causation or no causation. we need to rethink the whole idea of work anyway. at some point something went seriously wrong.
how can people accept that it's right that we get taught in a certain mental pattern for almost 20 years and then we are to work for 40 years in that pattern so that we can spend the last 15 years of our life in peace anyway?
i spend ridiculous amounts of time trying to get great at things - you know, human nature.
but the times i spent in traditional work structures i actually got lazy and stupid, because they encourage you to create things that are just good enough at a slow pace, because if you actually perform too well you become a liability.
I think that more than 1% of startups dish out equity/options, an incentive to perform well, and the impact of your work at a startup is immediately visible -- there's a tight reward feedback loop when the work you're doing helps the startup grow, is actionable, and increases its value (and the value of your equity). On the other hand, the big corporations are the ones with no incentives to perform well.
All the significant money I've made in the valley (and technically I could retire today if I were willing to move to Portland or Seattle) has been working for post-IPO companies with 1,000+ employees. When I get offers from startups, it's for chickenfeed equity (0.1 to 0.5%) for a series A or series B company with a senior liquidation preference they won't discuss with me. I have yet to see a company I've turned down do anything but die.
The only downside I have seen to my strategy is sour grapes from ex-CEOs of failed startups at which I once worked during the dotcom boom insisting that I'm a bad hire because I left them once I realized they were doomed.
So how does the following data update your worldview?
Probably not at all I expect. I suspect we really see things differently.
But assuming your title is not a TLA with single to double-digit equity, would you rather take a 1% chance at making a one-time hit of 5x to 6x a typical engineering salary E(X)= $10,000 to $50,000 or a guaranteed hit of $50,000 to $100,000 assuming you stay exactly where you are at a company with a decent growth rate?
This assumes you flee the stinkers as fast as you possibly can with no tolerance for solos on the world's tiniest violin from the CEO/CTO/etc who has 20x-100x more equity than you and therefore a completely different set of incentives.
Since most startups aren't facebook or google, I eventually learned to choose the latter and slowly accumulate wealth with occasional liquidity events(tm) rather than chase the rainbow of brogrammers and script kiddies.
you might have to shift your perspective a bit. if you work in a bigger structure(e.g. government) a managers job might be to keep as many people working as possible. also, his measurement of success is by how many people he manages, not how much he delivers. ever heard people say "i manage a team of 100 people"? i've heard people say that, and i can assure you not a single person (that mattered) asked, but how efficient are they in return.
so if you start optimizing so that a single person can do the job of 5 people in less time you not only threaten their job security, you also question the manager, and you become trouble for accounting. therefore you become a liability.
you could argue that, wait a minute, by freeing up their time, and yours we can make more money and more other things, and in theory you would be right, but in practice that's not how it works. there's a certain budget, and you as an individual won't make more that that budget.
also for the institution it's better to keep that budget split up for those 5 people. that way they can charge 5 people on that budget, and accounting won't have to cheat. if you don't, then suddenly you'll have to find other jobs for those other 4 people otherwise they're kinda cashflow negative on their salary.
Exactly right. I once timed my departure from such a job within a period during which lines lost to attrition or retirement would not be replaced. This was soon after a reorganization. The loss of direct reports hurt the manager's street cred.
Another aspect, I think, is that someone who is very productive both gains influence and become hard to replace. Neither of the things is desirable for someone managing many people.
Not to mention having to deal with the negative reactions, politics, and jealousy of your coworkers who you "make look bad" by outdoing them in productivity by a factor of five.
Add to that your new innovations and creative methods of solving business problems requires managers to reskill themselves into new modes of operation. Something they hate doing because they got this position to keep the status quo for as long as possible.
how can people accept that it's right that we get taught in a certain mental pattern for almost 20 years and then we are to work for 40 years in that pattern so that we can spend the last 15 years of our life in peace anyway?
i spend ridiculous amounts of time trying to get great at things - you know, human nature.
but the times i spent in traditional work structures i actually got lazy and stupid, because they encourage you to create things that are just good enough at a slow pace, because if you actually perform too well you become a liability.