The Highest Valued Work
- Thread starter Zeluvia
- Start date
Valjean
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,346
- Location
- Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
- Basic Beliefs
- Vedanta. Many worlds physics, Environmentalism, Socialism.
Any worker who needs leadership doesn't know his job.
Because it's a rare skill.
No. Even with competent workers you need someone whose job it is to see the bigger picture.
Consider: I know how to write code. I have *NEVER* had a boss that had anything like my knowledge of how to do it, they can provide no leadership at all in terms of programming. What they can and do provide is the information on what code it would be most beneficial to the company to write.
Sorry, but its a fact. Leaders throughout history and in any situation, from tribal to team, get more perks and pay than any other worker in the group.
In the UK, some footballers get paid more than the prime minister. It seems even Mr Obama is not worth a great deal; compared to people in the entertainment industry.
Good point. And a fairly recent phenomena.
ryan
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2010
- Messages
- 4,668
- Location
- In a McDonalds in the q space
- Basic Beliefs
- a little of everything
I disagree; value shouldn't just be measured by salaries. The job and person representing the President or Prime minister are both valued much higher than a football player. If a missile was sent to hit Obama, and a missile was sent to hit a football player, and there is only one intercepting missile ready, which missile do you think will be intercepted?
Furthermore, the leader of a team like a Lebron James, Kobe Bryant or Michael Jordan, usually will end up with greater salaries, endorsements and fame than the rest of the players. In sports, they call it "leading by example".
ryan
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2010
- Messages
- 4,668
- Location
- In a McDonalds in the q space
- Basic Beliefs
- a little of everything
the quirks of capitalism
Could you build a pyramid with 10,000 workers who knew their jobs, but no leaders?
rousseau
Contributor
There is a direct correlation between value and responsibility. The more you are responsible for, the more what you do matters, and the more your work is valued.
By having one off day the bank teller turns off a single customer and the bank loses 1000 dollars in profit. By introducing a massive bug in a system the software developer causes the bank to lose tens of thousands in profits. By steering the bank in the wrong direction the CEO causes the entire organization to go defunct. Who gets paid the most?
By having one off day the bank teller turns off a single customer and the bank loses 1000 dollars in profit. By introducing a massive bug in a system the software developer causes the bank to lose tens of thousands in profits. By steering the bank in the wrong direction the CEO causes the entire organization to go defunct. Who gets paid the most?
The payment of a CEO and it's relationship to performance is something of a special case. It's sort of like the laws of Galileo's Mechanics, compared to Newton's gravity. Galileo found the mathematical relationships caused by the force of gravity, but he only observed gravity as it acts between a very tiny mass and the mass of the planet. The Earth's gravity is so great, it dwarfs any gravitational pull I might have due to my own mass.
The bank teller and the computer programmer are paid on the same basic principle, which is, "the lowest possible pay which will attract a competent pool of workers." The teller is being paid to do a task. The pay is set high enough to attract those who can add and subtract competently. The pay does not really reflect the hazard of screwing up. The same is true for programmers. They are paid to write programs and the pay will be high enough to attract a pool of "good enough" programmers. If there are four competent programmers for every open position, programmers maybe paid less than tellers.
The pay of some CEO's is fairly high, compared to the teller or programmer. Part of this is due to the small pool of applicants. This pool is kept artificially low. There are a lot of social reasons for this, which do not follow economic reasons. Again, the pay is not high because of the risk of bankruptcy. The pay is high because there is only one CEO in the company. Whatever happens, seems to be caused by his presence and he gets rewarded for the illusion.
rousseau
Contributor
The CEO gets paid a lot of money because he or she has a lot of responsibility, which was the point I was making. As you move upward in a hierarchy you have power relations between superiors and inferiors. The only way an inferior can be promoted into a position of more responsibility is if they are trusted with that responsibility. As they move up the chain the decisions they make have a more significant impact on the organization and so they are compensated well to give them incentive to make the right decisions.
The idea that a CEO's impact is an illusion may be true in some cases, but in most cases it's probably not. Consider a one man operation running a web design business. He/She owns the organization, and every thought process that goes through his or her mind directly impacts the success of the business. Bad marketing? Business fails. Bad work? Business fails. The same concept applies to one man or woman with a huge amount of power over a large organization. Smart decision making can make or break the future of the company.
Suppose there were a hundred people equally qualified and willing to handle the responsibility of being CEO? The responsibility is not diminished, but the pay certainly will be.
