Level of Effort
Monday, September 21. 2009
The general system by which most of us who work for a living get paid is inherently flawed.
I'm expected to be at work a minimum of 40 hours each week. But the work I do is not simply a "level of effort." That is, forty hours of my time does not have a constant value to the company I work for. What does have value is each task that I complete—a proposal I turn in to a customer, a contact I make with a potential partner, or even (sometimes, but far too rarely) a software tool I create. None of these tasks takes a consistent number of hours to complete. So why does the number of hours I spend "at work" even matter?
Shouldn't I be judged based on the tasks I accomplish, rather than the time I take to accomplish them? What if it only takes me 36 hours to complete the tasks I'm assigned in a given week? I should find more tasks to fill out the 40-hour minimum requirement, right? But what if my colleague takes 44 hours to do the same tasks? He'll defer four hours of work to the next week. If he makes the same salary as me, isn't he doing less work (tasks, not time) for the same amount of money?
In most industries, it's difficult to judge accomplishments in terms of tasks completed rather than time served. Where tangible products (circuit boards, bricks, houses) are produced, it's easy. But in a role like mine—which is mostly business development and PowerPoint engineering at this point—it's nearly impossible.
One hopes that performance reviews and personal successes help people who can do more with less time rise to the top, so they're recognized for their efficiency. But when a company insists upon a rigid adherence to the time clock as a metric for performance measurement, it can be disheartening for those of us focused more on doing "things" than on doing "time."
The general system by which most of us who work for a living get paid is inherently flawed.
I'm expected to be at work a minimum of 40 hours each week. But the work I do is not simply a "level of effort." That is, forty hours of my time does not have a constant value to the company I work for. What does have value is each task that I complete—a proposal I turn in to a customer, a contact I make with a potential partner, or even (sometimes, but far too rarely) a software tool I create. None of these tasks takes a consistent number of hours to complete. So why does the number of hours I spend "at work" even matter?
Shouldn't I be judged based on the tasks I accomplish, rather than the time I take to accomplish them? What if it only takes me 36 hours to complete the tasks I'm assigned in a given week? I should find more tasks to fill out the 40-hour minimum requirement, right? But what if my colleague takes 44 hours to do the same tasks? He'll defer four hours of work to the next week. If he makes the same salary as me, isn't he doing less work (tasks, not time) for the same amount of money?
In most industries, it's difficult to judge accomplishments in terms of tasks completed rather than time served. Where tangible products (circuit boards, bricks, houses) are produced, it's easy. But in a role like mine—which is mostly business development and PowerPoint engineering at this point—it's nearly impossible.
One hopes that performance reviews and personal successes help people who can do more with less time rise to the top, so they're recognized for their efficiency. But when a company insists upon a rigid adherence to the time clock as a metric for performance measurement, it can be disheartening for those of us focused more on doing "things" than on doing "time."
I'm expected to be at work a minimum of 40 hours each week. But the work I do is not simply a "level of effort." That is, forty hours of my time does not have a constant value to the company I work for. What does have value is each task that I complete—a proposal I turn in to a customer, a contact I make with a potential partner, or even (sometimes, but far too rarely) a software tool I create. None of these tasks takes a consistent number of hours to complete. So why does the number of hours I spend "at work" even matter?
Shouldn't I be judged based on the tasks I accomplish, rather than the time I take to accomplish them? What if it only takes me 36 hours to complete the tasks I'm assigned in a given week? I should find more tasks to fill out the 40-hour minimum requirement, right? But what if my colleague takes 44 hours to do the same tasks? He'll defer four hours of work to the next week. If he makes the same salary as me, isn't he doing less work (tasks, not time) for the same amount of money?
In most industries, it's difficult to judge accomplishments in terms of tasks completed rather than time served. Where tangible products (circuit boards, bricks, houses) are produced, it's easy. But in a role like mine—which is mostly business development and PowerPoint engineering at this point—it's nearly impossible.
One hopes that performance reviews and personal successes help people who can do more with less time rise to the top, so they're recognized for their efficiency. But when a company insists upon a rigid adherence to the time clock as a metric for performance measurement, it can be disheartening for those of us focused more on doing "things" than on doing "time."
Craig on :
When I tack on 2 hours of commute time each day, it really is depressing how much of my time is wasted waiting on other people.