Comment by vel0city

> We can improve work output by improving life, but the reverse isn’t really true

I've definitely experienced the "improving work output improved life", in that being better at my job has led to continual job growth which has put me in more fun positions and better compensation.

> the person could advise the employer on how to improve conditions so that employees want to do the thing

For large organizations (especially government ones) this is often a sisyphean task. Feel free to keep rolling that boulder though. Personally I'll choose to improve myself for some percentage of my personal time, and suggest to others to do the same. That might be improvement in your current role, or improvement towards a role you actually want to do in the future. I'll also try and suggest to my management to ensure they are ensuring their workers are staying sharp and figure out good ways to keep them so with what company resources are alloted to them. But in the end, you are the one most looking out for you, don't expect your employer to have your best interests at heart. If all your work improvement solely comes from your employer, there's a good chance you won't continue to be relevant after a while. I agree this shouldn't be the case in a "good" society, but its the reality of life. Even for an employer who isn't overly profit-focused and does choose to invest in their employees growth, you can't always assume the ones choosing your future development are actually in touch with what is coming in your future.

> While some people may coast on job security, others thrive because they can take risks and don’t have to be afraid all the time.

In a lot of these overly bureaucratic orgs we're talking about which create these roles which are hard to remove people from allowing such workers to coast forever, they're also often not great about rewarding risk taking.