New Work Trend - Quiet Quitting

[Villanelle]

Since I'm at work, in the file, and its public record anyway....

For the particular school district I'm auditing, in a not prosperous but not dirt poor area of Chicago metro, a teacher who is step 1 will make $47,000 if they have a BA, $52,000 for a MA, or $57,000 with a MA plus 20 years of service. Step 20 maxes out at 78,000/83,200/88,400 for those breakdowns, respectively.

Now, that's base salary. They certainly could be paid additional amounts, for things such as Athletic director (1,500 per year), CPI training (195 per year), yearbook coordinator (1,950 per year). Those are actual amounts that real teachers were paid for the 21-22 school year.

So, anyone willing to be athletic director for $1,500 a year?

Does this come with a lessening of any other responsibilities?  Like you don't have recess or lunch duty in lower grades, or you teach one fewer class in junior and high school? 

[lifeisshort123]

$1500 sounds a bit more appropriate for being assistant choreographer than Athletic Director…. Even with a course release or two, that is outrageous.  But, I guess if someone is willing to do the job….

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Since I'm at work, in the file, and its public record anyway....

For the particular school district I'm auditing, in a not prosperous but not dirt poor area of Chicago metro, a teacher who is step 1 will make $47,000 if they have a BA, $52,000 for a MA, or $57,000 with a MA plus 20 years of service. Step 20 maxes out at 78,000/83,200/88,400 for those breakdowns, respectively.

Now, that's base salary. They certainly could be paid additional amounts, for things such as Athletic director (1,500 per year), CPI training (195 per year), yearbook coordinator (1,950 per year). Those are actual amounts that real teachers were paid for the 21-22 school year.

So, anyone willing to be athletic director for $1,500 a year?

I'm sure people are aware, but this is a far cry from the reality of a lot of teachers, the vast majority, for example, who start below 40 (if I'm understanding what you mean by step 1).

[Dave1442397]

Since I'm at work, in the file, and its public record anyway....

For the particular school district I'm auditing, in a not prosperous but not dirt poor area of Chicago metro, a teacher who is step 1 will make $47,000 if they have a BA, $52,000 for a MA, or $57,000 with a MA plus 20 years of service. Step 20 maxes out at 78,000/83,200/88,400 for those breakdowns, respectively.

Now, that's base salary. They certainly could be paid additional amounts, for things such as Athletic director (1,500 per year), CPI training (195 per year), yearbook coordinator (1,950 per year). Those are actual amounts that real teachers were paid for the 21-22 school year.

So, anyone willing to be athletic director for $1,500 a year?

I'm sure people are aware, but this is a far cry from the reality of a lot of teachers, the vast majority, for example, who start below 40 (if I'm understanding what you mean by step 1).

It depends on the district, of course. My neighbor retired a couple of years ago at step 18 with twenty-some years of service. She was also tutoring (Math) on the side, so she was doing pretty well.

[ChpBstrd]

I've never understood why some people would be willing to put in more than their 8-hours, for no additional compensation. They call it "quiet quitting" -- I call it "work life balance" or only working the hours you're contracted to work.

If you are in education, you have no choice if you want to be effective. I'm an administrator so it is especially true, it's the nature of the job. Another reason for the teacher shortage.

Yeah, my spouse used to be a teacher.  At one point we calculated the hourly rate based on the true number of hours worked, and it was a fraction of minimum wage.

So much this.  My contract was 37.5 hours/week.  60 was normal, 70 during exams.  If we had all done what we were contracted for the system would have collapsed.  My daughter went into a job that pays well but when the day is over she goes home and has her life.  No second generation teachers here.

And school districts wonder why they can't find teachers.

The Venn diagram of the following factors converges on teaching:

lack of unionization
female-dominated / less likely to demand raises
lack of alternative jobs for teaching skills
political hostility and de-funding of public education
highly motivated workforce

[Michael in ABQ]

I've never understood why some people would be willing to put in more than their 8-hours, for no additional compensation. They call it "quiet quitting" -- I call it "work life balance" or only working the hours you're contracted to work.

If you are in education, you have no choice if you want to be effective. I'm an administrator so it is especially true, it's the nature of the job. Another reason for the teacher shortage.

Yeah, my spouse used to be a teacher.  At one point we calculated the hourly rate based on the true number of hours worked, and it was a fraction of minimum wage.

So much this.  My contract was 37.5 hours/week.  60 was normal, 70 during exams.  If we had all done what we were contracted for the system would have collapsed.  My daughter went into a job that pays well but when the day is over she goes home and has her life.  No second generation teachers here.

And school districts wonder why they can't find teachers.

The Venn diagram of the following factors converges on teaching:

lack of unionization
female-dominated / less likely to demand raises
lack of alternative jobs for teaching skills
political hostility and de-funding of public education
highly motivated workforce

Teachers are heavily unionized compared to most professions. Though now that it's voluntary, a lot of teachers here locally left the union. For Albuquerque Public Schools with about 12,000 employees covered by the collective bargaining agreement, only about 5,500 are members of the union.

New Mexico just made a big deal about raising teacher salaries statewide about 20%. The Albuquerque Public School (APS) district with about 75,000 students starts at $50,000 https://www.aps.edu/human-resources/salary-schedules/at1-salary-schedule

There are three license tiers, and they start at $50k, $60k, and $70k respectively. I'm not sure how the grades and steps work but it looks like there's basically no change in salary until the very top of the range. Having a master's or doctorate barely moves the needle and the top end of the range is about $84k.

Frankly the system seems like there's zero motivation to do more than the bare minimum as the difference between Step 1 and Step 39 (of 51) is a few hundred dollars per year. So, any teacher's that are quiet quitting will get paid the same as the one's going above and beyond. And with a shortage of teachers, it's doubtful the school district will fire anyone.

[MustacheExplorer]

     There is a phenomenon happening in Japan and China called "tang ping" or "lying flat".  Many young people, recent college graduates have little interest in having full time jobs they are qualified for.  They have no interest in owning a house or having a family and especially don't want the stress of a full-time position.  These young people are satisfied with part time or lining up for day jobs.  Earning enough to rent a sleeping cube at an internet cafe to play video games and read manga is all they want or need. 

[Just Joe]

Indeed! And then when they get their degree, a lucky few land a tenure-track faculty role. The rest have a choice to make: take an adjunct role that pays some $9,000 per semester, hoping against all odds to land a tenure-track role someday, or recognize that they could make at least twice as much money pouring beers at the bar across the street from the university and abandon the field they've spent a decade studying. When you read the stories of the faculty members living in their cars because there are so many PhDs clinging to the dream that supply and demand are not working in their favor wage-wise, it's just sad.

And as I recall of my alma-mater - 70+ year old professors that didn't want to retire despite a earning pension b/c their whole identity was wrapped up in being a professor. A couple of these characters were so out of date they were showing DVDs that were once literal films! I never understood why the university let those few use such old materials in their teaching. 

Retire! Make room for the next generation of professors.

