3 ms·
The analogy is with the dichotomy in incentives between teams that have to win now versus teams trying to build for the future. Some companies need you to hit t
by nonameiguess 6y ago
The analogy is with the dichotomy in incentives between teams that have to win now versus teams trying to build for the future. Some companies need you to hit the ground running because they are presently making no money and need to get a product out the door as quickly as possible. Some companies are going to make more money than God next year no matter what and are more concerned with ensuring they'll still be in a dominant position ten years from now. That affects the kinds of candidates they're looking to hire in terms of narrow specialists versus generally talented people, independently of any constraints in the candidate pool and compensation markets.
- _qulr 6y agoThis is a false dichotomy. Why not both? Again, the sports metaphor breaks down, because winning and losing is a zero-sum game, whereas companies aren't necessarily playing a zero-sum game. Moreover, a team's draft position is inversely correlated with its record, so there's an incentive to "tank" to get better draft picks. ("Rebuilding" often means getting rid of your expensive best players and intentionally losing for a while.) No such analogous situation exists in business, it's just an arbitrary effect of how sports leagues are organized. It's actually designed that way to encourage competitive parity among teams, prevent any one team from dominating forever.