4 ms·

In my experience, the "goals" you hit are really capabilities. Can you design bigger systems? Can you lead bigger teams? Can you define winning strategy? Those

In my experience, the "goals" you hit are really capabilities. Can you design bigger systems? Can you lead bigger teams? Can you define winning strategy? Those aren't artificial milestones, they are real things (eg, you'd need them if you ran your own company) and growing from someone who "can't" to someone who "can" is exhilarating.

scottLobster 4y ago
Maybe in an ideal world, but in my experience most corporate "goals" are just "influential" people playing political games with minimal if any real-world productivity attached. They might as well be playing Monopoly but with real money. None of them ever get fired even in abject, catestrophic failure. The only "capability" for them to cultivate is convincing enough other influential people to give them resources through various political means so that they have the biggest chair when the music stops or they retire. It's largely up the ICs to produce the "real things" as best they can given circumstances foisted upon them. Maybe at some companies "designing bigger systems", "leading bigger teams" and "defining winning strategy" is correlated with said resource extraction, but that's all. The moment those capabilities aren't in sync with resource extraction, they become worthless. The ideal company abuses its workers and robs its customers, and will get as close to that ideal as it's allowed. It's only force of popular will that keeps that in check, and the rare decent person who makes it into leadership.
- classified 4y ago
  As much as I hate to hear it, what you describe is all too common.
nitwit005 4y ago
Those aren't goals. They're just describing giving someone more responsibility. It'd be nice if managers could determine who can handle more responsibility, but it's basically a crapshoot.
greenyoda 4y ago
> Can you design bigger systems? Bigger systems don't necessarily meet customer needs better than smaller systems. They may just contain a lot of extraneous complexity. > Can you lead bigger teams? Bigger teams don't necessarily accomplish more than small, focused teams. The more people on the team, the higher the communication overhead, and the harder it is to maintain "conceptual integrity" in the product. Brooks described these issues in The Mythical Man-Month: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month If employees get rewarded for building bigger systems and leading bigger teams, they'll have a bias toward doing those things ("empire building"), even when they may be against the better interest of the company and its customers.

scottLobster 4y ago

Maybe in an ideal world, but in my experience most corporate "goals" are just "influential" people playing political games with minimal if any real-world productivity attached. They might as well be playing Monopoly but with real money. None of them ever get fired even in abject, catestrophic failure. The only "capability" for them to cultivate is convincing enough other influential people to give them resources through various political means so that they have the biggest chair when the music stops or they retire. It's largely up the ICs to produce the "real things" as best they can given circumstances foisted upon them. Maybe at some companies "designing bigger systems", "leading bigger teams" and "defining winning strategy" is correlated with said resource extraction, but that's all. The moment those capabilities aren't in sync with resource extraction, they become worthless. The ideal company abuses its workers and robs its customers, and will get as close to that ideal as it's allowed. It's only force of popular will that keeps that in check, and the rare decent person who makes it into leadership.

classified 4y ago
As much as I hate to hear it, what you describe is all too common.

nitwit005 4y ago

Those aren't goals. They're just describing giving someone more responsibility. It'd be nice if managers could determine who can handle more responsibility, but it's basically a crapshoot.

greenyoda 4y ago

> Can you design bigger systems? Bigger systems don't necessarily meet customer needs better than smaller systems. They may just contain a lot of extraneous complexity. > Can you lead bigger teams? Bigger teams don't necessarily accomplish more than small, focused teams. The more people on the team, the higher the communication overhead, and the harder it is to maintain "conceptual integrity" in the product. Brooks described these issues in The Mythical Man-Month: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month If employees get rewarded for building bigger systems and leading bigger teams, they'll have a bias toward doing those things ("empire building"), even when they may be against the better interest of the company and its customers.