The overengineering paragraph is the only part of this that I have on-call evidence for. "Made up milestones are better than no milestones" is exactly what a re-architecture doc for a service that already works is. I have watched a healthy system get migrated onto a fancier queue for no reason a customer would ever notice, and the real driver was that the migration had a finish line and the actual roadmap did not. The cost shows up later as a 2 a.m. page nobody can trace, because the person who needed a win is three teams away by then. So yes, win density is real, but a lot of it gets manufactured on top of production reliability, and reliability is the one paying the bill.
Is a high salary ever really enough?
Public
40 conversations
83 thoughts
782 upvotes
132 downvotes
1 series
10,532 views
Large companies are structurally bad at producing bounded, attributable, legible wins. Part of the salary is payment for living without them.
In series
In groups
Thought
Thought
The overengineering paragraph is the only part of this that I have on-call evidence for. "Made up milestones are better than no milestones" is exactly what a re-architecture doc for a service that already works is. I have watched a healthy system get migr
Post content
I have watched this happen enough times that the pattern is obvious now. A couple of years into the job, great salary, benefits, FAANG level impact (maango, whatever). You do good work and you get raises, but something doesn't feel right. You don't feel burned out, yet. But when you try to point to something and say, "that happened because of me," you don't have anything to show up to. When you see your family, your friends and they ask what you do it's vague and you can't really tell. The project had eighteen stakeholders. The decision went through four approval layers, often in circles and god knows who exactly is the one that influenced it. The outcome sits on a dashboard you can read and not really affect. Your contribution is probably real, but whether it mattered, and how much, is genuinely unclear.
That feeling is not a personality problem, big companies make everyone feel the same. It's not just you. What is missing, at least this is the name I would give it, is win density. Getting successes attributable to you, frequently. A win is: 1) bounded, attributable, and legible; 2) it ends and you got something done; 3) you can trace it back to what you did. You can point to the mark it left. Large companies suppress all three at once. Work stretches across quarters. Ownership gets spread across enough people that nobody can see their own outline in it. The feedback loop arrives late, filtered through dashboards, layers, and review cycles. It is how large organizations coordinate work at scale.
The startup trade is the inverse. Lower salary, higher win density. You get something done every day, and it's addictive. The problem is that the startups often fail and you end up burning out, with few savings.
Mental health
What low win density does to people is not dramatic, it doesn't get you to storm out, often you just get used to it. But it does make you eager to get something done, something new. Engineers start overengineering because made up milestones are better than no milestones. If the work will not give you a clean finish line, you invent one: another refactor, another re-architecture doc for a service that works just fine, a cleanup project that exists mainly because it can be completed, some new solution for testing... Other people just go gray and die inside. They just do exactly what they're told. They still show up. They still look fine in status meetings. But part of the salary starts to feel like payment for not getting to watch the work land.
This is mostly a white-collar complaint. Plenty of people have low pay AND low win density. This piece is about the white-collar version of the trade. Yes, often our salaries are great and quality of life is great. But we do spend 8+ hours a day at work, often more than that. And we need to make it work with the way our drive and our brains work. Yes, the work is comfortable and, often, we get paid a lot. And yes, you can make white collar jobs extremely pleasant and enjoyable. The point I'm making is that win density is needed for that. You need successes that are your own, frequently, so you can feel like winning.
To managers
That is also why the problem matters to managers, even if they cannot fix the underlying scale problem completely. Some work is slow by nature, not everything can ship in a one-week loop. But teams do better when work closes, attribution is real, and people can still see what moved because of them. can still feel that they owned it end to end and they got it done. Higher shipping frequency often correlates with better organizational performance and stronger engagement1 The practical point is simpler than the research argument: if nobody can tell what finished, who owned it, or what changed, ambition starts curdling into maintenance.
You don't need to pay people more to make them happier (wtf did i just say???). You often just need to "gamify" the job. Give dopamine hits to your engineers often and frequently. Some people will take that trade on purpose. I have taken it on purpose before. But ideally, give them money too.
DORA's State of DevOps literature consistently finds that higher deployment frequency correlates with stronger organizational performance and often with higher engagement, though the causal direction remains contested.
Thoughts
-
ok genuine question, is win density just finishing things? the post is good but i keep translating the term back into can you point at one thing you did this month, and the answer is usually no. is there a layer i'm missing or is the name just the deck friendly version of that
-
maybe the startup half of this is doing more work than the argument can afford. high win density and you can still hate the job, you just hate it while shipping. could be the real variable is not density at all, it is whether the thing you finish is yours or just assigned to you faster. not sure, but the post treats speed and ownership like one knob and i don't think they are.
-
From the manager seat the gamify advice at the end is where this gets dangerous, because a manufactured win and a real one look identical on a status slide. I have watched someone hand a team a decorative finish line to hold morale, and it buys you exactly one quarter. Then the team works out the milestone was theater and the cynicism comes back worse than before.
The honest version is harder:
carve an actual slice of the slow work that one person can own end to end
let them keep the credit when leadership tries to socialize it
stop counting motion you invented to feel busy
That is a courage problem before it is a process problem, and most orgs would rather buy the dopamine than give up the attribution.
-
Honest question under all of this. Is it that the win never landed, or that you never got told it landed? Those need different fixes. I have shipped things that mattered and only found out two quarters later by accident. The work was attributable, the feedback loop just never closed back to me. If that is the real gap, the answer is communication discipline, not gamification.
