3 ms·

"Unsolvable" in the sense that there's no one magic algorithm you can use, sure. But every job has some ways to determine if the person in it is actually, y'kn

"Unsolvable" in the sense that there's no one magic algorithm you can use, sure. But every job has some ways to determine if the person in it is actually, y'know, doing it. And off the top of my head (and it's early, so YMMV), I'd say that remote jobs tend to have more easily-auditable products than many in-person-only jobs (particularly the type where the main purpose is direct interaction with the public). > If we hire two engineers to act as one then maybe, maybe, we could measure performance. At the cost of the largest inefficiency imaginable. And why should "efficiency" be our most important criterion? "Efficiency" is why we have lean staffing that forces the "bus factor"[0] of nearly every position to 1. "Efficiency" is why we have stretched, fragile supply chains that break down the moment any one supplier or middleman experiences a crisis. Efficiency is the enemy of resilience. The only people it really helps are shareholders. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_factor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_factor

consteval 2y ago
Efficiency is perhaps not the right word, but I was under the impression that attempting to measure performance is a cost saving tactic. I think you lose the cost saving if you just double your engineers while keeping the same amount of work.
- danaris 2y ago
  I mean, from a certain perspective, nearly everything management tries to do is a cost-saving tactic, but I wouldn't say that measuring performance is primarily about "cost savings". It's more about making sure that people are doing the job they were hired to do—which, on the face of it, is definitely a valuable thing to be doing. The problem is when it's being used as a whip to get people to work ever harder with no more pay and no more support than before. Doubling engineers while keeping the same amount of work is something that can increase resiliency—both in the engineers themselves and in the business. Making sure you have at least, say, 125%-150% coverage of all duties makes a huge difference in everyone's stress levels, and makes sure that if someone gets sick, gets hit by a bus, or just goes on vacation, their duties neither stop getting done, nor get piled onto other people who are already at 100% (or more) capacity.

consteval 2y ago

Efficiency is perhaps not the right word, but I was under the impression that attempting to measure performance is a cost saving tactic. I think you lose the cost saving if you just double your engineers while keeping the same amount of work.

danaris 2y ago
I mean, from a certain perspective, nearly everything management tries to do is a cost-saving tactic, but I wouldn't say that measuring performance is primarily about "cost savings". It's more about making sure that people are doing the job they were hired to do—which, on the face of it, is definitely a valuable thing to be doing. The problem is when it's being used as a whip to get people to work ever harder with no more pay and no more support than before. Doubling engineers while keeping the same amount of work is something that can increase resiliency—both in the engineers themselves and in the business. Making sure you have at least, say, 125%-150% coverage of all duties makes a huge difference in everyone's stress levels, and makes sure that if someone gets sick, gets hit by a bus, or just goes on vacation, their duties neither stop getting done, nor get piled onto other people who are already at 100% (or more) capacity.