Todd Earwood

Connecting the dots of life and business

Search for specific content:
Browse content by category:

Don’t Pick Gene

January 22, 2009
Faceless man

Meet Gene!

After numerous discussions this week (it’s only Wednesday) with clients and friends, I recognized a recurring theme… we all accept average effort. For the purposes of this post, I’m naming this status quo behavior as a person, we’ll call Gene. (Disclaimer – If you or your relative’s name is Gene, please don’t take offense. I had to pick a name and ironically the Gene I know best is quite the opposite of this post.)

We’re all guilty for not giving our best effort at all times and truthfully not many (if anyone) expects that from you. For example, I play basketball with a group of friends every Tuesday night. Every time down the court, I don’t run my hardest or play the best defense and no one thinks less of me (ok, fine… they wish I’d play more D). They do however get frustrated at anyone who consistently doesn’t try hard and in a team sport setting, it’s quite easy to spot. In business, I purport it’s easier to blend in the background and rarely have to push one’s self.

I’ll admit some people aren’t motivated professionally and others probably lose drive over time. However, I’m still amazed at how little effort (i.e. – doing your job) gets recognized as a job well done. I typically tell people if you give 70% effort at a job you’ll be a star.

I could write a diatribe about how Gene is terrible for dating and marriage (i.e. – settling for someone), but I’ll stick to business. Here are a few points on how you can spot a Gene, what roles he can play and where you can use him.

Top Characteristics of Gene

  1. Clock watcher – 5:01 and they’re no where to be found and don’t even think about a lunch meeting
  2. Buck passer – looking for help indirectly related to Gene, sorry… not in his area
  3. Social ghost – when the company gets together outside of work, Gene never shows (Hint: that stuff matters)

Top 3 Roles to Gene Shouldn’t Be In

  1. Accounts Receivable – Worried about cash flow, Gene isn’t the best choice here
  2. Sales – If you let Gene collect your money, you better have a rockstar sales person bringing in more customers
  3. Any startup role – In the early stages, EVERYONE is doing heavy lifting and you can’t afford to carry Gene’s weight

When can you use Gene, you ask?
When you don’t truly care about the outcome. If you’re cool that your grass gets a little tall at time or your pants look somewhat pressed, then fine Gene’s Landscaping and Dry Cleaners is the place to go.

Where have you seen Gene pop up in your professional career? I know you’ve seen him. How can you motivate him? Is it possible? I’m really curious of your thoughts.

Flickr credit: Adhamz

← Developers Versus Others: Steve Johnson Video — MoneyPath Has Launched →
Todd Earwood

Total posts: 144

This post was filed in Business

Skip to comments ↓

  • Todd, unfortunately Gene can rub off on Jim and eventually form a family of Gene's. I've been witness to the phenomenon. My advice is to steer clear of Gene. As for motivation, anything resulting in a pre-5pm departure usually works or permitted ad-hoc naps throughout the day.
  • This is easy to solve, don't be greedy and give up some cash.
  • I'm not sure giving up cash motivates Gene, does it? Not everyone is motivated by money.
  • I believe that every one of us (with the exception of a magical restless few) is a few work experiences away from becoming a Gene at our jobs.

    Rewarding behavior for the sake of rewarding behavior is demotivating. Budget-adjusted "merit" increases are motivating. Not firing people is demotivating. Structured bonuses are demotivating. We are gamblers. Predictability bores us. If you know you have a job next year, you're quickly becoming obsolete through your complacency.

    Recessions are motivating. Non-regular, substantial rewards are motivating. Blunt conversations are unpleasant and awkward, but they're motivating.

    Superstars self-motivate themselves internalizing this pain/pleasure trade. The rest of us need a little external realization.
  • Thomas - you make several great points and I think you've just given me another post on how the business creates more Gene-types. My favorites are not firing people and structured bonuses are demotivating.

    I think to avoid becoming a Gene, a business has to personalize our work structure (why not four 10-hour days?), environment (why always in the office?) and match upward growth opps or financial incentives to us individually.
  • I would add that management who doesn't extraordinarily reward and be open to (and proceed forward with) the ideas of individuals that work for them are to blame: in a sense they are green houses for growing this type of complacency.