[StarBright]

Indeed! And then when they get their degree, a lucky few land a tenure-track faculty role. The rest have a choice to make: take an adjunct role that pays some $9,000 per semester, hoping against all odds to land a tenure-track role someday, or recognize that they could make at least twice as much money pouring beers at the bar across the street from the university and abandon the field they've spent a decade studying. When you read the stories of the faculty members living in their cars because there are so many PhDs clinging to the dream that supply and demand are not working in their favor wage-wise, it's just sad.

And as I recall of my alma-mater - 70+ year old professors that didn't want to retire despite a earning pension b/c their whole identity was wrapped up in being a professor. A couple of these characters were so out of date they were showing DVDs that were once literal films! I never understood why the university let those few use such old materials in their teaching. 

Retire! Make room for the next generation of professors.

I'm not sure what it was like years ago - but it takes 35 years to get full pension pay out at my DH's institution. He was 38 when he started his tenure track job and because of the state we live in he can't put money into social security while he works at the state institution. If he were relying on a pension for his retirement he'd really have to stick out 35+ years.

I don't think professors try to suck :)

ETA - I think I read somewhere that the average age of a first year TT professor is 33.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Since I'm at work, in the file, and its public record anyway....

For the particular school district I'm auditing, in a not prosperous but not dirt poor area of Chicago metro, a teacher who is step 1 will make $47,000 if they have a BA, $52,000 for a MA, or $57,000 with a MA plus 20 years of service. Step 20 maxes out at 78,000/83,200/88,400 for those breakdowns, respectively.

Now, that's base salary. They certainly could be paid additional amounts, for things such as Athletic director (1,500 per year), CPI training (195 per year), yearbook coordinator (1,950 per year). Those are actual amounts that real teachers were paid for the 21-22 school year.

So, anyone willing to be athletic director for $1,500 a year?

I'm sure people are aware, but this is a far cry from the reality of a lot of teachers, the vast majority, for example, who start below 40 (if I'm understanding what you mean by step 1).

It depends on the district, of course. My neighbor retired a couple of years ago at step 18 with twenty-some years of service. She was also tutoring (Math) on the side, so she was doing pretty well.

Again, it does vary with specific locations, but overall, the picture as I am seeing it is pretty clear. Correcting myself from previously - the vast majority - 39 of 50 states - have teacher starting pay below 45k per https://www.nea.org/resource-library/teacher-salary-benchmarks

For an anecdotal example, I could come out of high school and go straight to multiple plants around working making probably 40-45k starting out with no training at all and definitely better COLA year after year with the ability to get promoted to other positions and break free to exceed even the decent pay track they're already on. Some specific locations are ok for teachers - some pretty good. The majority, though, simply don't compensate teachers well.

[Freedomin5]

Since I'm at work, in the file, and its public record anyway....

For the particular school district I'm auditing, in a not prosperous but not dirt poor area of Chicago metro, a teacher who is step 1 will make $47,000 if they have a BA, $52,000 for a MA, or $57,000 with a MA plus 20 years of service. Step 20 maxes out at 78,000/83,200/88,400 for those breakdowns, respectively.

Now, that's base salary. They certainly could be paid additional amounts, for things such as Athletic director (1,500 per year), CPI training (195 per year), yearbook coordinator (1,950 per year). Those are actual amounts that real teachers were paid for the 21-22 school year.

So, anyone willing to be athletic director for $1,500 a year?

I'm sure people are aware, but this is a far cry from the reality of a lot of teachers, the vast majority, for example, who start below 40 (if I'm understanding what you mean by step 1).

It depends on the district, of course. My neighbor retired a couple of years ago at step 18 with twenty-some years of service. She was also tutoring (Math) on the side, so she was doing pretty well.

Again, it does vary with specific locations, but overall, the picture as I am seeing it is pretty clear. Correcting myself from previously - the vast majority - 39 of 50 states - have teacher starting pay below 45k per https://www.nea.org/resource-library/teacher-salary-benchmarks

For an anecdotal example, I could come out of high school and go straight to multiple plants around working making probably 40-45k starting out with no training at all and definitely better COLA year after year with the ability to get promoted to other positions and break free to exceed even the decent pay track they're already on. Some specific locations are ok for teachers - some pretty good. The majority, though, simply don't compensate teachers well.

Many of my expat friends are international school teachers. They all say one of the reasons they went on the international teaching circuit was because they were making so little stateside. They said if they were working in the US as a public school teacher they’d be earning less than half of what they earn as an international school teacher.

[Sibley]

Since I'm at work, in the file, and its public record anyway....

For the particular school district I'm auditing, in a not prosperous but not dirt poor area of Chicago metro, a teacher who is step 1 will make $47,000 if they have a BA, $52,000 for a MA, or $57,000 with a MA plus 20 years of service. Step 20 maxes out at 78,000/83,200/88,400 for those breakdowns, respectively.

Now, that's base salary. They certainly could be paid additional amounts, for things such as Athletic director (1,500 per year), CPI training (195 per year), yearbook coordinator (1,950 per year). Those are actual amounts that real teachers were paid for the 21-22 school year.

So, anyone willing to be athletic director for $1,500 a year?

Does this come with a lessening of any other responsibilities?  Like you don't have recess or lunch duty in lower grades, or you teach one fewer class in junior and high school?

Answering all the questions.

To my knowledge, no, taking on one thing doesn't lessen other things. You certainly could stop doing a task, but you'd lose the extra money for said task.

Yes, these teachers are unionized. That info came from a combo of the union contract and 2 random teacher's pay records for last school year. I believe they are required to join the union.

Yes, this district pays decently. Other districts that I audit pay less, but Chicago region is above average overall I believe.

"Teachers are eligible to retire in IL with a discounted annuity IF they are at least age 55 but have not yet turned age 60 AND have at least 20 years of service credit. Your pension annuity will be reduced ˝% for every month you are under age 60 or 6% for every year you are under age 60."  https://www.trsil.org/ - TRS website

Oh, and this was an elementary/middle school district. Heavily minority populations, good number of low income, though that particular district has less of the low income than others. I think they're around 50% low income. Other districts I audit are 80+% low income.

I should also point out that the number of teachers aides, parapros, etc has been slashed. If I look back at staffing numbers a decade ago, they're all down significantly. Teachers have far less support than they used to.

[Money Badger]

@Vashy  Been there... You had an awful supervisor who simply deserves to rot in hell for abusing his/her temporary "authority" over your career.   Leaders remove obstacles to lift their people up... idiots think they can hold their people down so they "can't quit".   

Karma usually gets even eventually.   FIRE is the best way to do it!   

[exterous]

I've never understood why some people would be willing to put in more than their 8-hours, for no additional compensation. They call it "quiet quitting" -- I call it "work life balance" or only working the hours you're contracted to work.

If you are in education, you have no choice if you want to be effective. I'm an administrator so it is especially true, it's the nature of the job. Another reason for the teacher shortage.

Yeah, my spouse used to be a teacher.  At one point we calculated the hourly rate based on the true number of hours worked, and it was a fraction of minimum wage.

So much this.  My contract was 37.5 hours/week.  60 was normal, 70 during exams.  If we had all done what we were contracted for the system would have collapsed.  My daughter went into a job that pays well but when the day is over she goes home and has her life.  No second generation teachers here.

And school districts wonder why they can't find teachers.