Pay is not based on the difficulty of the job. If this were so, the guy who lifts full trash cans over his head, 1500 times a day would be better paid. Pay depends upon only one direct factor, how many people can do the job and are willing to do it. The pay offered for any job will rise until a sufficient pool of qualified people appear.
rousseau
Contributor
I don't think we're saying different things. As you increase the level of responsibility you are also (usually) increasing difficulty and the pool of able people goes down. You're right that people would pay lower if they could, but the tendency for high wage for high skill is still there.
TV and credit cards
Veteran Member
Not true. Many good young workers need guidance, correction, and praise when warranted. I've seen good and bad leadership and good workers go bad because of bad or absent leadership. If a worker, especially a young ambitious one busts his/her ass to do a good job and the supervisor/manger does not even take the time to review the work, the worker will eventually get discouraged and transition to just doing enough to collect a paycheck. It's called mentoring and a good leader should be able to leave on a moments notice and his mentee (I hate that word) protégé can fill the void without skipping a beat.
I recall and interview with Irwin Jacobs, the CEO of Qualcomm with the San Diego Union Tribune about immigrant visas. To paraphrase his comments: We sponsor students from other countries, bring them here on student visas, after school they get work visas and are allowed to work in the US for a total of six years. Just when they are at their most productive, we send them back.
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
Eyup. Sally told her employee Tom to produce a baby. Not gonna happen.
This is a confusion of correlation and cause. An unneeded skill or an over abundant skill will pay little.
Forget the current CEO thingy, and capitalism. Get in Mr. Peabody's wayback machine.
We have always valued leadership above all other labor. But what is the human feedback for irresponsible leadership? Revolution? Coup? It seems to me being able to change leaders easily with little violence is paramount, and so we have elections. But have we done something just as bad with term limits? Should we really be kicking out good leaders and bad leaders on the same time scale just to avoid the worst of bad leadership? Do our workplaces do enough to identify good leaders and not just good asskissers? Have we really studied leadership scientifically as far as how the brain works when you lead and when you follow?
What is the underlying system of picking a leader "naturally". Almost all social groups no matter how small have Leaders and Followers. How do we determine this?
We have always valued leadership above all other labor. But what is the human feedback for irresponsible leadership? Revolution? Coup? It seems to me being able to change leaders easily with little violence is paramount, and so we have elections. But have we done something just as bad with term limits? Should we really be kicking out good leaders and bad leaders on the same time scale just to avoid the worst of bad leadership? Do our workplaces do enough to identify good leaders and not just good asskissers? Have we really studied leadership scientifically as far as how the brain works when you lead and when you follow?
What is the underlying system of picking a leader "naturally". Almost all social groups no matter how small have Leaders and Followers. How do we determine this?
rousseau
Contributor
True. But the original post asks what type of work is valued. I claimed that with an ability to take on greater responsibility comes higher value, which is also true. What you've done is add a supply/demand variable that is parallel to the factor I've brought up. You're not wrong in what you say in the sense that a high skilled individual with no demand is not valuable, but it doesn't falsify the fact that with an ability to take on and successfully manage more responsibility comes greater value, it just adds another component to how we value work.
A thing's value is only what we can exchange for it. It's rarity or the effort required to obtain it are irrelevant to value, if it cannot be exchanged.
Alcoholic Actuary
Senior Member
I'd rather define a leader as 'one who has (voluntary) followers'. Who do you follow? Why?
Personally, I identify 3 things that make the difference between effective leaders that I would support vs. those I'd rather not follow:
1) Vision - Great ideas lead themselves. If you have a wonderful idea and a complete vision for how to achieve it, you can probably easily earn my support and effort to follow you to it's conclusion.
2) Direction - Even if it isn't your idea, if you have the best roadmap I'll follow you.
3) Experience - I might have a similar competing great idea and vision. If you can say 'Actually, we tried your exact idea last time and it failed miserably which is why my vision is to support something else', it's probably all I'll need to hear to give up my idea and follow yours. (and it always helps if you have a proven track record of successes.)
There's overlap, of course. And the success or failure of the leadership is primarily based on the circumstances. I've always said I wouldn't follow Winston Churchill out of my building if it were on fire - only because he's never been in it before and wouldn't know where the exits are. That doesn't mean he isn't a leader, just that under certain circumstances it might be better to follow someone else.
aa
Good thoughts. In what situations do you assume leadership? How fast do you give up your attempt to lead if it seems you have no supporters? Would you follow someone just because everyone else decides too?
This whole dynamic is curious.
This whole dynamic is curious.
