5 ms·

You have it exactly opposite in almost every way. Corporate attempts to be meritocratic. They have every incentive to be. Executives want to hire the more effe

by bko 5y ago

You have it exactly opposite in almost every way. Corporate attempts to be meritocratic. They have every incentive to be. Executives want to hire the more effective people to perform tasks so they can maximize profits. They can be greedy or stupid, but not both. They can hire their friends and family, sure, and sometimes they do. But they have an incentive to make decisions on merit otherwise they would go out of business and be out-competed. What incentive does a school have to reward hard work? The teachers and administrators don't get a bonus if they're school does well. Many don't even get evaluated and firing teachers is very difficult in the US. I knew plenty of teachers that would just phone it in year after year. Everyone knew this, but really couldn't do anything about it. Many do care because its the right thing to do, but it's not built into the system. > [re schools] If you are treated unjustly by the system, you can at least appeal to the concept of meritocracy, and you have a chance of winning. Yeah, I don't know your experience but I was treated unjustly in school. The disciplinarian (yes this was a real thing in my high school) was a tyrant. He would selectively yell at certain kids, humiliate others and apply uneven justice. What could I have done about it? Some parents complained sure but you're pretty much stuck there unless you want to pack your bags and move to a different town. In corporate world you just find another job. It's a lot easier than convincing your parents to move > Corporate is easier, in the sense that the work is almost never demanding, and the evaluation thereof is invariably political Not all jobs are bullshit jobs. Some jobs actually deliver some kind of value with a feedback loop

