Misaligned Corporate Incentives

Its not some kind of reverse psychology. Having one bad employee can ruin years of work by a team to build trust and goodwill. Having to rebuild trust after someone burns an career executive because they were disgruntled about pay or working conditions can take years. If you know you are motivated by pay or working conditions then don't join, you won't be happy. This is the same thing I tell people who are thinking about joining a startup, if you are just in it for office perks go join

Think it comes down to incentive structures and what kind of behavior is rewarded. In a well functioning company people creating value bottom up see an upward trajectory in their careers. Companies that lose their way end up in a limbo state where power brokers, star communicators, coordinators end up capturing all the value and the act of creating bottom up value becomes an irrational act. An employee will do exceptional work if they have some kind of belief that they will be able to monetize i

The more time I spend working at FAANG, the more I think there's no grand conspiracy to keep us from competing, it's just bad incentives all around.Want to get promoted as an engineer? Work on something BIG (even if no one asked for it). Want to get promoted as a manager? Get more people on your team (even if you don't need them). Want to get promoted as VP? Better re-org everything so people know you exist (even if re-orgs happen every year). And this problem gets compounded b

There are two issues in the psychology of employers that keep them from doing this.1. They care more about control than doing the right thing.2. They don't get satisfaction from improvements that don't come directly from their doingVery stringent quotas, asinine team building activities, and of course, mandatory in-office policies construct a narrative for the company that no good thing that happens is from anywhere but the top-down. They can look at improvements in the bottom

Even if the professionals are not burger flippers, they might lack the sufficient motivation to push the company forward.Here is a good tweet from ex-Googlerhttps://x.com/mbacarella/status/1804543158912754021?t=qGi3AP...Positive incentives can get you only so far. For the organisation it might be better to get rid of these

It is a bad thing from the companies perspective!Here you have motivated , respected, talented individuals who wants to take all of the things they have learned and apply it to a broader set of things across the company. They are literally asking to provide more value to the company by broadening the scope of their influence.For a crappy sports analogy, its like never letting the MVP become a coach.

Based on the promotion system and structure approved by executives Google engineers are working very hard. They often produce little of value to the company bottom line but that is not the incentive set for them by the company so that's hardly unexpected.

I get that. I've told my boss it's a bad idea. I told my boss' boss it's a bad idea. But the management is all incentivized to do this horrible thing because it pads their resume and likely gives them more headcount. They don't argue with me on the merits, I get vague platitudes about how we're bleeding edge, this is where the market is headed, etc. Their incentives are not aligned with quality output.

You didn't once mention creating better products/services for customers, fostering an enjoyable work environment or even creating value for shareholders. Your whole argument is about (a very narrow Machiavellian view of) individual career progression. If it makes the company less attractive to types who think like that, that sounds overall good to me. Seems like that's also what they were aiming for, and with some success, judging from the interview (which is of course a marketing

"Nobody has that objective except the very passionate."This is very cynical and pretty much wrong.I would put that attitude probably in the bottom 20%. I think most people want to do a good job.It's also kind of toxic because unfortunately it spreads.'Doing a good job' frankly, often does not even mean working harder, from a lower-performing perspective it usually just means actually paying more attention and being more conscientious.And yes - in a large c