Big gripe about current employment and labor models: Why can't we just let people do things they are good at and are satisfied in for their jobs?
Our current labor models in the US and much of Europe assumes if someone is good at something, they should be "promoted" to managing or coordinating that thing. This assumes 1) that because someone is good at a task they will be good at managing a task and 2) that they want or will thrive in a manager or coordinator role. We place a hierarchy of status, power, and compensation to these roles too, with people placed in a role of greater respect, power, and higher income because of their title as "manager."
But if someone is really good at a thing and they like doing it, shouldn't we want them to keep doing that thing? If someone is a great engineer, maybe we should reward them by letting them engineer more things and maybe have more leeway or agency in their role, with greater compensation? Some companies do take this approach, but it hasn't spread to the NGO or public sectors.
I am great at planning out and implementing a specific program or event for youth. I am amazing at engaging and mentoring them. I do not thrive when I am expected to keep track of all the follow-throughs and juggle all the balls needed to make those programs happen. And yet, I am now "overqualified" for doing what I am good at and told that I should instead apply for the kinds of jobs that keep burning me out. I don't want that job, and I don't think I am the best suited for it, let me do what I am truly amazing at. And if you think I'm great at it, compensate me for being really great to keep me in the role and maybe give me the capacity to develop similar programs or have more agency in the program delivery.
@JoscelynTransient@chaosfem.tw There's an organizational principle about this, named after its original author Lawrence J. Peter, the peter principle: "In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence."
I was lucky to find the niche I'm really good at, which is management (although I don't like this term, I don't manage people, I work with teams).
And now I'm trying to get to a point where I can do more of what I'm really good at.
I've been an okay-ish engineer, but that's enough to understand what my folks are working on.
@sashag@anarres.family There's some mixed stuff around the Peter Principle and the Dunning-Krueger Effect in terms of evidence, but there is a certain intuitive truth about it. There are definitely people and organizations it describes!
And also, what you said about management is true too! I know some people who are great at doing the administrative and coordinating work for research teams or community programs, but who really struggle doing the work itself. Those people should be supported in doing that and thriving in those roles too, as managerial or coordinating labor is also a thing! Often, the people who are doing the real bones of that work though are given titles like "administrative assistant" and treated as being lower status so they can be exploited, whereas I think those are the real rockstars, you know?
Grumble grumble rant rant
@JoscelynTransient@chaosfem.tw Yes, it's a nuanced thing. And actually I'm a terrible project manager, because… squirrel brain 
But I'm a really good "people manager". 
And something some people have a hard time to understand: I'm not looking to optimize my salary, nor am I fond of titles. Heck, it took me three months to memorize my role title at StreetScooter (unfortunately I seem to be unable to unlearn it again 🫠
"Head of Department for Digital, Analytics and Connected"). If I'm navigating the hierarchies, it's to get to the place where I can do what I'm best at. If that doesn't have any title at all, fine!
Joscelyn Transpiring