5 ms·

One has to wonder how many of the 'high' performers (especially in software industry) are just people extremely good at drawing visibility to their work vs thei

One has to wonder how many of the 'high' performers (especially in software industry) are just people extremely good at drawing visibility to their work vs their peers who might not be having such 'skills'.

ErikAugust 7y ago
It is true of a lot of industries and realms. Even recruiting in athletics, which one would think is easier to quantify, is a lot of (self)-promotion.
kirstenbirgit 7y ago
It's an interesting point. I've met many developers who might be great at what they do, but like to focus on the tech itself (e.g. spending a lot of hours on improving infrastructure or fixing code style), so there's little appreciation from the business owners that don't understand how their work helps earn more money for the business, but at least they feel like they're doing their work the "correct" way.
looping__lui 7y ago
The highest performing and most effective individuals on my teams (5x-10x) are constantly hiding and downplaying their achievements. A sign for a 5x-10xEr is “yeah, that was easy, I just used some OpenSource, wrote a some scripts and integrated it; not worth to mention” vs the “I build everything from scratch because I believe we have a very unique need and I can do better than everybody else” People I consider 5x-10xer find very elegant solutions to very hard problems and are more often than not embarrassed about how little effort was required and constantly downplay it.
wuchek 7y ago
I had mixed feelings about this piece for reasons related to what you're mentioning. I've been the target of this sort of thing at points in my life, being the high performer I suppose, but have also seen the converse of it. I imagine this varies by field, but I notice two counterpoints to the perspective in the piece: First, in my field there is a ton of corruption and lack of integrity. Glimpses into this appear in places like HN, but even then coverage seem to excuse the corruption away in Machiavellian ways I find infuriating. I know I have benefited from this corruption even when I'm trying to avoid it, but I see it all the time. Most importantly, it seems the likelihood of corruption increases exponentially with the level of "performance" in the field, so that the difference between someone performing highly versus very highly is often due to corruption or sociopolitical whims. Second, even when there probably are genuine differences in performance, it's often very small, but the compensation gets magnified 10x. So, for example, the difference between the highest performer and the next highest performer might be small in an absolute practical sense, but the highest performer might see their salary increased significantly, while the next highest sees their salary frozen. In either of these cases, the inequity is very real. If these researchers came in and studied my field, what they'd really be picking up on is justified resentment. If you generalize this to society at large I think there are significant implications. Inequality is a major problem in many places, and I strongly believe the extent of it is unwarranted in general. I view the research in the article with extreme skepticism because it is incredibly naive. It seems to assume that all (or most of) the metrics of performance are valid, are warranted, and that everyone attains status on those metrics in ethical, morally defensible ways, or that their status on those metrics reflects themselves rather than the output of a complex, quasi-random system of social inputs.

ErikAugust 7y ago

It is true of a lot of industries and realms. Even recruiting in athletics, which one would think is easier to quantify, is a lot of (self)-promotion.

kirstenbirgit 7y ago

It's an interesting point. I've met many developers who might be great at what they do, but like to focus on the tech itself (e.g. spending a lot of hours on improving infrastructure or fixing code style), so there's little appreciation from the business owners that don't understand how their work helps earn more money for the business, but at least they feel like they're doing their work the "correct" way.

looping__lui 7y ago

The highest performing and most effective individuals on my teams (5x-10x) are constantly hiding and downplaying their achievements. A sign for a 5x-10xEr is “yeah, that was easy, I just used some OpenSource, wrote a some scripts and integrated it; not worth to mention” vs the “I build everything from scratch because I believe we have a very unique need and I can do better than everybody else” People I consider 5x-10xer find very elegant solutions to very hard problems and are more often than not embarrassed about how little effort was required and constantly downplay it.

wuchek 7y ago

I had mixed feelings about this piece for reasons related to what you're mentioning. I've been the target of this sort of thing at points in my life, being the high performer I suppose, but have also seen the converse of it. I imagine this varies by field, but I notice two counterpoints to the perspective in the piece: First, in my field there is a ton of corruption and lack of integrity. Glimpses into this appear in places like HN, but even then coverage seem to excuse the corruption away in Machiavellian ways I find infuriating. I know I have benefited from this corruption even when I'm trying to avoid it, but I see it all the time. Most importantly, it seems the likelihood of corruption increases exponentially with the level of "performance" in the field, so that the difference between someone performing highly versus very highly is often due to corruption or sociopolitical whims. Second, even when there probably are genuine differences in performance, it's often very small, but the compensation gets magnified 10x. So, for example, the difference between the highest performer and the next highest performer might be small in an absolute practical sense, but the highest performer might see their salary increased significantly, while the next highest sees their salary frozen. In either of these cases, the inequity is very real. If these researchers came in and studied my field, what they'd really be picking up on is justified resentment. If you generalize this to society at large I think there are significant implications. Inequality is a major problem in many places, and I strongly believe the extent of it is unwarranted in general. I view the research in the article with extreme skepticism because it is incredibly naive. It seems to assume that all (or most of) the metrics of performance are valid, are warranted, and that everyone attains status on those metrics in ethical, morally defensible ways, or that their status on those metrics reflects themselves rather than the output of a complex, quasi-random system of social inputs.