The Venn diagram of the following factors converges on teaching:

lack of unionization
female-dominated / less likely to demand raises
lack of alternative jobs for teaching skills
political hostility and de-funding of public education
highly motivated workforce

You forgot one I'm not sure a lot of people are aware of: Antiquated rules that punish transferring to a new job. In a lot of districts you get a 'step' (salary increase) for each year in the district. Historically if you changed districts they'd start you out close to a first year teacher regardless of how much experience you had. If you had 16 years of service you might go from making $90,000 a year to $45,000 (if first year was $41,000) if your partner has to move for work, you need to relocate due to family etc.

That said those rules appear to be changing, at least in Michigan. My wife just changed jobs and they offered her the second highest step possible. This was at a highly desirable school - one of her top 3 "I'd really like to work there" schools. So - well funded with lots of opportunities and activities for students and good staff:teacher:student ratios. That is absolutely insane for the profession and means even the good schools are struggling to find good teachers. 5 years ago you'd be laughed at for asking let alone having it be offered. That we're at this point now is not a good sign even if that practice really needed to be changed.

The financial penalty for changing jobs heavily incentivized good teachers to stay at poorer schools as the penalty for changing districts was much too high for most people. Not really a good thing for the teachers at all but it helped prop up the system. And an unplanned removal of that prop will be disruptive. More desirable school districts nearly matching steps\years of service removes a rather massive barrier and will allow a lot of quality teachers to leave their current jobs for better paying ones (Well funded districts often have better pay scales). Your poorer schools will suffer through an increase in turn over as 1st-3rd year teachers cycle through to better jobs and few if any with any experience are still around. My wife, with over a decade of experience was replaced with someone with a provisional certificate and who has never even student taught. So the poorer schools will becomes worse, worse schools lead to people with the means leaving, those people leaving often leads to lower tax revenue, which leads to poorer school funding (at a minimum relative to 'desirable schools'), which leads to poorer schools becoming worse....

[lifeisshort123]

I agree the fact that education is a female dominated profession has definitely cost $$s being spent.  Also, the fact taxpayers have to pay the bill is a huge part of it.  Finding the money to increase wages is really tough. 

I think the bigger issue for teachers and professors both, is as you rise, your salary barely keeps up with inflation in many instances.  Universities do a better job of that with the Assistant/Associate/Full Professor “steps” in the tenure process.  However, most schools simply do steps - and some districts will only apply a cost of living increase across the board, which may or may not align with the steps used for new teachers/initial placement.  The only way to “move up” is go into administration, which is, sadly, a completely different skill set.  Some gifted administrators might be terrible teachers, and the opposite is true as well.  That is an issue in Higher Ed and K-12 jointly, but many people, particularly men, feel the need to “climb the ladder” for whatever reason.

[HawkeyeNFO]

There is a phenomenon happening in Japan and China called "tang ping" or "lying flat".  Many young people, recent college graduates have little interest in having full time jobs they are qualified for.  They have no interest in owning a house or having a family and especially don't want the stress of a full-time position.  These young people are satisfied with part time or lining up for day jobs.  Earning enough to rent a sleeping cube at an internet cafe to play video games and read manga is all they want or need.

Another phenomenon is that these lazy, pathetic losers have to compete for the better jobs with higher pay.  Those who are willing to go out and work smartly have a distinct advantage, and will most likely have a higher income.

[markbrynn]

I agree the fact that education is a female dominated profession has definitely cost $$s being spent.  Also, the fact taxpayers have to pay the bill is a huge part of it.  Finding the money to increase wages is really tough. 

I think the bigger issue for teachers and professors both, is as you rise, your salary barely keeps up with inflation in many instances. Universities do a better job of that with the Assistant/Associate/Full Professor “steps” in the tenure process.  However, most schools simply do steps - and some districts will only apply a cost of living increase across the board, which may or may not align with the steps used for new teachers/initial placement.  The only way to “move up” is go into administration, which is, sadly, a completely different skill set.  Some gifted administrators might be terrible teachers, and the opposite is true as well.  That is an issue in Higher Ed and K-12 jointly, but many people, particularly men, feel the need to “climb the ladder” for whatever reason.

Open question about what is to be expected with teacher pay over a career? I would expect it to increase steadily for about 5-10 years and then plateau (hopefully keeping up with inflation). This being based on having the job of "teacher" at a specific grade level for the whole time and not changing to a higher paid role. I can see a difference between a brand new teacher and one with experience, but once you become an experienced teacher, what is there to justify continually increasing salary? In the bolded above, it was said "as you rise" does this mean in age or actual job responsibilities?

[To be clear, I am completely supportive of teacher's being well paid from day 1, with funds for supplies and reasonable expectations on total hours put into the job. I just know that I'm not typically paid a lot more money for doing the same job just because I'm older. I either need to change my job to a higher paid one or accept that I will only keep up with inflation.]

[LennStar]

Open question about what is to be expected with teacher pay over a career? I would expect it to increase steadily for about 5-10 years and then plateau (hopefully keeping up with inflation). This being based on having the job of "teacher" at a specific grade level for the whole time and not changing to a higher paid role. I can see a difference between a brand new teacher and one with experience, but once you become an experienced teacher, what is there to justify continually increasing salary?

Besides getting set in your ways, not knowing the new stuff that you perhaps should teach and getting more and more sick?
I dunno.
;)

I never understood how age makes you automatically getting more money.

[ATtiny85]

I agree the fact that education is a female dominated profession has definitely cost $$s being spent.  Also, the fact taxpayers have to pay the bill is a huge part of it.  Finding the money to increase wages is really tough. 

I think the bigger issue for teachers and professors both, is as you rise, your salary barely keeps up with inflation in many instances. Universities do a better job of that with the Assistant/Associate/Full Professor “steps” in the tenure process.  However, most schools simply do steps - and some districts will only apply a cost of living increase across the board, which may or may not align with the steps used for new teachers/initial placement.  The only way to “move up” is go into administration, which is, sadly, a completely different skill set.  Some gifted administrators might be terrible teachers, and the opposite is true as well.  That is an issue in Higher Ed and K-12 jointly, but many people, particularly men, feel the need to “climb the ladder” for whatever reason.

Open question about what is to be expected with teacher pay over a career? I would expect it to increase steadily for about 5-10 years and then plateau (hopefully keeping up with inflation). This being based on having the job of "teacher" at a specific grade level for the whole time and not changing to a higher paid role. I can see a difference between a brand new teacher and one with experience, but once you become an experienced teacher, what is there to justify continually increasing salary? In the bolded above, it was said "as you rise" does this mean in age or actual job responsibilities?

[To be clear, I am completely supportive of teacher's being well paid from day 1, with funds for supplies and reasonable expectations on total hours put into the job. I just know that I'm not typically paid a lot more money for doing the same job just because I'm older. I either need to change my job to a higher paid one or accept that I will only keep up with inflation.]

I have had that conversation with engineers who report to me. Pay goes up, expectations go up, but sometimes you do sort of top out depending on the role. So either be satisfied with that, or look for something new. Certainly the somewhat narrower (I think) field that a typical teacher is in makes it harder to find a new role.

