Mark Herschberg wrote:
Again, the managers asking them to do this may not be trying to maximize the overall per hour productivity but rather some gross output by a deadline.
I don't think the goal is to maximize per hour productivity. I think it's to maximize per week productivity.
It's easy to maximize short term productivity at the expense of the future. Unless you meant average per hour productivity?
Ah, managers don't care about per week productivity. They try to maximize achievement of business goals in the most cost effective way. The actual time frame can vary and may not follow a regular schedule.
Agreed. I phrased this poorly. I was trying to say that per day productivity isn't the measure. I should have said about maximizing what is produced. Not sure how the best way to word "over time" is. After all, if someone works 48 hours straight and then collapses and goes to the hospital, productivity certainly isn't up. Similarly, if too many shortcuts are taken at the expense of the future.
Tim Holloway wrote:One of the big myths in business is that people who do what's good for the business will prosper and enjoy job security.
Not that I'm ignoring everything else you said, but I don't think it's a myth.
Some businesses are run better than others. Some businesses recognize that not all developers are created equal, or that some employees simply have more value to the organization than others.
I simply refuse to work for a company that will layoff people without considering the impact to the organization as a whole. Layoffs, in general, are bad. They are bad for morale, they are bad for the economy, and they put you at risk for losing your best people. Even if you keep your best people, the best can ALWAYS find work somewhere else. I understand the purpose of layoffs and I understand they are sometimes unavoidable. I find they introduce incredible risk as well.
However, I have worked in organizations that did layoffs and they were very careful about who they let go and who they retained. The people deemed most valuable to the organization still had their jobs. There was some disagreement when you got to the people who approached the middle to low end of the scale. The point is, it didn't pay off for some people I considered mediocre when they were let go ahead of some people I perceived as poor. Yet EVERYONE I considered good or excellent still had jobs.
There are no guarantees, especially in this environment. However, if layoffs are a possibility do you really want to be considered anything less than valuable to the company?
He's dead Jim. Grab his tricorder. I'll get his wallet and this tiny ad:
Building a Better World in your Backyard by Paul Wheaton and Shawn Klassen-Koop