ltfey 5y ago
- BobbyJo 5y ago
  > profits aren't the true goal... Ok, we can all stop there and go home. This person knows more than every economist and game-theorist on the planet. >They're all kinda the same, though, and the system is designed that way. I take it you haven't had many jobs I've worked at 5 different corporations and this is just verifiably wrong. 'The system' you're referencing is voluntary exchange, and it's not designed, it emerges from the concept of private property.
  - ltfey 5y ago
  - verve_rat 5y ago
    Profit for the firm might be the goal for the firm as an entity, such that it is, but the goal for each individual is their own self interest. The worker wants a pay rise, the manager wants a promotion, the CEO wants a better gig at the next company. None of that is a goal of making more money for the company.
    - pc86 5y ago
      The number one way for the CEO to get a better gig at the next company is to make the company they're at now wildly successful. The number one way for a VP to get a promotion to the C suite is to make the CEO look good. Etc. etc. down the line to the ICs.
    - BobbyJo 5y ago
      But it is all 'profit'. Prestige is an asset some people pursue, money another. The challenge of corporate governance is designing it so that the incentives for the individuals within it align with the goals of the corporation itself. Every "How to do startups" book written has some portion of it dedicated to "How to get your employees' wants to align with the company's." This is the primary difference between companies that thrive over long periods and those that die out quickly. There are academic textbooks written on the subject. Its study is as old as the corporate structure itself.
    - adamsmith143 5y ago
      >The worker wants a pay rise, the manager wants a promotion, the CEO wants a better gig at the next company. None of that is a goal of making more money for the company. This is quite literally the definition of Adam Smith's Invisible Hand. "By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."
- bko 5y ago
  I'm sorry, I can't take you seriously with statements like this. > Class solidarity and positional maintenance are the real objectives Who's organizing all the world's corporate leaders? Who's preventing from non-infiltrated people from starting businesses? This is extremely conspiratorial > Companies will do bad things to make a profit, and on rare occasions they even do good things to make a profit Really? Rare occasions? Do you deal with any private businesses in your every day? 99% of my interactions with private businesses is positive. How can this be taken as a serious statement? > Big companies don't go out of business because they're out-competed. They do so because their management loses the faith of the upper class and can no longer access investment, clients, resources, or political advantages. Who's doing this coordination? Blockbuster drops the ball on streaming and Netflix came out with a better product and consumer tastes shifted away from in-store movie rentals to digital. I'm sure there's some conspiracy theory that Blockbuster execs offended "the upper class" so it was decided they need to go away. I'm trying to read your comments in good-faith but I find it increasingly difficult to do so due to the conspiratorial nature of your argument.
  - throw1234651234 5y ago
    What the parent comment is saying does apply to large corporations. I will be very specific - I worked for Fidelity. Fidelity does not need smart people for 80% of their professional positions. They need someone who can pass the FINRA Series 7/63 to get a licenses and follow procedure. Without exaggeration, there are scripts for most of the work. You don't have to follow them to the letter, but you can. Standing out in most of these roles other than "not messing up" is hard and doesn't really benefit the company except on the sale side of things (where compensations reach FAANG level, while working 70 hour weeks). As a result, people hire their friends and family. They do not care about Fidelity growing - they know it will continue to exist. Take a software startup I worked for later - they care about profits and they care about employee morale. They are out to make money and they need the best and the brightest. It affects their bottom line. A good dev can bring in millions in revenue. They give promotions, they retain. They tell their dumbass son/daughter who got hired to shut his/her mouth, be respectful, and not boss anyone around even if they do hire him/her. I also see this in emerging economies - when the USSR collapsed, people really hired talent, because the markets were competitive. (Even though former USSR is famous for nepotism) A lot of established companies in the US are truly not competitive and have the market cornered, hence some validity in the parent comment.
- edmcnulty101 5y ago
  Just to let you know I completely agree with you. The corporations I've worked for rewarded schmoozing with the manager much more than competence. Maybe those other people disagreeing with you worked for different corporations? I have no idea but I've worked for several corporations and they were all a mess in this way. My current position as a software engineer with almost a decade of experience is a subordinate to a project manager who has one year of experience in tech and the project is millions of dollars and years behind schedule. This being a tax payer funded project to create a system for a few hundred people... The person in charge is friends with the manager and the manager is friends with the COO and on up the chain. Previous position was for DXC technologies who fired my entire team except me and another and then hired offshore workers. They were also sued by their customers for providing poor quality software. The business practices I've seen boggle my mind.
  - selimthegrim 5y ago
    DXC in New Orleans has the reputation of mud among local devs.
francisofascii 5y ago
> But they have an incentive to make decisions on merit otherwise they would go out of business and be out-competed. Yeah, you would think so. To some extent you are right. But I think corporations are still very inefficient and get away with promoting or hiring less than ideal candidates. Why do they not get out-competed? Because the competition is also flawed in similar ways.
- esyir 5y ago
  Well, to provide a different case, compare the situation of the US corporate space to the US government. Both are flawed efficiency wise, but boy does the one with no incentives behave as expected.
BeetleB 5y ago
> Corporate attempts to be meritocratic. They have every incentive to be. Executives want to hire the more effective people to perform tasks so they can maximize profits. Not where I work. They hire people who they think will make them look good, and it's not always by hiring the most productive. They'll deny promotions to their most effective workers out of fear they will leave. They block transfers. Companies make a show of being meritocratic, but most of their rewards system fall apart under the smallest scrutiny. On average, those who self promote are more likely to get rewarded than those who do the better work. Some companies even formalize this by insisting the managers are not supposed to know who is better, and you have to convince them by writing your semi-annual review yourself. Lots of managers who want "yes-men" who'll reward those who say "yes" and fail and punish those who correctly say "no".
- esyir 5y ago
  I don't get this "promotion = leaving". I'm pretty sure there's a very sizable chunk of people leaving because they're stuck.
  - BeetleB 5y ago
    Not everyone is in SW where finding a job at another company is easy. My company used to pay at the top of the market for certain fields. Leaving the company would mean a pay cut.
karmanyaahm 5y ago
> The teachers and administrators don't get a bonus if they're school does well They don't, but a lot of administrators like showing off scores and stats to their administrator friends from different schools. There definitely is an incentive, even if it's imperfect - optimized for objective stats not subjective learning.
germinalphrase 5y ago
“Many don't even get evaluated and firing teachers is very difficult in the US” I am a high school English teacher in the US. I have two to four performance reviews every school year (each entailing a pre & post meeting along with an in-class performance evaluation). I have tenure, but the only barrier to firing me between now and next September (barring fireable offenses) is a PIP which is ultimately based on subjective administrative reviews. If my boss doesn’t want me back next year, I won’t be. Stories about ‘rubber rooms’ in NYC are hardly demonstrative of teaching conditions nationwide.
- onemoresoop 5y ago
  I didn't know what rubber rooms were, here's the wiki link [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rubber_Room https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rubber_Room