[farmecologist]

I emotionally quit years before I left (was downsized) - and I remember the exact day it happened. Up to that point I was going above and beyond, working over time on a f*cked-up schedule with inefficient systems under a micromanaging boss. I specially asked for a qualification (which is now industry standard) I was promised during the interview (and for which my employer needed to endorse me - there's no other way to even sign up for the course). My boss said: "If  the company did that, you could leave, so we won't."

I felt that no longer caring was an appropriate response to having my further progression and self-improvement willfully and deliberately sabotaged by my employer. Ultimate, if you don't care about me, I sure don't care about you. Loyalty is earned.

Ditto...However, it's not that I no longer 'care'...I do care about my company up to a point ( they do pay me very well ). 

However, you learn some things working in a ultra corporate environment for a long time.  First of all, many GREAT performers have been laid off over the years for no reason whatsoever other than to fulfill financial engineering ( i.e. - layoff ) goals  for HR.  Secondly, I was never given credit for some of my best work where I absolutely worked my ass off with lots of overtime, etc...Third, I have seen quite a few high fliers crash and burn due to burnout, etc...  These things greatly affect your mentality on how the company views you.  And that means my job as been just a job for many years now.  Ironically, the best strategy has been to be the 'sidekick' to the high flier workaholics in the office...those that tie their identity to the job ( as someone commented on above ).

[clarkfan1979]

Indeed! And then when they get their degree, a lucky few land a tenure-track faculty role. The rest have a choice to make: take an adjunct role that pays some $9,000 per semester, hoping against all odds to land a tenure-track role someday, or recognize that they could make at least twice as much money pouring beers at the bar across the street from the university and abandon the field they've spent a decade studying. When you read the stories of the faculty members living in their cars because there are so many PhDs clinging to the dream that supply and demand are not working in their favor wage-wise, it's just sad.

And as I recall of my alma-mater - 70+ year old professors that didn't want to retire despite a earning pension b/c their whole identity was wrapped up in being a professor. A couple of these characters were so out of date they were showing DVDs that were once literal films! I never understood why the university let those few use such old materials in their teaching. 

Retire! Make room for the next generation of professors.

I'm not sure what it was like years ago - but it takes 35 years to get full pension pay out at my DH's institution. He was 38 when he started his tenure track job and because of the state we live in he can't put money into social security while he works at the state institution. If he were relying on a pension for his retirement he'd really have to stick out 35+ years.

I don't think professors try to suck :)

ETA - I think I read somewhere that the average age of a first year TT professor is 33.

100% agree. I don't think professors try to suck. There is lack of accountability within higher education when someone gets tenure. If they have research grant money coming into the university, they can be untouchable because the college might need the money to pay the bills. If they leave, their grant money goes with them. It's the professor's grant, not the institutions.

I am firmly against suggesting professors should at 65, instead of 70. Many professors do need to work until age 70 to get a full retirement. For those of you who know my story, I have real estate, so I'm fine. However, I got my first job at 32 years old in 2011. My starting salary was 40K/year and I graduated with 57K of student loan debt. Now 11 years later, I make 57K/year and my institution does not contribute to Social Security. If I don't suck, I should be allowed to work until age 70. 

[Daisy]

There's a reason that work to rule is an effective industrial action - most workers go above and beyond their paid duties as a matter of course.

On a performance review early on in my career, I received all top marks except for one category (unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, I have absolutely no recollection of what that one category was). 
The one category I received a "Satisfactory" rating.  I was very unhappy and I thought it was completely unfair.  My supervisor had to point out to me that "satisfactory" was defined on the review as me doing the job I was hired for.  And that it was not considered a negative. 

I still have trouble with that explanation.  We're a nation of people raised to believe that we must all be above average in every aspect.  We must all be exceptional.   Oh man, I'm finally seeing just how much I was hoodwinked.  That is "American Exceptionalism".  Tricking the worker into believing they owe more than what they're paid for so that each one of us can be the stand-out. 

Nowadays, I'd rather just be a cog in the wheel.

True!

I got annoyed once at a place my car was getting serviced. There is a survey at the end, and the attendant asked me to please rate a 5 out of 5 stars because anything else was considered bad. I think giving someone a 4 rating is a good rating...but maybe it is because I am an engineer and critical. If anything less than 5 gets an employee reprimanded then why have a scale of 5? I have heard the same with a rating of 1 to 10. Such a wide range to rate on. I think anything above an 8 is good and a 10 means exceptional. But I don't want a service rep to get reprimanded because I rate them an 8.

[elaine amj]

There's a reason that work to rule is an effective industrial action - most workers go above and beyond their paid duties as a matter of course.

On a performance review early on in my career, I received all top marks except for one category (unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, I have absolutely no recollection of what that one category was). 
The one category I received a "Satisfactory" rating.  I was very unhappy and I thought it was completely unfair.  My supervisor had to point out to me that "satisfactory" was defined on the review as me doing the job I was hired for.  And that it was not considered a negative. 

I still have trouble with that explanation.  We're a nation of people raised to believe that we must all be above average in every aspect.  We must all be exceptional.   Oh man, I'm finally seeing just how much I was hoodwinked.  That is "American Exceptionalism".  Tricking the worker into believing they owe more than what they're paid for so that each one of us can be the stand-out. 

Nowadays, I'd rather just be a cog in the wheel.

True!

I got annoyed once at a place my car was getting serviced. There is a survey at the end, and the attendant asked me to please rate a 5 out of 5 stars because anything else was considered bad. I think giving someone a 4 rating is a good rating...but maybe it is because I am an engineer and critical. If anything less than 5 gets an employee reprimanded then why have a scale of 5? I have heard the same with a rating of 1 to 10. Such a wide range to rate on. I think anything above an 8 is good and a 10 means exceptional. But I don't want a service rep to get reprimanded because I rate them an 8.

Unfortunately the reality is in most cases, employees get reprimanded with anything less than a perfect/exceptional score. So if I have no complaints, I rate them at a 10. I’d hate to penalize someone for doing their job competently. It’s not their fault our ratings systems are so ridiculous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Metalcat]

There's a reason that work to rule is an effective industrial action - most workers go above and beyond their paid duties as a matter of course.

On a performance review early on in my career, I received all top marks except for one category (unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, I have absolutely no recollection of what that one category was). 
The one category I received a "Satisfactory" rating.  I was very unhappy and I thought it was completely unfair.  My supervisor had to point out to me that "satisfactory" was defined on the review as me doing the job I was hired for.  And that it was not considered a negative. 

I still have trouble with that explanation.  We're a nation of people raised to believe that we must all be above average in every aspect.  We must all be exceptional.   Oh man, I'm finally seeing just how much I was hoodwinked.  That is "American Exceptionalism".  Tricking the worker into believing they owe more than what they're paid for so that each one of us can be the stand-out. 

Nowadays, I'd rather just be a cog in the wheel.

True!

I got annoyed once at a place my car was getting serviced. There is a survey at the end, and the attendant asked me to please rate a 5 out of 5 stars because anything else was considered bad. I think giving someone a 4 rating is a good rating...but maybe it is because I am an engineer and critical. If anything less than 5 gets an employee reprimanded then why have a scale of 5? I have heard the same with a rating of 1 to 10. Such a wide range to rate on. I think anything above an 8 is good and a 10 means exceptional. But I don't want a service rep to get reprimanded because I rate them an 8.

