The corporate game/people gaming corporate

[SimpleLife]

I've had colleagues at almost every job where they get fired or laid off after 1-2 years and then they repeat the process at each subsequent job. Most of these guys are in their 50's I've noticed. But it makes me wonder; they know they are under performing but they still keep gaming the system to get more money. They know they will likely get laid off eventually but as one of them once said to me, "a paycheck for two more years".

Seems to me not such a bad strategy if you are frugal. Get that money, save and invest the majority of that high income salary. Eventually you won't have to work at all. But why not keep working when you don't care. Even if you get fired, why hide in shame at home when you can squeeze out another 125K in savings in 2 years at another job that you will inevitably get?

Although I'm not in this category of employee, at least not yet (ha), I would say it is not unlike a strategy my old colleague and I seem to have; work a job as long as the work is tolerable for the pay and benefits and change jobs when it no longer meets that criteria. Repeat as necessary. I really think it's actually a smart idea that even if I become an under performer to the corporation some day, I keep working and milking it as long as possible, as long as I can get hired. I mean on the MMM forums there is an entire thread full of people who work just enough, about 10 hours a week, not to get fired, and if they do, they just get another job. ERE redefined...

[Dave]

Following that strategy seems like a deeply unsatisfying way of life, in my opinion. If you define your goal as purely financial and only consider money earned vs. effort expended I see your point, but there is more to life and happiness than adding 0s to your net worth.

[SimpleLife]

Following that strategy seems like a deeply unsatisfying way of life, in my opinion. If you define your goal as purely financial and only consider money earned vs. effort expended I see your point, but there is more to life and happiness than adding 0s to your net worth.

If it weren't for the fact that the people above me are utterly incompetent (documented fact where I work) I would agree. But the reality is I've realized in corporate intelligence is irrelevant. It's who you're friends with that determines your promotional path, as such, others can know less and do less and still get promoted over you, even after you fixed their mistakes repeatedly and it was a documented fact known by all. So why strive at this game? Just coast and get rich. I'd rather coast and get rich than work a menial job that is meaningful and I strive to contribute for minimum wage....And frankly corporations stopped having loyalty long ago. Just ask all the IT people at Disney that had to train their replacements from Hyderabad...And no, they don't work twice as hard for half the pay. The one we had at my old job was terminated after we turned her in for playing solitaire all day (script on computer to track it). She ended up in another six figure job 2 months later. But not before she milked the company for 1.5 years...I mean, given the choice to get paid 100K a year to surf the web and do some work vs sit at home and get paid nothing to surf, I know which one I'd pick...

[bryan]

personal secret: had a few months at my job where I maybe worked 4 hours a week. I was completely okay with leaving after getting some feedback or being fired, but instead the project I was on just got put on ice. huh.

but it was really no way to live. wouldn't do it again unless i commit 100% to being productive in those not-working hours.

maybe one decent strategy is to be a "10x" worker but only effectively work 1 day every two weeks? be happy with your mediocrity and meeting expectations? I've done this as well on boring projects and it seemed completely sustainable... (or maybe this is what everyone already does, and the 10xers are just the naive/manipulatable/caring ones)

[FBeyer]

I cannot imagine doing this intentionally. I wish I could, but I can't.
I reckon that the ability to pull of that kind of behaviour depends on the local 'scene'. As a future data analyst I'm pretty certain word would get around that 'that guy' is a complete slacking f******** that'll drain wages from the company coffer before he gets the boot.

Given that people tend to think that we all have a moral obligation to work until state mandated retirement age, it'll only exacerbate the notion that ERE types are egotistical, optimizing scroungers. I will not help perpetuate that idea.

I won't have it in my obituary that I ever took advantage of anyone, that is not what an independent person does!

[jacob]

Time to re-read the Gervais Principle?

[stand@desk]

Sounds like the Wally from Dilbert strategy and nobody does it better!

[Dragline]

Sounds like the Wally from Dilbert strategy and nobody does it better!

I've found that spending more time cultivating "Executive-style hair" is also worthwhile.

[Did]

Having FU money is a great way to hang in there at work. It just helps. So does not giving any fucks some other way. I call it piss taking. You arrive, you are keen, you work hard, you kick goals, then you get tired or slighted. But don't get angry, get even. See how long you can survive in there doing fuck all. Most can survive indefinitely. And your life can improve considerably having that approach eg working less. You can ask for more money. Leave early. Turn down urgent tasks. Delegate everything. Work from home. And so forth.

[chicago81]

Having FU money is a great way to hang in there at work. It just helps. So does not giving any fucks some other way. I call it piss taking. You arrive, you are keen, you work hard, you kick goals, then you get tired or slighted. But don't get angry, get even. See how long you can survive in there doing fuck all. Most can survive indefinitely. And your life can improve considerably having that approach eg working less. You can ask for more money. Leave early. Turn down urgent tasks. Delegate everything. Work from home. And so forth.

Indeed. Couldn't have said it better myself. This scenario really does a good job of describing the past couple years at work for me.

[cmonkey]

@Did, +2. I would never do what the OP suggested about job hopping every 2 years, but certainly using the confidence that FU money gives to take more personal freedom from career.

Time to re-read the Gervais Principle?

Are you referring to this? He seems like he is referencing some external Gervais Principle that he didn't come up with in his writing. None the less, this is fantastic.

[jacob]

@cmonkey - Yes, that. It's been discussed here as well.

