"Our compensation philosophy helped a lot. Most of its principles stem from ideals described earlier: Be honest, and treat people like adults. For instance, during my tenure Netflix didn’t pay performance bonuses, because we believed that they’re unnecessary if you hire the right people. If your employees are fully formed adults who put the company first, an annual bonus won’t make them work harder or smarter. We also believed in market-based pay and would tell employees that it was smart to interview with competitors when they had the chance, in order to get a good sense of the market rate for their talent. Many HR people dislike it when employees talk to recruiters, but I always told employees to take the call, ask how much, and send me the number—it’s valuable information."
She says they paid market rate and no bonuses. She emphasizes here and elsewhere in the article the importance of hiring people who put Netflix first.
I did read the whole article (and found it fascinating) but don't feel that either of those things equate to "demanding loyalty"
Encouraging employees to interview elsewhere seems to be the exact opposite of demanding loyalty. To my mind it is like saying "we are willing to compete for your loyalty"
Yeah, option 2 would lead to someone hestitating/stopping in that lower lane. Then that whole lane is stopped because the front driver is too afraid to merge into moving traffic, and the moving traffic is going too fast to stop and let a lower lane driver in.
Nice minimal design. I like the ability to read a summary before deciding to click through. I was confused at first when the main content frame was empty (like another commenter pointed out - maybe put something there on page load).
I am trying to reconcile these two statements made by the author:
1) "[Scrum] provides a framework that prioritizes delivering real, working, business-quality software sprint after sprint."
2) "Scrum is engineering centric. Great companies are customer and product centric."
So, with the second quote the author sets up this dichotomy between Scrum and being customer-focused. But to me, the first quote (which is accurate) positions Scrum as supremely customer-focused. Meaning, to deliver value as soon as possible, as much as possible.
I think the author fails to make any persuasive arguments about Scrum. His arguments about what Scrum is not are inaccurate. I was hoping for some useful counter-perspective.
I don't think that those two statements are inconsistent. The OP is not disparaging scrum, but rather pointing out that when organizations embrace scrum as a religion they lose sight of the fact that scrum is a tool for engineering - it is not the complete answer to making good products.
Scrum provides a tool that allows you to run your engineering org like a factory production line - it is efficient and (sometimes) predictable. But just having a good production line doesn't mean that you are going to build a product that customers want to buy - only that you will build something faster.
The post, and the one it comments on [1], bothers me for a few of reasons.
One: As an MS in CS holder I certainly worry that my degree is perceived as worth less, if not outright worthless. I worked very hard for it and am proud of my accomplishment. It represents a great deal of sacrifice. It also represents the 30 credits of undergraduate coursework and six credits of graduate coursework I completed before entering a graduate program. Of course, Ms. Lerner would see the MS on my résumé and throw it in the rubbish pile.
Two: According to Prof. Regehr's second point, training in public speaking and writing is an important aspect of a research-oriented master's program. I already had a B.A. in Journalism so I was pretty well covered on both of those points. And, since I was working full-time, with a child on the way, I was plenty mature. A coursework-oriented degree is what I wanted.
Three: I violently object to the denigration of MSCS holders based on the limited experience of a recruiter. Maybe Ms. Lerner is unable to attract more qualified candidates, and so she's extrapolated too liberally. Her arrogance is what I find most offensive.
I have a MS in CS but, before enrolling in a graduate program I took 30 credits of undergraduate CS courses at a local university as part of a certificate program. My BA in Journalism did not really prepare me for graduate-level CS work.
If this option is available to you then I'd heartily recommend it.
It allows an author to state the reason for the citation (supports, refutes, etc.).
Having to state a reason could reduce spurious citations while providing a more accurate view of the nature of a paper's impact.
[1] http://www.sparontologies.net/ontologies/cito