3 ms·
It's more contextual than that. In some cases, ship vs not ship, profit vs not profit, is the difference between a company thriving and failing to thrive. In
by Earw0rm 2y ago
It's more contextual than that.
In some cases, ship vs not ship, profit vs not profit, is the difference between a company thriving and failing to thrive.
In others, there are second- or third-order effects that render marginal profitability kind of irrelevant to the trajectory. This usually applies to either very large / institutional orgs, or situations where the business is leveraged by investors (VC or PE) such that the kind of honest profit earned by shipping an update or a new product won't meaningfully impact on the company's fate. In those situations, doing good engineering and cleaning up tech debt might make more difference to yours and your colleagues' lives, and maybe even your customers', than shipping.
- pdimitar 2y ago> In some cases, ship vs not ship, profit vs not profit, is the difference between a company thriving and failing to thrive. That's their problem, not mine. I get paid a fixed amount. If I get paid the same + a percentage of outcome then I'll change how I work. Easy to understand, I believe.
- pertymcpert 2y agoThe problem is then you’re not being paid enough.
- pdimitar 2y agoThat is also true. It becomes a nasty chicken and the egg problem though -- many companies pay less as a risk management strategy, and that leads to the employee not having enough motivation. Of course from then on he/she does not want to excel and the employer concludes they made the right decision which is of course super wrong. It's quite tragic on a human level but I stopped caring about that aspect as well. At my age and experience I just shrug and say "You get what you pay for" and I am not interested in trying to school people who would never change anyway.