So another area I have noticed in the general perception is this idea that there are “do somethings” and “do nothings”.
We hear people talking about such and such is a “do nothing” or this person is a “do nothing” etc.
The idea being that some people just sit around at work and “do nothing” whilst the “do somethings” are doing all the work.
Going by the model used earlier in the following article …
Good company, bad company
The “do nothings” would fall into the “bad column” category of people and the “do somethings” would fall into the “good column” category of people.
So do these “do nothings” / “do something” people really exist?
In my opinion yes they do however I have noticed that some of the “do nothings” have actually accomplished quite a lot however some would say that the “do nothing” did not do it and the “do nothing” just got the “do somethings” to do it for him / her.
However the above does not explain the “do nothings” that have accomplished a lot that other people could not have done for them for example world professional body builders, tennis players and other sports men etc.
Or take for example Stella English the person who won the apprentice. She was classified as a “do nothing” by one of the managers she worked with after winning the show however at the end of the day she won the apprentice show itself so this is hardly representitive of doing nothing is it.
So maybe the “do nothing” has more to do with the persons character than the person actually doing nothing at all or maybe the person is a “do nothing” in certain areas but not in others.
Please note I have also met people who should potentially be my “double” using this system i.e. people on the same column as me.
Although there where some similarities there where plenty of areas that where not similar so I am not saying this system is 100% correct.
At the same time as this quite a few of the people I have met on certain columns turned out to be the way I envisioned those people.
Maybe there are higher / lower versions of the people on the columns or maybe a person can have areas of difference through culture / upbringing even though they are on the same column.
Anyways typical scenario could go like this …
A “do something” is hired by the company and put under a “do nothing” manager who treats him like rubbish. The “do something” works his butt off for the company and does a huge amount of work for the company.
After a number of months at the company the “do something” is brought into the CEO’s office with his “do nothing” manager and is berated by both of them for his rubbish performance before being fired.
The “do something” employee cannot understand why he was fired and not the “do nothing” manager and he cannot understand why the CEO believes the “do nothing” managers side of the story over his side of the story.
The “do something” employee cannot understand why he did so much work for the company but still get fired for rubbish performance.
Ok so lets try to understand this …
Manager is “do nothing”.
He employees other “do nothings”, his friends.
He also employees “do somethings”, not his friends, you are there to make up for the “do nothings”.
“Fire the do nothings!”, look he is not going to do that! They are his friends, they are batting for the same team, to solve the “do nothing” problem he employees the “do somethings”.
So for every 7 “do nothings” he employees, he will employee 3 “do somethings”. The 3 “do somethings” have to make up for the “do nothings”. Maybe 7 / 3 is a bit extreme but you get the idea.
Do not hype this up as a conspiracy or hatred. We all recognized the “do nothing” people in school. Well now the “do nothing” has a company and he wants to employee his friends. Whats wrong with that?
“Do nothing” realises he cannot maintain the company just by employing his “do nothing” friends, so he has to employee his none friend “do somethings”. The “do somethings” are there to do the jobs of 2 or 3 people.
The point is, if you are a “do something”, you are only there to make up for the “do nothings”. All of the “do nothings” in the company are not your friends.
This is not a problem, nobody is forcing people to have friendships with people they do not want to have friendships with.
The problem is the “do somethings” where not told they where only employeed to make up for the “do nothings”.
You might think as a “do something” doing the job of 2 or 3 people that you will do what the “do nothings” do and minimise your workload. Why should you have to do all this work and the “do nothings” do nothing.
This will get you fired by the “do nothing” boss.
Remember he knows the geniune “do nothings” compared to the “do somethings” that are minimizing their workload.
The genuine “do nothings” are his friends, the “do somethings” that minimize their workload are not his friends.
The “do nothing” boss employed you for a reason, the reason being to make up for the “do nothings”.
You as a “do something” minimizing your workload to the same level as the “do nothing” does not make you his friend and it negates the reason the “do nothing” employeed you in the first place.
Remember he can spot geniune “do nothings”.
It is an unbiased view, an equal opportunity policy, we employ “do nothings” and “do somethings”, but of course the only benefit going to the “do nothings”.
The “do nothings” do want the “do somethings” to work for them but they do not want to give them the respect they deserve.
The “do nothing” will occasionally get rid of a “do something”. This is to make it appear as though the “do nothing” does not need the “do somethings” …
“Wow I am shocked, everyone is replacable, look he even got rid of one of the most productive employees in the company, I had better keep my head down otherwise I will be next”.
The “do nothing” has merely replaced the type of person with the same type of person i.e. replaced a “do something” with a “do something”.
Essentially not really getting rid of the person at all.
He can do this because there will always be another “do something” who is willing to take the position. The “do somethings” do not have the awareness in general to stop the process.
The “do something” who was fired was probably not aware of this and thinks he got fired for rubbish performance etc, when in actual fact the boss has replaced you with another of your type.
Overall, the “do nothings” do not want you there in a true sense, you are not there friends. The only reason they gave you the job was because they cannot be bothered to do it themselves.
