Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I disagree. I think the parent is trying to say that businesses hired overqualified people and then give them less engaging work for valid business reasons.

What I'm trying to say is that you're told you'll be hired for X, and, crucially, that it's easily verifiable that X actually would help solve the business problem better than Y. Failing to do X actively hurts the business.

Yet you're still forced to do Y. It's not because in the real world you only needed simple, trustworthy Y to get the job done. No, you're failing to get the job done, need X to get it done, are told you're the one to bring X to the table, and then you're made to do Y for destructive political reasons.

The point I'm trying to make is that there's no defensible "real world" pragmatism to support the focus on Y nor the bait-and-switch to hire someone who knows X. Whatever the reasons for that, they are not about improving the firm nor making money for the firm. They are about optimizing a bonus or promotion or whatever for a single individual or some small faction, even at the expense of the organization's overall progress.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: