3 ms·

It’s not so ridiculous... an organisation will want the decision makers to be the people with the most skin in the game, and the easiest way to achieve this is

by Tycho 7y ago

It’s not so ridiculous... an organisation will want the decision makers to be the people with the most skin in the game, and the easiest way to achieve this is pay them more money. Maybe the answer is for more people to work as contractors rather than employees, maybe as part of guilds with which firms can strike long-term contracts. But many office jobs are so amorphous, hard to think how a guild could supply the labour.

dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
This assumes that the managers are the decision makers. Very often their role is just to manage the team, i.e. to make sure everyone is doing their job properly and there are no problems on the way. Personally I would have no problems taking orders who earns less, heck I don't even know how much my manager earns so I don't really see the problem.
- corysama 7y ago
  In the games industry, we have the "Producer" role which, when executed well, is someone dedicated to organizing the troops, but does not make strategic decisions. So, the producer might sit down with the lead engineer and lead designer and help make sure that the implementation of changes proposed to the design are scheduled realistically. Even though producers are in a management-like role, they are generally considered on the same tier as other workers (engineers, designers, artists). Their pay grade skews lower than engineering, higher than art and design. There are still highly-paid product leads and corporate officers all over gaming. But, I wonder if something like the producer role is present elsewhere in the software industry (I've only worked in gaming). Or, if it should be...
  - jldugger 7y ago
    > the "Producer" role which, when executed well, is someone dedicated to organizing the troops, but does not make strategic decisions. That's a project manager, as opposed to like, 'people managers.' PMs are the unfortunate dotted line in org charts, with zero power but massive responsibilities -- shipping on time and under budget!
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Asooka 7y ago
Past a certain point increasing your compensation decreases your skin in the game, because you have so much money saved up, you can live off comfortably off investing, real estate management, etc. This is usually about the level of a top individual contributor, so management is way above that level anyway. You can't have very much skin in the game if you already have as much skin as you want on yourself.
- Tycho 7y ago
  We’re talking about management all through the layers of the company. Vast majority of managers don’t have so much wealth that they are indifferent to the many years of future earnings.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> an organisation will want the decision makers to be the people with the most skin in the game, and the easiest way to achieve this is pay them more money. Paying them more money (in the form of a higher fixed salary) gives them less skin in the game; skin in the game is what is value at risk; because of declining marginal utility, the more is given unconditionally, the less is at risk, ceteris paribus.
- Tycho 7y ago
  But it’s not given unconditionally, they can be fired at any time. Highly paid employees typically face a huge switching cost and have every incentive to do whatever ensures they will keep collecting the pay cheque, long term, letting them maintain the lifestyle to which they’ve become accustomed. Of course, if we are talking about earning massive bonuses from hidden/delayed risks, that’s a different matter.

by Tycho 7y ago

dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago

This assumes that the managers are the decision makers. Very often their role is just to manage the team, i.e. to make sure everyone is doing their job properly and there are no problems on the way. Personally I would have no problems taking orders who earns less, heck I don't even know how much my manager earns so I don't really see the problem.

corysama 7y ago
In the games industry, we have the "Producer" role which, when executed well, is someone dedicated to organizing the troops, but does not make strategic decisions. So, the producer might sit down with the lead engineer and lead designer and help make sure that the implementation of changes proposed to the design are scheduled realistically. Even though producers are in a management-like role, they are generally considered on the same tier as other workers (engineers, designers, artists). Their pay grade skews lower than engineering, higher than art and design. There are still highly-paid product leads and corporate officers all over gaming. But, I wonder if something like the producer role is present elsewhere in the software industry (I've only worked in gaming). Or, if it should be...
- jldugger 7y ago
  > the "Producer" role which, when executed well, is someone dedicated to organizing the troops, but does not make strategic decisions. That's a project manager, as opposed to like, 'people managers.' PMs are the unfortunate dotted line in org charts, with zero power but massive responsibilities -- shipping on time and under budget!

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Asooka 7y ago

Past a certain point increasing your compensation decreases your skin in the game, because you have so much money saved up, you can live off comfortably off investing, real estate management, etc. This is usually about the level of a top individual contributor, so management is way above that level anyway. You can't have very much skin in the game if you already have as much skin as you want on yourself.

Tycho 7y ago
We’re talking about management all through the layers of the company. Vast majority of managers don’t have so much wealth that they are indifferent to the many years of future earnings.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> an organisation will want the decision makers to be the people with the most skin in the game, and the easiest way to achieve this is pay them more money. Paying them more money (in the form of a higher fixed salary) gives them less skin in the game; skin in the game is what is value at risk; because of declining marginal utility, the more is given unconditionally, the less is at risk, ceteris paribus.

Tycho 7y ago
But it’s not given unconditionally, they can be fired at any time. Highly paid employees typically face a huge switching cost and have every incentive to do whatever ensures they will keep collecting the pay cheque, long term, letting them maintain the lifestyle to which they’ve become accustomed. Of course, if we are talking about earning massive bonuses from hidden/delayed risks, that’s a different matter.