4 ms·
> To put a very fine point on it, the reason they had to fight (like everyone else there) is because if they didn't come up with something to do that was quanti
by ajcp 4y ago
> To put a very fine point on it, the reason they had to fight (like everyone else there) is because if they didn't come up with something to do that was quantifiable and impactful in line with org goals, they'd be terminated within the year. It was their job to find a way to be useful. The system culls those who do not.
You're saying the approach "one of the most efficient companies in the history of the world" takes to producing value is: let's just hire people and let them figure out the value they can provide, otherwise we'll fire them.
Am I getting that right?
Before I've even hired someone I've already scoped and quantified the impact I need them to have. I then go find someone that is qualified to do that, and then I motivate them to do more. It is _extremely_ inefficient from an _everything_ perspective to do so in reverse. Not harsh. Not impersonal. Not even ruthless. It's objectively n. e. fish. ent.
- kthejoker2 4y agoI mean .. you are correct to do so when adding 1 or 3 employees, and basically completely wrong at the scale of hires we're talking about. For example this is how every tech "body shop" hires. The value is just out there in the ether of modern enterprise. Bring in 20% more people year over year. Keep attrition rate for them and existing hires around 10%. Go knock hat in hand at every Fortune 1000 company and wrangle whatever buzzwords Gartner has thrown at them into a project or managed service you can slip as many billable hours as possible into. It's the same with Meta, they can try literally about anything so when GPT or crypto or Web3 or AR or whatever comes along they just want to be able to throw a bunch of people at it to figure out how to socialize, advertise, and monetize it at massive scale.