25 ms·

I’m not saying just leave everyone to their own devices, but some individuals should be able to have ownership and make decisions without layers and layers of p

by dartos 2y ago

I’m not saying just leave everyone to their own devices, but some individuals should be able to have ownership and make decisions without layers and layers of process. Ofc decisions can have consequences, but that’s what the high pay should be for. It’s not a black and white issue and I don’t think you need to present it like one.

ttoinou 2y ago
A more risky job should be compensated more ? It'd be the opposite, if it's risky then the variance of the income should be greater (success = more income) I don't want to present the problem as black and white but merely express a simple idea : developers DO want to be managed to simplify their lives and focus their time on more important things for them
- dartos 2y ago
  > A more risky job should be compensated more? Yea, duh. The more your decisions affect the company, the more you’re compensated. It’s why C-suite commands the biggest salaries. It’s another reason why orgs are so low trust.
  - ttoinou 2y ago
    Risk = variance = you should make less or make more depending on outcome. You want the cake (freedom, more impact) and eat it too (guaranteed higher salary)
    - dartos 2y ago
      You have it all wrong. People are not equations. Let’s define risk in this discussion. Risk is the relative impact your decisions have on the org at large. If you make the wrong choice as the CEO, you can tank the company. If someone’s job involves risk, and you pay them peanuts, they’ll either go to a job that doesn’t involve that much risk or make decisions that are always maximally safe, regardless of potential upside, usually at the cost of company growth. You want your staff to feel comfortable taking risks so that the company can grow, because a stagnant company will die. So you pay your positions more when they have more risk.
      - ttoinou 2y ago
        I never use numbers and exact equations to think about business, economics and politics. You have the wrong guy. You want more money in a predictable way, go incentivize the employees the correct way. In the meantime, workers are also responsible for the layers of “useless” managements

by dartos 2y ago

ttoinou 2y ago

A more risky job should be compensated more ? It'd be the opposite, if it's risky then the variance of the income should be greater (success = more income) I don't want to present the problem as black and white but merely express a simple idea : developers DO want to be managed to simplify their lives and focus their time on more important things for them

dartos 2y ago
> A more risky job should be compensated more? Yea, duh. The more your decisions affect the company, the more you’re compensated. It’s why C-suite commands the biggest salaries. It’s another reason why orgs are so low trust.
- ttoinou 2y ago
  Risk = variance = you should make less or make more depending on outcome. You want the cake (freedom, more impact) and eat it too (guaranteed higher salary)
  - dartos 2y ago
    You have it all wrong. People are not equations. Let’s define risk in this discussion. Risk is the relative impact your decisions have on the org at large. If you make the wrong choice as the CEO, you can tank the company. If someone’s job involves risk, and you pay them peanuts, they’ll either go to a job that doesn’t involve that much risk or make decisions that are always maximally safe, regardless of potential upside, usually at the cost of company growth. You want your staff to feel comfortable taking risks so that the company can grow, because a stagnant company will die. So you pay your positions more when they have more risk.
    - ttoinou 2y ago
      I never use numbers and exact equations to think about business, economics and politics. You have the wrong guy. You want more money in a predictable way, go incentivize the employees the correct way. In the meantime, workers are also responsible for the layers of “useless” managements