Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Company, Team, Self

lethain.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 64 posts

Re: Company, Team, Self

#21

Post by smcleod »

This feels like pretty typical capitalist rhetoric on the surface at least.

Ignoring income - Do you go to work to make the company you work for more wealthy? Or do you go to work to enjoy what you do and make friends? Or do you go to work to learn new skills and better yourself? - In which order do you place the statements? (Yes, it's a false trichotomy.)

Unless you're the company founder or a major shareholder I would really hope making the company more wealthy is not your top priority.

I always say to my co-workers health > family > work. If they're not healthy, they're not happy and they're not able to look after family (or close friends), for family (or close friends) I'm not happy or healthy they're less likely to be a viable support network. You can be passionate, expressive, and absorbed in your work - but doing what is best for the company above all else is not what is best for humanity most of the time.

Re: Company, Team, Self

#22

Post by bitwize »

mfuzzey wrote: post #20

Problem is who gets to decide what is best for the company? In many organisations most people may not have enough information to really know what is best for the whole organisation, even if they do have good ideas about their part. And top executives often can't be trusted to act in the best interest of the company (rather than that of the shareholders, the stock market or themselves...). Short term vs longterm is al…

> Problem is who gets to decide what is best for the company?

People above your pay grade. What is best for the company for your purposes will be made clear to you by your manager or their superiors. Your job is to not question or criticize but to carry out. Be wary of calls for feedback (e.g., eNPS); every Hundred Flowers Campaign can be expected to soon be followed by an Anti-Rightist Campaign, i.e., the feedback solicited will likely be used to identify and eliminate potential troublemakers rather than effect actual change.

Re: Company, Team, Self

#23

Post by esparrohack »

jacobyoder wrote: post #4
pphysch wrote: post #2

> As I’ve become a more experienced manager, I’ve stopped giving this advice. I still believe it’s the correct advice, and I continue to see managers who fail because they are missing this perspective. However, I’ve also seen some of the best leaders that I’ve worked with burn out by following this advice too loyally. Most employees, especially in the West, especially in USA, are going to be biased towards their indi…

I've been in situations as a dev where I've figuratively screamed from the rafters "X is happening - we need to do ABC". It's almost universally ignored because "well, devs just like to do ABC! not happening this year... etc". No... I hate doing ABC. What's in my immediate interest is to quietly paper over problems, and pass them along to someone else. What's also in my interest longer term is the organization to fix…

That’s cus they don’t trust you. Win their trust!

I don’t like the persuasive education angle. You’re going to come off as smarmy.

So not everything is an opportunity. You gotta remember that things are the way they are cus they got that way.

1) solution may seem stupid bad now, but at the time, it was the lesser of two evils

2) the people most responsible are now your coworkers.

It’s not always a good idea to see everything or comment on everything. Pick your battles.

Re: Company, Team, Self

#24

Post by civopsec »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #18
twblalock wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect this would result in a lot of companies being run into the ground, as executives would focus on keeping employees happy at the cost of the business. "Vote for me, and everyone gets a raise and a bonus!" When the interests of employees are put ahead of the success of the company, in the long run the employees end up losing because the company will fail, or at least need to lay people off. Also, most employee…

And that's the argument put forward in 1700s and 1800s for not extending the vote beyond those with land. Maybe employees will make intelligent informed decisions about who is actually capable as an executive. Maybe they will make more effective decisions themselves if they have a greater say and commitment to the company. Maybe not. Maybe we shall fall into totalitarian dystopias and the dream of universal suffrage…

The real reason why the powers that be oppose workplace democracy is because then the well-being of the people that work at the company will be prioritized over making profits for the shareholders.

> Maybe employees will make intelligent informed decisions about who is actually capable as an executive. Maybe they will make more effective decisions themselves if they have a greater say and commitment to the company.

Yes, intelligent decisions. Such a red herring. For what is an “intelligent decision” in the market economy? Maximizing profits. So either the workers work within the bourgeoisie logic of maximizing profits—creating the same problems for themselves as they had under command economy rule—or they make “unintelligent decisions” by proritizing their collective selves. With the former they “fail the test” of this red herring scenario because intelligent decisions according to the workers are not the same as intelligent decisions according to the bourgeoisie.

Re: Company, Team, Self

#25

Post by jmk123 »

smcleod wrote: post #21

This feels like pretty typical capitalist rhetoric on the surface at least. Ignoring income - Do you go to work to make the company you work for more wealthy? Or do you go to work to enjoy what you do and make friends? Or do you go to work to learn new skills and better yourself? - In which order do you place the statements? (Yes, it's a false trichotomy.) Unless you're the company founder or a major shareholder I wo…

> health > family > work

100% agree.

I would've flipped the thesis of the post in reverse order: yourself, your team, your company.

Re: Company, Team, Self

#27

Post by p0pcult »

Dumb idea: what if we re conceptualized firms as entities whose role it is to keep people meaningfully employed at good wages, in order to support societal stability?

Oh right, I live in the USA.

Re: Company, Team, Self

#29

Post by lifeisstillgood »

civopsec wrote: post #24
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's the argument put forward in 1700s and 1800s for not extending the vote beyond those with land. Maybe employees will make intelligent informed decisions about who is actually capable as an executive. Maybe they will make more effective decisions themselves if they have a greater say and commitment to the company. Maybe not. Maybe we shall fall into totalitarian dystopias and the dream of universal suffrage…

The real reason why the powers that be oppose workplace democracy is because then the well-being of the people that work at the company will be prioritized over making profits for the shareholders. > Maybe employees will make intelligent informed decisions about who is actually capable as an executive. Maybe they will make more effective decisions themselves if they have a greater say and commitment to the company. Y…

Ok - here's my take on intelligent decisions. The European Union has 27 countries in it - each nation has a proud and often violent past, with different cultural triggers. Politicians in Hungary can put their hands on hearts and talk of knights holding back the Mongols, Politicians in Spain can talk of defeating Moors, and guess what, Hungarian voters don't give two hoots about El Cid and Polish voters laugh if the Greek Prime minister lauds over Thermopylae

What's left is politicians wanting to do something for the home crowds, and realising wrapping themselves in the flag won't cut it - so they go for stuff that will benefit everyone - build a railway from the tip of Italy to the top of Sweden ? Yeah why not that ought to provide a stronger market. We can sell that back home.

If you are diverse enough the phase space of intelligent decisions becomes fairly narrow and surprisingly good for everyone.

Re: Company, Team, Self

#30

Post by kqr »

simonw wrote: post #7

I loved this paragraph: > People are complex, and they get energy in complex ways. Some managers get energy from writing some software. That’s great, particularly if you avoid writing software with strict dependencies. Some managers get energy from coaching others. That’s great. Some get energy from doing exploratory work. Others get energy from optimizing existing systems. That’s great, too. Some get energy from spe…

But it's not just about people being different. It's also about how not everything people do has to be valuable to the customer. It can be valuable in the sense that the person stays in the organisation for longer if they get to do it.

This realisation hit me when I was in a heated debate with my (then) product manager about what did and did not provide value for our customers. Then suddenly he said, "I'm pretty sure almost half of what I ask your team to do is not because it's valuable to our customers, but because it's clearly important to your team, for whatever reason I don't have to care about."

I had no idea until that point, but it did make a lot of sense.

Post reply on HN