4 ms·

That involves a really unrealistically narrow and abstract idea of "skill", where they're just some characteristic of an individual that manifest independent of

That involves a really unrealistically narrow and abstract idea of "skill", where they're just some characteristic of an individual that manifest independent of the environment. In practice, people perform differently in different environments, and a high-performer with deep collegial relationships at HyperBiz might have pretty unimpressive impact as a newbie at HoopaCorp. This is even true among engineers, if not especially true among them. Most of us do better work around good, familiar colleagues (once we find them) than at the place with the biggest TCO budget, and many of us prefer to work somewhere that invites our best work more than one that let us buy the fancier trim line on our already-luxury car. The cultural distinction isn't "valuing skill" vs "valuing loyalty" - it's a worldview of radical individualism vs interdependent pragmatism.

robertlagrant 3y ago
> That involves a really unrealistically narrow and abstract idea of "skill", where they're just some characteristic of an individual that manifest independent of the environment. No it doesn't. This is about companies needing to hire a skill and valuing it more than your current employer values it. Companies don't hire people who are already performing well in their environment, because they're a new hire. > Most of us do better work I'm not talking about this. I'm saying, say, a web developer working for a scaleup with a global customer base is going to be worth paying more for than a web developer working for a company with a customer base of up to 1000 businesses. > many of us prefer to work somewhere that invites our best work This also irrelevant - I'm not saying what people should choose; I'm saying that moving for a raise is you finding somewhere that values your skills more right now. > it's a worldview of radical individualism vs interdependent pragmatism This is just silly biased phrasing. It's not about individualism at all. It's about hiring. Unless you think hiring individuals is radical individualism, and only complete teams should be hired, like the NFL.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

robertlagrant 3y ago

> That involves a really unrealistically narrow and abstract idea of "skill", where they're just some characteristic of an individual that manifest independent of the environment. No it doesn't. This is about companies needing to hire a skill and valuing it more than your current employer values it. Companies don't hire people who are already performing well in their environment, because they're a new hire. > Most of us do better work I'm not talking about this. I'm saying, say, a web developer working for a scaleup with a global customer base is going to be worth paying more for than a web developer working for a company with a customer base of up to 1000 businesses. > many of us prefer to work somewhere that invites our best work This also irrelevant - I'm not saying what people should choose; I'm saying that moving for a raise is you finding somewhere that values your skills more right now. > it's a worldview of radical individualism vs interdependent pragmatism This is just silly biased phrasing. It's not about individualism at all. It's about hiring. Unless you think hiring individuals is radical individualism, and only complete teams should be hired, like the NFL.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]