by bko 5y ago

ltfey 5y ago

BobbyJo 5y ago
> profits aren't the true goal... Ok, we can all stop there and go home. This person knows more than every economist and game-theorist on the planet. >They're all kinda the same, though, and the system is designed that way. I take it you haven't had many jobs I've worked at 5 different corporations and this is just verifiably wrong. 'The system' you're referencing is voluntary exchange, and it's not designed, it emerges from the concept of private property.
- ltfey 5y ago
- verve_rat 5y ago
  Profit for the firm might be the goal for the firm as an entity, such that it is, but the goal for each individual is their own self interest. The worker wants a pay rise, the manager wants a promotion, the CEO wants a better gig at the next company. None of that is a goal of making more money for the company.
  - pc86 5y ago
    The number one way for the CEO to get a better gig at the next company is to make the company they're at now wildly successful. The number one way for a VP to get a promotion to the C suite is to make the CEO look good. Etc. etc. down the line to the ICs.
  - BobbyJo 5y ago
    But it is all 'profit'. Prestige is an asset some people pursue, money another. The challenge of corporate governance is designing it so that the incentives for the individuals within it align with the goals of the corporation itself. Every "How to do startups" book written has some portion of it dedicated to "How to get your employees' wants to align with the company's." This is the primary difference between companies that thrive over long periods and those that die out quickly. There are academic textbooks written on the subject. Its study is as old as the corporate structure itself.
  - adamsmith143 5y ago
    >The worker wants a pay rise, the manager wants a promotion, the CEO wants a better gig at the next company. None of that is a goal of making more money for the company. This is quite literally the definition of Adam Smith's Invisible Hand. "By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."
bko 5y ago
I'm sorry, I can't take you seriously with statements like this. > Class solidarity and positional maintenance are the real objectives Who's organizing all the world's corporate leaders? Who's preventing from non-infiltrated people from starting businesses? This is extremely conspiratorial > Companies will do bad things to make a profit, and on rare occasions they even do good things to make a profit Really? Rare occasions? Do you deal with any private businesses in your every day? 99% of my interactions with private businesses is positive. How can this be taken as a serious statement? > Big companies don't go out of business because they're out-competed. They do so because their management loses the faith of the upper class and can no longer access investment, clients, resources, or political advantages. Who's doing this coordination? Blockbuster drops the ball on streaming and Netflix came out with a better product and consumer tastes shifted away from in-store movie rentals to digital. I'm sure there's some conspiracy theory that Blockbuster execs offended "the upper class" so it was decided they need to go away. I'm trying to read your comments in good-faith but I find it increasingly difficult to do so due to the conspiratorial nature of your argument.
- throw1234651234 5y ago
  What the parent comment is saying does apply to large corporations. I will be very specific - I worked for Fidelity. Fidelity does not need smart people for 80% of their professional positions. They need someone who can pass the FINRA Series 7/63 to get a licenses and follow procedure. Without exaggeration, there are scripts for most of the work. You don't have to follow them to the letter, but you can. Standing out in most of these roles other than "not messing up" is hard and doesn't really benefit the company except on the sale side of things (where compensations reach FAANG level, while working 70 hour weeks). As a result, people hire their friends and family. They do not care about Fidelity growing - they know it will continue to exist. Take a software startup I worked for later - they care about profits and they care about employee morale. They are out to make money and they need the best and the brightest. It affects their bottom line. A good dev can bring in millions in revenue. They give promotions, they retain. They tell their dumbass son/daughter who got hired to shut his/her mouth, be respectful, and not boss anyone around even if they do hire him/her. I also see this in emerging economies - when the USSR collapsed, people really hired talent, because the markets were competitive. (Even though former USSR is famous for nepotism) A lot of established companies in the US are truly not competitive and have the market cornered, hence some validity in the parent comment.
edmcnulty101 5y ago
Just to let you know I completely agree with you. The corporations I've worked for rewarded schmoozing with the manager much more than competence. Maybe those other people disagreeing with you worked for different corporations? I have no idea but I've worked for several corporations and they were all a mess in this way. My current position as a software engineer with almost a decade of experience is a subordinate to a project manager who has one year of experience in tech and the project is millions of dollars and years behind schedule. This being a tax payer funded project to create a system for a few hundred people... The person in charge is friends with the manager and the manager is friends with the COO and on up the chain. Previous position was for DXC technologies who fired my entire team except me and another and then hired offshore workers. They were also sued by their customers for providing poor quality software. The business practices I've seen boggle my mind.
- selimthegrim 5y ago
  DXC in New Orleans has the reputation of mud among local devs.

