5 ms·
This was interesting: When employees log in to their computers, we ask them to look at a picture of a random employee and then ask them how well they know that
by smanek 16y ago
This was interesting:
When employees log in to their computers, we ask them to look at a picture of a random employee and then ask them how well they know that person -- the options include "say hi in the halls," "hang out outside of work," and "we're going to be longtime friends." We're starting to keep track of the number and strength of cross-departmental relationships -- and we're planning a class on the topic.
- joe_fishfish 16y agoMaybe this is a cultural thing but personally I would take great exception to my employer interfering in my private, personal relationships in such a fashion.
- blacksmith 16y agoBear in mind that they may factor that in in the hiring process...and not hire you. Great cultures begin with hiring right. That's not to say you are not awesome, it's just to say you may not be a fit for their culture and their values.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- twidlit 16y agono option for "Purposefully avoid" and "I hate his guts." Thats software is highly unrealistic.
- tcdent 16y agoI can understand encouraging casual relationships with your coworkers, but tracking and giving seminars on improving them goes too far. I'll take my $2000 now, please.
- regularfry 16y agoI thought he meant it was more meta than that, in that rather than sitting everyone down and explaining how to be friends, he'd get the managers in and help them create an environment in which it happens naturally.
- vog 16y agoThat might justify the seminars, but tracking personal relationships still goes too far. It's one thing when people do that voluntarily on various "social" websites, but being asked to do that at work is a whole different story.
- fgf 16y agoIn a small company (a startup for example) the boss will know who knows who. To make that kind of information available to the CEO in a big company seems pretty harmless.
- Timothee 16y agoWhile reading the article I read that part not like they were tracking the relationships but rather using the form as a survey to get a feel of how good different departments got along and knew each other. Basically, I felt like they were keeping the whole thing anonymous. If they're not, in that case, yes, it is very creepy. But I really doubt it.
- MicahWedemeyer 16y agoThe article went from heartwarming to creepy at that point. I know they probably mean well, but that's pretty big-brotherish.
- Quarrelsome 16y agoI'm not so sure. You can anonymise the data and it wouldn't effect the intended result. The whole premise is to track relationships between _departments_ so the actual identities in question matter less. You just want to try to prevent a "them" and "us" culture. To provide a software analogy you want the platform group to be friends with the application group and enjoy working together. I've experienced a split myself where one team would just blame the other team for the problems in the final solution and it isn't productive.
- MicahWedemeyer 16y agoMy point is just that it seems creepy. No matter what protections and anonymizing is going on, the described implementation would elicit a very negative emotional response from me.
- catch23 16y agoIt's not actually as creepy as it sounds. It's almost like a game, and employees would try hard to score well on it.
- nocman 16y agoI agree with MicahWedemeyer -- it's creepy. I went from being very impressed by Hsieh's article to being completely creeped out in the last two paragraphs (and being glad that I'm not his employee). I fully understand the desire to have employees interacting across departments, but this IMHO this is a terrible way to try to acheive that.
- MicahWedemeyer 16y agoDo you work there? I'd be very curious to hear from someone on the inside, as it could be that my impression is way off.
- pmsaue0 16y agoMeeting people isn't always easy. I think that events and social experiments like this can encourage interaction in a new/fun way. At the very least people at the office will be talking about it, which will likely lead to new fruitful interactions. Certainly it's not more creepy than FB
- ludwigvan 16y agoHow BigBrotheresque.
- ecaradec 16y agoActually it probably works because employees already trust their management. Doing this at a random company without building a friendly culture first would be distasteful.
- LiveTheDream 16y agoI wonder if Tony took into account Dunbar's number, the magical number (150) at which people tend to max out on personal relationships. FTA, there are about 1,800 employees. It's not clear how they are geographically divided.
- sdurkin 16y agoIn addition to Dunbar's number, there's a few other magic numbers that crop up in the statistics of human societies over and over again: 2 - The most basic. Think romantic relationships, best friends, business partners, etc. 6 - The "group." Common chimpanzees patrol in groups of six. Next time you go to a party, notice the maximum number of people that can engage in a conversation. Its nearly always six. Fun tip based on this: If you want to join a lively conversation, walk up to a group of six people and begin to talk to two of them. The group will naturally fission into two groups of three and four. 30 - The "tribe." This is your extended group of friends, or the maximum number of children that can be put in a classroom. Everyone knows everyone well. This group can be mustered to complete a common task without much trouble. 150 - The "nation." This is Dunbar's magic number, derived from the size of the human neocortex. This is the maximum size a group can reach where everyone has at least a passing relationship with everyone else. It is the last natural group size. Any group beyond this stretches human social instincts, and requires social constructs such as rules or laws to augment it.
- bl4k 16y agothey need a 'have slept with' option
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]