Unfortunately the reality is in most cases, employees get reprimanded with anything less than a perfect/exceptional score. So if I have no complaints, I rate them at a 10. I’d hate to penalize someone for doing their job competently. It’s not their fault our ratings systems are so ridiculous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's largely because that's actually how customers rate things. If they give even slightly less than a perfect rating, it usually means they are unhappy with something.

On RateMD, one of the rating categories is whether or not the doc runs on time. My colleague was always horribly late, ridiculously so, but she consistently got perfect 5s across the board when patients liked her.

People rarely ever give a mid-range rating unless they were quite dissatisfied. A perfect score now has come to mean "nothing overtly wrong" where each point off of perfect represents a significant divergence from optimal.

[Blackeagle]

People rarely ever give a mid-range rating unless they were quite dissatisfied. A perfect score now has come to mean "nothing overtly wrong" where each point off of perfect represents a significant divergence from optimal.

https://xkcd.com/1098/

[clarkfan1979]

On the top of quiet quitting, raises are typically 2.5% for meets expectations and 3.5% for exceeds expectations. With an average faculty salary of $60,000, if you got "exceeds expectations" you would get an additional raise of $600/year. To get "exceeds" this would require around 10% of extra work which would be around 135 extra hours. That's $4.44/hr. to get "exceeds", which is not even guaranteed. Sometimes faculty take on extra projects and still get "meets" expectations.

Why would anyone accept more work than their regular job duties?   

[lifeisshort123]

A few thoughts….

It rubs me the wrong way when visiting certain places like say, a car rental location, when they give you forms that explain when you get a survey they “need” 10s.  That seems really not classy to be honest.

Also, I wonder if employers gave fairer raises each year, if it would have employers having more employee longevity and less turnover. 

[Daisy]

A few thoughts….

It rubs me the wrong way when visiting certain places like say, a car rental location, when they give you forms that explain when you get a survey they “need” 10s.  That seems really not classy to be honest.

Also, I wonder if employers gave fairer raises each year, if it would have employers having more employee longevity and less turnover.

Yeah, what is the point of having a survey if they "need" 10s? Why have a range of 10 at all. If anything other than 10 is bad, then have a scale of only 2. One option good, one option bad.

[TomTX]

There is a phenomenon happening in Japan and China called "tang ping" or "lying flat".  Many young people, recent college graduates have little interest in having full time jobs they are qualified for.  They have no interest in owning a house or having a family and especially don't want the stress of a full-time position.  These young people are satisfied with part time or lining up for day jobs.  Earning enough to rent a sleeping cube at an internet cafe to play video games and read manga is all they want or need.

Another phenomenon is that these lazy, pathetic losers have to compete for the better jobs with higher pay.  Those who are willing to go out and work smartly have a distinct advantage, and will most likely have a higher income.

YTA.

[BlueMR2]

Reading about yet another CEO saying how hours don't matter, people should stay until the work is done.  Heh.  You can tell they've never had a real job.  My work is NEVER done.  It pours in all day long.  Definitely don't want to stay late.  Not when you just get a half hour for lunch (my old job).  The CEO and executive team go out on 2-3 hour lunches and come back recharged and stay late.  They should try it on the normal worker schedule where you only have enough time to stuff some food in your face and then go back until exhausted by end of day.  Then have to go home and maintain that.

I also note that these CEOs are always on these big vacation trips.  They'll go out for a week or 2 every month or so.  I haven't even been able to schedule a real vacation in the last decade as my time off gets burned up with life events.  Until these CEOs live the way we do, they have no room to talk, claiming big hours in the office.  Yeah, playing games, having long lunches, and otherwise just screwing around...

[mistymoney]

I think there is a balance between having a work/life balance and putting an undue burden on your coworkers/boss/company because you are trying to skirt the line between fired and employed.

I think right-sizing your efforts is a better focus than quiet quitting. Have good, firm boundaries. Occasionally be flexible with those to help out your teammates or for a special project situation.

After decades of doing 200% or more than what I "should" have put into various jobs, I am trying to figure this out for myself. Better late than never, but I wish I had had a better focus of these issues earlier in my life.

But I do take exception to what in some cases sounds like nearly obstructionist actions in terms of doing practically nothing, where if everyone in a company did that the company would go under in pretty short order.

I don't like to feel taken advantage of, but I also do like to feel like I earned my money and gave good value and contribute to the mission and goals of the organization. If you are in a position in a company where you don't have any of those feels, I think it is encumbent on you as a worker and a corporation of self to recognize that and move on to something where you do feel good about contributing.

[JLee]

Reading about yet another CEO saying how hours don't matter, people should stay until the work is done.  Heh.  You can tell they've never had a real job.  My work is NEVER done.  It pours in all day long.  Definitely don't want to stay late.  Not when you just get a half hour for lunch (my old job).  The CEO and executive team go out on 2-3 hour lunches and come back recharged and stay late.  They should try it on the normal worker schedule where you only have enough time to stuff some food in your face and then go back until exhausted by end of day.  Then have to go home and maintain that.

I also note that these CEOs are always on these big vacation trips.  They'll go out for a week or 2 every month or so.  I haven't even been able to schedule a real vacation in the last decade as my time off gets burned up with life events.  Until these CEOs live the way we do, they have no room to talk, claiming big hours in the office.  Yeah, playing games, having long lunches, and otherwise just screwing around...

It struck me from the beginning of the "return to work" movement how articles kept talking about how so many executives wanted to return to the office because they felt productivity was better, but many workers were fine working from home.  If the executives had to work from open-plan desks or tiny cubicle spaces instead of their giant corner offices, I bet they'd feel differently.

[bmjohnson35]

I wasn't really that high up the corporate ladder, but I was high enough to interact with senior management from time to time.  According to Salary.com, the median salary of a CEO in the US is $800k.  Based on my experience with VP's, presidents and the like, I became somewhat disenfranchised with corporate culture.  Although I did meet some really intelligent hard working individuals at the senior level, it wasn't the norm.  More often than not, most were the typical arrogant white males who were often clueless.  Employees would read news articles about the latest CEO negotiating a compensation package worth millions annually at the same time they were receiving memos from HR informing them of pay freezes or minimal merit adjustments due to the company struggling.  I remember reading about one of our former CEO's being paid millions to cancel his contract and get rid of him.     

I wouldn't say I ever Quiet Quit, but I would say I was somewhat disenfranchised by the time I left.  I had clear boundaries between company time and personal time. Fellow associates in a similar position would carry their laptops with them on vacation and make themselves available 24/7. Many would fail to use all of their available vacation time. Due to the operational nature of my site, I was on call 24/7, but I didn't carry my laptop home and was generally unavailable during vacation.  I remember receiving a call from my manager all freaked out because I had failed to respond to an email sent by the VP over the weekend.  The VP needed some stat for a Monday morning presentation to the board of directors. I had to remind my boss that I have a life outside of work and that I didn't read emails over the weekend.  I had a great relationship with my manager, but he would be frustrated with me at times.  I was probably the only site manager who operated this way.  Fortunately, my site's operational and financial results were always excellent.

