Item — HN Reader

>> They are entirely about trust: How much does the company trust you to be able to act in its best interest and derive ROI from your org?

No, not really. Here are some example counterpoints:

- There is a commitment to hierarchy. This is incompatible with meritocracy. The fact is, there won't always be one "smartest" person at each company. Yet companies always find a way to make a pretty reporting tree.

- It's not about trust, mid-level-managers care more about their promotions not reflecting poorly on them politically than the best interest of the company in the long-term.

- Most companies will codify a standard "promotion process" with peer reviews and 2 "cycles" a year. If this is about ROI then Joe the freshman can be CTO if he's that good (and heck, he may be, if he's the next Larry Page), no matter what he rates on the 4 dimensions of reviews.

- Most companies adamantly follow standard norms. For example they do not demote people (i.e. with pay cut). A meritocracy (or a truly ROI based system) would demote people.

- Most companies base their pay on previous compensation, rather than expected worth.

1 comments

> There is a commitment to hierarchy. This is incompatible with meritocracy...

This is the part where we are in complete agreement.

> ... The fact is, there won't always be one "smartest" person at each company. Yet companies always find a way to make a pretty reporting tree.

I don't think anyone is under the illusion that a company hierarchy is stacked based on "smartness". If they are, they need to read the Gervais Principle [0]. I personally remap these roles as losers -> producers, clueless -> regulators, and psychopaths -> harvesters. I'll use these remappings throughout this response. So do I expect harvesters to be the "smartest"? No, but I do expect them to be good at driving value.

> It's not about trust, mid-level-managers care more about their promotions not reflecting poorly on them politically than the best interest of the company in the long-term.

I'm not even sure what you mean by this. How would a promotion reflect poorly on someone? And I don't think anyone is saying that actors needs to be 100% dedicated to the company. But you certainly aren't going to climb any ladders if you can't demonstrate the ability to create value as a producer and drive value as a harvester. But those harvesters are also in a position capable of destroying value, which is where the trust comes in. You also aren't going to be climbing ladders unless those above you trust that you aren't going to Godzilla the existent value that's been built.

> Most companies will codify a standard "promotion process" with peer reviews and 2 "cycles" a year. If this is about ROI then Joe the freshman can be CTO if he's that good (and heck, he may be, if he's the next Larry Page), no matter what he rates on the 4 dimensions of reviews.

To refer back to Gervais Principle, those games are for the produces and regulators. Harvesters are running "tours of duty" that last 3-4 years and are not looking at peer review processes at all. This tour is only meant to line them up for the next tour, which will be bigger if they do well and smaller if they don't. And potentially non-existent if they really muck it up.

> Most companies adamantly follow standard norms. For example they do not demote people (i.e. with pay cut). A meritocracy (or a truly ROI based system) would demote people.

No. They just marginalize and / or lay off those people instead.

> Most companies base their pay on previous compensation, rather than expected worth.

Again, a game for the produces and regulators. Harvesters compensation is negotiated and decided on a different level, usually with large bonuses for performance (aka expected worth) and maybe even a golden parachute if they're particularly juicy.

[0] https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...

Well, if your model of company behavior is the Gervais principle (imho a great model) aren't you conceding that it's not a meritocracy?

>>> I'm not even sure what you mean by this. How would a promotion reflect poorly on someone?

For a real life example, I have a friend, let's call him Justin, who's an incredibly efficient engineer, and this is known. But he won't get promoted because of a few obnoxious traits (outed as a Trump supporter, got drunk at the office a few times, liked to place bets on video games at the office).

I don't think his manager will promote him, because he worries if he promotes Justin, then Justin gets fallover drunk and has to be fired, then somehow it'll look like a mistake to have promoted him in the first place... Super-political (i.e. concerned with appearance over reality)

Oh, we're in complete agreement about meritocracy. I call it a fairy tale engineers like to comfort themselves with [0,1]. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough about where I agreed with you. And rereading your original post, I might have misread it a bit, and I think we are very much in line.

And thanks for the story. Manager definitely sounds like a clueless / regulator type for worrying about such things. While at the same time, "Justin" hasn't done a very good job of making himself trustworthy.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10978841#10980628

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14169245#14169748