In another area I read …
“The company could half the number of managers overnight and it would have little impact on the business” – exactly, so why dont they? No really, why dont they?
Some people like to comfort the person by saying …
“The person thought you where after their job so they got rid of you” – there is no chance of you getting the other persons job.
Some people say …
“People who are ‘do nothing’ at their jobs never leave, they just move from team to team” – it is not a case of the “do nothing” leaving, why is the “do nothing” granted the ability to move from team to team? This is due to the “do nothing” higher ups, as stated earlier they are friends.
Have a look at the diagram below …
Here is the reason your opinions are not listened to, here is the reason the “do nothing” manager did not get fired but you did, here is the reason why you will never get that managerial role you where looking for.
The “do nothing” CEO has installed his “do nothing” friends in all the key positions within the company.
Even if there was 1 “do something” manager who you could talk to, as you can see he will not get beyond the next level anyway because the “Head of Department” is “do nothing” so he will not have the power to do anything about your situation.
The CEO has only employeed the “do somethings” to do the shop floor work at the lowest levels of company but there are also some “do nothings” there also.
Yes the “do nothings” are there because there was not enough management positions in the company to go around all the “do nothings”.
However that does not matter because although those “do nothings” are at the lowest level in the company the “do nothings” there can have a cushy existence because the 4 “do something” employees will do their workload.
Once a management position becomes available one of the “do nothings” will be given it and the “do something” who does most of the work can stay where he is.
Also please note that the above structure of the company does not nessacarily have to be created logically, the CEO of the company may just see it as putting the people he wants i.e the people he feels closest to and who is in agreement with in the upper positions.
It just so happens that those people are the “do nothings” like himself.
What I am saying is that it not nessacarily some conspiracy, it is just that the structure of the company ended up that way by a kind of “un-intelligence” as opposed to being a well thought out plan.
Beware of the “do nothing” CEO, sometimes the “do nothing” CEO of the company can seem “good” and “nice” etc. He can afford to seem “good” and “nice” because he has installed his “do nothing” friends in management positions. They are ones who have to do the “bad” deeds whilst he comes up smelling like a bed of roses.
These types of CEO’s can sometimes portray a “wimp” style image as though the circumstances where out of his control when in reality it was the CEO making the decisions or encouraging those decisions all along.
Essentially giving the effect of you dealing with 2 different people the “CEO” and the “Managers” when in reality their motive and goals are in alignment. The CEO is “do nothing”, exactly the same as those managers he has installed throughout the company.
Make no mistake the “do nothings” are loyal to the “do nothings” first and foremost, they support “do nothings” first and foremost, they give the best projects to “do nothings” first and foremost.
If a “do nothing” boss states something to the effect of “Yes this ‘do nothing’ has been with the company longer that is why he / she gets the best projects to work on”.
Well the answer to that is why has the “do nothing” been at the company the longest? The answer is because they have got rid of the “do somethings” first whilst allowing the “do nothing” to keep his / her job.
Do not buy into such statements as described above as to the reasons why the “do nothing” gets the best projects to work on etc. The only way these situations are created is that the “do nothings” support the “do nothings” first and foremost.
These “do nothings” have no problem getting rid of “do somethings” no matter the workload and effort you have put into the company.
Not only do they get rid of you but they also give a bad reference as well.
The “do somethings” are not “really” doing the same for the “do nothings” as a group of people.
The “do something” sets up a company and the first person the “do something” boss gives a job to is a “do nothing”.
Hang on, this “do nothing” is the person you have spent your life complaining about, this “do nothing” is the person who has been opposing your ability to “do something” all your life, the person is the reason you are not being given the credit you deserve in terms of your productivity and the first person you give a job to is a “do nothing”? A bit of a contradiction here no?
This person has no problem using you for your ability and then getting rid of you.
You cannot really do the same for them because you cannot use them in that way because they … “do nothing”.
What does it say to all your fellow “do something” employees when you hire a “do nothing”?
Well it is a betrayal at the very least, not only this but it dilutes your message. You complain about a “do nothing” then give him / her a job in your company?
At the end of the day, the “do nothings” are using you, getting rid of you and sticking it to you at the same time.
What do I mean by doing the same for the “do nothings”. Well let me answer that by first bringing into the equation something extreme.
There was a person in history who had similar ideas but went to the extreme, do you who that is?
We have all read about Adolf Hitlers problems with the Jews, but we can also read Adolf Hitler had similar thoughts about tramps, beggers, do-nothings, mentally ill people and people born without “pure” physical features etc.
Notice the “do nothings” are part of the equation, now according to the earlier ideas the “do nothings” are a category of people who are born that way.
According to the documentation Hitler hated the Jews. I think what Hitler really hated where the people on the “bad column” in the diagram.
When we read about his interpretations or quotes of the people he hated it would fit into the “bad column” more than anything.
Due to the fact that the “do nothings” can be categorized and because they are born that way, this means that they can be categorized at birth.
This also means they can be eliminated at birth.
