3 ms·
You'll get no argument from me that a good investment is money well spent, whether it's free soda or a company fleet of Lamborghinis. But what problem is the C
by qjz 17y ago
You'll get no argument from me that a good investment is money well spent, whether it's free soda or a company fleet of Lamborghinis.
But what problem is the CFO in the article trying to solve? The author claims the startup is "fairly successful" but it's already a few years old, just breaking even, and still heavily dependent on financing. His true measure of success seems to hinge on the fact that the company continues to exist in a bad economy. Meanwhile, the CFO needs to address "Sarbanes Oxley compliance, a new accounting system, beef up IT and security, Section 409A (valuation) compliance, etc." This sounds like an important phase in the company's growth, and she's trying to find ways to pay for it. In the context of the article, this isn't an arbitrary decision that disregards morale, productivity or even QA. It's a growing pain essential to establishing the company's success. IOW, they do have much bigger problems.
There's no question that preventing disgruntlement during these stages is an HR challenge that needs to be handled delicately. But I think the need can be communicated effectively without losing valuable employees. The fact that it wasn't is the real failure in the article.
- gridspy 17y agoDespite upvoting you for your clear argument - I disagree. The top engineers are the lifeblood of the company, and to make trivial cost cutting measures ($10k really is nothing) that risk their retention is incredibly stupid. Decrees from the top that disregard the input of and value of the employees are the issue here, not how those decrees are handed down. I can't think of any way that HR could say "no more free soda" without it sounding like the stupid cost-cutting measure that it is.