5 ms·

That's small ball leverage. Real leverage is being irreplaceable so that if you leave they're screwed. Think of it like being a monopolist supplier. Competition

That's small ball leverage. Real leverage is being irreplaceable so that if you leave they're screwed. Think of it like being a monopolist supplier. Competition depresses wages, so the way to be rich is to be a monopolist. Straight out of Peter Theil, though I don't think he'd like this version as much.

gentleteblor 10y ago
Being irreplaceable is only step 1 (see: "...killing at work"). Some companies probably don't know which employees are irreplaceable (lower level managers might, but that might not mean much [e.g. stack ranking environment]). Even worse, there are tons of employees that don't realize, track or display their value. It's not enough to be irreplaceable.
- SapphireSun 10y ago
  If your managers don't know it, odds are you're probably not as irreplaceable as you think. Basically, it should be a very simple story to communicate: "I leave, this system goes down because XYZ. That costs you some highly uncertain or unbounded amount and could bring down the business." If they care about their business, they're paying attention. (Not to say you should be this blunt, but it should be the subtext.)
  - hibikir 10y ago
    I think that the "caring about their business" is the grandparent's point: There are a lot of bad low level and middle managers whose whole reason for being bad is either not caring or having no ability to measure employee contributions. I think of a job I quit a while ago: I was getting all the credit in the world, as I had been hired by the rare competent manager. The department had a non-public document rating each employee and contractor, and their idea of how likely they were to leave. I got to take a peek at it, and any technical employee could use it to easily identify the bad managers, if just because their team's scores were all wrong: Terrible, toxic employees being rated as great and at risk of fleeing because they behaved like Linus. Good people that were actively looking for other jobs seen as under average but with no risk of leaving... completely wrong. In the last 15 years I have seen plenty of good and bad developers, but, for the most part, there is little disagreements among the technical staff about each other's competence. If kept in a purely technical role, a bad employee can produce nothing. Bad managers, however, are often seen as successes by their own managers, and end up killing teams and companies.
  - gentleteblor 10y ago
    I'm not sure it's that simple, especially on large systems. I've seen several cases where an employee was responsible for only a small section of a huge system but was actually the only one who knew how the whole thing fit together. We (his co-workers) all knew it, we were asking him questions all day. Our manager had a vague idea he was good, but that was it. The system doesn't always reward the best performers...it doesn't even know who they are (that's why performance management is a multi-billion dollar industry).
    - lawpoop 10y ago
      > The system doesn't always reward the best performer Reading your comment, it brought back to mind: employee value isn't a linear scale, from "bad" to "good". What they contribute is complex.
      - gentleteblor 10y ago
        Amen. If that isn't the truth, i don't know what is. To me, that complexity is what makes it difficult for the system to find and reward the right people. That's what make it easy for employee value to get lost in the numbers, in exhaustion, in time crunches and stack rankings.
angersock 10y ago
Any smart engineer or manager knows that the very first piece of a system you try to remove is the irreplaceable one, because that is the most dangerous piece when--not if!--it fails. If a place is so incompetent that they foster such people, they deserve to get taken for a ride.
- SapphireSun 10y ago
  You're absolutely right. The trick is to get into a game where there are barriers to entry (e.g. hard to acquire knowledge, legal barriers, monetary barriers). It's almost like being an entrepreneur!
ScottBurson 10y ago
"Never make yourself indispensible. If you can't be replaced, you can't be promoted." -- Something I once read somewhere. I can't say I've followed its advice, but I also can't say I've observed it to be false.
- dagw 10y ago
  Personally I don't want to be promoted. Promotions suck. Just keep feeding me hard technical problems and keep administrative and management responsibility as far away from me as possible and I'll be happy.
  - igf 10y ago
    Unfortunately the indispensible employee generally isn't the one getting fed hard technical problems, he's the one responsible for maintaining the complex, mission-critical thingy that only he understands and which seems to break down on a regular basis. I do not envy the indispensible employee.
    - Ntrails 10y ago
      It's a trade off. I got in at 9.30, left at 5, was overpaid and spent most of my day reading HN, doing side projects, or playing cool js games like that cat one. My only meaningful responsibility was to make sure we didn't break down too much or for too long, and that took a few hours a week. I think that for some people that would have been a trade off they'd be happy to make (and in many ways it was attractive), I think if I'd got on with the people I worked with I might still be there.
    - Terr_ 10y ago
      Also pity them if they want to fix the mission-critical thingy (after staring into the void for so long) but the business' "plan" is to quietly limp along forever.
- adrianN 10y ago
  Who wants to change job titles if instead they can just keep doing what they're good at for more money?
vibrato 10y ago
Real leverage is financial independence. No matter how badly they need your skillset, there is likely to be someone who can do the job. If an employee's best alternative is to do precisely whatever they want with their time, that is a more powerful position than anything they can provide to an employer.
- SapphireSun 10y ago
  That's part of the answer, but if you're financially independent and chilling that won't get anyone to pay you anything more. It's the ability to walk away from a deal, but it's not the deal itself.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - gentleteblor 10y ago
    These are both great points, really. Financial independence is the dream. Until then, the deal matters.

gentleteblor 10y ago

Being irreplaceable is only step 1 (see: "...killing at work"). Some companies probably don't know which employees are irreplaceable (lower level managers might, but that might not mean much [e.g. stack ranking environment]). Even worse, there are tons of employees that don't realize, track or display their value. It's not enough to be irreplaceable.

