7 ms·

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 a

by maiar 2y 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.

harrison_clarke 2y 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)
- sertsa 2y ago
  Was not familiar with the terms C & B - corp. For others in the same boat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_Corporation_(certification) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_Corporation_(certification) https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/c-corporation.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/c-corporation.asp
  - harrison_clarke 2y ago
    turns out, i actually meant benefit corporation. (i've heard people refer to them as b-corporations, but didn't realize there was another thing called b-corporation)
  - singleshot_ 2y ago
    If you’re interested in learning about this, be aware that S-corp and C-corp are widely used misnomers. A corporation is a corporation (and an LLC is not) but they all can be taxed under sub chapters C, S, K, and others based on the specific details of the entity. C corporation is just a shorthand way of saying “privately incorporated voluntary association taxed under sub c (probably with dreams of being a public company someday, otherwise they’d be sub s). Not trying to “but acktchually” you, just suggesting that your next stop after reading about corporations is probably the tax code. (Enjoy that).
    - mistrial9 2y ago
      extra bonus -- actual attorneys who are familiar with those codes learn not to discuss it at all .. for whatever reasons.. it really is valuable information, as in scarcity
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - singleshot_ 2y ago
        Why did I just discuss them, then?
        mistrial9 2y ago
        glad to see an exception to that rule :-)
CydeWeys 2y 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 2y ago
  That's the exception rather than the rule. Most people have to switch employers to get a significant pay raise.
  - edmundsauto 2y ago
    As with all things, it depends where you are. It’s not the case for big tech employers, who tend to have very clear “levels” and (from what I can tell on levels.fyi) it’s often a 25%+ jump in total comp. And these are the biggest employers of talent. It may not be most people in a startup forum, but it’s a lot of people. For all others, I think it’s because tech isn’t seen as such an important revenue driver. Lots of places we are still seen as a cost center.
    - delroth 2y ago
      > It’s not the case for big tech employers, who tend to have very clear “levels” and (from what I can tell on levels.fyi) it’s often a 25%+ jump in total comp. You're misinterpreting the data, because you can't see for data points on levels.fyi whether they obtained their reported salary by being promoted within the company or by doing the very common "side-promotion" of getting hired at a higher level at a competitor. I was young and naive and unwilling to play the company hopping game, I got promoted from L3 to L6 at Google, after a year and a half at L6 I was paid in base salary less than some of my colleagues who got recently hired at L5 and negotiated well, plus they got significantly higher stock grants as part of their signing bonus (like, around 2x what I was getting through standard yearly grant refreshes).
amykhar 2y 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 2y ago
  I don't think that's a good thing? (rest of the team wouldn't look bad part)
- creer 2y 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?
Suppafly 2y 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 2y 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.
roguecoder 2y 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.

by maiar 2y ago

harrison_clarke 2y 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)

sertsa 2y ago
Was not familiar with the terms C & B - corp. For others in the same boat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_Corporation_(certification) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_Corporation_(certification) https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/c-corporation.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/c-corporation.asp
- harrison_clarke 2y ago
  turns out, i actually meant benefit corporation. (i've heard people refer to them as b-corporations, but didn't realize there was another thing called b-corporation)
- singleshot_ 2y ago
  If you’re interested in learning about this, be aware that S-corp and C-corp are widely used misnomers. A corporation is a corporation (and an LLC is not) but they all can be taxed under sub chapters C, S, K, and others based on the specific details of the entity. C corporation is just a shorthand way of saying “privately incorporated voluntary association taxed under sub c (probably with dreams of being a public company someday, otherwise they’d be sub s). Not trying to “but acktchually” you, just suggesting that your next stop after reading about corporations is probably the tax code. (Enjoy that).
  - mistrial9 2y ago
    extra bonus -- actual attorneys who are familiar with those codes learn not to discuss it at all .. for whatever reasons.. it really is valuable information, as in scarcity
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - singleshot_ 2y ago
      Why did I just discuss them, then?
      - mistrial9 2y ago
        glad to see an exception to that rule :-)

CydeWeys 2y 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 2y ago
That's the exception rather than the rule. Most people have to switch employers to get a significant pay raise.
- edmundsauto 2y ago
  As with all things, it depends where you are. It’s not the case for big tech employers, who tend to have very clear “levels” and (from what I can tell on levels.fyi) it’s often a 25%+ jump in total comp. And these are the biggest employers of talent. It may not be most people in a startup forum, but it’s a lot of people. For all others, I think it’s because tech isn’t seen as such an important revenue driver. Lots of places we are still seen as a cost center.
  - delroth 2y ago
    > It’s not the case for big tech employers, who tend to have very clear “levels” and (from what I can tell on levels.fyi) it’s often a 25%+ jump in total comp. You're misinterpreting the data, because you can't see for data points on levels.fyi whether they obtained their reported salary by being promoted within the company or by doing the very common "side-promotion" of getting hired at a higher level at a competitor. I was young and naive and unwilling to play the company hopping game, I got promoted from L3 to L6 at Google, after a year and a half at L6 I was paid in base salary less than some of my colleagues who got recently hired at L5 and negotiated well, plus they got significantly higher stock grants as part of their signing bonus (like, around 2x what I was getting through standard yearly grant refreshes).

amykhar 2y 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 2y ago
I don't think that's a good thing? (rest of the team wouldn't look bad part)
creer 2y 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?

Suppafly 2y 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 2y 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.

roguecoder 2y 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.