The idea would go something like this …
A newly born baby is born in a hospital and say within 3 days of the babies birth the government henchmen take the baby to an “identification clinic”.
The “clinic” classifies the baby accordingly to its “do nothing” / “do something” nature.
In this case it has been found that the baby is in the “do nothing” category of people.
The baby is then exterminated and the process is repeated for every new born baby that enters the world.
Can you imagine the implications this would have?
Whoever created this world i.e. God, created these categories of people and the humans on this planet are exterminating one of these categories of people at birth. Essentially saying we do not want this category of people “God”, exterminating them and sending them back.
This is like an act against nature itself, imagine a world where the “do nothings” and their entire “culture” no longer existed, not only would their “culture” not exist but it also would not have effected the “do something” culture in any way, in other words not only are the “do nothings” no longer here but the effect of having the “do nothings” here in the first place is gone forever.
This is extreme and this is what Adolf Hitler was essentially trying to accomplish with his correct or incorrect classifications of people.
So this is not “really” doing the same for the “do nothings” is it? Going to this sort of extreme is not going to accomplish anything.
Let us stick to the facts …
You are a “do something” that has been fired from an organisation that was run by a “do nothing” and had “do nothings” in key positions within the organization.
Right so what would doing the same for the “do nothing” really be doing then?
It would not be exterminating people at birth because the “do nothings” are not really doing that are they? This would be going to extremes.
At the end of the day, firing someone from a job and giving them a bad reference is not the same as exterminating people. Yes the CEO of the company is “getting rid of you” but these are words only, he has not exterminated you.
In effect you could argue that they are because they are being selective about who they want in their organization in a similar way as to someone selecting who they want on the planet.
However they are not really doing this because they are only denying you access to their organization and not the planet and there is room on the planet for more than 1 category of people.
So the fact is they are being selective about who they want in their organization.
So doing the same for the “do nothing” would mean setting up your own organization and employing “do somethings” in it and placing “do somethings” in key positions within the organization.
If you where “really” doing the same for the “do nothings” you would have nothing to feel bitter about because you would have your own organization with your “do something” friends in it, would you not?
I mean you are a “do something” right and they are the “do nothing”? You would think if that was the case it would an easy task for the “do something” to set up his own organization, right?
Here is example Glassdoor comment …
“Over the last few years they hired a top layer of managment who are unpleasant, self serving, do-nothings. they step on everyone and anyone to make themselves look good.”
Yes this is what happens when you employ a “do nothing” and place him / her in a top position within the company. He / she employees other “do nothings”, so now you have a layer of “do nothings”.
If the CEO is a “do nothing” then he / she got what he / she wanted. If the CEO is “do something” and he employed a “do nothing” at the top level of his / her company unawares …
He will now be wondering why the entire “culture” of his company has changed and he will not be able to identify the original “do nothing” he employed let alone all the other “do nothings” the original “do nothing” has employed.
Advice to management …
“Cut out the fat”
The cutting out the fat comment is more than likely a reference to get rid of the “do nothings”, not likely to happen.
My advice to fired “do something” employee …
Setup your own organization and employee the “do something” people you want in it.
If you are not willing to do this then you are really without excuse are you not?
Another impression I have noticed about the “do nothings” is that they always try to make it appear they are not interested in “politics”.
This is just an excuse for the “selection” they use, if they where not interested in “politics” then why do they give their own people the top positions within the company?
Claiming these sorts of models and ideas are “political” is a convenient way to ignore the fact that these ideas are more then just “political” and have a valid reality.
The culture of a company is deliberate, it has been deliberately created even if it is by “un-intelligence”. It is not an accident that the company is the way it is and from the companies point of view nothing needs fixing.
If there are more “bad column” / “do nothing” employees than “good column” / “do something” employees then the culture of the company will be “bad column” / “do nothing”.
If there are more “good column” / “do something” employees than “bad column” / “do nothing” then the culture will be more “good column” / “do something”.
All this advice being given, do this and it will be great culture, do that and your employees will feel more appreciated, get more of this and your employees will be happy etc.
Yes you are offering your “good column” / “do something” advice because you think the company wants to be “good column” / “do something” cultured but this is not going to work if the majority of the employees in the company are “bad column” / “do nothing”.
All of the comments, literature and perceptions of people on the internet is written in a way as to make the “do nothings” random people, as though anybody could be a “do nothing” and we all better be careful because any person could be a “do nothing”.
How about people are born “do something” or “do nothing” and henceforth are not random people?
Hiring manager …
“Yes let us have a technical test to determine whether we hire the right person i.e. the ‘do something'”.
This leads people to judge everyone by the same criteria and forces everyone to undergo tests and evaluations as though there is a chance that particular person could be a “do nothing”.
The right person i.e. “do something” is born right, there is no reason for the technical test. Even if you did a technical test, there is a chance that “do nothings” could also pass the technical test. This just means you have employed a “do nothing” who can pass your technical test.
It will not be long before the “do nothings” “culture” begins to show and you will realize that even though the “do nothing” passed the technical test you have still not hired the right person.