Hacker News Reader

Comment by gentleman11 | Hacker News Reader

> The results showed that star performers triggered different reactions from their peers depending on the resources available to the team. If resources were limited, peers felt threatened by and competitive toward high performers and thus undermined them. If resources were shared, peers benefitted from working with a star and thus socially supported the high performer.

Germany is known for being a nation of high performers, and also for being a country known for collective reward/punishment. Could that be related?

View on HN

In Germany, being a high-performer also is rather a stigma...

A top engineer from a top university will barely make more net income than an assembly line worker at the same automotive company in Germany (it’s bit of an exaggeration but not much).

Germany has a very strong “support those that do not perform and make everybody believe that people create equal value”-mentality.

Unless you join a company that has incentive systems in place that reward high-performers (e.g., american companies tend to favor that with their subsidiaries) there is indeed a “regression to mediocracy”. Considering that the average household-income is surprisingly low in Germany (much lower than Austria or Switzerland) this might explain the high productivity.

I am sorry if I sound sarcastic or a bit cynical - but it took me well to my 30s to understand that a large portion of productivity stems from a small fraction of high performing individuals; and it was even harder to overcome the feeling of guilt and shame to actually get compensated for that.

A 10x software engineer making 150k p.a.: outrageous, tax the rich! A soccer player making 50 mio: well, he IS the best, right?

I would like to see an engineer produce much of any value without a line worker..

The thing about soccer players has got little to nothing to do with their playing abilities. It has more to do with them having the leverage to capture a greater portion of advertising revenue. They are visible, individual, rare and hence difficult to replace.

The idea that you get (or should get) compensated for your performance is laubable, but sadly not how the world works. I don't think anyone actually gets paid according to their input, ability or results. Their ability to get compensated is only very tangentially related to their performance (through how well they leverage the perception of their performance, or their rarity, or distinction from other potential workers).

People get compensated for the degree of influence they exert over their employer / the potential value they bring to the table.

That is the same for soccer player, only: they are more talented and sought after than you or me.

“What would engineers get done without assembly line workers” - well, for starters, let me give you a bit of an update how the world is now working for the young generation in Germany: - Your Dad or uncle works at Adi or BW and is a union member: great! There is a field in the application that specifically asks whether you have family members and to list them. Assembly line unions for traditional reasons exert an insane amount of power over the companies in Germany - that means: they just dictate that the salary of an assembly line worker is just insane; that no workforce reductions (automation anyone?) are made; guess who gets the apprenticeship position at 16/17 because of his outstanding grades, abilities and well, his Dad is a local union representative... 2000 applications, 50 spots, be SURE that every single one has a family member backing them. Has nothing to do with performance...

Now, there isn’t exactly a similar union concept for engineers and those uni graduates probably take a greater deal of pride in finding a job than having their Dad harass HR.

So the funny fact is: you are right that the reason to be compensated based on your performance is laudable but unrealistic - but the ONLY times I found this to be completely off limits was with those “family relationship union assembly line workers”.

I am intrigued by the seemingly counterintuitive notion that organizations could best encourage effective individual performance by rewarding team performance.

Knowing I'm going to let other people down is a lot more motivating to me than knowing I'm going to let myself down. I don't know how common this thought pattern is.

It's the oft-forgotten detail from the original "10x developer" study - it had a whole lot more about importance of teamwork

> seemingly counterintuitive notion that organizations could best encourage effective individual performance by rewarding team performance

This works in both directions, unfortunately & almost always accelerates your current direction.

If the team is starting to fall behind, the employees who are the high end of the scale start to lose motivation or develop resentment towards those who are not pulling their weight.

Rational decisions can sometimes be the wrong one in a prisoner's dilemma.

i think one other idea, is that you want a team to function as a team, and not necessarily a group of "individual contractors" (who are in it only for themselves) as it were...

when they feel motivated (and also helped) by those around them, thier individual contribution is buyuoed and multiplied by those teammates (feeling of belonging, trust and camaraderie, can be huge boosters of individual output)

(at least this is my experience, you mileage may of course vary)

This was the key line that stood out to me as well. I've seen both situations where individuals are jealous of successful people in resource-limited environments and where employees appreciate working with and helping high performers when resources are plentiful for everyone.

You kinda need a middle ground, because failing to compensate for performance can lead to resentment, and undermine your top talent just as much as jealous coworkers.

In essence, it depends on what you mean by "resources" and what you mean by "plentiful for everyone".

Isn't this the genius of capitalism? If your coworker makes a billion dollar product all on their own, you're less likely to become resentful because you own stock in the company and will therefore cash out on the reward.

Collective ownership is an feature of capitalism?

There's this thing called equity that is distributed to co-founders and early employees of startups that serves as a form of collective ownership of the net assets and future profits, as well as decision making of the company. It's great! Genius even. This would be a good thing to read up on!

Genius, yes I agree. But capitalism doesn't deserves the credit for coming to understand the value of worker ownership.

If you really think that's genius, might I introduce you to socialism? Same idea but applied more broadly than to just the early employees at startups!

You might have mixed up whose call was "to own the means of production"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com