The more stressful the situation, the more likely someone will assume leadership. In a crisis, the man who says, "Put your hand on the belt of the person in front of you and we're going to crawl under the smoke toward the door," will get more attention than the man who says, "I move we form a committee to study the problem."
Celldweller
Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 447
- Location
- International House Of Pancakes
- Basic Beliefs
- Book of Leviathan
Vast majority of them don't in the long-term. Consider here in the States the average career of an NFL player is 3.5 years (due to performance and/or injury) with a median salary of 700k. After those 3.5 years are done it's back to career-ground-zero. Doctors average between 170-300k (for specialists) which is practically guaranteed year after year.
Alcoholic Actuary
Senior Member
"When in charge, take charge" I suppose works well enough for appointed 'leaders'. Some people earn a followership through mandate - they have employees, or a constituency, or children. Their followers will look to them first for vision and direction (primarily out of convenience, until they've earned full voluntary support). These people's primary job is to lead, direct, motivate behavior and activity, produce. They are in the role to provide vision and direction where none exist (or is limited). But I don't suppose that's the interesting answer. The real question is how did these people attain a position of 'leadership' in the first place? (I guess I know how parents get their followers). At some point they ought to have had a vision and strategy of their own, and that enough people believed in that idea, such that they were able to advance into a position of authority. I really believe that this is how the best leaders gain a following.
"All the forces in the world are not so powerful as an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo.
So to answer the 1st question - I assume leadership in those situations where I feel I have the most input, the best ideas, the most precise executable strategy, and valuable experience. (In all honesty, I'll almost always throw a few ideas at any problem, but I know my limitations and also ask tons of questions). Aside - I believe George Washington was extremely reluctant to be the first president. He didn't want the job, but his leadership ability and fortitude were apparent during the Revolutionary War. I guess the point is you don't have to want to assume leadership to be good at it.
#B - If I have no followers, I'm not really a leader. I may be a visionary, or a logician, or a manager, but something is obstructing my leadership ability. Maybe my communication skills are deplorable, or I have the charisma and interpersonal acumen of an injured wolverine. Or, maybe my ideas are just not as good as I believe them to be. Some hurdles can be overcome, others not. I don't think I would ever stop contributing either vision or direction, or even voting on potential courses of action. At the end of the day we want what's best for the group/organization/society. I'll gladly warm the bench as long as we win the game.
Lastly, I don't think I would follow someone just because everyone else is. I would only follow someone if I believed in their vision for what the endstate should look like. On the other hand, I have been guilty of following people whose time has probably passed. This is why I don't mind term limits. If you follow someone through very uncertain terrain and emerge victorious, it is easy to become enamored with the person (people) who led you through it. "I'd follow this person anywhere through anything." I'm sure Adolf Hitler had that kind of electricity with the German people at some point. (godwin, I know). I'd hope we have more caution than that when deciding whom to follow. That's not to say every leader will eventually turn into Hitler, but even if you have the 'world's best boss' their vision may start to fade, or even worse, become fully realized - so now what?
Hugo said nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come, but I think ideas have an expiration date as well. Going back to effective leadership being circumstantial, I believe different people bring different talents to bear on different circumstances. One has to see through the charisma of the visionary in order to evaluate the merits of the vision itself. Will this idea work in these circumstances? Does it solve a problem(s)? Will we all be better off after it's conclusion? Generally, I find that people know how to evaluate ideas and leaders, but I think they become lazy - "I don't want to evaluate another idea or another person. I've already vetted this guy's ideas, I'll just stick with him" - or complacent - "who cares about the shortest, most efficient, cost effective way to get there, as long as we get there."
I agree it's a curious dynamic.
aa
jab
Veteran Member
I have not forgotten the old 60s adage "Don't follow leaders". When I see someone who is panting to "take responsibility and make decisions for others", I don't value that person, I dread and avoid him or her.
Kharakov
Quantum Hot Dog
I'm glad your peers led you to that conclusion. At least you can be non-conformist together, while the world around you is led into the darkest time in the history of mankind.
Those who developed the tech to connect minds play a game with the non-conformists.... a hunt, of sorts. Do not run.
jab
Veteran Member
You want to think about dark times in human history?-->a lot of my "non-conformist" peers were entranced by Mao, some still pined for Stalin; in my youth, a few older people, not my peers still covertly liked Hitler (all of whom WANTED to lead, and convinced others they were indispensible leaders]; then, in a democratic country, there was the shadowy time of the desperate-to-be-President Nixon in the US.
No, no, people who pant for power to lead others, who really really want it, are dangerous; even Game of Thrones knows that.