4 ms·

> The root of the promo and hiring problems is this focus on individual performance. The appropriate unit of analysis for most human efforts is the group level.

by dolni 4y ago

> The root of the promo and hiring problems is this focus on individual performance. The appropriate unit of analysis for most human efforts is the group level. This is an awful idea. Rewarding individuals based on the group outcome is a great way to drive rockstars away from the team. Why would any high performer want to anchor themselves to lower performing team members? That is a surefire way to get a lower bonus. Why would I volunteer to take on a crummy or particularly hard task when I can just hope someone else does it and I reap the rewards? > I don't know if it's always true for people, but my performance goes up and down quite a lot depending on how much I believe in the group mission and the group dynamic. I'll occasionally stay late working for some abstract metric that might impact 10% of my pay, but I'll stay up 48 hours working fanatically to make something work for my friends and co-workers and the dream of success in changing the world that the group is striving for together. Peoples' performance changes for every reason under the sun from "I decided to stay out late and drink on a Wednesday" to "my boss is an asshole" to "I just don't feel like working today". Personally, I want control over my own destiny and my own bonus. I don't want to feel obligated to push myself harder for someone else's bonus. And just the same, I don't want someone else's shortcomings to tank my bonus. The actual answer here is to make sure that your review process accounts for how individuals impact the group dynamic. > And if that filters out the people that only do software for a princely salary, leaving the people motivated to transform the world for the better, so much the better. Greedy people are a bit demotivating to work with. This is a super ignorant take. Any person who has a family and works to support them wants to provide the best they can for their family. That's not greed. Kids are fucking expensive by themselves, let alone trying to send them to college.

lumost 4y ago
The best way for someone who wants to be a rockstar to win is by anchoring themselves to a low-performing team. If pay is based on relative performance, then you should find the lowest performing coworkers you can. I wouldn't inherently mind explicitly tieing individual performance to (small) team level performance. In practice this often happens when management looks at performance holistically anyway.
lanstin 4y ago
>Why would I volunteer to take on a crummy or particularly hard task when I can just hope someone else does it and I reap the rewards? When you are on a team that is committed to the success of a project or a real thing in the world, rather than hoping for a bonus, you help everyone on the team at each step of the process. If you enjoy the work you are doing, you'll enjoy the hard tasks; even the tedious tasks take on a certain type of satisfaction in a good job. A team where people are sitting around for others to take action is not a good team or a good job. I encourage you to raise your standards. >Rewarding individuals based on the group outcome is a great way to drive rockstars away from the team. I don't care how many rockstars are on a team, I care if the team is transforming the world into a better place, is helping the company and humanity make the transition to "everything is software and networked" a thrilling transition. If someone is slower mentally but has a vision of a better world that the team is making happen, then they will probably move the team towards delivering on that vision than some smart but Blind obsessed person that wants the "FIRE" crap. Also, valuing money over all means your team will fall into traps like accounting irregularities more easily - lacking a sense of values outside of economic gain means the team will fall into things like the Enron mess or https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/2005/03/22/time-warner-sec-settle-aol-fraud-charges/38516f5f-3f51-44d6-bfec-5481809b3dd6/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/2005/03/22/t... or the various shady ad selling schemes or privacy selling schemes so common these days. I've worked with teams where most people love the work and love the outcome of the work on the world, and I've worked where people are beset with visions of becoming some sort of rich software engineering lord, and it's a lot more fun in the former case. People that want families and is supporting them are not doing software only for a princely salary. The thing that's awesome about a software career and families is that the demand for engineers means you can afford to insist on the flexibility and time-off needed by the family, and still get a livable salary.

by dolni 4y ago

lumost 4y ago

The best way for someone who wants to be a rockstar to win is by anchoring themselves to a low-performing team. If pay is based on relative performance, then you should find the lowest performing coworkers you can. I wouldn't inherently mind explicitly tieing individual performance to (small) team level performance. In practice this often happens when management looks at performance holistically anyway.

lanstin 4y ago

>Why would I volunteer to take on a crummy or particularly hard task when I can just hope someone else does it and I reap the rewards? When you are on a team that is committed to the success of a project or a real thing in the world, rather than hoping for a bonus, you help everyone on the team at each step of the process. If you enjoy the work you are doing, you'll enjoy the hard tasks; even the tedious tasks take on a certain type of satisfaction in a good job. A team where people are sitting around for others to take action is not a good team or a good job. I encourage you to raise your standards. >Rewarding individuals based on the group outcome is a great way to drive rockstars away from the team. I don't care how many rockstars are on a team, I care if the team is transforming the world into a better place, is helping the company and humanity make the transition to "everything is software and networked" a thrilling transition. If someone is slower mentally but has a vision of a better world that the team is making happen, then they will probably move the team towards delivering on that vision than some smart but Blind obsessed person that wants the "FIRE" crap. Also, valuing money over all means your team will fall into traps like accounting irregularities more easily - lacking a sense of values outside of economic gain means the team will fall into things like the Enron mess or https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/2005/03/22/time-warner-sec-settle-aol-fraud-charges/38516f5f-3f51-44d6-bfec-5481809b3dd6/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/2005/03/22/t... or the various shady ad selling schemes or privacy selling schemes so common these days. I've worked with teams where most people love the work and love the outcome of the work on the world, and I've worked where people are beset with visions of becoming some sort of rich software engineering lord, and it's a lot more fun in the former case. People that want families and is supporting them are not doing software only for a princely salary. The thing that's awesome about a software career and families is that the demand for engineers means you can afford to insist on the flexibility and time-off needed by the family, and still get a livable salary.