Ideally management is working with IC teams to set good Key Results. Management shares context of what's important (objectives) and IC teams propose good quantitative measures (key results) of how they'll achieve it.
Yes, “ideally”. I have never seen meaningful numbers as targets. Sometimes it works for a short term effort but in most cases you have ten different measures tha5 are important
This is the crux of what's wrong with the original article IMO. Key results that are customer centric as opposed to "ship {thing}" help keep teams focused on the thing that actually matters.
Of course there will be a tendency to try to game the metric, but the flip side of having customer centric goals is teams become feature factories, building idea after idea without constantly evaluating "are the things we're shipping driving the change in customer behavior they're intended to drive".
Yeah this checks out. I forget the numbers but when we were building StatusPage I remember pulling some data on incidents and a pretty good percentage referenced or linked to another status page (usually meaning their incident was "caused" by an upstream provider).
Thank you for mentioning us. My name is Jeff, one of the co-founders of Metrist. We think a lot about this problem and have been building the solution for the past few months. We are still in beta, currently focused on AWS and Azure, but we do have a number of other services supported, and a few more we can enable for anyone that wants to be an early beta user.
We have a big vision beyond our functional checks, and would welcome any feedback.
How is that "ironic"? Contrary to all anti-government rhetoric, most government agencies are by their nature more transparant than the average startup.
However, it's easy to be transparant about salaries when you deal with collective bargaining and don't have to generate your own revenue.
Especially the latter means that what companies are willing to pay tends to depend on the financial circumstances at the moment of hiring, resulting in differences that cannot be justified by performance or value.
It takes costly rounds of corrections before you can be transparant about that without causing major upheaval when you reveal everyone's salaries. It only works for companies with short, relatively linear history. Everywhere else, salaries tend to diverge over time for many reasons.
Open pay scales are a start, but non-transparent salaries can easily hide in there if all you have is pay scales.
You need two things for actual salary transparency:
1) Everyone's actual salary is accessible - as in, the actual amount they're paid each month, the transaction. This way everyone can know that there's nothing unfair hiding in there.
2) The reason why everyone's salary is what it is is transparent and accessible. Otherwise, the unfairness moves to how people are assigned to different salary bands. "John got assigned to Salary Band E3 because he plays golf with the boss" should not be a possible scenario. If it is, you don't have transparent salaries.
Compensation isn't just made up of numbers, it's made up of explanations too.
1.) No, that's asinine. Look up the tax records of someone if you want to know that information. There are reasons people would want to keep their paycheck private, for very legitimate reasons.
2.) That first sentence doesn't make any sense. The second sentence is also asinine. You get on a pay band based on merit at work. If that isn't the case, or if you don't like politics at work, find a new job.. or realize there will always be politics at work.
I'm not sure if you're a huge privacy advocate, but if you are, these ideas are a direct contradiction to privacy. Can't have my phone metadata, but if I can't see your pay stub life isn't fair.
U of Md. College Park published all employee salaries every year. I always was entertained looking up bad profs. and seeing how much (or little) they made.
Incidentally, what do you think about dynamic favicons [1]? They're a fairly simple feature to implement, but a useful one. In your case, they'd let otherwise-useless favicons be status indicators themselves (which makes sense for anyone opening/refreshing a tab anyway) if they so chose.
Plus, it'd let your users promote their branding (upvote/downvote icons in that specific case) which is a win-win.
At minimum, some custom title text ('[user's main offering] is up'/'down' etc) would make a lot of sense, but I really think the favicons are simple enough (both to implement and to understand) and visible enough to be worth it too - it'd allow for at-a-glance uptime information [2].
The copy talks about responsive layouts, but the landing page (I didn't go further) isn't responsive. Hard to view on mobile (IOS 8.3 here, iPhone 6+).