    There are the rare few get to follow and be rewarded substantially for their ideas (monetarily or otherwise). I don't hold the employee responsible. Its true that some employees just want to work, and what's wrong with that? As an economy, we can't have a workforce where everyone wants to do something other than what they are told (someone has to follow orders and walk the path that they are told to walk). But there are a few who want more, having management who have the intelligence to see, proceed with, and raise the visibility of (that individual) is what I would want as a business owner. One good idea does not guarantee the survival of a business (or rarely), new ideas from the anti-Gene types are what a company needs (but few have figured out that they need to reward the anti-Gene for the idea, not a penance of a bonus).
  • Another thought--off of the 4x10 concept:

    Encourage your employees to work less than 40 hours. Perhaps way less. You have to be genuine in this and let them know you are genuine. Completely break the 8-to-5 pattern entirely. I've been in a strict clock-watching environment before. Team members end up working (more like "wasting") 7:59-5:01 and stabbing the backs of those who don't cover those specific hours.

    Instead, pay for accomplishments. If someone is an all-star who completes projects in 30 hour work weeks, allow them outperform *or* meet expectations at their discretion. Of course, meeting expectations earns no merit increase--but then again, inflation-indexed pay increases are not merit increases, either. I think of the musing from the mythical man month that good programmers are 5-10 times as productive as mediocre ones--which I can easily believe. Those "mediocre" employees will get 85% of the pay of their "good" counterparts, and will probably last almost as long as their counterparts in the organization.
  • Thomas, I agree with your idea and have had a similar thought. Why not only require the time it takes to get a job done? If they want more, give it to them but only set out enough for a 40hr week. For example, if someone only wants to make enough money that a 'typical' 40hr week provides, give them the opportunity to do that in as little (or as many) hours as they can effectively. Alternatively, maybe an employee wants to do 50hrs worth or work and can do so in 30: allow that and don't expect more. People seldom get paid for their intelligence and most employers (out of fear) fall back to paying someone for the 'time' they put in. Its a true silly concept. If the workforce becomes more intelligent and can produce useful ideas for themselves (as they gain intelligence, which happens regardless and as a result of technology), why should they give the idea to the company who pays them for only 40 hours... not for their intelligence and idea generating ability.

    Lastly, I hate conversations like this. They are always fruitless. I have never met a single business owner who is generous (and confident enough in their business) enough to give up some revenue to great employees. Sure, they'll give fractional shares but not revenue. Bonuses are not returning revenue, they are a joke. One last thing, with regards to 'scientific' employees: employers frequently take advantage of those employees. Sales people are the bullhorns of the company, and rarely can a good idea come from that type of person. If you need your pants talked off, they are the person. Otherwise get someone with some introspection and intelligence. People who think for a living typically have a great imagination and can produce rockstar ideas. The only way a scientific person can make it big is to do it on their own.
  • Since I don't know who you are or your background, I have to make some assumptions.. 1) you haven't owned a business, 2) you've never worked with a quality salesperson and 3) you work in the scientific/tech area. I agree that some salespeople just talk, but I know many others that provide real value to the company. Obviously without sales, a great idea from any source never reaches the market. Overall, I just view it as the team approach. HR, Accounting, IT and Sales have to work together or no one has a job.

    As for your point about giving revenue, I'm unclear on why an employee would get a large amount of revenue? The shareholders of the company won't find that prudent as they've taken the risk for the company. I don't see it as an issue of confidence at all.

    If I work for someone and they pay my salary and benefits, I really don't have much risk. I believe those who join in the risk should share in the reward. That's not to say, an employee shouldn't receive monetary compensation for innovation or a quality idea, but if I save the company $250,0000 with an idea, do I deserve half of that amount? I believe the answer is no as I'm still going to get paid each pay period while the shareholders may not get a return on their investment (i.e. - risk).

    I agree that to make it big, you must do it on your own. But that extends to folks far beyond the scientific area. It's just a trade-off, being on your own is super hard and I think it's even hard starting by yourself.

    Lastly, I'd ask you type your real name. My blog isn't to be controversial and I'm not attempting to garner large amounts of traffic, but when there's a discussion I think all folks involved would prefer to know we're talking with a real person. I don't like making assumptions about people, but I don't know how to reply to you without some context.
blog comments powered by Disqus