zlacker

> The answer is and always has been to judge people by the output of their work and nothing else.

Should it not be to judge people by the output of their work relative to their working conditions?

I'm much more interested in hiring someone who operated 5 servers in a culture of manual configuration over ssh by introducing automation than someone who operated 500 servers by following existing procedures and using Ansible playbooks that they didn't contribute any improvements to, even though the second person produced quite a bit more output.

(If by "output" you mean to count in this way, then sure, but a lot of people don't—for instance, lots of people want to see GitHub activity without asking whether the previous employer had onerous IP rules, or the candidate has a family they're busy with on evenings and weekends, or whatever.)

>>geofft+(OP)
> Should it not be to judge people by the output of their work relative to their working conditions?

No we shouldn’t look at that. I only care how you can produce in the role you occupy.

To clarify by “output” I mean work output, not public display output.

>>malvos+b
> No we shouldn’t look at that. I only care how you can produce in the role you occupy.

Aren't you agreeing then? After all, you are looking at output given the role they occupy right?

>>rifung+g2
I think you’re right actually.

>>geofft+(OP)
> Should it not be to judge people by the output of their work relative to their working conditions?

If you keep firing people for poor performance who are not performing because of poor working conditions, then eventually you won't be able to retain anyone and the problem takes care of itself.

Meanwhile those folks have likely moved onto better jobs.

>>malvos+b
If you can increase an employee's output by $X by spending $Y to improve their working conditions (where $X > $Y), shouldn't you do it? Isn't it then worthwhile to examine not just an employee's output, but their working conditions as well?