3 ms·
The most appealing thing to me about that is performance based pay. It's not hard to imagine closing dozens of hires a year in a moderately interesting company
by kev009 9y ago
The most appealing thing to me about that is performance based pay. It's not hard to imagine closing dozens of hires a year in a moderately interesting company. It probably feels great too, as you're greatly helping individuals and managers and the company by landing talent.
In an engineering org, I typically see low salary multiples for the lowest and highest performers. The lowest may be barely responsive while the highest is trading away health and life to make something happen. There is a real ceiling for pay vs effort and talent in technical roles. Tech management roles can allow for less effort and incentive programs are easier to come by, but it is still very seldom performance based where again the difference between the worst and the best is marginal. Cynically, it seems the most effective game theory to maximize ROI in a technical org is to be a shitbag and perform minimally. I can't bring myself to slump like that.
I am really thinking I need to transition into something like this or sales to build wealth in a few years. I would trade 10 years of grueling effort for financial freedom. I traded 15 years of basically unpaid grueling learning to become a systems expert. Very silly from an ROI perspective. I can always get intellectual stimulation from open source I guess, but I'd caution anyone from taking the path I did.
- ktta 9y agoYour thoughts don't seem wrong, but I'm reminded of the phrase 'Grass is greener on the other side'. In a recruiter role, networking might be everything. You can be great and know the domain specific knowledge, but missing out on one contact might cost you your salary. To me it seems to be a very risky job. Isn't this similar to being a real estate agent in a way? Sure, we see the successful ones, but obviously there are people who go months without a sale.
- kev009 9y agoYeah most things follow a Pareto principle, and I'm sure this is no different. Whatever I do career wise, I aim to be one of the best at it, at least the best that I can personally be. I suspect it would take a while to learn all the soft skills and what candidates and managers are looking for, but I don't think I'd have any trouble rising up. Likewise for sales, that is likely a very grueling job, but I think it comes with commensurate pay for high performance. The real gap here from my perspective being in a deeply technical role, you really don't have high upside, even at lauded companies, vs these other roles at those /same/ companies. Maybe I am just looking for excuses and entrepreneurism is the answer, but on glance it seems like the path to becoming a {talent,sales} rainmaker is far less risky for a good piece of the pie?