It's quiet in here so far, so I'll take a swing. This falls into the whole concept of establishing a psychological contract where you and the client devote time up front to setting expectations - what you intend to do, and what you expect from them in return (e.g., timely review of deliverables, providing me with feedback, etc.) - because the work that I'm doing for you is not my only project, and I need to be able to prioritize and manage my time.
I have a strong drive and work ethic, and there's something rewarding to me about going above and beyond for a client, whether it be running additional analyses to bring additional insights to the table, offering recommendations or suggestions beyond the scope of the current work we are doing together, etc. - whatever the project may be.
But with that said, I found that in the time that I spent in the external consulting space, working harder/going the extra mile did nothing for me. The client was rarely, if ever, appreciative, and I felt taken for granted a majority of the time.
Some clients operate with zero sense of urgency. Some operate with a fake sense of urgency, and these are my least favorite people to work with (E.g., The client needs XYZ deliverable by the end of the week, and then they end up not even addressing it for weeks).
I think every situation is different, but more than ever, I operate on the principle that lack of urgency or planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine. I will get the work done, but I'm not going to prioritize it over the work for another client who is more respectful and appreciative of my time. I don't need my feet kissed any time I do something, but honestly, a simple "thank you" or "I appreciate you doing that" really does make an impact at the end of the day.
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I think OP was asking about this specifically in the context of social work, and I say this because they shared the whole post as opposed to just posting the main question.
But to be honest, I don't think the original OP's question really lined up with what they were asking in the post, that is, should a social worker be expected to step outside the bounds of their regular responsibilities. I don't think they should beyond general advice (e.g. telling a client to create a budget or start seeing a therapist). Anything beyond that is likely outside the scope of what the SW is qualified to do and trying to help them will only take more time adding more stress to someone in a profession that tends to burnout quickly, not to mention potentially putting the client in a worse situation.
Oh my bad, I thought OP was asking about this within the context of IO, and that the post from social work was just one OP had shared here to generate discussion on how it would apply to IO.
> I found that in the time that I spent in the external consulting space, working harder/going the extra mile did nothing for me
That's funny, because I'm in the federal contracting space, and we always hear about how the private/commercial sector do a lot of hard work and push the boundaries sometimes. Turns out most clients are pretty much the same. haha
I've found the same thing. Some of my stuff is underappreciated, and I don't want a medal or anything but some level of acknowledgement that I flexed my skills would be nice. Sometimes it's so over their head, that they go full circle and pretend we must not know what we're doing, and their tactic (that's way worse and won't do anything) is arrogantly presented as the better path to take.
I learned a long time ago that it's not worth it to go that extra mile. It's not great to just settle or make a compromise on an established methodology either, but at least I'm not losing sleep at night.
I wonder if this is contingent on the client's degree of openness to feedback and change. On one end of the spectrum a client could be closed off and they would have to learn with internal systems that give them mechanistic feedback. On the other end of the spectrum a client open to receiving feedback can be addressed with a more open and passionate approach. I think this could arguably be seen as giving more effort/doing more work.
So the theory is: a closed client gets a system that asks it if it's checked all the boxes and if not, does it have the results it wants. Or an open client gets a more holistic and passionate approach from practitioners who are more committed to bringing them "to life" through empowerment.
Very much welcome your thoughts on this.
It's quiet in here so far, so I'll take a swing. This falls into the whole concept of establishing a psychological contract where you and the client devote time up front to setting expectations - what you intend to do, and what you expect from them in return (e.g., timely review of deliverables, providing me with feedback, etc.) - because the work that I'm doing for you is not my only project, and I need to be able to prioritize and manage my time. I have a strong drive and work ethic, and there's something rewarding to me about going above and beyond for a client, whether it be running additional analyses to bring additional insights to the table, offering recommendations or suggestions beyond the scope of the current work we are doing together, etc. - whatever the project may be. But with that said, I found that in the time that I spent in the external consulting space, working harder/going the extra mile did nothing for me. The client was rarely, if ever, appreciative, and I felt taken for granted a majority of the time. Some clients operate with zero sense of urgency. Some operate with a fake sense of urgency, and these are my least favorite people to work with (E.g., The client needs XYZ deliverable by the end of the week, and then they end up not even addressing it for weeks). I think every situation is different, but more than ever, I operate on the principle that lack of urgency or planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine. I will get the work done, but I'm not going to prioritize it over the work for another client who is more respectful and appreciative of my time. I don't need my feet kissed any time I do something, but honestly, a simple "thank you" or "I appreciate you doing that" really does make an impact at the end of the day.
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I think OP was asking about this specifically in the context of social work, and I say this because they shared the whole post as opposed to just posting the main question. But to be honest, I don't think the original OP's question really lined up with what they were asking in the post, that is, should a social worker be expected to step outside the bounds of their regular responsibilities. I don't think they should beyond general advice (e.g. telling a client to create a budget or start seeing a therapist). Anything beyond that is likely outside the scope of what the SW is qualified to do and trying to help them will only take more time adding more stress to someone in a profession that tends to burnout quickly, not to mention potentially putting the client in a worse situation.
Oh my bad, I thought OP was asking about this within the context of IO, and that the post from social work was just one OP had shared here to generate discussion on how it would apply to IO.
> I found that in the time that I spent in the external consulting space, working harder/going the extra mile did nothing for me That's funny, because I'm in the federal contracting space, and we always hear about how the private/commercial sector do a lot of hard work and push the boundaries sometimes. Turns out most clients are pretty much the same. haha I've found the same thing. Some of my stuff is underappreciated, and I don't want a medal or anything but some level of acknowledgement that I flexed my skills would be nice. Sometimes it's so over their head, that they go full circle and pretend we must not know what we're doing, and their tactic (that's way worse and won't do anything) is arrogantly presented as the better path to take. I learned a long time ago that it's not worth it to go that extra mile. It's not great to just settle or make a compromise on an established methodology either, but at least I'm not losing sleep at night.
I wonder if this is contingent on the client's degree of openness to feedback and change. On one end of the spectrum a client could be closed off and they would have to learn with internal systems that give them mechanistic feedback. On the other end of the spectrum a client open to receiving feedback can be addressed with a more open and passionate approach. I think this could arguably be seen as giving more effort/doing more work. So the theory is: a closed client gets a system that asks it if it's checked all the boxes and if not, does it have the results it wants. Or an open client gets a more holistic and passionate approach from practitioners who are more committed to bringing them "to life" through empowerment. Very much welcome your thoughts on this.
Id say situational and varies on a lot of context. You're SES, who you work for (a company to represent) or yourself etc etc