2 ms·
This post contradicts itself. Basically, it seems to suggest that whatever benefits your role is what needs to be done. However, given that there are far more
by cudgy 4y ago
This post contradicts itself. Basically, it seems to suggest that whatever benefits your role is what needs to be done.
However, given that there are far more staff employees, wouldn’t it make sense to optimize for their output?
- SkyPuncher 4y agoI could have done better elaborating on the conundrum. Ultimately, companies are looking for outcomes (e.g. financial return). Outputs are an important part of outcomes, but not the goal in of itself. Outputs also need to be working towards valuable goals. Without value, outputs are worthless. This creates a conundrum where you need to find a proper balance between the large quantity of people who need to make the outputs and the fewer number of people who need to guide the value.
- cudgy 4y agoSure. The stated goal of companies is to optimize financial return, but the reality is that management protects their fiefdom of managers and focus on the financial return and comfort of management, not the company. This is evidenced most glaringly with targeting short-term performance tied to compensation at the expense of long-term profitability. Or, in this case, sacrificing the gained value of wfh to the general employees to satisfy the perceived loss in value for management. Neither move is better for the company’s over the long-term.