3 ms·

In every company I’ve worked in, a manager gets in much worse trouble if a good engineer reporting to them leaves rather than exceeding budget. Most typically

by mlthoughts2018 6y ago

In every company I’ve worked in, a manager gets in much worse trouble if a good engineer reporting to them leaves rather than exceeding budget. Most typically middle managers are not allowed to significantly alter budget for bigger raises that retain important people, yet are then punished or admonished over the comparatively worse budget loss taken through recruiting and onboarding to hire a backfill, as well as getting a reputation for being a bad manager if you can’t work miracles and retain people who deserve raises without giving them raises. The economics don’t work out the way you describe at all, and few parties in the situation act rationally.

missedthecue 6y ago
Acting rationally is not what I said. I said that they act in their rational self interest. That's a specific concept.
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  You are trying to split hairs. “Acting rationally” and “acting in one’s own (rational) self-interest” are widely synonymous and it’s beyond unreasonable to expect readers to view them differently. My response to you was already treating them synonymously. It’s not acting in self-interest for executives to create unnecessary turnover due to withholding appropriate compensation. This leads to worse financial loss than paying high raises, and ultimately executives and managers get fired regularly by acting against their own self-interest by withholding meritocratic raises.
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    'Rational self interest' is a fairly widely known economic principle. Everyone acts in their own rational self interest, including infants, cats, and horseflies. Infants, cats, and horseflies are certainly not logicians, but when they want something, they will generally take the steps necessary to try to achieve it. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-macroeconomics/chapter/reading-rationality-and-self-interest/ https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-macroeconomics/chapter/... A great way to think about this is voting. If we were all acting logically, everyone would vote, because in theory, we'd all be better off. But because of the principle of rational self interest, many or most people don't vote because the cost of researching candidates and policies and going to the effort of voting is very often higher than the benefit (a 1 in 100,000,000 chance of influencing the outcome of the election)
    - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
      Why do so many social science researchers publish research and write books on widespread ways in which people act against their own self-intetest? Like topics from Predictably Irrational, Irrational Exuberance, The Winner’s Curse, Moral Mazes, Thinking Fast and Slow, countless articles on LessWrong sequence on cognitive biases and heuristics, research on Last Place aversion, etc.? Your comment seems to presume a textbook definition of rational self interest actually describes the behavior of living organisms, but it profoundly does not.
      - missedthecue 6y ago
        Those are ways in which people acting in their own rational self interest create a situation in which they are all worse off as a result. This is called a market failure, and there are plenty of examples where this happens (for instance, why voting seldom produces the best possible candidate, or why armies run away). Remember, someone acting in their own rational self interest does not mean they will never experience deleterious consequences. It simply means people will take actions they think will result in the best const/benefit for them.
        mlthoughts2018 6y ago
        I’m sorry but you are not engaging. You’re basically creating a No True Scotsman fallacy out of what “is” acting in self-interest, almost verging on a tautology. The research is clear that even when confronted with proof their actions will not result in the outcome that people self-identify as the outcome they desire, they nonetheless knowingly engage in behavior that makes them worse off (under their own preferences and utility) than other options available to them.

missedthecue 6y ago

Acting rationally is not what I said. I said that they act in their rational self interest. That's a specific concept.

mlthoughts2018 6y ago
You are trying to split hairs. “Acting rationally” and “acting in one’s own (rational) self-interest” are widely synonymous and it’s beyond unreasonable to expect readers to view them differently. My response to you was already treating them synonymously. It’s not acting in self-interest for executives to create unnecessary turnover due to withholding appropriate compensation. This leads to worse financial loss than paying high raises, and ultimately executives and managers get fired regularly by acting against their own self-interest by withholding meritocratic raises.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  'Rational self interest' is a fairly widely known economic principle. Everyone acts in their own rational self interest, including infants, cats, and horseflies. Infants, cats, and horseflies are certainly not logicians, but when they want something, they will generally take the steps necessary to try to achieve it. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-macroeconomics/chapter/reading-rationality-and-self-interest/ https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-macroeconomics/chapter/... A great way to think about this is voting. If we were all acting logically, everyone would vote, because in theory, we'd all be better off. But because of the principle of rational self interest, many or most people don't vote because the cost of researching candidates and policies and going to the effort of voting is very often higher than the benefit (a 1 in 100,000,000 chance of influencing the outcome of the election)
  - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
    Why do so many social science researchers publish research and write books on widespread ways in which people act against their own self-intetest? Like topics from Predictably Irrational, Irrational Exuberance, The Winner’s Curse, Moral Mazes, Thinking Fast and Slow, countless articles on LessWrong sequence on cognitive biases and heuristics, research on Last Place aversion, etc.? Your comment seems to presume a textbook definition of rational self interest actually describes the behavior of living organisms, but it profoundly does not.
    - missedthecue 6y ago
      Those are ways in which people acting in their own rational self interest create a situation in which they are all worse off as a result. This is called a market failure, and there are plenty of examples where this happens (for instance, why voting seldom produces the best possible candidate, or why armies run away). Remember, someone acting in their own rational self interest does not mean they will never experience deleterious consequences. It simply means people will take actions they think will result in the best const/benefit for them.
      - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
        I’m sorry but you are not engaging. You’re basically creating a No True Scotsman fallacy out of what “is” acting in self-interest, almost verging on a tautology. The research is clear that even when confronted with proof their actions will not result in the outcome that people self-identify as the outcome they desire, they nonetheless knowingly engage in behavior that makes them worse off (under their own preferences and utility) than other options available to them.