3 ms·
We subscribe to this philosophy on paper and it works out pretty poorly. The best managers and teams are the ones that manage to subvert it. There's a pretty w
by closeparen 5y ago
We subscribe to this philosophy on paper and it works out pretty poorly. The best managers and teams are the ones that manage to subvert it.
There's a pretty wide variation in efficacy at doing the mainstream work. It's good to retain and reward the people who are good at it, so that they make up a higher proportion of the ones doing it. Otherwise you're constantly throwing away good people and replacing them with new hires of lower/unknown quality, just because you don't have enough "strategic direction" type work to promote them.
- sanderjd 5y agoYeah... I guess it depends on the person. I personally felt like "just get the work out the door" lost its novelty / interest for me after about five years doing it and that I spent the next five years becoming increasingly unsatisfied with my work after that. It is more satisfying for me to have more scope over larger projects. But not every place has that kind of work available. But "just crank out the bread and butter work instead" is not a solution either, because like I said, I find that unsatisfying. So if there isn't "strategic direction" type work, for some people the choice isn't between "throwing away good people" vs. keeping them doing the bread and butter work; they are going to seek greener pastures for the kind of work they prefer doing either way. There are other people who really enjoy just knocking things out no matter how long they do it, and I agree with you that many organizations would benefit more from having lots of that kind of person.