3 ms·

Many high performing people receive great compensation, at least in financially flush fields like technology, and maximizing compensation isn't everyone's game.

Many high performing people receive great compensation, at least in financially flush fields like technology, and maximizing compensation isn't everyone's game. In fact, I'd say that high performers are often less distracted by that than most. What keeps a sufficiently paid high performer around, usually, is a personally rewarding and comfortable work environment. What that means can vary quite a lot though, making it hard to summarize in blogspam and short comments.

cvadict 2y ago
Agree 1000%. I'd take less pay to not have to deal with some middle-management dimwit who read this article trying to actively "coach" me.
- phil21 2y ago
  Yeah, I don't understand these sort of hot takes in the articles like it. As said middle-management dimwit, isn't sort of the definition of a high performer is that they perform without much coaching? That doesn't mean lack of management as the article implies - it means setting them up for success. Set them on a task, give them a few constraints as needed, and act as a bulldozer to remove blockers as they come to you with them. That's roughly the management a high performer needs in my book. Make sure you listen to them when they complain about something, and fix it within reason. Or explain why you cannot. Don't let penny wise pound foolish stuff fester. Advocate for merit based raises and bonuses - they are making you look good so they should be your first priority when expending political capital. Make sure higher ups and the rest of the org knows about their accomplishments. Simple stuff!
packetlost 2y ago
I'll second this. Most of the top performers I know, at any given time, could probably double their salary if they really wanted to. I know I could almost certainly by moving from a nimble smaller company that treats me with respect and responsibility (and a lot of fun problems) to one of the big tech companies.

cvadict 2y ago

Agree 1000%. I'd take less pay to not have to deal with some middle-management dimwit who read this article trying to actively "coach" me.

phil21 2y ago
Yeah, I don't understand these sort of hot takes in the articles like it. As said middle-management dimwit, isn't sort of the definition of a high performer is that they perform without much coaching? That doesn't mean lack of management as the article implies - it means setting them up for success. Set them on a task, give them a few constraints as needed, and act as a bulldozer to remove blockers as they come to you with them. That's roughly the management a high performer needs in my book. Make sure you listen to them when they complain about something, and fix it within reason. Or explain why you cannot. Don't let penny wise pound foolish stuff fester. Advocate for merit based raises and bonuses - they are making you look good so they should be your first priority when expending political capital. Make sure higher ups and the rest of the org knows about their accomplishments. Simple stuff!

packetlost 2y ago

I'll second this. Most of the top performers I know, at any given time, could probably double their salary if they really wanted to. I know I could almost certainly by moving from a nimble smaller company that treats me with respect and responsibility (and a lot of fun problems) to one of the big tech companies.