Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure there is. Compensate them for accomplishing tasks that benefit the company. If they do not benefit the company, stop compensating them. We call this practice employment.
There are numerous ways for a purely self-serving employee to give the appearance of creating benefit to the company while doing as little as possible. Emplyoment in general only works because the employees in many cases actually care about the quality of their work and not only about themselves.
Company, Team, Self
51–60 of 64 posts
Re: Company, Team, Self
#52> As I’ve become a more experienced manager, I’ve stopped giving this advice. I still believe it’s the correct advice No it is not the correct advice. It is an oversimplification. It might be an easy rule to remember and follow, but like many of those it fails to deal adequately with the subtleties of the real world.
(Good) advice doesn't deal with all of life's subtelties; that's an impossible prescription with no resiliency. It sets you up to figure it out yourself.
Re: Company, Team, Self
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure there is. Compensate them for accomplishing tasks that benefit the company. If they do not benefit the company, stop compensating them. We call this practice employment.
There are numerous ways for a purely self-serving employee to give the appearance of creating benefit to the company while doing as little as possible. Emplyoment in general only works because the employees in many cases actually care about the quality of their work and not only about themselves.
I do see what you're saying, but I don't think that quality of work and caring about oneself only are mutually exclusive.
You can care about the quality of your work without really caring about the fate of a particular company. Employees with great output are in high demand, so you know that you can just continue somewhere else.
I happen to care about the quality of my work and the company, but even then, the company's future (unless I own it) comes way below my own needs (thinking of my family here in particular).
I don't think it's possible to make a significant portion of your workforce altruistically care about the company. Hence, the original commenter's suggestion is that managers are responsible for correctly incentivizing workers.
Re: Company, Team, Self
#54It's always about incentive misalignment. As an employee thinking Company first will improve the bottom line for the company. As an executive thinking company first may well eliminate me as an employee. Why should an employee put the company interests above their own with that incentive alignment? The company should work to make the company's interests serve the individual interests of the employees
Yes. And may I suggest a simple method: have employees vote for executives Incentives align naturally when there is two way feedback
Re: Company, Team, Self
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
The thing that brought the same idea home for me is the idea that optimization is a destructive process. A business is a complex thing with many, many variables influencing its success. If you truly optimize "customer value" then you must give up everything else. A much more nuanced approach is to do what you did, and balance off various values against each other. Unfortunately this is very difficult to measure or "l…
> balance off various values against each other
This is still optimization. It’s just better optimization because it’s longer-term and considers more variables and their interaction effects.
Re: Company, Team, Self
#56A forest is grown one tree at a time.
A company is formed because someone, the founders, thinking for themselves. They want to create a product, solve a problem, learn an industry, or they just want to get rich. Essentially "do the thing". All of these start from "self".
With any luck, the founder get some funding, sell some products, got enough resources to build up their team. A team with people who thinks about themselves. They are the people who want to build a product, solve their own problem, learn an industry, or get rich. All of these joiner start from "self".
Then the founder found first hand that, after all the interview, vision and mission statements, OKR and all the charade, their objectives isn't quite exactly aligned with the teammates. Instead of "doing the thing", they need motivate their teammates to "do the thing".
One more iteration we are at the company level.
As other comment points out, it is really the executive's duty in making the alignment. IMO, you don't make the alignment by indoctrinating the same message over and over, but by understanding your team, and how your team's motivation contributes to a wider company goal. Similarly, you don't indoctrinate your customer how good your product is, you understand their need and refine your product. It's the same process.
Moreover, a so-called company goal is really just optimizing a beaten path, get more user, get more usage, get more revenue. Kodak's company goal back then I bet was about improving some of the measureable metrics. As a company, you do want to harness some creative power. Let some of your people do what they like some of the time is highly beneficial. It is the same creation force that gives birth to numerous ideas.
If there is a higher goal than the company goal, it is yours. How would you leverage the opportunities and resources offered by your employment to achieve your personal goal? That is the question. And you achieve company's goal by tapping that source of energy from your teammates.
Re: Company, Team, Self
#57In my personal experience (AWS, VMware), if the company you work for doesn't have a culture which is conducive to this type of behavior, you are going to be frustrated most of the time.
Extra hint: other people from the same company will have different priorities (self, self again, and something else), and if the company allows them to behave like that, you're screwed.
