3 ms·
> They might be high performers while being technically unprofitable. Why would you do that vs moving the high performers to the business critical projects?
by balls187 7y ago
> They might be high performers while being technically unprofitable.
Why would you do that vs moving the high performers to the business critical projects?
- ceejayoz 7y agoAny number of reasons. They might be high performers in skill sets not needed in those business critical projects. You might be leery of the time needed to get up to speed on something completely different.
- lostcolony 7y agoSo you're saying software devs are just cogs that can be easily replaced?
- austhrow743 7y agoYes
- lliamander 7y agoYou can't just swap out members of a team, or add more members to a team, and expect the result to be faster execution (in short run) even if the new team members are high performers. In the first case, you're losing team members with tribal knowledge of the system and its requirements. In the second case, you're exponentially increasing the pathways of communication. In either case, you still have the ramp-up time for new team members.
- balls187 7y agoNo. I'm implying that rather than laying off top performers you find them a different role in your organization. Granted if the skill set is incredibly niche--such as hand optimizing HC12 assembly and you've moved to ARM then perhaps not. It's hard to imagine a scenario where an entire project teams skillset is so niche that they couldn't find a home for top developers in other parts of the org.
- Legogris 7y agoBecause they might not be high performers there? There is no such thing as an objective "high performer" in any area.
- lliamander 7y agoNot necessarily a bad idea, but disrupting those business critical teams by just swapping out people could actually slow down execution and hurt revenue.