4 ms·

I remember a similar HN discussion, months ago. Someone posed the question - given there's evidence that people do better work when they're treated well, why do

by J-dawg 10y ago

I remember a similar HN discussion, months ago. Someone posed the question - given there's evidence that people do better work when they're treated well, why don't more places go out of their way to look after their workers? It seems to be a no-brainer. There was one response that I wish I'd bookmarked. They basically said that there is a sociopathic kind of leader who actually derives much of their feeling of success from being "above" their workers. That one comment really changed my view on the subject. One tends to assume that leaders are rational and will optimise for the success of the company. I've started to think my old assumptions weren't true, there's actually a type of person that derives their self-worth from being "alpha" and will even act against the interests of their company in the pursuit of this feeling. So I think perhaps these people don't even realise how bad it sounds when they're bragging about unethical behaviour. To them it's part and parcel of being "successful". It's utterly alien to me, but viewing the actions of managers through this new lens has helped to make sense of some of the apparently irrational decisions I've seen in the past.

arethuza 10y ago
"leaders are rational and will optimise for the success of the company" More like leaders are rational and will optimise for their own personal success which may or may not involve optimising for the success of the company. Of course we all do this to a certain extent just that, from what I've seen, senior leadership types of large companies tend to be much more obviously dedicated to personal success at all costs. A while back I worked at a multinational and, being fairly senior, was directly exposed to the whims of the executive class - which frequently seemed rather odd (to say the least). When a colleague explained how bonus compensation was linked to their decision making things became much clearer!
ironic_ali 10y ago
"They basically said that there is a sociopathic kind of leader who actually derives much of their feeling of success from being "above" their workers. ...there's actually a type of person that derives their self-worth from being "alpha" and will even act against the interests of their company in the pursuit of this feeling." I was a senior BA (contract) on a govt project for about $22 million (not a big deal in the scheme of things). The tech lead, looking back, was the classic narcissist (CN) and probably on the sociopathic scale - incompetent, bullying when questioned, believed his crap and had got away with it for years. One unfortunate day I deigned to question this guy's pronouncement of take all the low hanging fruit from the design and do them first. There was no thought of future impact to infrastructure or scale. And disappointingly, the PM, BA, Dev & Test teams didn't stand up to him - only bitched behind his back. Cut a long story short, from then on he ghosted me in meetings and after spitting my coffee (in what I discovered was my last meeting) at more of his bs, I was told on the Friday I had 'negative feedback' and had to work my two weeks notice and finish up. I asked his pet PM how that worked as they obviously had no confidence and crickets followed - I never returned. The project failed and made a couple of paragraphs in the papers, I was interviewed by the minister's team months down the track, explained why the project failed and watched the carpet get lifted up and $22 million of tax payers cash get swept under it. CN is still there as it's next to impossible to fire govt employees in this country, but apparently he has little or no responsibility now. Small mercies for the tax payer I guess. I have many other stories from two decades in this game, but this is the most recent and the first where I didn't finish my contracted time.
bjourne 10y ago
> I remember a similar HN discussion, months ago. Someone posed the question - given there's evidence that people do better work when they're treated well, why don't more places go out of their way to look after their workers? It seems to be a no-brainer. I tend towards the evolutionary explanation. In primitive times, when people lived in small bands it was beneficial if everyone helped each other to make the group strong to survive. Perhaps some men found it more beneficial for them to humiliate all their male peers so that they would become the alphas of the groups and the females would mate with them instead...

by J-dawg 10y ago

arethuza 10y ago

"leaders are rational and will optimise for the success of the company" More like leaders are rational and will optimise for their own personal success which may or may not involve optimising for the success of the company. Of course we all do this to a certain extent just that, from what I've seen, senior leadership types of large companies tend to be much more obviously dedicated to personal success at all costs. A while back I worked at a multinational and, being fairly senior, was directly exposed to the whims of the executive class - which frequently seemed rather odd (to say the least). When a colleague explained how bonus compensation was linked to their decision making things became much clearer!

ironic_ali 10y ago

"They basically said that there is a sociopathic kind of leader who actually derives much of their feeling of success from being "above" their workers. ...there's actually a type of person that derives their self-worth from being "alpha" and will even act against the interests of their company in the pursuit of this feeling." I was a senior BA (contract) on a govt project for about $22 million (not a big deal in the scheme of things). The tech lead, looking back, was the classic narcissist (CN) and probably on the sociopathic scale - incompetent, bullying when questioned, believed his crap and had got away with it for years. One unfortunate day I deigned to question this guy's pronouncement of take all the low hanging fruit from the design and do them first. There was no thought of future impact to infrastructure or scale. And disappointingly, the PM, BA, Dev & Test teams didn't stand up to him - only bitched behind his back. Cut a long story short, from then on he ghosted me in meetings and after spitting my coffee (in what I discovered was my last meeting) at more of his bs, I was told on the Friday I had 'negative feedback' and had to work my two weeks notice and finish up. I asked his pet PM how that worked as they obviously had no confidence and crickets followed - I never returned. The project failed and made a couple of paragraphs in the papers, I was interviewed by the minister's team months down the track, explained why the project failed and watched the carpet get lifted up and $22 million of tax payers cash get swept under it. CN is still there as it's next to impossible to fire govt employees in this country, but apparently he has little or no responsibility now. Small mercies for the tax payer I guess. I have many other stories from two decades in this game, but this is the most recent and the first where I didn't finish my contracted time.

bjourne 10y ago

> I remember a similar HN discussion, months ago. Someone posed the question - given there's evidence that people do better work when they're treated well, why don't more places go out of their way to look after their workers? It seems to be a no-brainer. I tend towards the evolutionary explanation. In primitive times, when people lived in small bands it was beneficial if everyone helped each other to make the group strong to survive. Perhaps some men found it more beneficial for them to humiliate all their male peers so that they would become the alphas of the groups and the females would mate with them instead...