I might have a solution for you: Look at yourself as an independent contractor, even if you are an employee.

This way you can put out your best work & work on things that excite you, but are still protected from manipulation and underpay.

Your customer is your employer. He's also the main person that needs to be pleased with your work.

Companies try to push the "This company is all of us" mentality, but in some situations it becomes painfully clear that it wasn't.

It's tough because I think the group mentality is part of what can really make a company able to produce the value it can (more than just the sum of its parts and all that), so I feel that mentality can come from a genuine place, but it is also used manipulatively. How we tell the difference is a problem I'm currently incapable of solving.

It's a fine line indeed, and it's probably impossible to draw a hard line like that. Sometimes you're above it, sometimes below.

But the main thing is that you guard yourself from feeling disappointed afterwards. This disappointment comes from a wrong view on the whole situation.

So basically anything that you do extra for the company, you do because it gives you gratification at the moment. Don't expect to be compensated afterwards, because you won't.

But of course compensation for your work is more than money alone, and it's perfectly fine to get gratification from seeing what you created, working on something that excites you, etc.

I think it's easier to cope with this tension if you embrace the other parts of your life that are meaningful, as OP is alluding to.

It's a lot harder for a company to manipulate someone if they have alternate ways to derive meaning and emotional support. For me, this involves always having a side project that's fulfilling.

I think this sincere desire for unexploitable meaning is why a lot of engineers try to start startups.

I work at a nonprofit (thankfully not for peanuts), and I know that many of them take advantage of this. They use the "passion" of the employees as an excuse to pay way less than market rates, even if they've actually got the money.

One friend of mine is a developer at a nonprofit, and I know he's earning in the 25th percentile for his skills and experience in this region. I am certain his passion for the cause helped lead to this. Ironically, this situation has, over time, eroded his passion for the cause!

Nonprofits lose a lot of good people doing this, but they don't seem to care. Maybe because they've always got fresh meat ready to take someone's place? Maybe because donors always pressure for low overhead costs? Hard to say, but it's foolish. Only harms everyone involved.

I mostly agree with you, but I wouldn't entirely blame nonprofits. There's a lot of public pressure on nonprofits to reduce costs as much as possible because everyone is obsessed with "overhead". This TED talk explains the problems with this situation really well:

https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_abou...

Choice quote: "so in the for-profit sector, the more value you produce the more money you can make, but we don't like non-profits to use money to incentive people to produce more in social service. We have a visceral reaction to the idea that anyone would make much money helping other people; interesting that we don't have a visceral reaction to the notion that people would make a lot of money not helping other people."

Strongly agree. The external pressure from well-meaning but uninformed donors to "cut costs" isn't helping the situation.

"Interesting that we don't have a visceral reaction to the notion that people would make a lot of money not helping other people."

If for-profits didn't help people, they literally would not exist.

I think you're misinterpreting what he's saying (which might be my fault for expecting the quote to make sense outside the context of the talk). The quote is referring to the fact that we frown on people making money from running charitable organizations that help people, but making money from running a for-profit business that helps nobody is considered fine and admirable.

In trying to find this balance, it helps to understand what you can and cannot emotionally detach from. For example, it may be important to feel you are doing meaningful work. But it's important you emotionally detach from "under all circumstances."

Many people use manipulation and guilt to get other people to do what they want under totally unreasonable/unrealistic circumstances. If you are able to emotionally detach from being affected by this type of behavior, they lose the control they have over you. You're then in a much better position to dictate a situation where you can a) work on stuff you find meaningful, b) provide high value to the company) and c) do it on your terms. Sometimes the only way to do this is to switch managers and/or jobs.

Not everybody can have a job doing something they find meaningful and fulfilling, best not to delude yourself into thinking yours is if it isn't.

The counter to this is one can find meaning and fulfillment in any task, by doing it well and to the best of ones ability.

But why do that if it only makes things worse for you in the end? Better to find meaning in things you don't have to delude yourself about and view your job as what it probably is: just a means to sustain your quality of life.

good point, I think GP's counter is a counter only if you accept as a premise that you must find fulfillment in your work. Otherwise this point undercuts it by attacking that implicit premise.

I have my own personal goals. The company has some goals. As long as there's some overlap between those, and I can achieve both goals at the same time, then we're all good.