I like the fucking-around/finding-out graph. It looks realistic to me (implicitly assuming the right kind of fucking around). And yes, tighten your feedback loops.
Embrace Complexity; Tighten Your Feedback Loops
11–20 of 50 posts
Re: Embrace Complexity; Tighten Your Feedback Loops
#12A lot of good information. But my cynical worker viewpoint is that the problem is really that upper management doesn't do the actual work and that is by design. It's a class separation. They are there to crack the whip and collect the spoils. The only way for upper management to really understand what's going on and give useful input would be for them to be directly involved on a day-to-day basis. In other words, the…
>They are there to crack the whip and collect the spoils This is historically correct Here's a recent unambiguous proof from Tesla's own words: "Tesla argued that stock options were used to ensure Director's incentives were aligned with investor goals." [1] Said another way, "we massively over-paid directors in order to give them an incentive to prioritize investor goals over all other goals" In the parlance of finan…
Most big tech firms give engineers RSUs for this reason
Re: Embrace Complexity; Tighten Your Feedback Loops
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
Workers vs investors shouldn't be seen as a zero sum game. If it is then that's short-term thinking. Simon Sinek explains this all very well in The Infinite Game.
Simon is wrong. It is absolutely zero sum for any measure that matters over periods that are impactful to individual and familial human flourishing This capitalist rationalization of greed-based markets, loves to pick whatever timeline for measurement which fits their criteria. It is unambiguous that wealth and power accumulation will persistently concentrate into the smallest number of hands in absence of collective…
You're pitching this as truth when in reality it's just one viewpoint. Simon is not "wrong" any more than you are "wrong". You're just arguing from different perspectives.
Re: Embrace Complexity; Tighten Your Feedback Loops
#14A lot of good information. But my cynical worker viewpoint is that the problem is really that upper management doesn't do the actual work and that is by design. It's a class separation. They are there to crack the whip and collect the spoils. The only way for upper management to really understand what's going on and give useful input would be for them to be directly involved on a day-to-day basis. In other words, the…
I've often encountered software that feels like it was designed by people who don't have to use it to do work, and not necessarily because they're engaging in class conflict (though it can certainly appear that way based on the painfully flawed software people can be forced to tolerate).
The worst system was a DOS-based point-of-sale system in a restaurant---kept around way beyond the 'age of DOS'. The main gimmick is that it had a wired light touch pen (I think it worked like a classic Nintendo gun) for selection. It gave the illusion of innovation/ease of use, but was extremely cumbersome and required a good amount of experience to avoid mistakes.
I also think trying to pin down things as strictly class warfare every time can muddy problem areas. Institutions realistically do gain some functional productivity by having people specialize and having defined roles, but having them too separated and specialized can also create problems. You can also have a lazy human problem, where people don't want to do the work that isn't directly associated with their role, and so on. There is also a lot in the bschool lit about how different business structures contribute to these problems too.
Re: Embrace Complexity; Tighten Your Feedback Loops
#15A lot of good information. But my cynical worker viewpoint is that the problem is really that upper management doesn't do the actual work and that is by design. It's a class separation. They are there to crack the whip and collect the spoils. The only way for upper management to really understand what's going on and give useful input would be for them to be directly involved on a day-to-day basis. In other words, the…
To be frank, this has an anti-capitalist smell and I don’t feel is written in good faith.
Sure there are managers that crack the whip, but most the places I’ve worked for, my manager was a former IC and cared deeply about the health of the product, while protecting the IC team I was on from the business side.
Learning more about the business portion and product manager viewpoints, gives me a more sympathetic tone to the whole situation.
We shouldn’t expect someone whose career they’ve focused on the business side to understand the software in depth. Sure there’s space to learn anything, but people have lives outside of career. Instead, a healthy company delegates these tasks out. It’s the responsibility of my manager to have one foot in the software, and one in the business, to help best translate and champion towards a common goal.
It’s the responsibility of her managers to respect the decisions she makes, and when hard lines are drawn for the sake of the health of the product to adhere to them. Within reason, of course.
This to me makes me feel excited to go to work (not every day, I’m not a psycho :) ), and makes me want to climb the ladder. I get paid well, produce value for the company, and get opportunities to work on challenges and with data/systems that I otherwise would not be able to.
