4 ms·

What you're describing is regression to the mean (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_t

What you're describing is regression to the mean (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean). I would think avoiding this involves maintaining a high bar for recruiting, at the cost of having to hire more slowly and probably pay more than your competitors. That, or you accept it and become a Java shop.

dennis_jeeves 6y ago
Yep a high bar has to be constantly maintained even if it mean that 'growth' is slow: My thoughts on the subject: https://realminority.wordpress.com/ https://realminority.wordpress.com/
falcolas 6y ago
> That, or you accept it and become a Java shop. This, in a topic focusing on HR... It hits far too close to home. Java is now our recommended language, and HR is implementing all kinds of policies like “pay leveling” and “engineering promotions require job reqs complete with interviews” and “pay raises can only occur in N month”.
- beaconstudios 6y ago
  When bureaucrats are in charge of the business, it will be run as a bureaucracy: focusing on standardisation, quantified measurements and derisking. It's a process of stagnation.
  - Dracophoenix 6y ago
    Well how else to make sure all your dollars go to the right place? I'm not suggesting that a rigid, top-down structure is necessary, but there must some way of pursuing effectiveness, knowledge, and efficiency with relying on serendipity or cargo cult superstition. With this in mind, I'd argue the opposite of your claim: stagnation by bureaucracy is a conditional failure to achieve your stated ends. It isn't the inevitable evolution towards decline that you suggest it is. A working bureaucracy should behave like a working scientific instrument.
    - beaconstudios 6y ago
      Innovation can't come from measuring what you already have. You can use heuristics or metrics to confirm you've done the right thing once you try something but you can't use them effectively to innovate. Only to optimise, which is stagnation if you don't also innovate.

dennis_jeeves 6y ago

Yep a high bar has to be constantly maintained even if it mean that 'growth' is slow: My thoughts on the subject: https://realminority.wordpress.com/ https://realminority.wordpress.com/

falcolas 6y ago

> That, or you accept it and become a Java shop. This, in a topic focusing on HR... It hits far too close to home. Java is now our recommended language, and HR is implementing all kinds of policies like “pay leveling” and “engineering promotions require job reqs complete with interviews” and “pay raises can only occur in N month”.

beaconstudios 6y ago
When bureaucrats are in charge of the business, it will be run as a bureaucracy: focusing on standardisation, quantified measurements and derisking. It's a process of stagnation.
- Dracophoenix 6y ago
  Well how else to make sure all your dollars go to the right place? I'm not suggesting that a rigid, top-down structure is necessary, but there must some way of pursuing effectiveness, knowledge, and efficiency with relying on serendipity or cargo cult superstition. With this in mind, I'd argue the opposite of your claim: stagnation by bureaucracy is a conditional failure to achieve your stated ends. It isn't the inevitable evolution towards decline that you suggest it is. A working bureaucracy should behave like a working scientific instrument.
  - beaconstudios 6y ago
    Innovation can't come from measuring what you already have. You can use heuristics or metrics to confirm you've done the right thing once you try something but you can't use them effectively to innovate. Only to optimise, which is stagnation if you don't also innovate.