2 ms·
I'm making a slightly higher level point: If some companies choose to make things strictly LoC based, that's fine (even though I think its a dumb measure). If t
by joshuamorton 5y ago
I'm making a slightly higher level point: If some companies choose to make things strictly LoC based, that's fine (even though I think its a dumb measure). If they're transparent about that, and you prefer a FAANG-like "subjective peer eval based on loosely defined job responsibilities" approach, you can avoid the LoC based companies.
There doesn't need to an objective, or even a best subjective, measure of productivity, as long as the company's chosen measure is transparent and preregistered.
- zepto 5y agoHow is it fine to make the measure LoC based? Being open about it doesn’t make it any less of a terrible thing to incentivize.
- joshuamorton 5y agoBecause if you don't like the measure, you can go work somewhere else. Exactly the same as if you don't like how much you're being compensated today, you can go work somewhere else. It's just that with a transparent evaluation process, you know why that is and can make more informed decisions than having your manager say "no don't worry, you're on track for a promotion next year" every year. To put it a different way: how do you know that you aren't being compensated based on LoC output today, if you don't have some amount of transparency in evaluation criteria (and, importantly, some amount of transparency in pay, so you can verify what the company says)?
- zepto 5y agoWhat if the better criteria for picking a good place to work is good leadership, and not a rule set?