> Most problems in business will not fit in your well-scoped JIRA ticket. That doesn't mean you get to ignore them until they do.
But you're still chaining me to Jira, aren't you? I'm still being judged by how many points of Jira tickets I close per sprint, aren't I? And I bet you're still trying to insulate me so I "don't get distracted" from my tickets.
> People get paid the big bucks because they handle that uncertainty well and bring those vague, ill-defined problems to a good resolution.
So I can expect to receive the autonomy needed to take on those problems after all, and also get the compensation commensurate with that responsibility?
> "I'm pretty good with React" doesn't quite cut it.
Is that the bar we're using for hiring engineers around here? Damn, I did _not_ interview your company well enough before accepting this job!
> Yes, because of the implication: you want ownership? Great. Here's your KPIs. You didn't meet those KPIs? Here's your severance, best of luck at your next job.
Hold up. I already have KPIs / OKRs / MBOs or whatever flavor of the year HR is pushing on top of the sprint metrics you're tracking, and as a senior engineer or higher, I'm already in trouble if the product fails, which is another reason I want the autonomy to make sure failure is avoided!
> I made a comment to an advisor a while back about "a VP on a PIP" and they laughed. "Mike, a VP is always on a PIP. That's the role. You hit your KPIs or you're out."
Why are we bringing up comparisons with VPs? Is it VP-level autonomy or nothing here?