I wouldn't be surprised if I had been perceived as a quiet quitter by some.  I remember fellow associates asking me how I "got away" with my practices. I also often spoke up when others wouldn't.  I found that a lot of people were scared for their jobs.  I'm not sure how much of this was cultural and how much of it was due to people living paycheck to paycheck.  I always figured as long as the customer was happy and my site's operational/financial results were on target, I was relatively insulated from any threats.  Of course, our ever growing stash probably also played into my confidence and lack of fear.

[hounton]

I've never understood why some people would be willing to put in more than their 8-hours, for no additional compensation. They call it "quiet quitting" -- I call it "work life balance" or only working the hours you're contracted to work.

If you are in education, you have no choice if you want to be effective. I'm an administrator so it is especially true, it's the nature of the job. Another reason for the teacher shortage.

Yeah, my spouse used to be a teacher.  At one point we calculated the hourly rate based on the true number of hours worked, and it was a fraction of minimum wage.

So much this.  My contract was 37.5 hours/week.  60 was normal, 70 during exams.  If we had all done what we were contracted for the system would have collapsed.  My daughter went into a job that pays well but when the day is over she goes home and has her life.  No second generation teachers here.

I love my job and I am not unhappy about the pay.  Being a teacher has given me the opportunity to live and work overseas and become fluent in other languages.  It elevated me above my working class family and at the age of 54, I am glad that my job doesn't depend on my back like it did for my parents and brother.  Being frugal has allowed me to accumulate wealth and I secured an excellent education for my kids.  That said, I have strongly discouraged my kids from becoming teachers.  The stress and work load for the pay is really unreasonable and it often feels more like a customer service job than a job where people respect your professionalism. 

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

I think there is a balance between having a work/life balance and putting an undue burden on your coworkers/boss/company because you are trying to skirt the line between fired and employed.

I think right-sizing your efforts is a better focus than quiet quitting. Have good, firm boundaries. Occasionally be flexible with those to help out your teammates or for a special project situation.

After decades of doing 200% or more than what I "should" have put into various jobs, I am trying to figure this out for myself. Better late than never, but I wish I had had a better focus of these issues earlier in my life.

But I do take exception to what in some cases sounds like nearly obstructionist actions in terms of doing practically nothing, where if everyone in a company did that the company would go under in pretty short order.

I don't like to feel taken advantage of, but I also do like to feel like I earned my money and gave good value and contribute to the mission and goals of the organization. If you are in a position in a company where you don't have any of those feels, I think it is encumbent on you as a worker and a corporation of self to recognize that and move on to something where you do feel good about contributing.

I'm in the older millennial generation. Most of the people I worked with were intrinsically motivated to do a good job and not have the obstructionist tendencies you're describing. I think that a good amount of people generally want to do good work for their pay. The problem is, the way employers are abusing employees overall - this sentiment is going away. People are so frustrated that I'm afraid the younger generation (I know, "Get off my lawn, whippersnappers!" and all that) is taking the mindset, in general, of screw my employer as much as possible and still get paid. On the other side of things, the employers seem to be, by and large, screwing their employees as much as possible. It's a really crappy situation all around and bad if you want a productive society, but it's hard to be critical of people who have been beat up so much or seen others they know beat up, feeling this way. It would be nice to turn the ship around, but it can't just be the employees doing the turning. Employers have to make some improvements overall as well.

[cats]

I was never an extreme go-getter at work, but in the first couple of years I was definitely willing to go the extra mile here and there and was pretty motivated to do what I thought was "good" work.  Then I got pregnant.  I had HORRIBLE morning sickness until about 16 weeks and spent that whole time basically doing the absolute bare minimum at work. Some days I would seriously come in, tap a few buttons, and then just spend the day in my cubicle, trying to nap on the sly or trying not to throw up.  Once the morning sickness passed, well, pregnancy is still pretty tiring so although I wasn't quite at absolute bare minimum level, I was still doing a hell of a lot less work than I previously thought I needed to.  Still got positive performance reviews. It really opened my eyes as to how little I could do and I kinda went with it--basically focused more on a few core tasks and the parts of my job I enjoyed and had some natural talent/affinity for and spent the absolute bare minimum on parts I did not enjoy.  Totally stopped offering to do any extra work that wasn't explicitly in my job description.  Took longer lunch breaks to fit in a walk or some other exercise, was strict about leaving work in time to avoid the really horrible PM commute, just generally tried to make my well-being some kind of priority (success was mixed, even doing the bare minimum at work is still kind of a time commitment, especially when commuting is required).

I had a co-worker who got pregnant around the same time and continued to clearly put in a lot of hours during her pregnancy, then took less than the full amount of maternity leave granted, then was apparently regularly bringing work home in the evenings when her kid was a baby because she didn't have time to get everything done at the office if she was taking pumping breaks.  From some comments she let dropped it sounded like the amount of time she spent working was sometimes a source of tension between her and her spouse--not going to say my husband and I had zero issues on that front, but I don't think they were as extreme. By the time our kids were in kindergarten, she and I were making....the exact same salary.  I was still getting positive reviews and had co-workers telling my boss good things about the work I was delivering.  Okay, I might have been getting more positive comments and more glowing reviews with more work, but given the salary issue, those had pretty limited value to me.

Even with "quiet quitting", I was definitely experiencing some negative health issues that I believed stemmed from working or adjacent activities (e.g. commuting), so I really did not feel bad about "only" doing my job vs. going above and beyond.

[Metalcat]

A few thoughts….

It rubs me the wrong way when visiting certain places like say, a car rental location, when they give you forms that explain when you get a survey they “need” 10s.  That seems really not classy to be honest.

Also, I wonder if employers gave fairer raises each year, if it would have employers having more employee longevity and less turnover.

Yeah, what is the point of having a survey if they "need" 10s? Why have a range of 10 at all. If anything other than 10 is bad, then have a scale of only 2. One option good, one option bad.

No one created the scales requiring 10s, businesses started requiring 10s because that's how the customers rate. Over time it became obvious that customers who are even remotely satisfied rate extremely high, almost no one rates in the middle, and people who are not satisfied rate at the very bottom.

People are now used to 5 or 10 point rating scales, so businesses have just adapted their policies to how people use them.

Binary options also stress people out. They like the option to give their midrange opinion, they just almost never do.

[clarkfan1979]

A few thoughts….

It rubs me the wrong way when visiting certain places like say, a car rental location, when they give you forms that explain when you get a survey they “need” 10s.  That seems really not classy to be honest.

Also, I wonder if employers gave fairer raises each year, if it would have employers having more employee longevity and less turnover.

Yeah, what is the point of having a survey if they "need" 10s? Why have a range of 10 at all. If anything other than 10 is bad, then have a scale of only 2. One option good, one option bad.

No one created the scales requiring 10s, businesses started requiring 10s because that's how the customers rate. Over time it became obvious that customers who are even remotely satisfied rate extremely high, almost no one rates in the middle, and people who are not satisfied rate at the very bottom.

People are now used to 5 or 10 point rating scales, so businesses have just adapted their policies to how people use them.

Binary options also stress people out. They like the option to give their midrange opinion, they just almost never do.

