🐈

Hiring for people who "Work Hard" feels weird, like looking for slaves but self-enslaved so no guilt required. Or a slave hiring a slave dynamic. E.g. VC/status slave looking for Company Man slave

Yet hiring for the opposite also feels untenable. "We want people who don't work hard." or "We want smart-ass opportunistic hackers."

A better way to phrase why "Work Hard" has a lot of hidden risks is with militaristic examples. Soldiers work hard, never say no, take their marching orders, etc... A company *wants* soldiers. Good soldiers. Good company.

That is, the more perfectly run an organization is, the more it's like a military organization. Very legible, very male, very brotherly, very phallic.

With this in mind, as a CEO, the question is "How militaristic do I want my company to be?" Striving for max efficiency by only valuing people who are willing to work themselves to the bone for *your* personal goals is a kind of dehumanization.

Gather people who are already dehumanized (e.g. those who are lost and looking for a cause to commit themselves wholly to) isn't necessarily "evil" but it passes on the chance to "humanize" someone.

It creates an incentive structure for continuous dehumanization because someone somewhere will be able to make use of the Zealot Without a Cause.