[cmonkey]

Without searching and reading through any discussions on the forums, where do ERE seekers fit on this scale? The closest is the Loser group but being as we aren't exactly economic Losers it begs for a new category. Perhaps an extension of the Sociopath group since we play the game but in a different way.

I have only read the first section so maybe its discussed later on.

[SimpleLife]

@Did, +2. I would never do what the OP suggested about job hopping every 2 years, but certainly using the confidence that FU money gives to take more personal freedom from career.

Time to re-read the Gervais Principle?

Are you referring to this? He seems like he is referencing some external Gervais Principle that he didn't come up with in his writing. None the less, this is fantastic.

Note that in my example they didn't job hop by choice (leaving for a new job every two years). They were terminated for performance. I actually recall one of my colleagues who managed to squeeze 5 years out of each company by moving to different positions under different managers. Eventually when he had worked for everyone and they realized he was incompetent with no one else to pass the buck to, they would let him go. This was apparent in his work history, and he did the same thing at the company we worked at. He is now 1.5 years into a new job that he BS'd his way into. No doubt he will squeeze 5 years out of this one as well. But man, maybe it's not such a bad idea. I certainly wouldn't want to be the under performer but if I was, why leave money on the table when these people aren't?

I'm surprised there isn't more support for this here. There is a ragging huge thread on MMM where people embrace this and share tips! Lot's of people proud of only doing 10 hours a week of work and doing just enough to keep their job. Heck, didn't Jim Rohn say to work harder on yourself than you do at your job? BTW, half of my colleagues who have advanced degrees did their homework on the job. Hard work is not what is rewarded in corporate, it's the extroverts and who they know that counts. So why give a f***? Even my CIO tells me I care too much...I guess when I was broke, uneducated with little skills and had no safety net, it was more of a worry. Now I have FI, education, certs, and tons of technical skills. Engineering a lay off doesn't sound too bad.

[cmonkey]

@SimpleLife, Beyond a certain point I don't want more money so once I am FI I really don't care. This would just be an inconvenience. On the journey to FI this would be stressful.

At my current position, sure....to a point! There is a basic level of work I will do and I recognize where the line is. I don't go over it. I see opportunity for work but that would put me into the Clueless camp. This is absolutely related to putting my own personal well being above the well being of the company.

Doing so little that I get fired in anticipation of getting hired by another firm just screams of hubris and would likely backfire in the long run. Why would someone with multiple firing get hired? I suppose the Clueless are doing the hiring?

[7Wannabe5]

cmonkey said: Without searching and reading through any discussions on the forums, where do ERE seekers fit on this scale? The closest is the Loser group but being as we aren't exactly economic Losers it begs for a new category. Perhaps an extension of the Sociopath group since we play the game but in a different way.

Malicious Compliant was how I played my brief career in the corporate world. Like if you have an anal retentive supervisor, you pretend like you are even more anal retentive than him, and send him a follow-up list of 100 even more anal retentive procedures that could be put in place. IOW, reductio ad absurdum in practice. Of course, that was the only way I could keep myself from being bored to death. YMMV.

[SimpleLife]

Without searching and reading through any discussions on the forums, where do ERE seekers fit on this scale? The closest is the Loser group but being as we aren't exactly economic Losers it begs for a new category. Perhaps an extension of the Sociopath group since we play the game but in a different way.

I have only read the first section so maybe its discussed later on.

Yeah, one of the reasons I don't really buy into the Gervais Principle. It's categories are too limited, fitting many different types of employees into such few categories seems bound to result in some mislabeling.

[inchicago]

I get why people give up in the work world. I see the top performers and how they are used. You do a little, and they keep piling it on and on and on, to where you are just a nervous, stressed out wreck. While the mediocre co-workers get their long lunches and play on their phones for hours. If they actually do anything, praise upon praise is heaped on them. I’ve found public service employees to be some of the worst. Especially at the post office. I had to go there today and the clerk was too lazy to break up a $20 for a $2.16 purchase. He told me, “This is not a finance station”. Since I had to get back to work, I didn’t stand there and argue but had I had the time, I would have been firm that the $20 was all I had on me.

I remember when I was younger, thinking why are these old people so bitter. Now, I know. I am one of the unfortunate ones that gets all the work heaped on me. I will be smarter the next job. However, I believe in an honest day’s work for pay. I also believe in improving processes and helping out where I can. I’d rather do something productive then waste my time reading badly written news articles and looking at people’s dinner photos. (That’s just me, though.)

The thing about the working world is this: it all boils down to who likes or doesn’t like you, for whatever reason they may have at that time. I think the way to do it is to get what education they pay for and learn new skills on the time you are getting paid for. I tell people that all the time. Let the company pay for your education and experience. You might as well get something and if you do nothing, then you won’t have top skills for the next place. I think this is why it’s smart these days to go from place to place; to whoever offers a better package and change, to keep your skills updated and the work interesting.

I won’t be sad when the day comes in the future when I hit FI, though, and never have to worry about this again.

[jacob]

I don't think ERE [ppl] fit into a particular category. ERE is more of a way to leave this game and people will take different paths through the Gervais categories to escape it. If anyone spends a lot of time in the Loser category, I submit it's merely because they have a high level of expenses and thus need to hang in there for a while to escape.

[Did]

Science guys love categories don't they.... Of course it's more complicated than that.