Oh, come on. Administrative overhead is a reality of business everywhere and at every level; the idea that to manage an organization somehow necessarily impairs it is absurd. So is purporting falsely to eliminate that overhead on behalf of others, when basic professional competence instead involves for oneself learning to minimize it - to dispose of it, not by panicking or catastrophizing or sweeping it under a rug, but instead in a fashion such as that I described ie efficiently. To claim otherwise is infantilizing nonsense. It's fundamentally dishonest, though I grant you probably have never before so directly been told as much.

▲

sunshowers 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

I moved from Meta, infamous for its performance reviews, to Oxide. The culture difference is night and day. The level of self-interested behavior seen at Meta just doesn't exist here.

By the way, I received every rating from Greatly Exceeds (including an additional equity grant) down to Meets Most, and the rating I got overall had very little correlation with either effort or impact. I got Meets Most for some of the most valuable and industry-impactful work I've done in my career, and Greatly Exceeds for something that got replaced in a year.

▲

nemothekid 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

>I moved from Meta, infamous for its performance reviews, to Oxide. The culture difference is night and day. The level of self-interested behavior seen at Meta just doesn't exist here.

The culture difference between Meta and any startup will be night and day. People who are self interested min-maxxers don't join startups. Not dealing with "corporate politics" has to be in the top 5 reasons anyone leaves FAANG to join a startup. That has nothing to do with Oxide's comp structure.

	▲	throwanem 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> People who are self interested min-maxxers don't join startups. Not dealing with "corporate politics" has to be in the top 5 reasons... Oh, sure! Now tell me another one. The idea that startups don't have politics is - well, I'll say it is extremely comedic, and we'll leave it at that. Think about it for a minute. I'm not questioning the existence of the pipeline here described, and no one is questioning the existence of many pressing reasons for anyone at the FAANG "top of funnel" to want to flow along that pipeline about as quickly as is achievable. But those "reasons" have effects on the people who experience them, because humans have emotions and psychologies and other such inconvenient externalities, and for like cause those effects are not instantly and perfectly ameliorated in every case by a simple change of environment. Can you not straightforwardly see how this might produce some extremely adverse results, in a social and sociological sense? And how overt, documented, attributable, and discoverable personnel processes, far from some unreasonable burden, might serve a broadly beneficial role in such circumstances?
	▲	sunshowers 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		This is a reasonable argument. But look, I have my views based on my experiences and things I've heard from colleagues and friends, and you have yours.

▲

throwanem 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Well, sure. That's Meta, the model for much of the industry, where that isn't the likewise and just as deservedly infamous Amazon. So when you say Oxide is better, I'm sure I can believe you that it is, but can you see why that still might not convince? It's like if I say I'd rather be beaten than stabbed. Obviously this is the sensible choice to make among the selection given, but still the question might reasonably be asked: can there really be no third option?

▲

steveklabnik 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The issue is, you're speaking from the position of the organization itself. Yes, staff work is just as important as line work. The issue with perf isn't that it's staff work, it's that people who are ostensibly hired to do line work are forced to do staff work just to keep their jobs. And sure, you can argue "tough, that's just life," but it's not hard to see why people resent it. They want to be writing code, not putting together promo packets.

Anyway this is mostly just one example, it's just one that comes up often when I speak with my peers about how Oxide works vs other companies.

▲

throwanem 3 days ago | parent [-]

I see why people resent it; I'm saying they're foolish to do so. Why should I not seek involvement in staff work that determines so much of my future? Why should I not make myself responsible for the conduct of the business within the scope of my role, rather than just the parts which I happen to like and enjoy?

And since you can't seriously mean me to believe performance is not evaluated at Oxide, I really can't see how I'm meant to take any of what you're saying at face value. Instead it seems something much akin to "don't worry your clever little head about the boring ol' money stuff, darlin'! Don't you trust me to take good care of you?"

▲

steveklabnik 3 days ago | parent [-]

> I see why people resent it; I'm saying they're foolish to do so.

Okay, sure. I am also not a "I only want to put my head down and code" person either.

> And since you can't seriously mean me to believe performance is not evaluated at Oxide,

Not formally, no. Because there are no levels, no corresponding salary bands, there's no need to have a formal process, with all of the justification work that has to go in from the employee, and all of the reading and evaluating all of that stuff from management.

It is true that if you don't do your job, you'll be let go. However, that's a conversation that would happen between you and Bryan/Steve, not an annual or quarterly process with all of the paperwork and such that those formal processes demand.

Instead, we simply do our jobs, and get paid our salary.

It sounds like it isn't an environment for you, and that's okay.

▲

throwanem 3 days ago | parent [-]

> Instead, we simply do our jobs, and get paid our salary.

And some of "us" have an ownership stake, and some of "us" do not. But "we" like to talk about how everyone's working on a level playing field, anyway.

You're quite right. It isn't an environment for me.

▲

steveklabnik 3 days ago | parent [-]

Small nit, everyone has an ownership stake, it's that some are larger than others.

	▲	throwanem 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		The clarification is welcome, inasmuch at least as it's good to know there are no missing grants. It doesn't really surprise to hear some are larger than others, which is invariably the case, usually by one or two orders of magnitude. I assume you're satisfied with yours. I wouldn't wish to be taken as saying no employee is ever more valuable to the business than another. That would also be absurd. What I don't understand is why all the circumlocution.