Low-energy employees are more happy with the syndrome

Instead of being told that they are overwhelmed, those who can not afford to be able to do so are left alone and feel good about themselves. The results of this is that, other staff more capable, and more hard-working colleague heart of such disgust, and ultimately become cynical, no longer the work of devotion, the company's disgruntled, and tend to have a The opportunity to leave immediately.

About a year after I joined the Financial Times, a young girl who just joined the newspaper company invited me to go out and have a drink. I barely had time to sip a sour white wine and she had already announced she was completely tired of writing plain corporate news stories and asked if I felt the same way. No, I replied, I think this is a very interesting thing.

"I really envy you," she said, looking at me with her big, round eyes. I sat in my seat, waiting to hear her praise me as an excellent financial reporter. Who knows she said: "You seem happy about being mixed, and I want to be like you, but I can not do it - and I've always demanded that I make something that goes beyond my life."

At that time, as a 25-year-old who was lack of confidence and was extremely ambitious, I was very unhappy about being classified as a "bumbler." Her fake envy did not fool me either. Now I find out that she mentions a general fact that has almost never been acknowledged: "Blind" employees are more likely to feel happy at work, and perhaps they are really envious targets.

A recent study I recently received shows that the worst performers are often the ones who are most committed to the job. The result is a serious departure from the standard view that performance performance should be proportionate to the level of employee engagement: Highly performing employees should have been motivated at work, or information provided by Leadership IQ, a versatile cheerleader but consultancy Showed that among the nearly half of the companies surveyed, the weakest workers performed far better on three indicators of engagement than those on the more ambitious ones. They are more likely to be "100% committed to work," preferring to introduce their company to others, and they are more likely to believe that the way their boss treats employees is fair.

Leadership IQ concluded that this is one of the worrying consequences of mismanagement. Within such companies, people who do not have the skills are not told that they are overwhelmed, but are left alone and feel good about themselves. As a result, other more capable and more hardworking employees are disgusted with such colleagues and eventually become cynical, they are no longer devoted to their work, displeased with the company, and tend to have a The opportunity to leave immediately.

The survey on "Hypoglycemic Syndrome" may partly reflect the real situation. But when I think about all those who have worked together for years, I think there are some more basic reasons for being satisfied with hopeless idiots, and those who are bent on pursuing success feel distressed. First, less capable people may feel lucky enough to be able to find a job, and to anyone who pursues excellence, they are disappointed by almost any job. (The former colleague who drank me had been promoted to several jobs after leaving the Financial Times.) Due to the lower expectations, less capable employees are less likely to criticize their employer, nor at the same time Will think they are cleverer than the boss. Nor do these employees get angry because they did not get a more interesting assignment.

Things may even be simpler than the above analysis: Mixed-race employees are Type B personality and are inherently easier to be happier than others. A recent academic study showed that ambitious type A personality trackers are generally more successful, while inactive dull personality type Bs live happier lives longer. Other studies have shown that "gratifiers" in life - who use only as little effort as they can to achieve the desired result - are generally more satisfied with their work than those who "maximize the pursuit of achievement," and the latter category Tend to make things perfect, it is always inevitable result disappointed.

But whether or not the less capable people are happier for any reason, the sheer presence of such workers in almost all the companies I have come across overthrows the two principles of modern management practice.

First, this fact shows that all theories of employee engagement are nonsense. The ability of more capable people to work is valuable - or, if such people stay with the company (and they usually do not), the investment will be valuable. It is worth nothing for the lowest performing staff to invest in work, because in the best of conditions you would expect them to be so devoted to their work that they sneaked away elsewhere. If the middle-bottom performance is happy at work, then this is a good thing for them, but this is by no means the management's top priority, unless they are happy and motivate them to work harder.

One of the more disturbing aspects of this survey is that it shows little point in trying to manage people. Part of the reason why poor-performing employees are pleasurable is the management's disdain for them, and this approach can be applied to all employees altogether. If all employees are left to their own ways, then they can aspire to be successful while those with lower abilities can continue to live their lives. As a result, management can save a lot of energy, and everyone can be happier than before.