不光是老中的问题# Working - 上班一族
c*z
1 楼
是幼稚和ego的问题。
摘自http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/05/
Most of the time, when a group of people is disproportionately successful,
the cause isn’t any superiority of the average individual, but a trait of
the group: they help each other out. People tend to call these formations “
Mafia” where X might be an ethnicity, a school, or a company. Y
Combinator is an explicit, pre-planned attempt to create a similar network;
time will tell if it succeeds. True professions have it. Doctors look out
for the profession. With programmers, we don’t see this. There isn’t a
collective spirit: just long email flamewars about tabs versus spaces. We
don’t look out for each other. We beat each other down. We sell each other
out to non-technical management (outsiders) for a shockingly low bounty, or
for no reason at all.
In many investment banks, there’s an established status hierarchy in which
traders and soft-skills operators (“true bankers”) are at the top, quants
are in the middle, and programmers (non-quant programmers are called “IT”)
are even lower. I asked a high-ranking quant why it was this way, and he
explained it in terms of the “360 degree” performance reviews. Bankers and
traders all gave each other top ratings, and wrote glowing feedback for
minor favors. They were savvy enough to figure out that it was best for them
to give great reviews up, down, and sideways, regardless of their actual
opinions. Quants tended to give above-average ratings and occasionally wrote
positive feedback. IT gave average ratings for average work and plenty of
negative feedback. The programmers were being the most honest, but hurting
each other in the process. The bankers and traders were being political, and
that’s a good thing. They were savvy enough to know that it didn’t
benefit them to sell each other out to HR and upper management. Instead,
they arranged it so they all got good ratings and the business had to, at
baseline, appreciate and reward all of them. While it might seem that this
hurt top performers, it had the opposite effect. If everyone got a 50
percent bonus and 20% raise, management had to give the top people (and, in
trading, it’s pretty obvious who those are) even more.
摘自http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/05/
Most of the time, when a group of people is disproportionately successful,
the cause isn’t any superiority of the average individual, but a trait of
the group: they help each other out. People tend to call these formations “
Combinator is an explicit, pre-planned attempt to create a similar network;
time will tell if it succeeds. True professions have it. Doctors look out
for the profession. With programmers, we don’t see this. There isn’t a
collective spirit: just long email flamewars about tabs versus spaces. We
don’t look out for each other. We beat each other down. We sell each other
out to non-technical management (outsiders) for a shockingly low bounty, or
for no reason at all.
In many investment banks, there’s an established status hierarchy in which
traders and soft-skills operators (“true bankers”) are at the top, quants
are in the middle, and programmers (non-quant programmers are called “IT”)
are even lower. I asked a high-ranking quant why it was this way, and he
explained it in terms of the “360 degree” performance reviews. Bankers and
traders all gave each other top ratings, and wrote glowing feedback for
minor favors. They were savvy enough to figure out that it was best for them
to give great reviews up, down, and sideways, regardless of their actual
opinions. Quants tended to give above-average ratings and occasionally wrote
positive feedback. IT gave average ratings for average work and plenty of
negative feedback. The programmers were being the most honest, but hurting
each other in the process. The bankers and traders were being political, and
that’s a good thing. They were savvy enough to know that it didn’t
benefit them to sell each other out to HR and upper management. Instead,
they arranged it so they all got good ratings and the business had to, at
baseline, appreciate and reward all of them. While it might seem that this
hurt top performers, it had the opposite effect. If everyone got a 50
percent bonus and 20% raise, management had to give the top people (and, in
trading, it’s pretty obvious who those are) even more.