Re: Company, Team, Self
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just you who struggles with this - it's a very hard thing to do even for those who do it a lot. The number one barrier is just recognizing that it's a thing and you can work on it and do consciously (and sounds like you did that, so that's already huge!) In fact, what distinguishes executives is their experience, ability and willingness to get others to see and rally around a problem or goal - which is why I…
Yeah I mean this is great in theory, but in practice it's very very hard. Suppose I were to ask you to explain to somebody non-technical why your application shouldn't have 12 different databases. It's incredibly easy to provide hand-wavey claims about inefficiency, but non-technical people are rightly skeptical (after all for every good idea there are 10 developers claiming a complete rewrite in XYZ will 2x everythi…
I think I mentioned in my post like 3 times that this is a difficult thing to do even for those who are skilled. My point is that you still have to do it if you want a chance to get the outcomes you desire.
// How can you really provide hard evidence that an application with 1 database instead of 12 will be easier to develop in?
Great example. Like I said, the first step is to confirm a shared understanding of the problem. "Easier to develop" is not relevant, but "feature delivery velocity" is. So step 1, I'd ask the people I am trying to persuade whether they perceive a feature delivery velocity issue on your team.
If the answer is no - well that's a whole different conversation.
Assuming the answer is yes, the next question is - would it be impactful to the business if the velocity went up and should we think about how to do that? Again, if the answer is no - that's interesting. Ask why not?
If the answer is yes - then you come back with "as far as I can tell, one of the sources of our low velocity is the complexity. For example, we have 12 databases and on average, every feature requires 6 of them to be changed. From casual observation, each DB takes X days to update so this is how much tax we're paying every feature."
Then you ask - "does this make sense to you? I am not saying this is the only problem but it seems apparent to me as your technology lead that we're paying a high complexity cost for this design. Let me know if you're with me?"
If they say "no" - great - troubleshoot that.
If they say "yes" - "ok great. I have an idea for how we can go down from 12 databases to 3 at a development cost of X. Ballpark we will recoup that cost in Y months. Should we try this?"
In my experience, walking people through it this way patiently (and it may be multiple conversations), I either get a "yes" or learn a good reason why it shouldn't be done, 100% of the time. Notice that in this approach, I neither lead with the answer "12 DBs bad!" nor overload them with technical detail - but I give them just enough to follow my own logic - after all you must have done similar thinking (even if just intuitively) to arrive at your conclusion. Now you're externalizing your intuition in a way that others can follow.
Like I said - very hard to do. Most people don't bother, many other people are horrible at it (but way ahead of those who don't try!) But either way, this is the only way to get shit done so you gotta do it.
Re: Company, Team, Self
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just you who struggles with this - it's a very hard thing to do even for those who do it a lot. The number one barrier is just recognizing that it's a thing and you can work on it and do consciously (and sounds like you did that, so that's already huge!) In fact, what distinguishes executives is their experience, ability and willingness to get others to see and rally around a problem or goal - which is why I…
#3 is nearly impossible in practice, because your audience will not sit patiently and entertain you while you do this. In nearly all cases, they will derail your explanation and bring in all sorts of tangential issues that may not even be relevant. Threading through this will require more energy than everyone is willing to spend, so someone will find a way to cut the conversation short. They might also be upset becau…
If I have to, I will say something like "It seems to me like we're not eye to eye on this important topic, and I want us to be in sync. Would you mind if I ask you a few questions to understand where we are disconnected so I can improve my own thinking here?"
I literally say this stuff, and I've never had anyone say "no, I'd rather not get in sync w you on this." So I contextualize it, we work through it, and usually it takes Then you figure out what to do about it, which may be another conversation (you may also learn that their reasons are good so you end up being persuaded by them which is also great)
Re: Company, Team, Self
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just you who struggles with this - it's a very hard thing to do even for those who do it a lot. The number one barrier is just recognizing that it's a thing and you can work on it and do consciously (and sounds like you did that, so that's already huge!) In fact, what distinguishes executives is their experience, ability and willingness to get others to see and rally around a problem or goal - which is why I…
Thank you for taking the time to reply so thoroughly, this seems like very actionable advice. Sounds like it's going to take a lot of effort to put into practice, but that it'll be effort well spent!