• littlebigendian@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 hour ago

    Its almost as if the more real work you do, the less you matter.

    I wonder what would happen if the higher up in a company you get, the less you got payed. I’d imagine more actual work would be accomplished.

  • cute_noker@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 hour ago

    Here is the expendability graph

    📉

    If the guy with the “don’t-turn-off”-server gets fired everyone know that the ship will sink

    • rumba@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      33 minutes ago

      A two-monitor person who works so hard, they’re willing to give you three to make you happier.

      A four-monitor person has access to inventory/procurement (it)

  • RedFrank24@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    4 hours ago

    and yet… if it’s a company that’s a bit slack on security, the right command in the right place by someone with 2 monitors can kill the company dead.

    • 𝕮𝕬𝕭𝕭𝕬𝕲𝕰@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 hours ago

      A few well placed commands by a few lowly 2 monitor types are always the kind of things that derail companies on a fundamental level.

      What senior management always forget is that they need us vastly more than we need them…

      • rumba@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        31 minutes ago

        If all the two-monitor people get up and walk out, the company stops.

        You can lose any other single rung there and still push on.

  • MehBlah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    3 hours ago

    I must be some sub Spartacus worker. I have three monitors on my desk and two on the management network workstation behind me.

    • rumba@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      29 minutes ago

      it’s a bell curve, at some point you have access to procurement :)

  • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Kinda reminds me this Game one plays in Theatre which is to Play The Status (you’re given a number between 1 and 10, with 1 having the lowest social status and 10 the highest, and you try and act as such a person).

    Alongside the whole chin-down to chin-up thing, people tend to do more fast and confident moving the higher the status, but the reality is that whilst indeed up the scale in professional environment the higher the status the more busy and rushed they seem, the trully highest status people (the 10s) don’t at all rush: as I put it back then (this was the UK) “the Queen doesn’t rush because for everybody the right time for the Queen to be somewhere is when she’s there, even it it’s not actually so, hence she doesn’t need to rush”.

    There was also some cartoon making the rounds many years ago about how people on a company looked depending on their social status, were you started with the unkept shabbily dressed homeless person that lived outside the vuilding, and as you went up the professional scale people got progressively more well dressed and into suits and such, and then all of a sudden a big switch, as the company owner at the top dressed as shabbily as the homeless person.

  • SSTF@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    56 minutes ago

    All I’ve got is the tablet and the phone for work. Gosh either I’m an executive or not all workplaces and job types are alike.