4 ms·

I sort of take issue with the idea that hard work does not correlate to pay. At least at the 'low-work' end of the spectrum - if I slack off, I can reasonably e

by pnathan 15y ago

I sort of take issue with the idea that hard work does not correlate to pay. At least at the 'low-work' end of the spectrum - if I slack off, I can reasonably expect to be fired and to be earning less, i.e., none, and no one wants someone who doesn't contribute sitting around taking up resources. Are you glossing this for the sake of narrative simplicity, or do you categorically disagree? edit: speeling gud

sethg 15y ago
I once had a job where I literally had no assignments to work on for weeks at a time, despite my nagging my manager about wanting something to do. I was all but paid to slack off. My hypothesis of how this came about is (a) they hired me because there was a certain problem (involving one of those Perl scripts that gives Perl a bad name) they needed to solve; (b) once that problem was solved, they had trouble finding something else for me to do whose benefit outweighed the cost of bringing me up to speed on the codebase; (c) despite this inefficiency, no sensible middle-manager in a bureaucratic company will choose to reduce his or her own headcount.
tptacek 15y ago
In a well-managed company, you are paid for a business outcome. The amount of sweat you emit to achieve that business outcome has exactly one use for the company: a gauge of how high the bar for outcomes can be raised on you. It is not a gauge of how well you should be compensated. Those gauges aren't even labeled in the same language, and they're kept covered by an oily tarp. There are any number of things you can do to lock in your current level of compensation while systematically lowering your effort. You can: * Get faster at producing the outcomes the business is looking for; the easiest way to do this is often to examine your entire work product, spend cycles to isolate the bits that the company is actually valuing, and stop wasting time producing things the company doesn't truly value. A less effective but more time-honored (by geeks) approach to this strategy is "automation". * Take steps to pivot your role in the company to one that produces outcomes the company values similarly to your current one, but that require less effort on your part. * Take steps to gradually lower the bar on what's expected of you. You didn't ask me, but I categorically disagree with the idea that hard work correlates to better pay in a typical company.
- boucher 15y ago
  As companies get larger the likelihood that they are well managed decreases significantly.
  - barry-cotter 15y ago
    A moment's reflection refutes this. In the world's most advanced economies most people work in and for large companies because they have outcompeted the small companies that weren't as good. Seriously, how many 100 person companies does it take to be as capable as IBM?
    - aristidb 15y ago
      True, but managing larger companies is also inherently harder, maybe that's what the grandparent intended to say?
    - barrkel 15y ago
      There's a difference between (a) good management, (b) returns to scale, and (c) gains from specialization and division of labour. What you see most in large companies in advanced economies is (b) and (c); in so far as you get (a), I would argue much of it comes from applying specialization to management itself: doing the kind of strategic management that is not possible in small companies dominated by tactical concerns.
    - rgraham 15y ago
      I don't think your claim of most people working for large companies is quite true. Maybe I just feel it is misleading. http://www.sba.gov/advocacy/7495/8420 http://www.sba.gov/advocacy/7495/8420
- pnathan 15y ago
  I'm pretty sure that in a well-managed company, someone who didn't contribute would be let go. I'd like to leave off the always-contentious question regarding "effort vs. contribution". So to alter the question: how to improve compensation in a hypothetically well-managed company, without busting 60-hour weeks?

by pnathan 15y ago

sethg 15y ago

I once had a job where I literally had no assignments to work on for weeks at a time, despite my nagging my manager about wanting something to do. I was all but paid to slack off. My hypothesis of how this came about is (a) they hired me because there was a certain problem (involving one of those Perl scripts that gives Perl a bad name) they needed to solve; (b) once that problem was solved, they had trouble finding something else for me to do whose benefit outweighed the cost of bringing me up to speed on the codebase; (c) despite this inefficiency, no sensible middle-manager in a bureaucratic company will choose to reduce his or her own headcount.

tptacek 15y ago

In a well-managed company, you are paid for a business outcome. The amount of sweat you emit to achieve that business outcome has exactly one use for the company: a gauge of how high the bar for outcomes can be raised on you. It is not a gauge of how well you should be compensated. Those gauges aren't even labeled in the same language, and they're kept covered by an oily tarp. There are any number of things you can do to lock in your current level of compensation while systematically lowering your effort. You can: * Get faster at producing the outcomes the business is looking for; the easiest way to do this is often to examine your entire work product, spend cycles to isolate the bits that the company is actually valuing, and stop wasting time producing things the company doesn't truly value. A less effective but more time-honored (by geeks) approach to this strategy is "automation". * Take steps to pivot your role in the company to one that produces outcomes the company values similarly to your current one, but that require less effort on your part. * Take steps to gradually lower the bar on what's expected of you. You didn't ask me, but I categorically disagree with the idea that hard work correlates to better pay in a typical company.

boucher 15y ago
As companies get larger the likelihood that they are well managed decreases significantly.
- barry-cotter 15y ago
  A moment's reflection refutes this. In the world's most advanced economies most people work in and for large companies because they have outcompeted the small companies that weren't as good. Seriously, how many 100 person companies does it take to be as capable as IBM?
  - aristidb 15y ago
    True, but managing larger companies is also inherently harder, maybe that's what the grandparent intended to say?
  - barrkel 15y ago
    There's a difference between (a) good management, (b) returns to scale, and (c) gains from specialization and division of labour. What you see most in large companies in advanced economies is (b) and (c); in so far as you get (a), I would argue much of it comes from applying specialization to management itself: doing the kind of strategic management that is not possible in small companies dominated by tactical concerns.
  - rgraham 15y ago
    I don't think your claim of most people working for large companies is quite true. Maybe I just feel it is misleading. http://www.sba.gov/advocacy/7495/8420 http://www.sba.gov/advocacy/7495/8420
pnathan 15y ago
I'm pretty sure that in a well-managed company, someone who didn't contribute would be let go. I'd like to leave off the always-contentious question regarding "effort vs. contribution". So to alter the question: how to improve compensation in a hypothetically well-managed company, without busting 60-hour weeks?