SapphireSun 10y ago
If your managers don't know it, odds are you're probably not as irreplaceable as you think. Basically, it should be a very simple story to communicate: "I leave, this system goes down because XYZ. That costs you some highly uncertain or unbounded amount and could bring down the business." If they care about their business, they're paying attention. (Not to say you should be this blunt, but it should be the subtext.)
- hibikir 10y ago
  I think that the "caring about their business" is the grandparent's point: There are a lot of bad low level and middle managers whose whole reason for being bad is either not caring or having no ability to measure employee contributions. I think of a job I quit a while ago: I was getting all the credit in the world, as I had been hired by the rare competent manager. The department had a non-public document rating each employee and contractor, and their idea of how likely they were to leave. I got to take a peek at it, and any technical employee could use it to easily identify the bad managers, if just because their team's scores were all wrong: Terrible, toxic employees being rated as great and at risk of fleeing because they behaved like Linus. Good people that were actively looking for other jobs seen as under average but with no risk of leaving... completely wrong. In the last 15 years I have seen plenty of good and bad developers, but, for the most part, there is little disagreements among the technical staff about each other's competence. If kept in a purely technical role, a bad employee can produce nothing. Bad managers, however, are often seen as successes by their own managers, and end up killing teams and companies.
- gentleteblor 10y ago
  I'm not sure it's that simple, especially on large systems. I've seen several cases where an employee was responsible for only a small section of a huge system but was actually the only one who knew how the whole thing fit together. We (his co-workers) all knew it, we were asking him questions all day. Our manager had a vague idea he was good, but that was it. The system doesn't always reward the best performers...it doesn't even know who they are (that's why performance management is a multi-billion dollar industry).
  - lawpoop 10y ago
    > The system doesn't always reward the best performer Reading your comment, it brought back to mind: employee value isn't a linear scale, from "bad" to "good". What they contribute is complex.
    - gentleteblor 10y ago
      Amen. If that isn't the truth, i don't know what is. To me, that complexity is what makes it difficult for the system to find and reward the right people. That's what make it easy for employee value to get lost in the numbers, in exhaustion, in time crunches and stack rankings.

angersock 10y ago

Any smart engineer or manager knows that the very first piece of a system you try to remove is the irreplaceable one, because that is the most dangerous piece when--not if!--it fails. If a place is so incompetent that they foster such people, they deserve to get taken for a ride.

SapphireSun 10y ago
You're absolutely right. The trick is to get into a game where there are barriers to entry (e.g. hard to acquire knowledge, legal barriers, monetary barriers). It's almost like being an entrepreneur!

ScottBurson 10y ago

"Never make yourself indispensible. If you can't be replaced, you can't be promoted." -- Something I once read somewhere. I can't say I've followed its advice, but I also can't say I've observed it to be false.

dagw 10y ago
Personally I don't want to be promoted. Promotions suck. Just keep feeding me hard technical problems and keep administrative and management responsibility as far away from me as possible and I'll be happy.
- igf 10y ago
  Unfortunately the indispensible employee generally isn't the one getting fed hard technical problems, he's the one responsible for maintaining the complex, mission-critical thingy that only he understands and which seems to break down on a regular basis. I do not envy the indispensible employee.
  - Ntrails 10y ago
    It's a trade off. I got in at 9.30, left at 5, was overpaid and spent most of my day reading HN, doing side projects, or playing cool js games like that cat one. My only meaningful responsibility was to make sure we didn't break down too much or for too long, and that took a few hours a week. I think that for some people that would have been a trade off they'd be happy to make (and in many ways it was attractive), I think if I'd got on with the people I worked with I might still be there.
  - Terr_ 10y ago
    Also pity them if they want to fix the mission-critical thingy (after staring into the void for so long) but the business' "plan" is to quietly limp along forever.
adrianN 10y ago
Who wants to change job titles if instead they can just keep doing what they're good at for more money?

vibrato 10y ago

Real leverage is financial independence. No matter how badly they need your skillset, there is likely to be someone who can do the job. If an employee's best alternative is to do precisely whatever they want with their time, that is a more powerful position than anything they can provide to an employer.

SapphireSun 10y ago
That's part of the answer, but if you're financially independent and chilling that won't get anyone to pay you anything more. It's the ability to walk away from a deal, but it's not the deal itself.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- gentleteblor 10y ago
  These are both great points, really. Financial independence is the dream. Until then, the deal matters.