

Originally posted by dadudemon

2. Pretend you work on a 5 man team and one of your colleagues just quit or got promoted. If given the option, would you prefer to take on more work and your former coworker's pay (if you were all paid roughly the same, it would be like a 25% pay raise) or would you prefer they backfill the position? (Pretend the workload is doable without forcing you to have to work overtime but you would obviously be working more throughout the day: 5% more, to be exact). If the additional work is not worth it, explain (and use job examples). Do you think the additional pay would offset the morale dampening effect of more work?

ive never heard of a scenario where someone leaves and their slack is picked up for good by one other employee, on top of their original workload. probably means said employee didnt have much at all to do. not really sure how to answer this but seems like a setup for work burnout for whomever accepts the extra workload.

Originally posted by dadudemon
3. Would you rather get a compliment from your boss, every now and again, or would you rather nothing ever be said (except during annual reviews) and get a fat raise? On this one, the research says the former is preferred by most people. I strongly disagree but maybe I'm just a greedy bassturd.

both is preferable but a raise is always better. money is where its at. most people work to make money and work hard so that they will end up making more money. a pat on the ass and an "attaboy" is no substitute, though any smart boss will compliment as well as increase pay as a reward.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
company picnics are stupid. nothing says "thanks for the hard work" like a fat check. not ****ing volleyball

I strongly agree.

Edit - A new way/method is to encourage the employees to put together their own recreational activities outside of work. This removes the "you must be professional" aspect of the adventure while still allowing your employees to have fun outside of work. I am not sure on the legalities but I think that means the company cannot pay anything at all towards this endeavor so everyone has to pay out of pocket to avoid any type of "business liability".

Originally posted by focus4chumps
ive never heard of a scenario where someone leaves and their slack is picked up for good by one other employee, on top of their original workload. probably means said employee didnt have much at all to do. not really sure how to answer this but seems like a setup for work burnout for whomever accepts the extra workload.

My last 4 jobs were like that: a person is fired or quits and the company does not rehire. They just pocket the savings and make the people work more. It's sad, really. They company could reduce attrition if they gave most of that saved money to the rest of the directly impacted team (and still save money because they don't have to pay benefits and the like for the now missing position).

In the office I am in, right now, all but one of my office neighbors (I have 5) left their previous job because of the exact situation that the scenario is supposed to counter (someone quit, position was not filled, everyone was expected to pick up the missing person's slack, no pay raise, company pocketed the money, so eventually everyone from the team left).

Originally posted by focus4chumps
both is preferable but a raise is always better. money is where its at. most people work to make money and work hard so that they will end up making more money. a pat on the ass and an "attaboy" is no substitute, though any smart boss will compliment as well as increase pay as a reward.

Everything in this statement is spot-on. A good manager does both and rewards opening.

Originally posted by dadudemon

My last 4 jobs were like that: a person is fired or quits and the company does not rehire. They just pocket the savings and make the people work more.

oh yes that happens all the time. but thats not what you said. i was referring to your notion of one full time position being phased/merged with another person's who already has a full-time workload, which would be quite cruel and unusual regardless of salary.

as for the situation i think some companies want to see how much of the workload can be absorbed by their coworkers (determining the level of experience/salary they need to request from HR) while others just like to drag it out to save money by not rehiring until there is a permanent towering backlog. ive seen it before and its a stupid practice to allow it to reach that point.

Originally posted by dadudemon
In the office I am in, right now, all but one of my office neighbors (I have 5) left their previous job because of the exact situation that the scenario is supposed to counter (someone quit, position was not filled, everyone was expected to pick up the missing person's slack, no pay raise, company pocketed the money, so eventually everyone from the team left).

yup been there done that. its a blessing since its basically management confessing their greed and stupidity, prompting anyone wise to update their resume and gather their personal references for a new job hunt.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
oh yes that happens all the time. but thats not what you said. i was referring to your notion of one full time position being phased/merged with another person's who already has a full-time workload, which would be quite cruel and unusual regardless of salary.

My idea was for an organization to pass along most of those savings to the employees instead of just pocketing all of it since they are not going to back fill the position. And the scenario assumes you would not have to stay after work to pick up your former coworker's workload. Sure, more work and you'd have to work harder. Here's my reasoning for designing the scenario like that; if it causes you to have to work longer hours, then it is not worth it, for the most part.

The only difference between that and the real world is the company gives the employees some of that money. I think that's a far sweeter deal than my real world experience.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
as for the situation i think some companies want to see how much of the workload can be absorbed by their coworkers (determining the level of experience/salary they need to request from HR) while others just like to drag it out to save money by not rehiring until there is a permanent towering backlog. ive seen it before and its a stupid practice to allow it to reach that point.

I keep saying this: you should definitely get into management. You have knack and you know your stuff. Stop being afraid and actually do some good. uhuh

Originally posted by focus4chumps
yup been there done that. its a blessing since its basically management confessing their greed and stupidity, prompting anyone wise to update their resume and gather their personal references for a new job hunt.

My father recently got laid off. He was the director of IT for a university. They laid him off because he made too much money when they did some reorganization. What happened? Most of his IT Team left within the next two weeks. Why? Becaue he was a good boss and they could not stand how crappy the organization became.

So why do organizations do this crap? It is obviously a failed method of personnel management. It obviously cost them quite a bit of money, in the long run, than it did save them money. It makes no sense. It also obviously drove morale so low that hardly anyone wanted to work there, anymore.

The answer to those questions are exactly what you stated: greed and stupidity.