4 ms·

It's always about incentive misalignment. As an employee thinking Company first will improve the bottom line for the company. As an executive thinking company f

It's always about incentive misalignment. As an employee thinking Company first will improve the bottom line for the company. As an executive thinking company first may well eliminate me as an employee. Why should an employee put the company interests above their own with that incentive alignment? The company should work to make the company's interests serve the individual interests of the employees

lifeisstillgood 4y ago
Yes. And may I suggest a simple method: have employees vote for executives Incentives align naturally when there is two way feedback
- twblalock 4y ago
  I suspect this would result in a lot of companies being run into the ground, as executives would focus on keeping employees happy at the cost of the business. "Vote for me, and everyone gets a raise and a bonus!" When the interests of employees are put ahead of the success of the company, in the long run the employees end up losing because the company will fail, or at least need to lay people off. Also, most employees simply aren't capable of understanding or judging executives more than a few levels above them. I'd hate to work somewhere where the junior devs get to pick the engineering directors, for example.
  - lifeisstillgood 4y ago
    And that's the argument put forward in 1700s and 1800s for not extending the vote beyond those with land. Maybe employees will make intelligent informed decisions about who is actually capable as an executive. Maybe they will make more effective decisions themselves if they have a greater say and commitment to the company. Maybe not. Maybe we shall fall into totalitarian dystopias and the dream of universal suffrage will enter myth. maybe
    - civopsec 4y ago
      The real reason why the powers that be oppose workplace democracy is because then the well-being of the people that work at the company will be prioritized over making profits for the shareholders. > Maybe employees will make intelligent informed decisions about who is actually capable as an executive. Maybe they will make more effective decisions themselves if they have a greater say and commitment to the company. Yes, intelligent decisions. Such a red herring. For what is an “intelligent decision” in the market economy? Maximizing profits. So either the workers work within the bourgeoisie logic of maximizing profits—creating the same problems for themselves as they had under command economy rule—or they make “unintelligent decisions” by proritizing their collective selves. With the former they “fail the test” of this red herring scenario because intelligent decisions according to the workers are not the same as intelligent decisions according to the bourgeoisie.
      - lifeisstillgood 4y ago
        Ok - here's my take on intelligent decisions. The European Union has 27 countries in it - each nation has a proud and often violent past, with different cultural triggers. Politicians in Hungary can put their hands on hearts and talk of knights holding back the Mongols, Politicians in Spain can talk of defeating Moors, and guess what, Hungarian voters don't give two hoots about El Cid and Polish voters laugh if the Greek Prime minister lauds over Thermopylae What's left is politicians wanting to do something for the home crowds, and realising wrapping themselves in the flag won't cut it - so they go for stuff that will benefit everyone - build a railway from the tip of Italy to the top of Sweden ? Yeah why not that ought to provide a stronger market. We can sell that back home. If you are diverse enough the phase space of intelligent decisions becomes fairly narrow and surprisingly good for everyone.
- oytis 4y ago
  Businesses are not made for employees though.
- mehphp 4y ago
  You can always "vote" by leaving a company, too.
xyzelement 4y ago
I think the idea in the article is something like - by thinking company-first you can arrive at better outcomes for yourself in the long run. It's not about self sacrifice. Certainly all the good gains in my career happened as a consequence of achieving big things for the company, which I wouldn't have landed with me-first thinking.
- misthop 4y ago
  Interesting. I think I have come out about the same but being rather self-serving, or at least not company first.. Doing something big for the company reflects well on me, improves my standing, and I can tout those achievements to others for other career growth. But I do make a point of working for companies where I think my own interests align with the role in the company
  - xyzelement 4y ago
    Me too. I've generally only worked in companies where I feel good about doing right for the company eventually finding its way back to my comp and role. If you don't work in a company like that (or don't feel like you do) then probably the approach recommended here doesn't make sense.
- rqtwteye 4y ago
  “Certainly all the good gains in my career happened as a consequence of achieving big things for the company, which I wouldn't have landed with me-first thinking.” You did me-first. You just had situations where what was good for the company was good for you too. If you repeatedly did what was good for the company but never got anything for yourself you would probably stop. A lot of people are in a situation where what’s good for the company doesn’t give them any reward or is even negative (lose their job, more work).
  - xyzelement 4y ago
    Yes and I think the advice in those situations is "leave" - nobody (smart) is suggesting you go company-first in those cases.
conductr 4y ago
Not sure I follow or just have contradicting experiences. Executive's personal bottom lines are usually tied to the Company's. The company's goals are usually a derivative of customer goals. Why are Customers not considered? Any ways, I like being individual focused, but we all work for this Company for a reason (interest?) and so we should probably just say something like; the company goals should be such that they can be reasonably accomplished with <100% of available resources, time and efforts. Leaving time for some independent individual development. Something like what Google theoretically did with their 80/20 policy. It's up to you to figure out what the right X/Y mix is.
oytis 4y ago
I understand it as being about technical decisions rather than interests. Engineers are inclined to make architectural decisions that align with their idea of what is fun to do. But really fulfilling work is the one that is being used and serves the purpose. Say I've seen a QA engineer designing an elaborate formal verification framework that took a lot of time, but failed to test anything engineers or customers cared about. Can't tell if he himself was happy with the result, but I wouldn't want to be in his shoes.

