5 ms·

It sounds like we actually agree in practice and I've just heard the word "loyalty" used differently from the way you've heard it used. Apologies if I used the

It sounds like we actually agree in practice and I've just heard the word "loyalty" used differently from the way you've heard it used. Apologies if I used the wrong definition, and let me try to clarify my point: I completely agree that contributing to culture and the business is valuable. What annoys me is how much a lot of companies value seniority over anything else. The attitude of "Well, X is older and has been here longer than Y, so they should get paid more" is incredibly prevalent even in the USA. Especially in tech-heavy jobs, I've seen plenty of cases where someone might contribute 5x or 10x as much value as the average person in their position...and receive a 10% higher raise as a result.

crusso 14y ago
A HN sub-thread that moves toward consensus. Wonders never cease. ;)
toyg 14y ago
People are lazy. Calculating seniority is easy and "objective", not controversial; in fact, it's so linear you could even write a program to automate it (I bet somebody did just that). Evaluating performance or actual returns to the business, that's hard; the metrics are often very subjective, and people will start arguing. Rule #6582 of the Safe Manager: Don't Give People Excuses To Argue. So seniority it is. This was unfortunately exacerbated by Trade Unions, which needed something "objective" to force owners to pay up and keep members happy, so they built their demands on this sort of easy metrics: seniority, hours of work, etc. I'm sure if you could find a generic way to calculate productivity in an uncontroversial way, managers and unions would jump on it, but in most cases there ain't, so seniority it is.
- zerooneinfinity 14y ago
  Employee evaluation forms is not a good metric to evaluate performance?
jdotjdot 14y ago
What you're talking about is seniority, not loyalty. Someone can have 30 years at a company and still be not loyal if their heart's not in it, they plan to jump ship, they take advantage of others, they embezzle, etc. Seniority is length of time employed at the company. Loyalty is investment in and contributions to the work community. And that kind of loyalty makes a company a nice place to work, because what you have is a community of people who are invested in each other.

crusso 14y ago

A HN sub-thread that moves toward consensus. Wonders never cease. ;)

toyg 14y ago

People are lazy. Calculating seniority is easy and "objective", not controversial; in fact, it's so linear you could even write a program to automate it (I bet somebody did just that). Evaluating performance or actual returns to the business, that's hard; the metrics are often very subjective, and people will start arguing. Rule #6582 of the Safe Manager: Don't Give People Excuses To Argue. So seniority it is. This was unfortunately exacerbated by Trade Unions, which needed something "objective" to force owners to pay up and keep members happy, so they built their demands on this sort of easy metrics: seniority, hours of work, etc. I'm sure if you could find a generic way to calculate productivity in an uncontroversial way, managers and unions would jump on it, but in most cases there ain't, so seniority it is.

zerooneinfinity 14y ago
Employee evaluation forms is not a good metric to evaluate performance?

jdotjdot 14y ago

What you're talking about is seniority, not loyalty. Someone can have 30 years at a company and still be not loyal if their heart's not in it, they plan to jump ship, they take advantage of others, they embezzle, etc. Seniority is length of time employed at the company. Loyalty is investment in and contributions to the work community. And that kind of loyalty makes a company a nice place to work, because what you have is a community of people who are invested in each other.