Not everyone has the skills to run their own business. Some people prefer to be part of a team and not at the top of the pyramid. They get satisfaction by contributing.

I'd say that, in the professional world, most want to be part of a team because they want to trade the upside potential for stability and shorter, more predictable hours and a smaller, more defined scope of responsibility. You can't expect "change the world" passion from these people when they've traded that away as part of the bargain.

I think a lot of people prefer to be part of a team as it helps spread the responsibility (and more importantly, blame) around. I've worked a few "high powered" corporate jobs, and most so-called team-players at that level are really just team-blamers, yet conniving enough to single-handedly take credit for anything good that happens, while still appearing humble. It's pretty much why I quit and started my own firm. I like having the responsibility on my shoulders and enjoy putting my neck on the line. When I get something wrong, I'm only answerable to me (rather than be reprimanded by some know-it-all boss), and I can pick myself up quickly, reaim and try again. It's a less stressful experience with better results. For my staff, we discuss things, but I will never ever talk down to them or reprimand them like kids. If I do, I bet they'll just leave as soon as they can, as I did.

> Not everyone has the skills to run their own business. Some people prefer to be part of a team and not at the top of the pyramid. They get satisfaction by contributing.

Working 60+ hour weeks for a paycheck that can get gotten elsewhere provides no one with satisfaction. Anyone who rides programmers that hard will find the programmer firing his manager.

Almost none of the people that push you to do that are worth working for. Even a startup that provides RSUS.

If you want what the OP wants in an employee, you need to pay a minimum of a 30% premium over what they can get elsewhere.

It's in their best interest to acquire those skills, or keep being taken advantage of. A binary choice - that's the world we are living in right now.

> or keep being taken advantage of

Presumably they're getting paid for their work.

Yes and no. Although you are getting your paycheck, it's extremely demotivating be the only person in a team who gives a damn about getting things done. It gets more demotivating with passive aggression from your coworkers that are afraid that your performance raises the bar for everyone. It gets even more demotivating to see others promoted behind your back because they were going to the bar with the boss while you were figuring out how to deliver that critical thing to the customers.

I have personally been in those shoes and had to learn the business skills the hard way. And I don't think I had any other choice aside from giving up and becoming just another employee who doesn't care.

If you are the only one giving a damn about getting things done then it means you are in the wrong team. All teams have their rock stars and their slower devs but if they are to be called a "team" then they should all care even if they can't contribute the same amount of quality or quantity of work.

Even if you are a rockstar, your pay might be only 20% higher than that of those "slackers", more often only 5-10% or even lower than them (seniority/friends/family etc.). So all you get is a sticker "rockstar" translating in time smoothly into "ninja" (=No Income, No Job or Assets) as you become burned out and slackers are promoted.

OK, you get paid but you have to slow down, play politics, form your/join a clique, because otherwise you become hated by all your colleagues for casting a shadow on them, then be driven slowly out of the company by hiding information from you and spreading rumors about you. In other words, you are wasting the most precious thing you have - time, where you could perform much much better, for some "standard salary". Is that a good bargain?

That doesn't really make any difference. Literal indentured servants got paid for their work.

Right. But someone who's starting their own business has to spend all their time on that business, and is spending most of their income on that business. I have free time to devote to other things I find more rewarding.

and paid well "enough"

This assumes there is now way to find a company that fairly reward the effort you make, at least according to what you are content with.

Uh, no. I have no desire to start my own business, mainly because I value my off work time.

Automated business can give you way more off work time than you can imagine... I used to work 5 minutes/day running automated e-commerce.

Anecdotal but I feel like I'm that kind of person but absolutely don't want to run a business.

The worst case scenario of my own business is the whole thing crashing and me having to reorganize my life to accommodate whatever job I can find before my emergency fund runs out.

The worst case scenario for being an employee is getting fired. Pretty much the same outcome but much, much harder to hit.

If I want to start a family or just have a stable enough career to (essentially) never worry about going broke, I'll take the latter. That personality profile just makes keeping a job as simple as hitting the bare minimum requirements (which you habitually blaze past).

"People aren't as idealistic as they used to be because they were taken advantage of and learned from it."

Those of us that are trying to build high-performing organizations will still avoid and remove those types of people. And we will continue to reward and not take advantage of our people to fill our end of the bargain.

Further, those of us that are also highly self-motivated will continue to leave bad situations, not become slackers in response to being taken advantage of.

I don't think slackers are the problem. But the unappreciated high performers.

The moment somebody gets a whiff you didn't reward one of your employees for their work is the time your organization starts its decline (people talk). Frankly, I don't think you can avoid it as nobody can be really objective and tunnel vision is real. I just take it as a "nature's" way to move forward - blindspots of one company become strengths of another one, and due to past history, people would really compete against each other because of past perceived wrongdoings.

That's incorrect, he is expressing what he is able to manage. Will this limit him? Or not? That is the question.