I agree; I think the claim that "winning" is what retains people is vaguely on the right track, but the focus on company growth and profits is off-base. A sense that the company is doing interesting things and is where the action is is fairly important, and may or may not be correlated with those things. To take a classic (if admittedly overused) example, nobody at Bell Labs got wealthy from working there; they all made a decent living, but it was emphatically a middle-class living, with no stock-options or six-figure salaries (even when inflation-adjusted). What kept people there was a feeling that this was the best place in the world to work, and at the center of interesting-stuff-happening.
Yes, but Bell Labs is not a role model. (Many managers were a hassle there too ) There can't be more the than 5% of the industry doing what Bell Labs did or MSR does. So the interesting question for the 95% is, what makes the best of the rest, doing boring but profitable work, better than the rest of the rest? Even at Google, a very desirable corporate job, many engineers aren't really inventing the future.
This is short-sighted. Every company I've ever left is winning, it doesn't matter - it's about what I want to do next. Free agent mindset is a bitch for management.
John Medaille, an economist whose works I enjoy reading, recently commented on business eithics, and pointed out that most business ethics classes teach how to justify the answers you know your teacher wants and therefore teach a distinct lack of ethics. He suggests, as an alternative, that business ethics should focus on systematic ethics, namely how systems reward or punish ethical behavior. Do you have an organization where the cream rises to the top or where the shit floats?
Anyway I wonder if something like that is applicable here. Free agent mindset is a bitch for management because, like business ethics professors, they are mostly interested in how well you comply with their demands. As a result the emphasis is rarely about how you ensure that top talent has the freedom that makes their jobs worthwhile.
From what I can tell, most modern ethicists don't like selfish people. As it turns out, you can be selfish and build teams of people who happily work together.
As a manager currently, I can tell you how I deal with free agents ready to do the next thing: I let them go, and plan ahead for their departure.
I hire them as fast as I can, because they change the world and every minute you can have them in your company is amazing. I think of myself as more of a talent agent, not their boss.
I have 16 direct reports at Twilio and ~50% of them are this type. I am grateful for every day they wake up and say, "Yes I am happy going to work today". I work to earn that time by supporting their goals and projects, empowering them to set their own course, and sketching a rough outline of the goals we have to achieve. I try to find ways that our mission as a company is aligned with their own passions and interests, and try to keep us in sync around if they're satisfied.
And someday, when they leave and build their own things, I will support them and I hope we will have our own Twilio "startup mafia".
A company might be "winning" but if it doesn't share its winning with its talents, they walk. Basically when they see what they have contributed to the company's profit but not adequately rewarded, they leave.
Comments
I prefer Marc Andreessen's reason: Companies that have a retention problem usually have a winning problem. Or rather, a "not winning" problem.
Source: http://pmarca-archive.posterous.com/the-pmarca-guide-to-big-... (original seems to be deleted from blog.pmarca.com)
The company I work for now is very profitable and growing fast. I can not wait to leave. If I cared mostly about money, I would want to stay.
I agree; I think the claim that "winning" is what retains people is vaguely on the right track, but the focus on company growth and profits is off-base. A sense that the company is doing interesting things and is where the action is is fairly important, and may or may not be correlated with those things. To take a classic (if admittedly overused) example, nobody at Bell Labs got wealthy from working there; they all made a decent living, but it was emphatically a middle-class living, with no stock-options or six-figure salaries (even when inflation-adjusted). What kept people there was a feeling that this was the best place in the world to work, and at the center of interesting-stuff-happening.
Yes, but Bell Labs is not a role model. (Many managers were a hassle there too ) There can't be more the than 5% of the industry doing what Bell Labs did or MSR does. So the interesting question for the 95% is, what makes the best of the rest, doing boring but profitable work, better than the rest of the rest? Even at Google, a very desirable corporate job, many engineers aren't really inventing the future.
This is short-sighted. Every company I've ever left is winning, it doesn't matter - it's about what I want to do next. Free agent mindset is a bitch for management.
John Medaille, an economist whose works I enjoy reading, recently commented on business eithics, and pointed out that most business ethics classes teach how to justify the answers you know your teacher wants and therefore teach a distinct lack of ethics. He suggests, as an alternative, that business ethics should focus on systematic ethics, namely how systems reward or punish ethical behavior. Do you have an organization where the cream rises to the top or where the shit floats?
Anyway I wonder if something like that is applicable here. Free agent mindset is a bitch for management because, like business ethics professors, they are mostly interested in how well you comply with their demands. As a result the emphasis is rarely about how you ensure that top talent has the freedom that makes their jobs worthwhile.
From what I can tell, most modern ethicists don't like selfish people. As it turns out, you can be selfish and build teams of people who happily work together.
As a manager currently, I can tell you how I deal with free agents ready to do the next thing: I let them go, and plan ahead for their departure.
So what do you do about people who:
1) Have a free agent mindset (I can go if I don't like it here)
2) Are more loyal to the company than to their managers, and
3) Have no respect for the chain of command?
I hire them as fast as I can, because they change the world and every minute you can have them in your company is amazing. I think of myself as more of a talent agent, not their boss.
I have 16 direct reports at Twilio and ~50% of them are this type. I am grateful for every day they wake up and say, "Yes I am happy going to work today". I work to earn that time by supporting their goals and projects, empowering them to set their own course, and sketching a rough outline of the goals we have to achieve. I try to find ways that our mission as a company is aligned with their own passions and interests, and try to keep us in sync around if they're satisfied.
And someday, when they leave and build their own things, I will support them and I hope we will have our own Twilio "startup mafia".
A company might be "winning" but if it doesn't share its winning with its talents, they walk. Basically when they see what they have contributed to the company's profit but not adequately rewarded, they leave.