lifeisstillgood 4y ago

Yes. And may I suggest a simple method: have employees vote for executives Incentives align naturally when there is two way feedback

twblalock 4y ago
I suspect this would result in a lot of companies being run into the ground, as executives would focus on keeping employees happy at the cost of the business. "Vote for me, and everyone gets a raise and a bonus!" When the interests of employees are put ahead of the success of the company, in the long run the employees end up losing because the company will fail, or at least need to lay people off. Also, most employees simply aren't capable of understanding or judging executives more than a few levels above them. I'd hate to work somewhere where the junior devs get to pick the engineering directors, for example.
- lifeisstillgood 4y ago
  And that's the argument put forward in 1700s and 1800s for not extending the vote beyond those with land. Maybe employees will make intelligent informed decisions about who is actually capable as an executive. Maybe they will make more effective decisions themselves if they have a greater say and commitment to the company. Maybe not. Maybe we shall fall into totalitarian dystopias and the dream of universal suffrage will enter myth. maybe
  - civopsec 4y ago
    The real reason why the powers that be oppose workplace democracy is because then the well-being of the people that work at the company will be prioritized over making profits for the shareholders. > Maybe employees will make intelligent informed decisions about who is actually capable as an executive. Maybe they will make more effective decisions themselves if they have a greater say and commitment to the company. Yes, intelligent decisions. Such a red herring. For what is an “intelligent decision” in the market economy? Maximizing profits. So either the workers work within the bourgeoisie logic of maximizing profits—creating the same problems for themselves as they had under command economy rule—or they make “unintelligent decisions” by proritizing their collective selves. With the former they “fail the test” of this red herring scenario because intelligent decisions according to the workers are not the same as intelligent decisions according to the bourgeoisie.
    - lifeisstillgood 4y ago
      Ok - here's my take on intelligent decisions. The European Union has 27 countries in it - each nation has a proud and often violent past, with different cultural triggers. Politicians in Hungary can put their hands on hearts and talk of knights holding back the Mongols, Politicians in Spain can talk of defeating Moors, and guess what, Hungarian voters don't give two hoots about El Cid and Polish voters laugh if the Greek Prime minister lauds over Thermopylae What's left is politicians wanting to do something for the home crowds, and realising wrapping themselves in the flag won't cut it - so they go for stuff that will benefit everyone - build a railway from the tip of Italy to the top of Sweden ? Yeah why not that ought to provide a stronger market. We can sell that back home. If you are diverse enough the phase space of intelligent decisions becomes fairly narrow and surprisingly good for everyone.
oytis 4y ago
Businesses are not made for employees though.
mehphp 4y ago
You can always "vote" by leaving a company, too.

xyzelement 4y ago

I think the idea in the article is something like - by thinking company-first you can arrive at better outcomes for yourself in the long run. It's not about self sacrifice. Certainly all the good gains in my career happened as a consequence of achieving big things for the company, which I wouldn't have landed with me-first thinking.

misthop 4y ago
Interesting. I think I have come out about the same but being rather self-serving, or at least not company first.. Doing something big for the company reflects well on me, improves my standing, and I can tout those achievements to others for other career growth. But I do make a point of working for companies where I think my own interests align with the role in the company
- xyzelement 4y ago
  Me too. I've generally only worked in companies where I feel good about doing right for the company eventually finding its way back to my comp and role. If you don't work in a company like that (or don't feel like you do) then probably the approach recommended here doesn't make sense.
rqtwteye 4y ago
“Certainly all the good gains in my career happened as a consequence of achieving big things for the company, which I wouldn't have landed with me-first thinking.” You did me-first. You just had situations where what was good for the company was good for you too. If you repeatedly did what was good for the company but never got anything for yourself you would probably stop. A lot of people are in a situation where what’s good for the company doesn’t give them any reward or is even negative (lose their job, more work).
- xyzelement 4y ago
  Yes and I think the advice in those situations is "leave" - nobody (smart) is suggesting you go company-first in those cases.

conductr 4y ago

Not sure I follow or just have contradicting experiences. Executive's personal bottom lines are usually tied to the Company's. The company's goals are usually a derivative of customer goals. Why are Customers not considered? Any ways, I like being individual focused, but we all work for this Company for a reason (interest?) and so we should probably just say something like; the company goals should be such that they can be reasonably accomplished with <100% of available resources, time and efforts. Leaving time for some independent individual development. Something like what Google theoretically did with their 80/20 policy. It's up to you to figure out what the right X/Y mix is.

oytis 4y ago

I understand it as being about technical decisions rather than interests. Engineers are inclined to make architectural decisions that align with their idea of what is fun to do. But really fulfilling work is the one that is being used and serves the purpose. Say I've seen a QA engineer designing an elaborate formal verification framework that took a lot of time, but failed to test anything engineers or customers cared about. Can't tell if he himself was happy with the result, but I wouldn't want to be in his shoes.