When creating a survey for scientific purposes within academica, you typically have a 5 point or 7 point Likert scale with no neutral option. Humans like to preserve their brain power and a neutral option helps them achieve that. We try our best to force people to use their brain and make a decision.

If businesses do surveys and they expect all 10's, there is no variability within the data to identify improvement. With that type of strategy is seems like a huge waste of time. 

[Paul der Krake]

My employer does a biannual survey of employees to get a sense of the prevailing mood. The options are strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree.

But neutral counts as a negative when reviewing results. I understand why they chose that higher standard, and I think it generally speaks well of the organization. But you know, sometimes I don't have a strong opinion or don't care, especially when it comes to vague statements like "employer cares about employees' well being", or the hyper-mundane like "the bathrooms are adequately stocked".

[ATtiny85]

My employer does a biannual survey of employees to get a sense of the prevailing mood. The options are strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree.

But neutral counts as a negative when reviewing results. I understand why they chose that higher standard, and I think it generally speaks well of the organization. But you know, sometimes I don't have a strong opinion or don't care, especially when it comes to vague statements like "employer cares about employees' well being", or the hyper-mundane like "the bathrooms are adequately stocked".

Same at my place for many years. That treatment of the neutral answers really seemed to challenge some upper managers as they didn’t seem able to understand they needed to look at the results a bit deeper to actually understand what was going on.

Funny enough, one output was a $450k overhaul of a couple restrooms. Bright lights, fancy paint, and no ventilation, they are lovely.

[Metalcat]

A few thoughts….

It rubs me the wrong way when visiting certain places like say, a car rental location, when they give you forms that explain when you get a survey they “need” 10s.  That seems really not classy to be honest.

Also, I wonder if employers gave fairer raises each year, if it would have employers having more employee longevity and less turnover.

Yeah, what is the point of having a survey if they "need" 10s? Why have a range of 10 at all. If anything other than 10 is bad, then have a scale of only 2. One option good, one option bad.

No one created the scales requiring 10s, businesses started requiring 10s because that's how the customers rate. Over time it became obvious that customers who are even remotely satisfied rate extremely high, almost no one rates in the middle, and people who are not satisfied rate at the very bottom.

People are now used to 5 or 10 point rating scales, so businesses have just adapted their policies to how people use them.

Binary options also stress people out. They like the option to give their midrange opinion, they just almost never do.

When creating a survey for scientific purposes within academica, you typically have a 5 point or 7 point Likert scale with no neutral option. Humans like to preserve their brain power and a neutral option helps them achieve that. We try our best to force people to use their brain and make a decision.

If businesses do surveys and they expect all 10's, there is no variability within the data to identify improvement. With that type of strategy is seems like a huge waste of time.

As someone who was both a researcher and an executive of a business that depended heavily on online ratings, the way people respond to surveys and the way they respond in reviews of service tend to be a little different.

Also, it's not that the businesses "require" 10s, it's that only a perfect or near perfect score represents a satisfied customer, because that's just how people reply.

They don't reply with a 3 when they're satisfied, but there's room for improvement. If they did, then the businesses would be happy with a 3/5 or above, but that's just not how customers respond.

For example, in our ratings, there are multiple categories and one of them is punctuality. One of our doctors runs horribly, unacceptably late.However, she's very liked by her patients and they consistently give her a 5/5 for punctuality. They will mention in written reviews that she runs late, but they won't ever dock her points for it, not even a 4/5 just for that one category. I've seen a single review where she got a 4/5 for punctuality, and in reality, that patient was screaming at the admin about how unacceptable it was. So that tiny deviation from perfect was actually reflective of someone who was enraged at the moment.

If it was a research survey, people would respond differently.

So as I said, it's not like the businesses purposefully design a review system with the intention of not being happy with anything but a perfect score. The systems get used and then it becomes ridiculously self-evident that anything below a perfect score means the customer wasn't happy.

We're just following the data. If I saw 4/5s on some of my reviews, I would pay close attention and try to figure out what pissed off my patient. I wouldn't assume they were "above average" satisfied.

That's just not what the data indicate. I would LOVE if people rated me reasonably, then the fucking pressure would be off for constant perfection, but they don't. It's annoying.

[LennStar]

I've seen a single review where she got a 4/5 for punctuality, and in reality, that patient was screaming at the admin about how unacceptable it was.

Wow! That bad?

I mean I also get it from the other side. If I would rate someone 3/5 for "did his job, nor remarkable", I would be spammed by you with "what did we wrong???" when all it was is "had an appointmend and still had to wait 30 minutes".
On the upside, if you click on Amazon 3 stars, you get the very few, really good reviews of what is wrong with an item. In 50% you see a trend in those (like many describe a squeaking wheel), and the rest is just random problems all over the place - in that case you can trust the 5-stars are not only PR.

[Metalcat]

I've seen a single review where she got a 4/5 for punctuality, and in reality, that patient was screaming at the admin about how unacceptable it was.

Wow! That bad?

I mean I also get it from the other side. If I would rate someone 3/5 for "did his job, nor remarkable", I would be spammed by you with "what did we wrong???" when all it was is "had an appointmend and still had to wait 30 minutes".
On the upside, if you click on Amazon 3 stars, you get the very few, really good reviews of what is wrong with an item. In 50% you see a trend in those (like many describe a squeaking wheel), and the rest is just random problems all over the place - in that case you can trust the 5-stars are not only PR.

Product reviews are different from reviews of people IMO. Clients don't want to hurt a human persons feelings*.

FTR, I never spam anyone. But if I saw a review under 5 and knew who it was, I would take note and try to determine what they weren't happy with the next time I saw them. I've never worked for a business where a non-perfect rating will result in spamming a client. Usually it just means that we follow up with the provider who got the rating and figure out what happened.

It's very stressful for us providers though, because anything short of perfect is assumed to be quite bad, because that's usually what it means. It usually indicates that something went wrong.

My point is that I would take it as a sign that they weren't happy with something. One of the categories for my personal reviews is "staff," so whenever I see a 4/5 for "staff," it tells me that something went wrong, and I would follow up with the admins and assistants to see if there was any conflict. Typically there was.

We just use the tool as it makes sense to use the tool. I'm not going to ignore what the data tells me just because it's ridiculous. If a 4/5 tells me something went wrong, I'm going to pay attention and do something with that information.

Maybe once in a blue moon the review will be from an engineer type who rates things rationally, but those are rare outliers.

ETA: people are as irrational in negative ratings. My few bad reviews were 1/5 across all categories. So if a patient doesn't like me in general, they will rate me 1/5 for punctuality even if I'm early, and rate my staff 1/5 even if they're amazing.

If they like us, it's 5/5 unless something went wrong. If they dislike us, it's 1/5 even if almost everything went right.

[GuitarStv]

Also, it's not that the businesses "require" 10s, it's that only a perfect or near perfect score represents a satisfied customer, because that's just how people reply.

They don't reply with a 3 when they're satisfied, but there's room for improvement. If they did, then the businesses would be happy with a 3/5 or above, but that's just not how customers respond.

