Hacker News Reader

You have to keep in mind that in this type of organization, managers are highly incentivized to grow their teams, by all means.

The number of people "under" you is the dick measuring tape.

View on HN

At my last company, the team's budget for merit increases was based upon the size of the team. More headcount meant more money available for promotions and fixing historical pay imbalances. It was not a good system that directly caused good employees to leave.

This size=power issue is in my opinion an often-underestimated flaw of organization relying on middle-management.

"Filling quotas" vs "hiring as many people as I can for clout" are different things and I suppose both are possible, but one imagines that both are enabled by the fundamental metric of generating revenue as justification.

You hire ahead of growth, so you need to overcorrect when contraction occurs so it makes sense that if revenues are now shrinking so are the staffing levels.. it kinda feels like these explanations are projecting some weird politics on to very basic business logic.

Traditionally, Facebook hired in line with revenue, to keep revenue per head constant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com