3 ms·

> Standardizing roles, skills and training makes the individual laborer interchangeable. Every employee can be assessed uniformly against a cohort, where the r

> Standardizing roles, skills and training makes the individual laborer interchangeable. Every employee can be assessed uniformly against a cohort, where the retention calculus is relative performance versus salary. The article frames this as a bad thing, but a shift towards standardizing and commoditizing roles isn't necessarily anti-labor—this is one of the major things that unions do, after all. A workforce where every employee is a snowflake who falls or prospers based on subjective 'feel' of their superiors is one where divide and conquer tactics work well for employers and one where nepotism thrives and meritocracy is effectively impossible. If roles are defined and standardized and salary bands are known and predictable, that can actually create an environment that is as much easier for employees to navigate as it is for employers. What starts out to benefit one party can actually level the field for everyone.

Propelloni 2y ago
Your comment reminded me of Jo Freeman's THE TYRANNY of STRUCTURELESSNESS [1], which uncovers important group dynamics which, I think, are applicable here. [1] https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
nine_zeros 2y ago
> The article frames this as a bad thing, but a shift towards standardizing and commoditizing roles isn't necessarily anti-labor—this is one of the major things that unions do, after all. All of this is fine as a theoretical argument where every individual being commodities is doing the exact same job with the exact same level of complexity. Is software engineering like that or is there a large element of creativity, exploration, and differing complexity? The answer to this question will inform how lazy standardization and commoditization of tech is.
- lolinder 2y ago
  You're assuming that you can't standardize expectations and comp for creative roles. I'm not sure if that's true or not, just pointing out that it's an assumption. I do know from experience that the existing system where roles are fuzzy and people get promoted based on gut is not fair or effective.
  - nine_zeros 2y ago
    > You're assuming that you can't standardize expectations and comp for creative roles. I'm not sure if that's true or not, just pointing out that it's an assumption. I am asking you to present a worksheet that describes engineering activities and to explain how they can be standardized. If you can, great. If you present something as broken as FAANG companies, then maybe we don't have a way to standardize yet. > I do know from experience that the existing system where roles are fuzzy and people get promoted based on gut is not fair or effective. And this is a problem only because of pyramid org structures. Is a promo-driven culture necessary for tech work?

Propelloni 2y ago

Your comment reminded me of Jo Freeman's THE TYRANNY of STRUCTURELESSNESS [1], which uncovers important group dynamics which, I think, are applicable here. [1] https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm

nine_zeros 2y ago

> The article frames this as a bad thing, but a shift towards standardizing and commoditizing roles isn't necessarily anti-labor—this is one of the major things that unions do, after all. All of this is fine as a theoretical argument where every individual being commodities is doing the exact same job with the exact same level of complexity. Is software engineering like that or is there a large element of creativity, exploration, and differing complexity? The answer to this question will inform how lazy standardization and commoditization of tech is.

lolinder 2y ago
You're assuming that you can't standardize expectations and comp for creative roles. I'm not sure if that's true or not, just pointing out that it's an assumption. I do know from experience that the existing system where roles are fuzzy and people get promoted based on gut is not fair or effective.
- nine_zeros 2y ago
  > You're assuming that you can't standardize expectations and comp for creative roles. I'm not sure if that's true or not, just pointing out that it's an assumption. I am asking you to present a worksheet that describes engineering activities and to explain how they can be standardized. If you can, great. If you present something as broken as FAANG companies, then maybe we don't have a way to standardize yet. > I do know from experience that the existing system where roles are fuzzy and people get promoted based on gut is not fair or effective. And this is a problem only because of pyramid org structures. Is a promo-driven culture necessary for tech work?