3 ms·
He makes an incredibly weak argument here. Even if it is true that UX > EX (users experience more important than employee experience) you don't have to trade-o
by ltbarcly3 3y ago
He makes an incredibly weak argument here. Even if it is true that UX > EX (users experience more important than employee experience) you don't have to trade-off between them until and unless you are at the Pareto frontier. It's almost always true that you are not Pareto efficient, and that means you can improve UX with out hurting EX or improve EX without hurting UX, and I would wager in almost all teams and all companies in the world there is plenty of room to improve both at the same time.
- Centigonal 3y agoI totally agree! Furthermore, chasing better employee experience can drive wins for customers, because chasing UX over EX would lead us to a very fragile, risk-prone world with few long-term efficiency improvements (short term EX is often long-term UX). Things like DevOps ("why spend time making internal tools for maintaining infrastructure when we could manage it by hand?") and data engineering ("in the time it takes you to replace our manual Excel process with Python, we could have come up with 3 new insights for our stakeholders!") rarely prosper in situations where EX is totally discounted - even though they end up paying big dividends for the business in the long run. Most importantly, employees are human, and dejected employees won't do their best work for you. I agree that the best place to be is somewhere on the pareto frontier, and most startup CEOs are fooling themselves if they think they're already there.