Also, industry-leading research? Those leaked internal data about instagram are worse than an undergrad term paper. Look at those n values, for something as big as Fb that’s not even serious research.
Well, that’s why we have portable computers. This is like saying buses are bad for your physical health, because being ran over hurts you. Who even carries tower computers?
Everyone knows why they applied, but for the benefit of employers, we have created a society in which it is not acceptable to say "I'm only here for the money, I literally do not care about your company."
Imagine there are two applicants who are equal in every way, just that one genuinely likes the job and has the same goals as the company, and the other is just there for the money. It's not hard to see why anyone would prefer the first candidate. That's the one who is motivated and will go above and beyond if required.
As a secondary effect, applicants of course notice that they are more likely to be hired if they just pretend like they care. And if everyone pretends, the one person who says they are just there for the money is at a disadvantage to everyone else.
Okay, but even without the second-order effects of signaling games, selecting for enthusiasm is a risky strategy because earnest motivation is not the only or even the most important factor in their contribution. In many cases, a competent professional who gets you the best result might be someone who gives no fucks about the business inherently but does a good job because this strategy betters their reputation (or just their value full stop to their present employer) over time and thus their expected payscale, or just happens to be good at the thing and just wants a stable paycheck.
There two major reasons this matters:
1. In many cases no amount of enthusiasm for your business is more valuable than the hard skills you need. If it were, why can't you, the founder, with enough enthusiasm to start the business in the first place, simply do everything?
2. Genuine enthusiasm is *volatile*. If someone who isn't making business decisions cares deeply about the business' stated goals, they may well take a minor pivot or a strategic choice they disagree with as a slight or even a betrayal, and that enthusiasm quickly disappears or goes negative. In contrast, your indifferent professional has transparent and predictable motivations and you can stay aligned merely by continuing to pay them enough.
Personally, I think people select for enthusiasm about the business for the same reason they might select friends who tell them how cool or attractive or smart they are, and it's a not an amazing strategy for similar reasons.
> As a secondary effect, applicants of course notice that they are more likely to be hired if they just pretend like they care. And if everyone pretends, the one person who says they are just there for the money is at a disadvantage to everyone else.
I've seen people motivate this by saying that not faking it shows you lack social skills. In the end the customer is never wrong, and when you are selling your time the customer is your manager so keep that smile up! (I hate this culture, but I adapted just like everyone else)
> genuinely likes the job and has the same goals as the company
It's impossible, unless he holds a large portion of the shares of the company. One of the goals of the company is to replace the guy with someone cheaper or find a way to no need him at all.
I could agree if you're referring to low skill or some entry level jobs. For later professional jobs, this may be true for some, but a lot of people really do have professional career interests, and all things being equal, it's normal for an employer to prefer people who want to be there for more than a paycheck.
I've had a few glimpses of what it's like to hate your job and just be there because you need or want the money, and personally, I'm motivated by never wanting to be in that position.
Exactly this! I cannot believe someone is naïve enough to think total strangers will start caring about some company's progress, profits and reputation just because they are being paid minimum wage.
Sorry, literally 99% of people who are seen as "do-ers" or motivated are only putting up a show to be hired and to keep their jobs. Being hungry and homeless is a great motivator. None is genuinely excited about your business as much as you are, and if you require them to be, then pay them a CEO salary.
This doesn't make sense. There are loads of people (myself included) who are intrinsically motivated to do good work.
And not just in the tech industry. Look at all the volunteer opportunities, unpajd city boards, etc that people get themselves involved in. People can be motivated by wanting to make a difference. And yes, some software companies do in fact make products and services that make a difference in people's lives.
> Look at all the volunteer opportunities, unpajd city boards, etc that people get themselves involved in.
Positions such as these often pay in increased social status. Just because the compensation is intangible doesn’t mean it’s not real. Working at an animal shelter may well raise your status with potential partners. Working on a city advisory board will definitely get you noticed and can be a stepping board toward political office. And even an unpaid senior position at a well-funded and prestigious foundation results in a great deal of clout.
> Working at an animal shelter may well raise your status with potential partners.
This sounds like an unhealthily cynical view to hold. I certainly hope it does not come as a surprise to hear that some people just genuinely do love animals. Not everything in life boils down to running laps on a hedonic treadmill.
It's not always social status, especially for people who volunteer but don't tell anyone. It can often be ideology and principles, from people who want to pay a favour forward (e.g. if they received help from the past).
I do agree there are other intangibles, though (sense of community with fellow volunteers, sense of freedom by doing something exceptional, work experience). These intangibles are good things (mutual benefit).
Some people also benefit without expectation of reward. There could be an argument of self-interest (e.g. to feel good or alleviate some past wrong), but in practice, it makes sense to just thank these people for their actions without worrying about their motivations (which they might not even definitively know).
The same often applies at work though. Someone who is known as the top 'x' in their company/field gains social status among that peer group, if they're interested in that sort of thing. After all you spend a lot of time with work colleagues when you're at work.
To add to the other comments. That is not how everyone is wired. Some good friends of mine give everything at work and often have trouble to stop thinking about work afterwards. These people worked in shitty private sector jobs, governmental positions and other career paths that will never reward their work with richness.
I personally don't get it. It actually frustrates me a little, they are talented and could achieve real wealth if they'd cared for that. But I accept that people who just work 100% no matter what exist.
Because some people convinced themselves that government is bad, even though democratic governments were the GOAL of almost every nation in the pre-independence days. If people cannot trust the institutions that they themselves built, it says more about the morals of those voting than about those so-called corrupt governments.
You are right, but we don't know how "successful" people got where they are. Look at E. Musk, for example. Widely taken as the pinnacle of success, with his education, fortune, "achievements" literally built either on his family's apartheid's fortune or on putting his name on other's successes.
Interesting distinction between east and west coast! Could it be because academic fields are less influenced by “looks and impressions”, while SV/technology fields are easily manipulated by people who appear to be experts?
As in: in academia if you say something, people are trained to analyze the veracity of that, and to judge you based on your methodological/academic rigor. Meanwhile, in SV people judge you on past projects and financial conditions, which are not tied to knowledge about reality at all. I don’t know if any of what I am saying is factually correct, I’m just guessing and wondering. Don’t take it as fact, just my biased, un-founded opinion created around what I see online.
I think it's because those who have knowledge of financial and human capital are the ones who make the final sprint of the marathon of problem solving.
When the science is knocking on heavens door after years or decades of struggles they feel the opportunity of commercial success and come out of the woodwork to make the last effort to finally push the pile over the goal line by making adjustments in how human capital and financial capital are deployed.
You are right about HN folks. I asked this question prompted by a topic discussed here during the past week, in which many people were commenting and sounding like experts. But because I knew deeply about it (having written my Master’s thesis on it), I noticed how mistaken they were — despite making their opinions sound like facts.
It makes me wonder: should this make us disregard many more discussions? Because what if the comments on those are as “untrustworthy” as the comments shown in that thread I know about?
The desired yeah, but unfortunately from my experience people don't like being corrected online, for -- as far as they know -- I may as well know nothing about what I am talking about. Plus, devoting the time to type out so many replies is not in most people's priority list.