It's exceedingly rare that I rate anything 10/10 or 5/5.  To get that rating, you must exceed all expectations.  Usually when reading online reviews due to the common practice of paying people to fake reviews, I ignore anything that shows perfect look for real ones.

But now I'm stuck with a conundrum.  Do I conform to the current stupidity of perfect ratings for average performance (knowing that employers appear to view perfection as 'acceptable' . . . or do I keep performing sensible ratings in the hope that at some point the world will return to some semblance of sanity?

[coppertop]

I find it very frustrating when answering surveys to not have an opportunity to explain why I gave a three or four star rating instead of a five.  A five, to me, indicates a stellar, above-and-beyond performance, and certainly not every encounter with a business is at that level.  Being able to explain each answer would be helpful, but most surveys don't seem to include that option. 

[Metalcat]

Also, it's not that the businesses "require" 10s, it's that only a perfect or near perfect score represents a satisfied customer, because that's just how people reply.

They don't reply with a 3 when they're satisfied, but there's room for improvement. If they did, then the businesses would be happy with a 3/5 or above, but that's just not how customers respond.

It's exceedingly rare that I rate anything 10/10 or 5/5.  To get that rating, you must exceed all expectations.  Usually when reading online reviews due to the common practice of paying people to fake reviews, I ignore anything that shows perfect look for real ones.

But now I'm stuck with a conundrum.  Do I conform to the current stupidity of perfect ratings for average performance (knowing that employers appear to view perfection as 'acceptable' . . . or do I keep performing sensible ratings in the hope that at some point the world will return to some semblance of sanity?

Lol, IIRC you're an engineer, right?

Then yeah, you're one of the outliers who rates that way, and yes, it likely hurts whomever is being reviewed.

[LennStar]

It's quite a shitty system where a sensibel rating get's someone in trouble.

[GuitarStv]

Also, it's not that the businesses "require" 10s, it's that only a perfect or near perfect score represents a satisfied customer, because that's just how people reply.

They don't reply with a 3 when they're satisfied, but there's room for improvement. If they did, then the businesses would be happy with a 3/5 or above, but that's just not how customers respond.

It's exceedingly rare that I rate anything 10/10 or 5/5.  To get that rating, you must exceed all expectations.  Usually when reading online reviews due to the common practice of paying people to fake reviews, I ignore anything that shows perfect look for real ones.

But now I'm stuck with a conundrum.  Do I conform to the current stupidity of perfect ratings for average performance (knowing that employers appear to view perfection as 'acceptable' . . . or do I keep performing sensible ratings in the hope that at some point the world will return to some semblance of sanity?

Lol, IIRC you're an engineer, right?

Then yeah, you're one of the outliers who rates that way, and yes, it likely hurts whomever is being reviewed.

Yes, engineer.  I feel like we need to publicize correct metrics to the public for decision making.

5 - You are considering murdering your spouse to purchase from here again.  It's that good.
4 - You were shocked at how good this thing/service was.
3 - Things were at the expected high quality.
2 - Below average
1 - Shit.

A solid 3 with some 4s means that you've had some pretty damned good service.  Which sounds about right.

It makes more sense than what appears to be going on right now where it's not possible to indicate good service:
5 - Average
4 - Shit
3 - Shit
2 - Shit
1 - Shit

[SuperNintendo Chalmers]

Also, it's not that the businesses "require" 10s, it's that only a perfect or near perfect score represents a satisfied customer, because that's just how people reply.

They don't reply with a 3 when they're satisfied, but there's room for improvement. If they did, then the businesses would be happy with a 3/5 or above, but that's just not how customers respond.

It's exceedingly rare that I rate anything 10/10 or 5/5.  To get that rating, you must exceed all expectations.  Usually when reading online reviews due to the common practice of paying people to fake reviews, I ignore anything that shows perfect look for real ones.

But now I'm stuck with a conundrum.  Do I conform to the current stupidity of perfect ratings for average performance (knowing that employers appear to view perfection as 'acceptable' . . . or do I keep performing sensible ratings in the hope that at some point the world will return to some semblance of sanity?

Lol, IIRC you're an engineer, right?

Then yeah, you're one of the outliers who rates that way, and yes, it likely hurts whomever is being reviewed.

Yes, engineer.  I feel like we need to publicize correct metrics to the public for decision making.

5 - You are considering murdering your spouse to purchase from here again.  It's that good.
4 - You were shocked at how good this thing/service was.
3 - Things were at the expected high quality.
2 - Below average
1 - Shit.

A solid 3 with some 4s means that you've had some pretty damned good service.  Which sounds about right.

It makes more sense than what appears to be going on right now where it's not possible to indicate good service:
5 - Average
4 - Shit
3 - Shit
2 - Shit
1 - Shit

The 5 description above may be a bit extreme, but I definitely agree with 5's being reserved for something truly special/outlier.  I'm generous with the 4s, but a 5 signifies the upper 5-10% or so of quality IMO.  That said, if it's a rating for personal service as opposed to a product, then yeah, I'm only going to respond if I'm giving the top marks.

[jinga nation]

Also, it's not that the businesses "require" 10s, it's that only a perfect or near perfect score represents a satisfied customer, because that's just how people reply.

They don't reply with a 3 when they're satisfied, but there's room for improvement. If they did, then the businesses would be happy with a 3/5 or above, but that's just not how customers respond.

It's exceedingly rare that I rate anything 10/10 or 5/5.  To get that rating, you must exceed all expectations.  Usually when reading online reviews due to the common practice of paying people to fake reviews, I ignore anything that shows perfect look for real ones.

But now I'm stuck with a conundrum.  Do I conform to the current stupidity of perfect ratings for average performance (knowing that employers appear to view perfection as 'acceptable' . . . or do I keep performing sensible ratings in the hope that at some point the world will return to some semblance of sanity?

Lol, IIRC you're an engineer, right?

Then yeah, you're one of the outliers who rates that way, and yes, it likely hurts whomever is being reviewed.

Yes, engineer.  I feel like we need to publicize correct metrics to the public for decision making.

5 - You are considering murdering your spouse to purchase from here again.  It's that good.
4 - You were shocked at how good this thing/service was.
3 - Things were at the expected high quality.
2 - Below average
1 - Shit.

A solid 3 with some 4s means that you've had some pretty damned good service.  Which sounds about right.

It makes more sense than what appears to be going on right now where it's not possible to indicate good service:
5 - Average
4 - Shit
3 - Shit
2 - Shit
1 - Shit

The 5 description above may be a bit extreme, but I definitely agree with 5's being reserved for something truly special/outlier.  I'm generous with the 4s, but a 5 signifies the upper 5-10% or so of quality IMO.  That said, if it's a rating for personal service as opposed to a product, then yeah, I'm only going to respond if I'm giving the top marks.

Engineer here.
5/5 or 10/10, to me, and at my long-term FedGov customer site, means the product/service met requirements 100%, or delivered as described. 4/5 means good enough for govt customer. Something truly special that wows and is above the statement of work is an 11/10, or 7/5.
3/5 means average, could be better with some effort.
2/5 means the service or product was below par.
1/5 - too damn fucking lazy. or also means I wanted to give zero but forced to give 1.
There should be zeros on the damn survey. Any survey without a zero choice gets a zero for the survey. :-p