4 ms·

I think you're identifying the difference between lots of money being made available to a team and revenue being the main focus of that team. Not the same. For

I think you're identifying the difference between lots of money being made available to a team and revenue being the main focus of that team. Not the same. For example, the Fed can shower Wall St. with all the money it wants to, and it may actually make teams inside those companies less efficient and less of a joy to work for. Although money is available, making money is not the main goal of the team. Or take a fictional company with 100 projects and 1,000 engineers, where only 1 project with 10 engineers makes 90% of the revenue. The 99 other teams at the company are probably not going to have the best culture because the revenue incentive isn't present on those teams. They might just exist to check some compliance checkbox or stroke the ego of some middle manager. What I'm talking about is not necessarily the availability of money, but a direct relationship of your project to the money-making potential of the company. Big difference.

sixdimensional 6y ago
Hmm, I see the clarification you're making here. Availability of money <> revenue impact, I get it. Still, seeing that a project is revenue-impacting or revenue-generating (has the relationship to the money-making potential of the company) is relative to the individuals who are viewing it. For example, if there is an effort you could do that generates 2x revenue, but those in charge of your company choose not to pursue it "because they are already making a ton of money and cannot see past the costs". I guess this comes down to how good of a business leader one has. I have so many times seen good projects/ideas, ideas that can clearly make money, even lots of money - but in the wrong company, with the wrong people, or attitudes, or beliefs - don't matter. These are the times when, if you are the person with such an project or idea, you ask whether or not you are the right "fit" for the organization - since they are not recognizing or prioritizing the value of your project/idea. I suppose you could look at this as efficient capital allocation, if you assumed perfect business leadership. Perfect business leaders would only pursue the revenue generating activities that made the most sense. I would argue that we are far from perfect, and that we often let ego, opinion, culture (or even "data") influence our decision-making about revenue-generating activities.. which brings us back to the point that culture is still relevant. Something that popped to mind related to this is the "Ultimatum game" from psychology/economics [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game
- eru 6y ago
  You just penned a passionate defence of how important competition is to keep company cultures functioning. You don't need perfect leadership, if you have a reality check they can't ignore.

sixdimensional 6y ago

Hmm, I see the clarification you're making here. Availability of money <> revenue impact, I get it. Still, seeing that a project is revenue-impacting or revenue-generating (has the relationship to the money-making potential of the company) is relative to the individuals who are viewing it. For example, if there is an effort you could do that generates 2x revenue, but those in charge of your company choose not to pursue it "because they are already making a ton of money and cannot see past the costs". I guess this comes down to how good of a business leader one has. I have so many times seen good projects/ideas, ideas that can clearly make money, even lots of money - but in the wrong company, with the wrong people, or attitudes, or beliefs - don't matter. These are the times when, if you are the person with such an project or idea, you ask whether or not you are the right "fit" for the organization - since they are not recognizing or prioritizing the value of your project/idea. I suppose you could look at this as efficient capital allocation, if you assumed perfect business leadership. Perfect business leaders would only pursue the revenue generating activities that made the most sense. I would argue that we are far from perfect, and that we often let ego, opinion, culture (or even "data") influence our decision-making about revenue-generating activities.. which brings us back to the point that culture is still relevant. Something that popped to mind related to this is the "Ultimatum game" from psychology/economics [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game

eru 6y ago
You just penned a passionate defence of how important competition is to keep company cultures functioning. You don't need perfect leadership, if you have a reality check they can't ignore.