7 ms·

I've seen these arguments repeatedly, yet I only see this mattering to those companies where employees have a relative level of power and choice (e.g. non-game

I've seen these arguments repeatedly, yet I only see this mattering to those companies where employees have a relative level of power and choice (e.g. non-game industry programmers, etc). Elsewhere, the attitude appears to have remained: "use them as much as possible". Consider assistant managers at your local chain store. Pick a chain! Outside of a handful of companies that are well noted for their bucking of the trend, regardless of market, these employees will be used and abused, year after year. If my anecdotal experience is representative, the more they actually care about the job, the more they'll be abused. Managers get the same, and by the time you get to district or regional managers, they are mostly the people that survived the lower levels...where "survived" means "did the abusing" not "got burnt out and quit for greener pastures".

b_tterc_p 7y ago
Anything customer oriented tends to benefit
nine_k 7y ago
Why, this makes sense. In every industry, there are employees whose influence on the company success is outsized, and who are hard to hire or train. In software industry, they are experienced engineers and product managers. In a fashionable restaurant, they are experienced cooks. In an airforce, they are experienced pilots and repairmen. Etc. When these people are happy with their work, they achieve great results. When they are unhappy, they look for ways to conveniently jump ship, because they have a number of opportunities elsewhere waiting for them to become available. They are in short supply. Every boss has an incentive to keep these people content and loyal. OTOH every industry has positions for which supply is plentiful, compared to demand. Aspiring game developers without experience, dish washers, burger flippers, etc, can be readily hired, paid little, and easily fired, too. There is no incentive for their bosses to walk an extra mile to keep them happ, especially when pressing them a bit more yields an extra bit of performance, so they mostly aren't happy about their jobs.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
  Another hypothesis that equally well explains the data: employees at successful companies tend to be happy because the rising tide lifts (almost) all boats. Companies that are doing poorly will tend to look to cut staff, wages, and benefits, which could be a source of unhappiness. Etc. I don't really think the evidence presented here gives much reason to believe that seeking the well-being of your employees will do anything for the bottom line. OTOH, it's easy for me to believe that improving the top line will improve your employees' happiness.
  - nine_k 7y ago
    My point is that you have to keep your key people content, else they will leave. During a downturn, you especially want your key engineers, best sales reps, most well-connected customer liaisons to stay around. If they leave, this will hit the bottom line, and getting a replacement will be expensive, or often impossible. This is a known way into oblivion [1]. There are booming industries where the boom mostly floats top executive boats, though. Ask an Uber driver, or an Amazon warehouse worker. [1]: https://steveblank.com/2009/12/21/the-elves-leave-middle-earth-%E2%80%93-soda%E2%80%99s-are-no-longer-free/ https://steveblank.com/2009/12/21/the-elves-leave-middle-ear...
    - Jax2_Hannah 7y ago
      Hey I'm an Amazon warehouse worker, and while I would have to agree, I love the chances to climb to management or an actual career. I'm part of the career choice program which pays for 95% of my college tuition, fees, and books for an IT program (which I chose). The job is boring but not too difficult. I know others might say otherwise though.
      - nine_k 7y ago
        Great to know! Now you need the job more then the job needs you; eventually you may find yourself in a position where employers compete to have you in the team instead.
  - 7y ago
JJMcJ 7y ago
Remember the analysis of Losers/Clueless/Sociopaths in corporate life. The Losers are low level people who know they have lost the battle to be a big shot. Clueless are the strivers, the first level or two of management, who think they have a chance to be a big shot. The Sociopaths actually do have a chance. Not all of them are evil but they all know 100 hour weeks won't do it for them. Lumbergh in Office Space is classic Clueless. He has surrendered any chance of human contact in his job, but he will never get any higher than he is.
- rightbyte 7y ago
  Sociopaths? The groups should be audience, losers, contenders and winners.
  - wanderer2323 7y ago
    GP is talking about the Gervais Principle analysis https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
    - rightbyte 7y ago
      Oh, interesting, but quite simplified and dogmatic principle. Anyways confusing labels for the groups. The group labels should rather be e.g. A,B and C since the labels don't really corresponds the their literal meaning.
      - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
        The labelling isn't confusing at all. Not only do top-level managers cluster around sociopathy, but corporate structures specifically reward selfish sociopathic behaviours and punish empathy and context-awareness. You have to be a certain kind of person to cut staff - some dedicated and valuably skilled - in order to boost the short-term return on your stocks. Likewise, you have to be a certain kind of person to think of customers as a resource that can be farmed and exploited with dark patterns and other manipulations. And in more extreme cases - you have to be a certain kind of person to make non-payment of contractors a deliberate policy. People who score high on empathy won't be comfortable with those kinds of actions.
CobrastanJorji 7y ago
I agree that there are many companies that ignore this correlation, but I'm not convinced those companies are making the most rational choice. If Burger King significantly increased the salary of their workers or otherwise found ways to improve their morale, would it benefit Burger King in the long run? I tend to suspect so, but it would be hard to prove. The burger joints known for taking care of their people are also usually seen as being pretty good burger places, and that may be causal, but it also may be that they're just slightly "upscale" of the other burger places and also spend more on the ingredients.
- ergothus 7y ago
  > I'm not convinced those companies are making the most rational choice Neither am I - they're just making the common choice.
- ghaff 7y ago
  They tend to be somewhat upscale in terms of ingredients, employee training, overall experience, etc. That's not to say that Burger King or McDonald's couldn't do better. I don't really have enough experience with them as a customer or anything else to have a real opinion. But I suspect that, if Burger King were to try to improve their experience in a way that forced them to raise prices by 25% they'd lose a lot of business from people basically just looking for the cheapest burger. See also the experience of JC Penney and Ron Johnson. A lot of people are pretty much in the position where they have to shop on price.
  - Qwertystop 7y ago
    > A lot of people are pretty much in the position where they have to shop on price. Keep in mind, though, that if a larger portion of money went to the workers, less of them would be in that position.
    - elindbe2 7y ago
      Only if that happens across the board, not in one particular company.
erikpukinskis 7y ago
This is true even within tech companies, but for hourly workers. Hourly folks are treated like trash. I’m talking people who live in the bay, and work side by side with other professionals in SF. In a position like that you almost have to take a “durrr, I dunno!” attitude to everything, because if you try to talk to salaried people about what you need to do your job, you are looked at like a dog who just started reciting poetry. Every now and then a salaried person will try to engage, take you seriously, but once it bounces up the chain of command that an hourly person is acting like they have something to contribute, it will be quietly shut down. Seems like the business model requires hourly people stay out of the “brain space” entirely. Otherwise you’d have to pay them a living wage. Really despicable way to treat people IMO. I don’t see why you wouldn’t want people to be proactive about solving problems. The again, I’ve seen similar attitudes from engineering managers towards their direct reports.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  What kind of jobs to hourly people hold? I mean, if the company hires consultants then some of the Exalted Developers themselves will be hourly.
  - tigershark 7y ago
    Exactly, I thought that in some areas in US was not that that uncommon to get north of 150/200 per hour? And that wouldn’t seem so despicable to me...
- pmiller2 7y ago
  None of that is true at my company, in my experience. It is a large company, so I might not have the full picture, but my little corner of it is not like that at all.
  - wheno 7y ago
    Seems pretty common to me. I have worked in smaller companies where everyone was an integral part of the business, and that isn't most large companies I worked at since then. I think it is partly a cargo cult thing. Very successful business can afford to threat people as disposable, be elitist or inflexible. So they end up thinking that is part of what makes them successful, without realizing they are throwing away opportunities. Maybe there are some larger companies that does things differently, but I haven't really seen it.

