WingNews logo WingNews
top | item 42842180

(no title)

maiar | 1 year ago

It’s worthwhile to “go above and beyond” for individuals who will help you, who may exist in a company… but never for the company itself. A company is no less and no more than a pile of someone else’s money that will do literally anything, including destroy your life, to become a bigger pile.

You should do a good job for individuals who will repay you later on. Companies themselves these days can sod off—they stand for nothing.

discuss

order

CydeWeys|1 year ago

"Going above and beyond" at a big company, if done in a smart strategic way, is the best way to get promoted, and getting promoted results in significantly higher pay. I've gotten promoted twice at my current employer over the years, which has roughly doubled my total compensation, and none of that would have happened had I just did my previous level's responsibilities and nothing beyond.

bryanlarsen|1 year ago

That's the exception rather than the rule. Most people have to switch employers to get a significant pay raise.

creer|1 year ago

> if done in a smart strategic way, is the best way to get promoted

This alludes to the other bit that's not taught enough: Working effectively, efficiently is not about how many problem reports you close, or lines of code you ship or number of hours at your desk. It's about recognition. Pay attention and work toward the stuff that will get you recognized. Pay attention and measure how much effort you put in the day to day stuff and the stuff that will be seen. This work is not "for your company", it's "for your career".

Watch out also for what kind of recognition you get. If you become known as the expert in day to day operation of tool XYZ, you might be parked doing that for the rest of your life. Probably not what you intended.

Suppafly|1 year ago

>It’s worthwhile to “go above and beyond” for individuals who will help you, who may exist in a company… but never for the company itself.

That feels like the correct way to think about it. Everyone else seems to think it's one extreme or the other but really thinking about it on an individual level vs a company level seems more accurate to my own experience.

sbene970|1 year ago

This can be generalized to life in many situations in my experience.

E.g. replace "company" in the quoted statement by "nation"/"religious organization"/"political party" etc.

amykhar|1 year ago

I don't think this is true of all companies. My current company doesn't base bonuses on individual contributions, and even went so far as to reduce the number of "story points" that top contributors did in sprints so that the rest of the team wouldn't look bad.

kachapopopow|1 year ago

I don't think that's a good thing? (rest of the team wouldn't look bad part)

creer|1 year ago

Fine, what else counts? A company may deliberately lower the effect of this in order to favor that - which they feel matters more, or which they feel is not done enough at that time. What else did you notice that they favor?

roguecoder|1 year ago

I don't think it's just about who will repay you. Our responsibility to each other is not nearly that transactional.

For example, the individual who is most likely to live with the consequences of your decision is... future you.

Future-me isn't going to pay me back, but I am always grateful to past-me when I set future-me up for success.

harrison_clarke|1 year ago

that's true with publicly traded C-corporations

for private companies, it literally is the people you work with (and whatever legal enchantments they've decided on). some of those people will still fuck you over, but it's not a legally-conjured sentient pile of money the way a C-corp is

B-corps are an interesting attempt to avoid being a sentient pile of money. in theory, it's an egregore that is capable of valuing things other than money. (they haven't really been tested in court. and they might fuck you over in pursuit of some other value, even if they do work. or fucking you over for money might not conflict with its other values)