[lambersley]

Crazy enough, I'm from the management school that believes the work is only the tool to develop the person and pay the bills. I will always sacrifice the work for the worker. It's sad that the majority of managers see this in reverse.

[autoexec]

> I will always sacrifice the work for the worker.

The attitude I see most often is: "the worker is replaceable and therefore expendable, but the work will always be there until someone takes care of it so burn through as many workers as it takes to get it done"

[gen220]

I like to call this zero sum management, and the parent to your post is a good example of positive sum management.

As long as the business is making money, the prospect of it continuing to make money in the near and medium term future is not in jeopardy, and the actors involved are rational, capable and trustworthy, you should always favor the worker over the work.

IME, zero sum management is an emergent symptom of a poorly performing business (maybe if we make everybody work 150% harder we’ll hit our targets this quarter), insecure executives (who don’t understand the work they manage), or poor hiring/firing practices (the only way to let somebody go is by overloading them and rewarding it with a poor performance review, or you’re hiring people who aren’t capable or don’t care).

If you’re a manager forced to make zero sum decisions and don’t feel empowered to change the root of that problem, you should probably consider leaving — good environments grow people instead of expending people.

[nebula8804]

>IME, zero sum management is an emergent symptom of a poorly performing business (maybe if we make everybody work 150% harder we’ll hit our targets this quarter), insecure executives (who don’t understand the work they manage), or poor hiring/firing practices (the only way to let somebody go is by overloading them and rewarding it with a poor performance review, or you’re hiring people who aren’t capable or don’t care).

This breaks down when you have one player in the arena acting like a snake that tries to devour everyone else(eg. Elon Musk). He has the gift of attracting an endless horde of people to burn through and then tosses them aside once they are no longer useful to him(so many examples in his recent bio). The result is that they move faster than the competition and the others eventually get eaten alive. Normally word would get out that its not safe to work for such a character but SpaceX and Tesla are among the most desired employers that engineering graduates seek to work for. Tesla received 3.6 million job applications in 2022.

[gen220]

Some persons are extraordinarily good at discovering big+solvable problems, and at continuously convincing other people that it’s worth burning themselves out in pursuit of it.

I think it’s worth pointing out that some projects are worth that level of devotion, and visibly so in real-time.

But we can’t make a project worth that level of enthusiasm and attention just by demanding people to act like it is (the siren song that leads to the earlier-discussed culture spirals). Often-well-meaning people will put the cart before the horse, but no amount of quacking will turn you into a duck, etc.

On balance, it’s healthy to be skeptical of people demanding devotion to some process or objective that’s not rooted in first principles you can agree with.

It wouldn’t surprise me too much if a meaningful proportion of the 3.6m applications per year are filed by people who find the first principles behind Tesla’s culture worthy of their devotion.

But yeah, the number of companies or projects that would benefit from that style of approach is quite small. 20% is the ceiling, 10% feels closer to the truth.