Join the Basic Instructions Subscription Service!
Or, please consider donating just a little something to help keep Basic Instructions going.
As always, thanks for using my Amazon Affiliate links (US, UK, Canada).
ha ha... best one in a while IMHO
"I want you to work harder.""I'm sure you do. The question is, do you think I will work harder because of that?""... Shoot."
Watch how I spring into action.I don't see you doing anything.Noooo, you doOHHn't...
The worst part is when you realize that the other person does not care about what you say, do, or think at all because all they want is an audience to listen to a bitter, vindictive rant transparently formulated to make the speaker feel better about something that has nothing to do with the listener, or anyone else besides the speaker.
"I want you to work harder."
"I want you to pay me more, but that ain't happenin' either."
Finally, a political cartoon.
Is the boss aware of countless studies showing that while employees can increase productivity over brief periods, they invariably burn out and end up following up these bursts with lower productivity due to fatigue, illness, etc.?
People can find more efficient methods or tools, but trying to make them "work harder" is demonstrably ineffective in the long run.
"Watch how I spring into action." totally should have had an exclamation point at the end. Observe:
"Watch how I spring into action!"
The sarcasm is now palpable. But either way, that's probably the best response to Mullet Boss yet.
Awesomeness. I still remember when a manager sprung the "Work smarter, not harder" on me. When I explained that my call times were long because I kept getting stuck on OS reinstall calls on high end workstations. Company policy *required* that I stay on the phone for the entire reinstall. She had no answer when I asked how to get Windows XP and all the drivers and updates to install in less than two hours.
All employees already believe that they are working harder than they should, and that their supervisors and subordinates are working about half as much as they should. You might nudge their behavior, briefly, with a rebound of lessened activity, but you won't budge that belief, from which all action springs.
According to your post it would almost seem like a Boss would actually care about the health of their employees. They don't. If one worker breaks down, he will simply be swapped with a newer one and by "swapping" I really meant "kicking the old one out" because he doesn't meet the productivity requirements anymore.
Oh, the third panel.
@Gin: While the history of industrialism and capitalism does make that a valid concern, there are ultimately a finite number of people available to hire in the world and an even smaller number of people who are qualified.
the "shoot" double meaning at the beginning redefines the whole comic, and I'm gonna use it all the time, now.
I noticed that mullet boss transformed from low res to HD in the final panel. Any particular reason for that that I'm missing?
Note from Scott: One drawing is meant to look good when taking up most of the frame while the other's designed to look good when tiny. I didn't do a very good job of diferentiating the two in this case.
So to interpret panel 1:
"I want your obedience on something." "$#!&!!"
"I think you should all work harder"
"I'm not listening"
"I'm glad we understand each other."
@Gin You have it backwards. Firing people then giving their replacements the necessary training is expensive. So firms have a documented tendency to hold onto more employees than the classical theory of the firm says that they should during recessions to defer those costs to boom periods and either give those extra employees less work, or give them less important work. Its called "labor hoarding"(Abel, Bernanke,Croushore, 377). Of course during booms and periods of normal economic growth firms will not do this and will fire anyone whom they judge to be worth less than the current wage rate. However, during booms and periods of normal economic growth,the economy is by definition operating at full-employment output or more, which means that everyone who wants a job can get one except for the structurally unemployed. But structural unemployment is a completely different kettle of fish.
Sources: Macroeconomics 8th edition by Andrew B. Abel, Ben S. Bernanke, and Dean Croushore, published by Pearson, Page 377.
It looks like Scott is "making quote marks" in the "air" with his "fingers".
I have learned way to much about the economics of employment in the comments. I need to go take a nap now.
James D. Gray...yours wins!
Mr. Ford tried this amazing expiriement; he cut his employees hours in half, and doubled their wages, so they could earn a living in 8 hours.Their productivity actually improved so much it was a net gain for Ford, who had only been trying to break even on the exchange.Other companies try this occasionally, with predictably good results.Then they get new hotshot (meaning cocaine addicted) leaders, who decide they can make more by lowering wages and increasing hours.That never works long-term, but they don't go back to what does work.
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.