|
|
|
|
|
|
by andrewb
4657 days ago
|
|
|
I don't agree that'd be a disaster, I personally like the idea or at least something similar. Essentially it's about basing promotions & pay based off meritocracy. There could be concerns about the Peter Principle [0] but at a high level, it appeals to me to work in an environment where people can "prove" they have the skills, instead of talking the talk or simply being the oldest employee. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle |
|
|
Also, the people who you believe have been promoted by virtue of being the "oldest employee" may actually possess skills that you are unaware of -- perhaps even skills you are unaware are useful and important. Speaking as someone who has been around the block but prefers to work as an individual contributor rather than a manager, I have observed any number of important skills that are prevalent among effective managers that most technical folks start out unaware of. Risk assessment skills -- which are often based in having enough experience with both successful and failed projects -- are a good example. Another is the willingness to take responsibility for what often seem like nonsensical decisions that have to be made due to business or practical constraints. The latter is something that virtually no one likes to do, but often needs to be done in real life.[2] I could go on indefinitely, but I hope a couple of examples will suffice for now.
[1] http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lh0blbt3bs1qz8yeno1_400.jp...
[2] I was too slow to pick up on this lesson in real life until I saw the way Tom Hanks told Gary Sinise he was being dropped from the mission in the movie Apollo 13. In the time since, this has been a useful observation about how managers can be more effective when they don't try to do whatever will make you like them the most (which is typically a negative trait in a manager).