3 ms·

I don't see the controversy? If the effort you put in is "good enough", then the rewards should also just be "good enough". The biggest rewards should go to tho

I don't see the controversy? If the effort you put in is "good enough", then the rewards should also just be "good enough". The biggest rewards should go to those who strive for them. People who's approach is to do as little work as they can get away with should expect the company to pay them as little as they can get away with, and everything scales up from there. Side note, I'm not in the United States and I understand that the employer-employee relationship is more adversarial there. So I'm only going off my experience in the workforce.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ncr100 3y ago
That's the question. Philosophizing about what the business needs vs the employee is what is happening here in the HN comments. Context matters and we don't have enough, IMO, to judge. Is this hiring manager for sales looking to fill a role in a company that needs to look innovative or it will die? If so then that context justifies the A B C criterion.
hurrdurr56 3y ago
That would certainly be the ideal scenario, but the issue is that it doesn't translate well to corporate bureaucracy. In a sizeable company, your work performance is typically judged based on a small set of quantifiable metrics. How many sales dollars did you generate? How many widgets did you produce this quarter? Did you hit or exceed your set quota for X? and so on. Your work performance is also judged on how well you follow protocol and abide by the company handbook. Innovation and "hustle" are not quantifiable metrics and get completely lost within the complexity and scope of managing a multi-location cubicle farm. A high level manager who implemented this kind of policy would most likely end up terminating the very kind of people he supposedly wanted to reward and promote.