With that knowledge, I can then take that to my side business and more effectively grow it. Don’t think there’s any “they’re taking the spoils” going on…
Re: Embrace Complexity; Tighten Your Feedback Loops
#16A lot of good information. But my cynical worker viewpoint is that the problem is really that upper management doesn't do the actual work and that is by design. It's a class separation. They are there to crack the whip and collect the spoils. The only way for upper management to really understand what's going on and give useful input would be for them to be directly involved on a day-to-day basis. In other words, the…
That's a point of view that would change quickly if you were in one of those management positions. You get to a point where it's impossible to do the work anymore. There's too much of it. You have to develop teams, processes, structure, etc. that delivers the outcomes you're accountable for with full knowledge that you cannot do them yourself. It's very different than doing the work and experience shows that fewer pe…
> I encourage you to compare the productivity of the modern multinational corporation to any commune in history. The people working in collectives are not stupid or lazy. It's not an effective structure.
It’s a hard comparison to make when the goals of those two systems are vastly different.
I worked for a multinational software company and the amount of waste I saw was just staggering. If outside shareholders knew how little we actually produced on a day to day basis, they would probably be appalled. But because the company knew how to engage with market analysts, we looked good on paper. So much of the money made today involves just being the biggest player in a given market, regardless of how effective the product is (i.e. “nobody ever got fired for choosing Microsoft”)
Re: Embrace Complexity; Tighten Your Feedback Loops
#17A lot of good information. But my cynical worker viewpoint is that the problem is really that upper management doesn't do the actual work and that is by design. It's a class separation. They are there to crack the whip and collect the spoils. The only way for upper management to really understand what's going on and give useful input would be for them to be directly involved on a day-to-day basis. In other words, the…
I've often encountered software that feels like it was designed by people who don't have to use it to do work, and not necessarily because they're engaging in class conflict (though it can certainly appear that way based on the painfully flawed software people can be forced to tolerate). The worst system was a DOS-based point-of-sale system in a restaurant---kept around way beyond the 'age of DOS'. The main gimmick i…
Ironic since my experience during the transition away from ASCII displays and shortcut inputs is that the touch screens and deep menus were slow. Touch won because it was more approachable, at least for the shallowest options
Re: Embrace Complexity; Tighten Your Feedback Loops
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
>They are there to crack the whip and collect the spoils This is historically correct Here's a recent unambiguous proof from Tesla's own words: "Tesla argued that stock options were used to ensure Director's incentives were aligned with investor goals." [1] Said another way, "we massively over-paid directors in order to give them an incentive to prioritize investor goals over all other goals" In the parlance of finan…
Workers vs investors shouldn't be seen as a zero sum game. If it is then that's short-term thinking. Simon Sinek explains this all very well in The Infinite Game.
Any non-zero sum game can be re-formulated in zero-sum game terms, this is a rule.
Give me example of any non-zero sum game, and I can prove that under the hood it is actually a zero-sum game.
The trivial proof is that profit/revenue pool available for Corporation is limited, and the main question is how that profit pool is to be divided among Labor (employees) and Capital (investors/shareholders).
The fundamental laws of mass/energy preservation equally apply to money - you can't create money out of thin air, it has to be taken from someone else (customer) and then redistributed (among suppliers/labor/investors/shareholders/tax man)
Re: Embrace Complexity; Tighten Your Feedback Loops
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
>They are there to crack the whip and collect the spoils This is historically correct Here's a recent unambiguous proof from Tesla's own words: "Tesla argued that stock options were used to ensure Director's incentives were aligned with investor goals." [1] Said another way, "we massively over-paid directors in order to give them an incentive to prioritize investor goals over all other goals" In the parlance of finan…
Most big tech firms give engineers RSUs for this reason
also SBC (share based comp) looks favorably on cash flow statement, because SBC does not decrease EBITDA, thus artificially inflating EBITDA numbers and price target of the company.
How this works: new SaaS startup shows up and shows $10M EBITDA to investors. This does not reflect $5M in SBC.
According to industry averages, bankers apply average (lets say 10x) EBITDA multiple and derive valuation of $100M and invest funds based on that calculation.
Had company paid cash salary instead of RSUs, firms' EBITDA would have been $5M and valuation of $50M - a half of original pitched value
Obviously this is just a naiive textbook example, and actual valuations are more complex and involve several ways of deriving value and multiples, but in general RSU is viewed favorably mainly because it improves Cash Flow from Operations and EBITDA numbers - in addition to creating incentives to employees
Re: Embrace Complexity; Tighten Your Feedback Loops
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Workers vs investors shouldn't be seen as a zero sum game. If it is then that's short-term thinking. Simon Sinek explains this all very well in The Infinite Game.
Any non-zero sum game can be re-formulated in zero-sum game terms, this is a rule. Give me example of any non-zero sum game, and I can prove that under the hood it is actually a zero-sum game. The trivial proof is that profit/revenue pool available for Corporation is limited, and the main question is how that profit pool is to be divided among Labor (employees) and Capital (investors/shareholders). The fundamental la…
How does this model account for varying growth based on employee alignment with company goals?