undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjordanbeiber3y ago0 comments

Exactly - what does it mean?

You work on stimulating things and get paid what you accept.

You’ll have a yearly review where you have your say, and pay can be increased if employer think it’s worth it.

Titles are problematic in teams working to produce good stuff!

We should compare ourselves to athletes more than the MBA powerpoint version of a company.

I hear Tom Brady is a legend - is he an S10 quarterback? Senior quarterback? Or just a quarterback with high a salary based on performance?

I believe levels are instruments for managers not employees.

0 comments

brhsagain3y ago

I agree with you that a level system creates bad incentives for everyone. But what they do provide is a rubric for the ambitious 23 year old who wants to climb to the top of whatever group he’s in. If you get rid of levels, what’s the new hierarchy for him to climb? If you don’t specify a hierarchy, one is going to form anyway, and then it’s even more out of your control.

If you’re going to say the hierarchy should be based on people doing real work, well I agree, but that is pretty much impossible to measure in groups beyond a certain size.

This groups beyond a certain size problem is the root of the problem, not levels, which are just a stopgap measure to slow the brakes on the deterioration and degeneracy that you find in any gigantic group of people.

nostrebored3y ago

Everyone who cares about Brady is watching him and knows how he is performing. This is not true of engineers.

jordanbeiberOP3y ago

This is why I’m stating it’s a management tool.

Poor management requires boxes.

Better management actually care and help employees perform and improve.

In the end it’s about culture.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse