For many, it's a morality, not just an expectation. You're a bad person if you're not mediocre. See this from a recently posted article 6 hours ago:
> It does preclude, practically from first principles, those exceptional individuals many of us have encountered in our career who seemed to be able to hold the entire code base in their brains. Arguably that’s a net positive. Those individuals were always problematic similar to those folks who are willing to work 80 hours a week and jump on every incident. At a minimum they make the rest of us look bad.
Not only is working too much bad, but competence and intelligence itself is bad, or at least suspect. No doubt it's rationalized as being against anti-teamwork traits, but the reality is much more sinister -- jealousy, and lies to package up that jealousy as something that isn't jealousy.
I don’t know what the context of that quote is, but I gotta say the realization that I would never be the smartest person in the room if I want to do interesting things (bec I simply don’t have the reasoning or memory that these people have naturally) was super humbling. I’ve spent the last few years coming to terms with it and in the meantime… I hate to say it but, I’ve surrounded myself with mediocrity as an ego boost. Only one job in the last decade did I feel like I wasn’t the smartest person on the team… and I got out of there so fast, I had way too much imposter syndrome and too big of an ego to admit it.
So I don’t get to do interesting things but my ego doesn’t feel stupid.
In the UK at least I suspect it's at least partially a generational thing. When I was in school back in the 90's it was deeply uncool to be in to anything academic. It's also not a surprise it was the height of lads mags and a very heavy drinking culture. These days that social pressure is entirely different for kids.
That said there are lots more ways to be good at your job than a narrow focus on hours worked and raw brain power.
> In the UK at least I suspect it's at least partially a generational thing. When I was in school back in the 90's it was deeply uncool to be in to anything academic. It's also not a surprise it was the height of lads mags and a very heavy drinking culture. These days that social pressure is entirely different for kids.
This was in the US too--there was a "Gen-X slacker" ethos that persisted into mid-millenial "culture". Radically different for people born even 5 years later, I think it largely reflects the relative (perceived) security back then.
> Not only is working too much bad, but competence and intelligence itself is bad.
That could be also because of the employer's rising expectations. The baseline expectation goes up as soon as one person overdelivers. The "making us look bad" doesn't mean you underdeliver, just that it's all of a sudden proven that all of you could do more.
When another employer offers higher salary you might also go to your current job suddenly pissed at your employer or boss. Not because your current salary is low but because it could be higher.
It feels particularly bad if these capabilities come as part of one’s natural state.
I don’t think I’m an exceptional programmer or anything like that for example (on a whole I’d say I’m average), but the ability to keep a codebase in my head just kind of appeared after hitting a certain threshold of experience. It’s not something I intentionally developed. To meet social expectations, what am I supposed to do, pretend I don’t have that capability and handicap myself, ultimately making my workday harder? That doesn’t make any sense.
I'm not sure where you read that in the quote above. Surely the person who knows the codebase inside out, the person who "jumps on every incident," the person who is willing to put in the long hours IS the person doing the daily grunt work?
Even that person is likely being underpaid for the work they are doing. And unless they're the ONLY PERSON AT THE JOB then they're not doing all the work. Everyone is important to make things work. And I guarantee those other people aren't seeing the fruits of their labor either.
Productivity gains going to the top 0.1% since the 1970's has caused the rest of us to not want to work hard, because we don't capture our own productivity gains. I'm not sure how this is hard to understand.
The belief that grunts (like the hard working grunt) aren't paid enough might not be sufficient on its own to make the end result (people getting mad at that grunt) believable.
But what if one considers it as one of several beliefs frequently held together? What if a grunt believes the following?
A) grunts (in general, but also including the hard worker) don't get paid enough for how much they work
B) grunts have more control over how hard they work than over how much they are paid
C) if one grunt works extra hard, management will start expecting all grunts to work that hard (exacerbating what they already think is a poor work/pay ratio; see A)
> It does preclude, practically from first principles, those exceptional individuals many of us have encountered in our career who seemed to be able to hold the entire code base in their brains. Arguably that’s a net positive. Those individuals were always problematic similar to those folks who are willing to work 80 hours a week and jump on every incident. At a minimum they make the rest of us look bad.
Not only is working too much bad, but competence and intelligence itself is bad, or at least suspect. No doubt it's rationalized as being against anti-teamwork traits, but the reality is much more sinister -- jealousy, and lies to package up that jealousy as something that isn't jealousy.