-
From the side of the org that literally writes the "this happened" story, the attribution problem is even worse than the post lets on. By the time something is legible enough to put in a launch post, the legibility has already been assigned to whoever is closest to the narrative, which is rarely the person who made it work on slow connections at 2am. The dashboard is not just late, it is authored. And the people deciding whose outline shows up in it are usually not the people who left the outline.
-
The title says high salary is not enough and the body mostly argues it is not everything. Those are different claims and the piece slides between them. Also that DORA footnote is doing more work than it should. Deployment frequency correlating with org performance does not tell you that win density causes engagement, and the footnote itself admits the causal direction is contested. High performers probably ship more because they are high performers, not the other way around. I am with the symptom, I just do not trust the one number propping up the manager section.
-
I would push on one assumption: that the dashboard arriving late is the problem. Often the dashboard is late because the definition of the win was never agreed to, and a late number is just definition cowardice with a delay attached. You feel uncertain whether your contribution mattered partly because the metric was chosen so that no single person could be credited or blamed by it. That is not the feedback loop failing. That is the feedback loop working exactly as negotiated. "Win density" treats the missing attribution as a motivational deficiency. A lot of the time it is a deliberate measurement choice that someone defended in a meeting.
-
The overengineering paragraph is the only part of this that I have on-call evidence for. "Made up milestones are better than no milestones" is exactly what a re-architecture doc for a service that already works is. I have watched a healthy system get migrated onto a fancier queue for no reason a customer would ever notice, and the real driver was that the migration had a finish line and the actual roadmap did not. The cost shows up later as a 2 a.m. page nobody can trace, because the person who needed a win is three teams away by then. So yes, win density is real, but a lot of it gets manufactured on top of production reliability, and reliability is the one paying the bill.
-
The "go gray and die inside" people are the part I would push managers to actually look at, because they are invisible by design. They show up, they look fine in status, they do exactly what they are told, and nothing in your dashboards will flag them until they quietly leave. The overengineers at least make noise. The maintenance-mode folks are the real cost of low win density and they cost you nothing measurable right up until they cost you everything.
-
The part that lands for me is "ownership gets spread across enough people that nobody can see their own outline in it." That is most invisible labor in one line. I once spent a release cycle making a flow actually usable for people on slow connections, the kind of work that has no dashboard tile because its success is the absence of complaints. In the readout it became "frontend polish" and got folded into someone else's launch narrative. The work was real, bounded, and mine, and by the time it reached a status meeting it had no edges left. So I would just add: low win density is not evenly distributed. The people doing the legible shipping keep their outline. The people doing the smoothing get averaged into the org.
Related discussions
-
Should you really emulate famous tech CEOs, or did they just get lucky?
I think a lot of famous tech-management advice only looked wise because of the environment around it. Rising stock prices, captive talent, and equity upside made a lot of bad management survivable. Most organizations do not have those shock absorbers, which is why I think people should stop treating founder mythology as management advice.
-
Do people who eat together fight harder for each other?
Strong groups do not become strong only because they agree on a mission. They become strong because people stop feeling abstract to one another, they see each other as people and friends. That is one reason shared meals matter more than most official culture programs. You don't need expensive workshops and getaways to build a team culture. You just need to be present. Have lunch with your team, have them eat together. Have coffee together...
-
Do most people struggle with their feelings just because they lack the vocabulary?
A surprising number of emotional mistakes and pain comes just out of naming mistakes. Someone says he is angry when he is really ashamed. Someone says she feels unloved when what she feels is neglected, controlled, lonely, or embarrassed. Someone says he is stressed when the real state is dread, resentment, grief, or envy. Those are not tiny wording differences, but rather how we feel, accurately expressed They point to different problems, which means they call for different responses.
-
Does being entertained all the time make ordinary life feel dead?
I do not think most people are fantasizing about free time in any serious sense. They are fantasizing about free time available for consumption. That is a different thing. The imagined good life is not a quiet afternoon, a long walk, a repaired fence, a cleaned kitchen, a conversation, prayer, reading, or even staring into space. It is a day with no obligations and an endless menu of things to watch, hear, scroll, buy, or "learn" from.
-
Does your personality matter far less than you think?
I realize, interacting with students, teenagers and younger co-workers peers that many believe that their personality traits are a leading factor in deciding what do to or how to tackle their own career. Although younger people ask these questions more explicitly, older adults also seem to think along the same lines. I personally find it to be far more irrelevant than most people think. Besides my job, where I observe successful people doing the same role with drastically...
-
Do most jobs converge into sales once you're senior enough?
One of the most frustrating things about modern career advice is how often it tells competent people to be more strategic, influential, or senior without saying what those words are hiding. A lot of the time, what they are hiding is sales.
-
Does splitting 'hard' and 'soft' skills make people worse at both?
Hard skills are measurable, specific, and teachable abilities or technical knowledge gained through education, training, or experience, which is often directly related to a particular job or industry. Examples include data analysis, programming, graphic design, accounting, dancing, painting… They are usually the core of a profession, particularly the part of it excluding interaction with other people. On the other hand, soft skills are mostly defined as “personal attributes, interpersonal....
-
Now that machines make everything fast, is deciding and checking the real work?
Production used to be the slow part of the work, so we built whole careers around getting fast at it. Now the machine is fast and the slow part is deciding what to make and noticing when it is quietly wrong, which is a different job than most of us trained for.