> Don't be "pro-active" be "re-active" - is my way of putting it.
As much as I recognize this can be good advice, this comment makes me sad.
It's like "start underperforming" is the answer given to bad management problems.
Which I agree actually makes sense in a lot of companies (if pro-active efforts are not already being recognized, then it's hard to change the culture).
I also think that a lot of comments here are directed toward financial success, but many people are actually looking for meaningful ways to contribute. People for which the "re-active" approach might not be a solution.
What would be the solution for those people? How unlikely is it to actually switch to a company which recognizes employees willing to be more involved?
As much as I recognize this can be good advice, this comment makes me sad.
It's like "start underperforming" is the answer given to bad management problems.
Which I agree actually makes sense in a lot of companies (if pro-active efforts are not already being recognized, then it's hard to change the culture).
I also think that a lot of comments here are directed toward financial success, but many people are actually looking for meaningful ways to contribute. People for which the "re-active" approach might not be a solution.
What would be the solution for those people? How unlikely is it to actually switch to a company which recognizes employees willing to be more involved?