francisofascii 5y ago

> But they have an incentive to make decisions on merit otherwise they would go out of business and be out-competed. Yeah, you would think so. To some extent you are right. But I think corporations are still very inefficient and get away with promoting or hiring less than ideal candidates. Why do they not get out-competed? Because the competition is also flawed in similar ways.

esyir 5y ago
Well, to provide a different case, compare the situation of the US corporate space to the US government. Both are flawed efficiency wise, but boy does the one with no incentives behave as expected.

BeetleB 5y ago

> Corporate attempts to be meritocratic. They have every incentive to be. Executives want to hire the more effective people to perform tasks so they can maximize profits. Not where I work. They hire people who they think will make them look good, and it's not always by hiring the most productive. They'll deny promotions to their most effective workers out of fear they will leave. They block transfers. Companies make a show of being meritocratic, but most of their rewards system fall apart under the smallest scrutiny. On average, those who self promote are more likely to get rewarded than those who do the better work. Some companies even formalize this by insisting the managers are not supposed to know who is better, and you have to convince them by writing your semi-annual review yourself. Lots of managers who want "yes-men" who'll reward those who say "yes" and fail and punish those who correctly say "no".

esyir 5y ago
I don't get this "promotion = leaving". I'm pretty sure there's a very sizable chunk of people leaving because they're stuck.
- BeetleB 5y ago
  Not everyone is in SW where finding a job at another company is easy. My company used to pay at the top of the market for certain fields. Leaving the company would mean a pay cut.

karmanyaahm 5y ago

> The teachers and administrators don't get a bonus if they're school does well They don't, but a lot of administrators like showing off scores and stats to their administrator friends from different schools. There definitely is an incentive, even if it's imperfect - optimized for objective stats not subjective learning.

germinalphrase 5y ago

“Many don't even get evaluated and firing teachers is very difficult in the US” I am a high school English teacher in the US. I have two to four performance reviews every school year (each entailing a pre & post meeting along with an in-class performance evaluation). I have tenure, but the only barrier to firing me between now and next September (barring fireable offenses) is a PIP which is ultimately based on subjective administrative reviews. If my boss doesn’t want me back next year, I won’t be. Stories about ‘rubber rooms’ in NYC are hardly demonstrative of teaching conditions nationwide.

onemoresoop 5y ago
I didn't know what rubber rooms were, here's the wiki link [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rubber_Room https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rubber_Room