b_tterc_p 7y ago

Anything customer oriented tends to benefit

nine_k 7y ago

Why, this makes sense. In every industry, there are employees whose influence on the company success is outsized, and who are hard to hire or train. In software industry, they are experienced engineers and product managers. In a fashionable restaurant, they are experienced cooks. In an airforce, they are experienced pilots and repairmen. Etc. When these people are happy with their work, they achieve great results. When they are unhappy, they look for ways to conveniently jump ship, because they have a number of opportunities elsewhere waiting for them to become available. They are in short supply. Every boss has an incentive to keep these people content and loyal. OTOH every industry has positions for which supply is plentiful, compared to demand. Aspiring game developers without experience, dish washers, burger flippers, etc, can be readily hired, paid little, and easily fired, too. There is no incentive for their bosses to walk an extra mile to keep them happ, especially when pressing them a bit more yields an extra bit of performance, so they mostly aren't happy about their jobs.

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
Another hypothesis that equally well explains the data: employees at successful companies tend to be happy because the rising tide lifts (almost) all boats. Companies that are doing poorly will tend to look to cut staff, wages, and benefits, which could be a source of unhappiness. Etc. I don't really think the evidence presented here gives much reason to believe that seeking the well-being of your employees will do anything for the bottom line. OTOH, it's easy for me to believe that improving the top line will improve your employees' happiness.
- nine_k 7y ago
  My point is that you have to keep your key people content, else they will leave. During a downturn, you especially want your key engineers, best sales reps, most well-connected customer liaisons to stay around. If they leave, this will hit the bottom line, and getting a replacement will be expensive, or often impossible. This is a known way into oblivion [1]. There are booming industries where the boom mostly floats top executive boats, though. Ask an Uber driver, or an Amazon warehouse worker. [1]: https://steveblank.com/2009/12/21/the-elves-leave-middle-earth-%E2%80%93-soda%E2%80%99s-are-no-longer-free/ https://steveblank.com/2009/12/21/the-elves-leave-middle-ear...
  - Jax2_Hannah 7y ago
    Hey I'm an Amazon warehouse worker, and while I would have to agree, I love the chances to climb to management or an actual career. I'm part of the career choice program which pays for 95% of my college tuition, fees, and books for an IT program (which I chose). The job is boring but not too difficult. I know others might say otherwise though.
    - nine_k 7y ago
      Great to know! Now you need the job more then the job needs you; eventually you may find yourself in a position where employers compete to have you in the team instead.
- 7y ago

