|
|
|
|
|
|
by brevhtff
743 days ago
|
|
|
> Or there’s the tried and true explanation that it’s just micromanagers who want play power games with their employees. Everyone thinks they are the good employee that doesn’t need to be managed thank you very much. Yet every manager has seen employees that produce very little if they aren’t constantly managed. And every manager thinks they’re a good manager, too! |
|
|
How many developers work in a companies where achieving a S.M.A.R.T. goal related to their output will result in a defined positive outcome (bonus, promotion, salary increase, title/level increase, stock grant)?
I’ve never seen a software development team be given an incentive like “deliver XYZ feature with less than N defects by datetime to receive a performance bonus of $10,000/1,000 shares.”
I have worked at a grand total of zero companies where anything close to this was the case. For me, every company has made equity into a joke, performance reviews into “you will always be a 3 unless you turn water into wine,” and significant raises regarding high performance merely match inflation.
I thought that we were beyond the illusion that micromanaging works. All it does is produce employees who create illusions of productivity beyond a minimum standard. These illusions will exist whether they’re in an office or not.
It’s as simple as making sure your boss likes you. There’s really no output difference between the mouse jiggler working at home and the salaryman staying late but pretending to work, taking care to leave after the boss leaves.
Meanwhile, the sales team has a grand total of zero people who are slacking off because their salary is on a commission. Every ounce of extra work is potential to earn more money. But for the engineering team the company has a perpetual surprised pikachu face when they find out that employees are just doing the bare minimum to stay off the firing radar despite having no tangible incentive to do otherwise.