Snowflakes - Avoiding Criticism

[Crepitus]

In an industry where one out of six customers complain, as a snowflake how do you avoid the inevitable criticism?

One employee helps only 5 customers, smokes cigarettes, talks to co-workers, surfs the web and receives no complaints from customers or his boss. Great day at work.

One employee helps 18 customers in the same amount of time, receives 3 complaints from customers and causes the boss to become furious with him. Terrible day at work.

Both employees are snowflakes. How will they respond in the future considering humans are motivated by rewards and punishments?

People tend to avoid this discussion but it is human nature for high producers to be punished and low producers to be ignored. This seems to be counter productive but also very natural. Any remedies?

This ^ is utter bullshit. There are so many problems with the OP I don't even know where to start, but let's just look at this statement: "1 out of 6". It doesn't work this way in the rear world. 1 out of 6 on average means that over hundred or thousands of customers 1 out of 6 complained, not that every 6th customer complained. You could have 3 complaints in a row and then not another one for 33 customers and that's 1 out of 6, so just waiting on 5 a day doesn't do a damn thing. And then there's the fact that any company that practiced this would be out of business in a month. They wouldn't have any employees left.

Change the numbers. Is 3 out of 100 realistic?

GEICO boasts of 97% customer satisfaction. That means 3 out of 100 aren't happy.

If a GEICO rep handles 18 customers a day then he will cause his manager more trouble than the employee who handles 5 customers a day.

The less work you do, the less problems you cause. It is basic math. The one person will be the same person whether he deals with 5 customer or 18 customers. His attitude or personality doesn't change with volume. If he sucks with 5 customers, he will suck with 18. If he is great with 5 customers, he will be great with 18.

The employee producing greater volume will encounter more problems whether he is a good employee or a bad employee.

The employee producing lesser volume is less vulnerable to criticism. He may get fired for being unproductive but he will rarely be criticized for doing his work incorrectly.

If I am wrong then enlighten me. I like learning new things that blow my mind. Besides I am an optimist. My pessimistic view on this subject is contrary to my personality. That is why it causes me cognitive dissonance. I hate this perceived reality of how hard work is punished and laziness is rewarded. I'd love to be reassured this philosphy is wrong.

It isn't "basic math", it's statistics and apparently over your head.

 

[presonorek]

In an industry where one out of six customers complain, as a snowflake how do you avoid the inevitable criticism?

One employee helps only 5 customers, smokes cigarettes, talks to co-workers, surfs the web and receives no complaints from customers or his boss. Great day at work.

One employee helps 18 customers in the same amount of time, receives 3 complaints from customers and causes the boss to become furious with him. Terrible day at work.

Both employees are snowflakes. How will they respond in the future considering humans are motivated by rewards and punishments?

People tend to avoid this discussion but it is human nature for high producers to be punished and low producers to be ignored. This seems to be counter productive but also very natural. Any remedies?

This ^ is utter bullshit. There are so many problems with the OP I don't even know where to start, but let's just look at this statement: "1 out of 6". It doesn't work this way in the rear world. 1 out of 6 on average means that over hundred or thousands of customers 1 out of 6 complained, not that every 6th customer complained. You could have 3 complaints in a row and then not another one for 33 customers and that's 1 out of 6, so just waiting on 5 a day doesn't do a damn thing. And then there's the fact that any company that practiced this would be out of business in a month. They wouldn't have any employees left.

Change the numbers. Is 3 out of 100 realistic?

GEICO boasts of 97% customer satisfaction. That means 3 out of 100 aren't happy.

If a GEICO rep handles 18 customers a day then he will cause his manager more trouble than the employee who handles 5 customers a day.

The less work you do, the less problems you cause. It is basic math. The one person will be the same person whether he deals with 5 customer or 18 customers. His attitude or personality doesn't change with volume. If he sucks with 5 customers, he will suck with 18. If he is great with 5 customers, he will be great with 18.

The employee producing greater volume will encounter more problems whether he is a good employee or a bad employee.

The employee producing lesser volume is less vulnerable to criticism. He may get fired for being unproductive but he will rarely be criticized for doing his work incorrectly.

If I am wrong then enlighten me. I like learning new things that blow my mind. Besides I am an optimist. My pessimistic view on this subject is contrary to my personality. That is why it causes me cognitive dissonance. I hate this perceived reality of how hard work is punished and laziness is rewarded. I'd love to be reassured this philosphy is wrong.

It isn't "basic math", it's statistics and apparently over your head.

If x happens 3 out of 100 times then it happens 9 times out of 300. It happens 30 times out of 1000.

The less times you do that thing the less often you will encounter x.

If you do that thing 0 times then you will encounter x 0 times.

Avoiding x should never be the goal because that is easy to achieve and requires no effort. Just close your business and x will never happen. The 3 out of 100 times might not be constant and predictable. 0 times 0 always equals 0. If you want to avoid criticism then dont do anything. It is easy.

 

[presonorek]

which industry standard is this? For that matter, which industry is this?