JJMcJ 7y ago

Remember the analysis of Losers/Clueless/Sociopaths in corporate life. The Losers are low level people who know they have lost the battle to be a big shot. Clueless are the strivers, the first level or two of management, who think they have a chance to be a big shot. The Sociopaths actually do have a chance. Not all of them are evil but they all know 100 hour weeks won't do it for them. Lumbergh in Office Space is classic Clueless. He has surrendered any chance of human contact in his job, but he will never get any higher than he is.

rightbyte 7y ago
Sociopaths? The groups should be audience, losers, contenders and winners.
- wanderer2323 7y ago
  GP is talking about the Gervais Principle analysis https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
  - rightbyte 7y ago
    Oh, interesting, but quite simplified and dogmatic principle. Anyways confusing labels for the groups. The group labels should rather be e.g. A,B and C since the labels don't really corresponds the their literal meaning.
    - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
      The labelling isn't confusing at all. Not only do top-level managers cluster around sociopathy, but corporate structures specifically reward selfish sociopathic behaviours and punish empathy and context-awareness. You have to be a certain kind of person to cut staff - some dedicated and valuably skilled - in order to boost the short-term return on your stocks. Likewise, you have to be a certain kind of person to think of customers as a resource that can be farmed and exploited with dark patterns and other manipulations. And in more extreme cases - you have to be a certain kind of person to make non-payment of contractors a deliberate policy. People who score high on empathy won't be comfortable with those kinds of actions.

CobrastanJorji 7y ago

I agree that there are many companies that ignore this correlation, but I'm not convinced those companies are making the most rational choice. If Burger King significantly increased the salary of their workers or otherwise found ways to improve their morale, would it benefit Burger King in the long run? I tend to suspect so, but it would be hard to prove. The burger joints known for taking care of their people are also usually seen as being pretty good burger places, and that may be causal, but it also may be that they're just slightly "upscale" of the other burger places and also spend more on the ingredients.

ergothus 7y ago
> I'm not convinced those companies are making the most rational choice Neither am I - they're just making the common choice.
ghaff 7y ago
They tend to be somewhat upscale in terms of ingredients, employee training, overall experience, etc. That's not to say that Burger King or McDonald's couldn't do better. I don't really have enough experience with them as a customer or anything else to have a real opinion. But I suspect that, if Burger King were to try to improve their experience in a way that forced them to raise prices by 25% they'd lose a lot of business from people basically just looking for the cheapest burger. See also the experience of JC Penney and Ron Johnson. A lot of people are pretty much in the position where they have to shop on price.
- Qwertystop 7y ago
  > A lot of people are pretty much in the position where they have to shop on price. Keep in mind, though, that if a larger portion of money went to the workers, less of them would be in that position.
  - elindbe2 7y ago
    Only if that happens across the board, not in one particular company.

erikpukinskis 7y ago

This is true even within tech companies, but for hourly workers. Hourly folks are treated like trash. I’m talking people who live in the bay, and work side by side with other professionals in SF. In a position like that you almost have to take a “durrr, I dunno!” attitude to everything, because if you try to talk to salaried people about what you need to do your job, you are looked at like a dog who just started reciting poetry. Every now and then a salaried person will try to engage, take you seriously, but once it bounces up the chain of command that an hourly person is acting like they have something to contribute, it will be quietly shut down. Seems like the business model requires hourly people stay out of the “brain space” entirely. Otherwise you’d have to pay them a living wage. Really despicable way to treat people IMO. I don’t see why you wouldn’t want people to be proactive about solving problems. The again, I’ve seen similar attitudes from engineering managers towards their direct reports.

whatshisface 7y ago
What kind of jobs to hourly people hold? I mean, if the company hires consultants then some of the Exalted Developers themselves will be hourly.
- tigershark 7y ago
  Exactly, I thought that in some areas in US was not that that uncommon to get north of 150/200 per hour? And that wouldn’t seem so despicable to me...
pmiller2 7y ago
None of that is true at my company, in my experience. It is a large company, so I might not have the full picture, but my little corner of it is not like that at all.
- wheno 7y ago
  Seems pretty common to me. I have worked in smaller companies where everyone was an integral part of the business, and that isn't most large companies I worked at since then. I think it is partly a cargo cult thing. Very successful business can afford to threat people as disposable, be elitist or inflexible. So they end up thinking that is part of what makes them successful, without realizing they are throwing away opportunities. Maybe there are some larger companies that does things differently, but I haven't really seen it.