Anti-motivation in the workforce

Offices are often filled with inner struggles between workers competing for promotions, social status, and kudos from their employers (in the form of bonuses, gift cards, gold stars, etc). Generally, these conflicts create a slight distraction from the work at hand, but can improve production overall by reinforcing quality work habits. However, other conflicts are counter-productive, and, worse of all, can be implemented by the employer.

Let's use the state worker system for an example. Especially when starting at the bottom, workers are pushed forward in time-determinative promotions regardless of actual competency or performance (excluding, of course, workers with egregiously poor work ethics). That is understandable, since state workers generally start pretty low on the pay scale when they have no prior experience. However, it means that if a worker excels at producing quality work, then her only benefit is having more work tossed her way without any real fiscal incentive to be realized, often for as long as 7 years, until she is eligible to apply for a higher position with limited spots. How successful can this system be at promoting a strong work ethic when a worker must wait 7 years before any hard work pays off financially? Failing to produce arduously may earn stern talks, lack of trust, non-preferential assignments, and possible involuntary transfer. However, no pay cut and generally if the unmotivated worker produces the bare minimum requirements of the position she will still get the annual promotions. Meanwhile, the harder worker is rewarded with more stress, expectations, longer hours, responsibilities, and no financial distinction.

The reason for this breakdown in the promotion scheme appears to be a fear of discrimination. The state cannot discriminate against workers on account of ethnicity, gender, religion, etc. This still allows the state to discriminate against workers based on production, but that poor production better be well documented with warnings issued and follow the proper chain of command. The monetary risk of being sued for discrimination, coupled with the expense of fully documenting all workers' production mishaps and then following the steps to lead to disciplinary action, leaves the state with no fiscally sound choice but to blindly promote workers on a set schedule unless they are horrendously atrocious at their job.

The conflict here is the state's interest in promoting work ethic against the state's interest in protecting itself from a discrimination suit. Loss prevention wins out, and motivation is left to the wind. Fear of discriminating kills promoting hard work, and results in a system that almost promotes anti-motivation in the workforce.