> It is possible there exists a job definition for which you are 'killing it', but it is not apparent from my perspective.

Tangent: That comment showed me, after 40+ years of adult working, that any individual person is filling multiple roles, each defined by other peoples' perspectives and needs. Indeed, that individual may not even be aware that they are in those roles, much less that those roles may be crucial to those other people.

Note that I almost edited "multiple roles" to "multiple work roles," but this probably applies to most social relationships.

Huh.

>I want to be recognized and compensated proportionally to the value I create on your behalf.

but who calculates this "value"? And what is it relative to? That's partially why stocks exist, to try and answer that question.

The fact that a lot of workers are able to find an employer willing to give them a raise to come work for them indicates that there was perceived unrealized value. If you cannot find a better deal, then that probably means you are operating close to your "true perceived value".

Stocks determine a value by constantly trading on the market. The value is whatever price the asset last sold for.

That is how we end up with our high turnover culture today.

The value is whatever price the asset will sell for today. This is informed by but not determined by the price it was last sold for. This difference is important.

As long as there is disagreement, it's difficult to move forward. Managers could help show where/how value is created by collecting and sharing information.

To understand, explain and illuminate how value is created should be one of the first basic tasks for managers. Part of the purpose is to eliminate as much disagreement with and among "reports".

You're right, this approach is going to fall flat.

Imagine someone coming to you and saying it.

Assume (as manager) instead that it is the 'default' rational attitude in a high entropy state, and work on ways of changing the circumstances to move out of that state.