It is an imaginary industry. Do you have more realistic numbers for a specific industry? We can plug those in. I dont see how it changes the discussion at all.

The point I was making is that human nature causes hjgh producers to be punished and low producers to be rewarded.

Good employees hate this inevitability. Bad employees are too happy to care.

 

[Crepitus]

In an industry where one out of six customers complain, as a snowflake how do you avoid the inevitable criticism?

One employee helps only 5 customers, smokes cigarettes, talks to co-workers, surfs the web and receives no complaints from customers or his boss. Great day at work.

One employee helps 18 customers in the same amount of time, receives 3 complaints from customers and causes the boss to become furious with him. Terrible day at work.

Both employees are snowflakes. How will they respond in the future considering humans are motivated by rewards and punishments?

People tend to avoid this discussion but it is human nature for high producers to be punished and low producers to be ignored. This seems to be counter productive but also very natural. Any remedies?

This ^ is utter bullshit. There are so many problems with the OP I don't even know where to start, but let's just look at this statement: "1 out of 6". It doesn't work this way in the rear world. 1 out of 6 on average means that over hundred or thousands of customers 1 out of 6 complained, not that every 6th customer complained. You could have 3 complaints in a row and then not another one for 33 customers and that's 1 out of 6, so just waiting on 5 a day doesn't do a damn thing. And then there's the fact that any company that practiced this would be out of business in a month. They wouldn't have any employees left.

Change the numbers. Is 3 out of 100 realistic?

GEICO boasts of 97% customer satisfaction. That means 3 out of 100 aren't happy.

If a GEICO rep handles 18 customers a day then he will cause his manager more trouble than the employee who handles 5 customers a day.

The less work you do, the less problems you cause. It is basic math. The one person will be the same person whether he deals with 5 customer or 18 customers. His attitude or personality doesn't change with volume. If he sucks with 5 customers, he will suck with 18. If he is great with 5 customers, he will be great with 18.

The employee producing greater volume will encounter more problems whether he is a good employee or a bad employee.

The employee producing lesser volume is less vulnerable to criticism. He may get fired for being unproductive but he will rarely be criticized for doing his work incorrectly.

If I am wrong then enlighten me. I like learning new things that blow my mind. Besides I am an optimist. My pessimistic view on this subject is contrary to my personality. That is why it causes me cognitive dissonance. I hate this perceived reality of how hard work is punished and laziness is rewarded. I'd love to be reassured this philosphy is wrong.

It isn't "basic math", it's statistics and apparently over your head.

If x happens 3 out of 100 times then it happens 9 times out of 300. It happens 30 times out of 1000.

The less times you do that thing the less often you will encounter x.

If you do that thing 0 times then you will encounter x 0 times.

Avoiding x should never be the goal because that is easy to achieve and requires no effort. Just close your business and x will never happen. The 3 out of 100 times might not be constant and predictable. 0 times 0 always equals 0. If you want to avoid criticism then dont do anything. It is easy.

Not so. Not how statistics works. You could wait on 3 and all 3 could be bad. The guy who does 18 may not get any.

 

[presonorek]

In an industry where one out of six customers complain, as a snowflake how do you avoid the inevitable criticism?

One employee helps only 5 customers, smokes cigarettes, talks to co-workers, surfs the web and receives no complaints from customers or his boss. Great day at work.

One employee helps 18 customers in the same amount of time, receives 3 complaints from customers and causes the boss to become furious with him. Terrible day at work.

Both employees are snowflakes. How will they respond in the future considering humans are motivated by rewards and punishments?

People tend to avoid this discussion but it is human nature for high producers to be punished and low producers to be ignored. This seems to be counter productive but also very natural. Any remedies?

This ^ is utter bullshit. There are so many problems with the OP I don't even know where to start, but let's just look at this statement: "1 out of 6". It doesn't work this way in the rear world. 1 out of 6 on average means that over hundred or thousands of customers 1 out of 6 complained, not that every 6th customer complained. You could have 3 complaints in a row and then not another one for 33 customers and that's 1 out of 6, so just waiting on 5 a day doesn't do a damn thing. And then there's the fact that any company that practiced this would be out of business in a month. They wouldn't have any employees left.

Change the numbers. Is 3 out of 100 realistic?

GEICO boasts of 97% customer satisfaction. That means 3 out of 100 aren't happy.

If a GEICO rep handles 18 customers a day then he will cause his manager more trouble than the employee who handles 5 customers a day.

The less work you do, the less problems you cause. It is basic math. The one person will be the same person whether he deals with 5 customer or 18 customers. His attitude or personality doesn't change with volume. If he sucks with 5 customers, he will suck with 18. If he is great with 5 customers, he will be great with 18.

The employee producing greater volume will encounter more problems whether he is a good employee or a bad employee.

The employee producing lesser volume is less vulnerable to criticism. He may get fired for being unproductive but he will rarely be criticized for doing his work incorrectly.

