4 ms·

> This is a conflict between individual and organizational rationality I don't see any conflict here. I am not and 'the organisation'. I am hired by one to do

> This is a conflict between individual and organizational rationality I don't see any conflict here. I am not and 'the organisation'. I am hired by one to do a job. I lookout for myself first of all. I am not paid to protect 'the org', and lets not kid ourselves 'the org' will NOT protect me. So why would you put org before you? The way I see it is that you got some goodwill from peers and mgmt but you consciously made yourself replaceable. If mgmt knew you documented all you workload and an intern could just waltz in, read through all docs and do what you do for 1/2 the salary - you will be out on the first bus. The 'super star dev' - if he goes the business will hurt. Mgmt cant afford let him go. If I were to pick a role I would definitely go with the 'star dev' over you. Mainly because they can negotiate his pay as he has leverage. Also they don't have to play too much of office politics as they are in position of power already.

neilv 5y ago
> I am not paid to protect 'the org', Just last week, I reiterated to execs that part of the job of an engineer is to "document themself out of a job" (regarding documenting designs, code, processes, etc. so well that other engineers could take it up). An earlier time, when I mentioned that more verbosely, I asserted that the kinds of hires who will do that (automatically, or by embracing the culture we nurture) tend to be the best engineers, and the most valuable to the org. This goes against old advice about job security for some people, like "be the only one who knows how to do that thing the org thinks is important". And against more recent job security advice, where job security is about hopping between orgs rather than investing with one. Popular contemporary gems of advice seem to include "let your project be guided by your resume keyword goals, then hop to another company for a salary bump in 1-3 years, before the chickens of your misaligned work come home to roost at the org." :) I can't say that everyone will recognize when an individual invests in working for their colleague/team/org rather than solely for themselves. But, besides on-principle reasons for doing that, some people will recognize it, especially people who do it themselves, and those are some of the people you probably most want to work with.
- Pokepokalypse 5y ago
  correct. >'the org' will NOT protect me. So why would you put org before you? This kind of thinking. . . would you set off on a horseback ride and NOT feed your horse?
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    That depends on whether the horse likes me or not. I would rather ride a donkey though, temperament means the org is opinionated and has some values and goals. I would defend my current company because I have relations to the people working there that make up the company as a whole. If you expect blind obedience, I probably would leave for another company.
  - me_me_me 5y ago
    This is not a zero sum game. You can be a team player in order to make your life easier and others that work with you. But laying down all of your cards on the table leaves you vulnerable to exploitation by less scrupulous people. What I was critisising was a view that you as a worker should think of the wellbing of organisation first and foremost. Its a slippery slope that can lead to harmful outcomes for the individuals.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

neilv 5y ago

> I am not paid to protect 'the org', Just last week, I reiterated to execs that part of the job of an engineer is to "document themself out of a job" (regarding documenting designs, code, processes, etc. so well that other engineers could take it up). An earlier time, when I mentioned that more verbosely, I asserted that the kinds of hires who will do that (automatically, or by embracing the culture we nurture) tend to be the best engineers, and the most valuable to the org. This goes against old advice about job security for some people, like "be the only one who knows how to do that thing the org thinks is important". And against more recent job security advice, where job security is about hopping between orgs rather than investing with one. Popular contemporary gems of advice seem to include "let your project be guided by your resume keyword goals, then hop to another company for a salary bump in 1-3 years, before the chickens of your misaligned work come home to roost at the org." :) I can't say that everyone will recognize when an individual invests in working for their colleague/team/org rather than solely for themselves. But, besides on-principle reasons for doing that, some people will recognize it, especially people who do it themselves, and those are some of the people you probably most want to work with.

Pokepokalypse 5y ago
correct. >'the org' will NOT protect me. So why would you put org before you? This kind of thinking. . . would you set off on a horseback ride and NOT feed your horse?
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  That depends on whether the horse likes me or not. I would rather ride a donkey though, temperament means the org is opinionated and has some values and goals. I would defend my current company because I have relations to the people working there that make up the company as a whole. If you expect blind obedience, I probably would leave for another company.
- me_me_me 5y ago
  This is not a zero sum game. You can be a team player in order to make your life easier and others that work with you. But laying down all of your cards on the table leaves you vulnerable to exploitation by less scrupulous people. What I was critisising was a view that you as a worker should think of the wellbing of organisation first and foremost. Its a slippery slope that can lead to harmful outcomes for the individuals.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]