3 ms·
IMO, overseeing 0 people is great. I'm not likely to take any position where I have to oversee more or less than that; although I'm willing to compromise and ov
by toast0 1y ago
IMO, overseeing 0 people is great. I'm not likely to take any position where I have to oversee more or less than that; although I'm willing to compromise and oversee one person where they're actually independent and I don't have to do much overseeing.
- LambdaComplex 1y ago> overseeing 0 people is great. I'm not likely to take any position where I have to oversee more or less than that; I would have so many questions if I got an offer for a position where I had to oversee less than 0 people
- fuzzy_biscuit 1y agoWould that mean you have to undersee one or more people? cue rimshot
- shoo 1y agoUp on the shore they work all day Out in the sun they slave away While we devotin' Full time to floatin' Under the sea
- omoikane 1y agoOverseeing 0 people is great if your role is an individual contributor. If your role is a manager and there is no one for you to manage, it would seem that your role is redundant.
- pmontra 1y agoI'm sure that some company has managers overseeing imaginary and complex people.