HR performance evaluations, "yes you are performing above average but yeahhhhhh not gonna cut it for a raise. In fact next year we’ll lay you off for ‘underperforming’. "
Ps get degrees
Above average is good, it keeps things on a positive upward trend while not wearing you out or blowing through all your time/energy/money.
If you are an actual top performer, they don’t promote you because they don’t want to lose your talent in your current role. It’s why management is usually made up of half useless chodes.
Another theory concerning how useless some higher ups are is that people keep getting promoted until they reach a position where they’re not doing such a good job anymore.
Yup, which is why I hate when engineers and the like yearn for a promotion. Like, stop. You’re good at what you do and you should be rewarded for that monetarily or with other benefits, but not with a promotion outside of your skill set.
In the tech world, I don’t think it’s weird that a team manager (not tech lead) would make less than their best performing employees but I’m not sure if it ever happens.
Well, even “average” has it’s place. Had HR try to guilt trip me once by claiming “You only deliver average work compared to coworker X”.
Thing is I was working on an unfamiliar tech stack and X was/is insanely good at what they did/do. So I said “Under the given circumstances I take that as a praise”. Of course HR didn’t see it that way but I didn’t stay long with the company anyway.
Been my goal since I was like 14.
It’s been mine since I was 13.
It was my goal at 11 but I goofed around a little and didn’t get around to taking it seriously until I was 12.
I’m skeptical of just a mathematical model without tying it to real data, no matter how hard the researchers try to make it “realistic.” You can make a mathematical model that says anything. That said, I did find this part interesting:
Burgess and his colleagues delved into the mechanics of ambition after earlier work found that fisheries performed best when boats stopped searching for more fish once they reached higher-than-average catches. They wanted to see if the mathematics supported the strategy in other realms of life, too.
I’ve been telling that for years and they call me insane or desperate or depressed or hopeless, etc.
There’s no point to aim for the one off rare outcome, it’s a statistical anomaly that it will happen. Aim for the average outcome, it’s much more likely to happen.
I recall reading an anecdote from a track and field coach who said his discus throwers got better performance when he asked them to throw about 70% as hard as they could on a full strength throw. I wonder how that would fit into this model, because rather than probability, it’s more about not letting your brain get in it’s own way when executing a technique.
