Live data from Hacker News

Individuals Matter

danluu.com

41–50 of 419 posts

Re: Individuals Matter

#41

the head of HR thought that the company's ~5% attrition was "unhealthy" because it was too low and in another, HR thought that the company's attrition sitting at a bit under 10% was too low Can someone explain to me why fewer people quitting is seen as an unhealthy metric? Retaining employees seems like something companies should want to try to prioritize above all else, especially in this market.

It implies that the company isn't pushing their employees hard enough. In otherwords, if managers are doing their job "correctly" they should either (1) be pushing their staff so hard that 1 in 10 of them quit every year (2) weening out the the poorest performer.

Peopleware calls this the Spanish Theory of Management[0].

Historians long ago formed an abstraction about different theories of value: The Spanish Theory, for one, held that only a fixed amount of value existed on earth, and therefore the path to the accumulation of wealth was to learn to extract it more efficiently from the soil or from people’s backs. Then there was the English Theory that held that value could be created through ingenuity and technology. So the English had an Industrial Revolution, while the Spanish spun their wheels trying to exploit the land and the Indians in the New World. They moved huge quantities of gold across the ocean, and all they got for their effort was enormous inflation (too much gold money chasing too few usable goods).

The Spanish Theory of Value is alive and well among managers everywhere. You see that whenever they talk about productivity. Productivity ought to mean achieving more in an hour of work, but all too often it has come to mean extracting more for an hour of pay. There is a large difference. The Spanish Theory managers dream of attaining new productivity levels through the simple mechanism of unpaid overtime. They divide whatever work is done in a week by forty hours, not by the eighty or ninety hours that the worker actually put in.

[0] https://blog.bryanbibat.net/2009/08/31/spanish-theory-of-val...

Re: Individuals Matter

#42
This is cathartic to read, but I also despair at getting the people who need to hear it to take it seriously.

> But many people want the world to be simple

This is the source of so much insanity in the world, not just with regard to allocating labor. Details matter, but people who plan "timelines" desperately don't want to hear it. They can go through whole careers without being forced out of the cozy illusion that the world is simple. It's hard to get a man to believe something when his salary depends on it not being true, the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent, etc.

Re: Individuals Matter

#43
It's certainly not perfect, but it is funny to me that the author on one line complains the Peace Corps "produce[s] little value" but then in the surrounding lines talks about how important it is for individuals to bridge and bring contextual incisive change that consistently resist abstractions and not just look at the problem from the outside.

He's falling for his own simplification of individuals and lifetimes.

That kind of nuance sounds exactly like the skills Kennedy and his associates were intending to cultivate in individuals from the USA during and returning from Peace Corps when they created the agency: see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ugly_American Ugly American (1958). Huge percent of state dept employees. I'd be willing to wager Guinea Worm intervention mentioned involved RPCVs. Notably, Netflix founder, RPCV. It has 3 stated goals. This is essentially one.

Re: Individuals Matter

#44
this is pretty much obvious to people who study and design systems. Russel Ackoff pretty much nailed it by saying: a system is a whole that consists of parts, each of which might affect the whole. taking the best parts from say a toyota and a mercedes won't make the best car. same thing with individuals, in a team you need cohesion. not just the best individuals.

Re: Individuals Matter

#45
If you want a great book on the subject of management legibility and what is lost when it is imposed, read Seeing Like a State. One of the most eye opening books about the world I’ve ever read.

Re: Individuals Matter

#46
post #29
post #5

"Who is going to do it?" is always my first question whenever I am asked to estimate a piece of work. PMs/EMs are usually taken aback by the response, as if we are all supposed to pretend that all dev "resources" are equal. Yet reality doesn't fit into neat planning spreadsheets or burndown graphs, so often gets ignored.

Devs: there are no 10x engineers!! Orgs: okay you are indistinguishable cogs and we will treat you as cattle Devs: no wait not like that Truth is everyone knows that who or which teams takes a task matters immensely. We know that if Bob leads it’s gonna suck and if Alice does it’s gonna rock and finish on time. Managers know this also. But we’ve constructed a corporate culture where this is not allowed to be said. So…

[deleted]

Re: Individuals Matter

#47
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends how good your hiring is. At the places I've worked, I'd want to see 0.1 (involuntary) attrition at least, given that mishires happened 1 in 10 to 1 in 5 times. A low attrition rate in the context of lots of mishires means we're not firing people quickly enough.

While I agree that one shouldn't keep mishires around I wonder how you established that the rate of mishires is 10-20%. Seems like a bit of a chicken and egg problem. You don't know the actual rate if managers aren't firing the mishires. If you pressure managers into randomly firing 10-20% of their people you can't calculate the rate. In fact 50% of one team might be mishires while another is 100% made up of great en…

I knew the rate because I was on the ground working with the underperformers. But as to how to translate this into HR policy in a large org, I have no idea.

Re: Individuals Matter

#48
This is also why I really love working with software, because it's one of the greatest force multipliers on the potential impact of an average individual I can think of.

We don't have to be once-in-a-decade level genius visionaries or hire a gigantic team with millions in funding to build something that can make the lives of millions of people tangibly better, while capturing some/most of that value in return to improve our own lives. People from all over the world are doing this every day and telling their stories and sharing their learnings on places like https://www.indiehackers.com/ and https://bootstrappers.com/.

Maybe one day we'll reach a point of diminishing returns where all software that can possibly be built by an individual/small team that adds non-trivial value has already been built, but that's just more motivation for me to try harder today while it's still very much possible.

Re: Individuals Matter

#49
post #36

I'm an introvert, I love working from home, I live in the woods with a 1/3rd mile long driveway. Since my youngest went off to college I'm here alone with her fish and a cat. I go into town once or twice a week for supplies and the rest of the time I'm just out here in my little sanctuary enjoying the lack of people. That said, even I know that while individuals matter, teams matter more. And I don't see anything in…

Previously from danluu.com on the topics you mentioned

Company culture matters https://danluu.com/culture/

Different organisations have radically different expectations about how fast and well you can work https://danluu.com/productivity-velocity/

Different organisations are capable of different things because of the (kinds of) people who work there https://danluu.com/in-house/

Two different kinds of oransations work very differently https://danluu.com/startup-tradeoffs/

Different organisations hire differently and this can be an enduring (dis)advantage https://danluu.com/tech-discrimination/

Being better than most people isn't that hard because most people aren't trying https://danluu.com/p95-skill/

Re: Individuals Matter

#50
post #16

Realizing this is important for retention. It's damaging when upper management falsely thinks people are interchangeble, which is a common view among non-technical types and HR. This leads to 10x people feeling underappreciated and resentful, ultimately causing them to resign for higher compensation and more appreciation elsewhere. It can literally destroy small companies if an individual's unique contribution isn't…

> It can literally destroy small companies if an individual's unique contribution isn't properly understood and valued. It's generally cheaper to poach engineers than to buy a company. Just food for thoughts.

Is this really true for small companies?

A senior at FAANG is worth sometimes well north of 500K/yr. There are plenty of folks strewn about small software companies that do similar work to a senior or even staff/principal at a faang at wildly huge discounts.

It's hard to find numbers for the value of small software businesses (OP's quote), but this article [1] puts the number at $667k. If that's true, the engineer is SUBSTANTIALLY more expensive than the business (you're not just renting the business for a year).

[1] In the period between 2013 and 2016, the average sale was $667,000. While some sales were obviously much higher, and some were actually a bit lower, this must be an encouraging figure for a business owner to see.

Post reply on HN