If I am wrong then enlighten me. I like learning new things that blow my mind. Besides I am an optimist. My pessimistic view on this subject is contrary to my personality. That is why it causes me cognitive dissonance. I hate this perceived reality of how hard work is punished and laziness is rewarded. I'd love to be reassured this philosphy is wrong.

It isn't "basic math", it's statistics and apparently over your head.

If x happens 3 out of 100 times then it happens 9 times out of 300. It happens 30 times out of 1000.

The less times you do that thing the less often you will encounter x.

If you do that thing 0 times then you will encounter x 0 times.

Avoiding x should never be the goal because that is easy to achieve and requires no effort. Just close your business and x will never happen. The 3 out of 100 times might not be constant and predictable. 0 times 0 always equals 0. If you want to avoid criticism then dont do anything. It is easy.

Not so. Not how statistics works. You could wait on 3 and all 3 could be bad. The guy who does 18 may not get any.

It sounds like you have it all figured out by now. Congratulations on that.

 

[Crepitus]

This ^ is utter bullshit. There are so many problems with the OP I don't even know where to start, but let's just look at this statement: "1 out of 6". It doesn't work this way in the rear world. 1 out of 6 on average means that over hundred or thousands of customers 1 out of 6 complained, not that every 6th customer complained. You could have 3 complaints in a row and then not another one for 33 customers and that's 1 out of 6, so just waiting on 5 a day doesn't do a damn thing. And then there's the fact that any company that practiced this would be out of business in a month. They wouldn't have any employees left.

Change the numbers. Is 3 out of 100 realistic?

GEICO boasts of 97% customer satisfaction. That means 3 out of 100 aren't happy.

If a GEICO rep handles 18 customers a day then he will cause his manager more trouble than the employee who handles 5 customers a day.

The less work you do, the less problems you cause. It is basic math. The one person will be the same person whether he deals with 5 customer or 18 customers. His attitude or personality doesn't change with volume. If he sucks with 5 customers, he will suck with 18. If he is great with 5 customers, he will be great with 18.

The employee producing greater volume will encounter more problems whether he is a good employee or a bad employee.

The employee producing lesser volume is less vulnerable to criticism. He may get fired for being unproductive but he will rarely be criticized for doing his work incorrectly.

If I am wrong then enlighten me. I like learning new things that blow my mind. Besides I am an optimist. My pessimistic view on this subject is contrary to my personality. That is why it causes me cognitive dissonance. I hate this perceived reality of how hard work is punished and laziness is rewarded. I'd love to be reassured this philosphy is wrong.

It isn't "basic math", it's statistics and apparently over your head.

If x happens 3 out of 100 times then it happens 9 times out of 300. It happens 30 times out of 1000.

The less times you do that thing the less often you will encounter x.

If you do that thing 0 times then you will encounter x 0 times.

Avoiding x should never be the goal because that is easy to achieve and requires no effort. Just close your business and x will never happen. The 3 out of 100 times might not be constant and predictable. 0 times 0 always equals 0. If you want to avoid criticism then dont do anything. It is easy.

Not so. Not how statistics works. You could wait on 3 and all 3 could be bad. The guy who does 18 may not get any.

It sounds like you have it all figured out by now. Congratulations on that.

Education is good for you.

Get some.

 

[presonorek]

Change the numbers. Is 3 out of 100 realistic?

GEICO boasts of 97% customer satisfaction. That means 3 out of 100 aren't happy.

If a GEICO rep handles 18 customers a day then he will cause his manager more trouble than the employee who handles 5 customers a day.

The less work you do, the less problems you cause. It is basic math. The one person will be the same person whether he deals with 5 customer or 18 customers. His attitude or personality doesn't change with volume. If he sucks with 5 customers, he will suck with 18. If he is great with 5 customers, he will be great with 18.

The employee producing greater volume will encounter more problems whether he is a good employee or a bad employee.

The employee producing lesser volume is less vulnerable to criticism. He may get fired for being unproductive but he will rarely be criticized for doing his work incorrectly.

If I am wrong then enlighten me. I like learning new things that blow my mind. Besides I am an optimist. My pessimistic view on this subject is contrary to my personality. That is why it causes me cognitive dissonance. I hate this perceived reality of how hard work is punished and laziness is rewarded. I'd love to be reassured this philosphy is wrong.

It isn't "basic math", it's statistics and apparently over your head.

If x happens 3 out of 100 times then it happens 9 times out of 300. It happens 30 times out of 1000.

The less times you do that thing the less often you will encounter x.

If you do that thing 0 times then you will encounter x 0 times.

Avoiding x should never be the goal because that is easy to achieve and requires no effort. Just close your business and x will never happen. The 3 out of 100 times might not be constant and predictable. 0 times 0 always equals 0. If you want to avoid criticism then dont do anything. It is easy.

Not so. Not how statistics works. You could wait on 3 and all 3 could be bad. The guy who does 18 may not get any.

It sounds like you have it all figured out by now. Congratulations on that.

Education is good for you.

Get some.

What kind do you recommend for a dum dum like me? Are there any sewing classes available?