No-stakes work is ... worthless? If no one cares about the work enough to have any input or requirements for the results ... sure it might be unrecognized genius that's going to take the world by storm but the absence of interest is not a good sign!

▲

qurren 3 hours ago | parent [-]

To clarify, I don't want people holding any stakes other than the equity of the company itself.

I don't want people holding stakes because they want a promotion, because their direct manager wants to launch a corporate political battle into another team, or because some salesperson wants to get a commision for an otherwise worthless customer. I don't want roadblocks in the name of security so that the IT guy has a sense of self-worth. I don't want someone trying to protect their egos around something they worked on for 3 years, when there's new tech that supersedes it.

▲

danaris 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm not sure you know what "stakeholder" means...? Either that, or you've had too many people use it to mean "people whose future is on the line based on the outcome of the product." That's one kind of stakeholder, but it's far from the average, and it's certainly not the most important kind.

Anyone who has to work with the product is a stakeholder. Their stake in it is the fact that they will be interacting with it, and thus they care how, and whether, it works.

	▲	qurren an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> you've had too many people use it to mean "people whose future is on the line based on the outcome of the product." This is pretty much the only way I've ever heard it used in the companies I've been at.