while there’s no “perfect” — or guaranteed one size fits most — solution, I’m curious how different teams arrive at big decisions.
there seem to be underlying — and sometimes unspoken — guiding leadership principles that drive the path of pursuing high- vs low-risk projects.
Incentives for leadership seems to point to staffing 1 large 10x ROI project over 5 small 2x ROI initiatives.
sometimes big bets pay off and sometimes companies only taking small bets die off.
the risk vs reward, however, seems to be assymetric for ICs vs Leaders:
—big bet—
reward — more $$$, leaders promoted
risk — less $$$, leaders & staff fired
—no bet—
reward — similar $$$, staff hired
risk — less $$$, no promo
what am i missing?
Want to see the real deal?
More inside scoop? View in App
More inside scoop? View in App
blind
SUPPORT
FOLLOW US
DOWNLOAD THE APP:
FOLLOWING
Industries
Job Groups
- Software Engineering
- Product Management
- Information Technology
- Data Science & Analytics
- Management Consulting
- Hardware Engineering
- Design
- Sales
- Security
- Investment Banking & Sell Side
- Marketing
- Private Equity & Buy Side
- Corporate Finance
- Supply Chain
- Business Development
- Human Resources
- Operations
- Legal
- Admin
- Customer Service
- Communications
Return to Office
Work From Home
COVID-19
Layoffs
Investments & Money
Work Visa
Housing
Referrals
Job Openings
Startups
Office Life
Mental Health
HR Issues
Blockchain & Crypto
Fitness & Nutrition
Travel
Health Care & Insurance
Tax
Hobbies & Entertainment
Working Parents
Food & Dining
IPO
Side Jobs
Show more
SUPPORT
FOLLOW US
DOWNLOAD THE APP:
comments
“In the late middlegame and endgame the situation reverses, and pawns on the wings become more valuable due to their likelihood of becoming an outside passed pawn and threatening to promote.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_piece_relative_value