3 ms·

>Those who are not willing to make the sacrifice probably don't really believe in the vision and thus probably aren't the right people to help you get out o

>Those who are not willing to make the sacrifice probably don't really believe in the vision and thus probably aren't the right people to help you get out of the rut. Sorry, but this is a bit ridiculous. You could make the same counter-argument from the employees perspective as well. "If my company isn't willing to sacrifice to pay my current market worth, then they don't really believe in me as an employee" Is this company going to pay an extra 20% when things start going well again to make up the difference lost? When you sign on for a job/salary you shouldn't feel bad for leaving if the company can't hold up their end of the bargain. If you only worked at 75% of the capacity they thought you were going to, you'll most likely be fired.

datashovel 11y ago
That's not the point really. The criteria are: If a company is demonstrably (ie. open financial books) having financial difficulties, then I think the default reaction should be "what can we do to get ourselves through this without layoffs". The current environment seems to condone a "fire as first reaction to save the company" behavior. I would argue the default reaction should be "fire as last ditch effort to save the company". Before firing anyone the first reaction should be to find a compromise everyone is comfortable with so that everyone can find a way to help the cause. Also I think there is merit to the point that if someone is not willing to sacrifice in times of scarcity, they are only thinking about themselves and thus are not mentally in a state conducive to helping the company to get out of its financial difficulties. I've lived this situation. At one point in my career I had people on my team who I thought were truly brilliant, and I vouched to ensure their happiness and comfort in spite of difficult times. They simply took that gesture of goodwill as a sign of weakness and feasted like vultures without any real uptick in output in return. In the end the lesson is that no matter how brilliant or gifted you are, a true sign of loyalty or dedication to a company's cause in the form of sacrifice is far more valuable than a self-absorbed employee who can churn out good code, but only as long as everything is going in their favor. EDIT: And that's not to say a company shouldn't find ways to sacrifice as well. For example additional equity should certainly be on the table as an option. You can't expect people to give without expecting anything in return should things turn around and the company should eventually get back on its feet financially.

datashovel 11y ago

That's not the point really. The criteria are: If a company is demonstrably (ie. open financial books) having financial difficulties, then I think the default reaction should be "what can we do to get ourselves through this without layoffs". The current environment seems to condone a "fire as first reaction to save the company" behavior. I would argue the default reaction should be "fire as last ditch effort to save the company". Before firing anyone the first reaction should be to find a compromise everyone is comfortable with so that everyone can find a way to help the cause. Also I think there is merit to the point that if someone is not willing to sacrifice in times of scarcity, they are only thinking about themselves and thus are not mentally in a state conducive to helping the company to get out of its financial difficulties. I've lived this situation. At one point in my career I had people on my team who I thought were truly brilliant, and I vouched to ensure their happiness and comfort in spite of difficult times. They simply took that gesture of goodwill as a sign of weakness and feasted like vultures without any real uptick in output in return. In the end the lesson is that no matter how brilliant or gifted you are, a true sign of loyalty or dedication to a company's cause in the form of sacrifice is far more valuable than a self-absorbed employee who can churn out good code, but only as long as everything is going in their favor. EDIT: And that's not to say a company shouldn't find ways to sacrifice as well. For example additional equity should certainly be on the table as an option. You can't expect people to give without expecting anything in return should things turn around and the company should eventually get back on its feet financially.