17 ms·

> Our analysis found that the leading elements contributing to toxic cultures include failure to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion; workers feeling disre

> Our analysis found that the leading elements contributing to toxic cultures include failure to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion; workers feeling disrespected; and unethical behavior I don’t really believe these reasons or at least they don’t match what i’ve seen. I can only speak for FAANG: I think this is more compensation based than anything else. In an effort to level the playing field FAANGS establish levels. Levels have salary ranges. Salary ranges mean top performers, the people who drive the culture of the entire org, can only be paid some amount more than bottom performers. By keeping these bands too tight the top performers can get better pay elsewhere and leave. When your first top performers are leaving each one hits hard. Once it’s regular the culture becomes different, this isn’t a place to stay and grow, it’s a place to be a launchpad for the next place. And without top pay you won’t attract top talent so when these great people leave you replace them with average people. This reinforces the beliefs. The other side of pay is current valuations are insane. Many startups are getting A, B and even D rounds with 300-500x (i’ve seen higher than 1000x) revenue to value ratios. Your FAANG may hope to 2x or 3x in stock value while these startups promise 20-30x returns. So you have to pay even more to beat the potential earnings they could get at a startup. My theory is not that all pay has to change to keep people, but as a FAANG you need to spend to keep and attract the best or you risk losing everyone. When you work somewhere and all the best people want to stay, or when you work somewhere and more good people join; it’s really hard to mess up that culture

throw8932894 5y ago
Top performers are like 5% of staff? They may have high attrition, but company wide it may be very low. And there is salary limit you may get as an employee. Most top performers will start they own business, and do the same job as independent consultants.
skrebbel 5y ago
I'll never understand the American thirst for money for the sake of it. If HN comments are to be believed, top performer at your average FAANG easily earn $500k per year. At that point, aren't you well past the point where more money brings more happiness, even in high cost-of-living places? What's the point? Why not find a job that's fun and fulfilling?
- vecinu 5y ago
  > I'll never understand the American thirst for money for the sake of it. I hope I don't come off as abrasive but I don't think you've had enough money if you think this is American or applicable only to a small subset of people. Greed has driven people forever, in different systems of government, from communism, to fascism and capitalism. Leaders have always had (or had access to) a ton of capital to influence and control different aspects of their lives. Also making a ton of money can be an instrument for good. There are a lot of wealthy folks that donate a lot of their money because they have an excess. My current contributions are tiny, comparatively, but as my compensation increases, so do my charitable contributions.
  - Aeolun 5y ago
    I don’t really feel like I need to make charitable donations. That’s what taxes are for right? At least that’s something I like my goverment to take care of.
    - randcraw 5y ago
      I assume you don't live in America.
  - redanddead 5y ago
    About making money for good... this is something I think about often, especially in my manufacturing businesses. Let me explain: Say you were to pull in 50M USD in revenue to your co. over 20 years, you own a plastics processing factory for example and you sell plastic products b2b, maybe you are a broker between multiple plastics recycling depots for example, there are many ways for you to cause 500M USD in total damages that cannot be traced back to you (for now) in pollution costs We should follow your example of charity and apply it more broadly, on a systemic level and establish businesses that are more sustainable I'm not a scientist, I'm just ranting
- foolfoolz 5y ago
  a lot of people are in a situation where they could do the same amount of work, most likely with better people and not have the culture i described above, for 30-50% more cash and more equity (at face value although it’s potential). this has nothing to do with america. you have to be really loving your job to turn down that kind of change. its not about having enough. it’s getting a LOT more for the small price of a few zoom calls
HeadsUpHigh 5y ago
Any excuse to not pay more.
gwd 5y ago
When you think of "toxic work culture", is "failure to promote diversity" the first thing that comes to mind? Are people really quitting SpaceX and Netflix in droves because they're not sufficiently supporting minority / LGBTQ rights? If anything, doing some "window dressing" for "diversity" is probably a lot easier than actually changing toxic patterns of behavior of the existing set of employees. (And of course actually promoting racial and cultural diversity is a lot more difficult than both.)
- asd4232 5y ago
  Yeah, toxic workplaces are usually toxic to also people other than those belonging to particular minorities.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  Actually aggressively promoting "diversity" (like forcing people into diversity trainings) would count as toxic workplace culture to me.
  - awakeasleep 5y ago
    This seems like a good post to remind everyone that diversity training exists because it shields companies from financial liability when found guilty of discrimination. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c5184a20-085e-4e9b-bc26-472db410e92f https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c5184a20-085e...
    - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
      Interesting, but not really reassuring.
  - KennyBlanken 5y ago
    I'm a straight white cis male well into adulthood and somehow I've never been "forced" into this diversity training you're concerned about. I've never seen it happen. I don't know a single coworker who has had it happen to them. I don't know a single friend who has. If you've been "forced" into diversity training, especially if it's happened to you more than once and doubly so if it hasn't happened to others on your teams - you might want to engage in a bit of self-introspection. Your comment really feels like the kind of comment I would expect from someone who does in fact need 'diversity training'.
rdtwo 5y ago
Those diversity trainings and targeted raises and promotions for Diversity candidates are part of the toxic culture.
pyrale 5y ago
I really think your point here makes the case for toxic culture: > Once it’s regular the culture becomes different, this isn’t a place to stay and grow, it’s a place to be a launchpad for the next place. Because that is the established culture, salary becomes the only relevant criterion people can consider. The other criterion (attractiveness for the next job) is just a derivative for future salary. Alternatives to salary incentives could be workers feeling that their work is useful for the society, that they get more of a say in where the company goes than they would elsewhere, that they are not pawns for management games (recent example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29813949 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29813949), etc. As it turns out, the only bargain currently available at many large tech companies is your soul for a boatload of money, and people are looking for more.
ssharp 5y ago
> The other side of pay is current valuations are insane. Many startups are getting A, B and even D rounds with 300-500x (i’ve seen higher than 1000x) revenue to value ratios. Your FAANG may hope to 2x or 3x in stock value while these startups promise 20-30x returns. So you have to pay even more to beat the potential earnings they could get at a startup. Are startups paying more in salary or is the potential value just coming from options? If they're coming from options, do they have any private liquidity? From the recent IPOs and SPACs of the past year or two, it seems like many are down 50%+ and some of their current market caps are below valuations from their final private funding rounds. Maybe everyone is cashing out super early after public listing before the markets catch up and start to devalue but it still seems like a risky proposition without private liquidity to gamble on that vs. a FAANG. Plus, with tech market caps still considerably higher than they were 2 years ago, those RSU grants that are vesting now seem like a fantastic retention tool.

throw8932894 5y ago

Top performers are like 5% of staff? They may have high attrition, but company wide it may be very low. And there is salary limit you may get as an employee. Most top performers will start they own business, and do the same job as independent consultants.

skrebbel 5y ago

I'll never understand the American thirst for money for the sake of it. If HN comments are to be believed, top performer at your average FAANG easily earn $500k per year. At that point, aren't you well past the point where more money brings more happiness, even in high cost-of-living places? What's the point? Why not find a job that's fun and fulfilling?

vecinu 5y ago
> I'll never understand the American thirst for money for the sake of it. I hope I don't come off as abrasive but I don't think you've had enough money if you think this is American or applicable only to a small subset of people. Greed has driven people forever, in different systems of government, from communism, to fascism and capitalism. Leaders have always had (or had access to) a ton of capital to influence and control different aspects of their lives. Also making a ton of money can be an instrument for good. There are a lot of wealthy folks that donate a lot of their money because they have an excess. My current contributions are tiny, comparatively, but as my compensation increases, so do my charitable contributions.
- Aeolun 5y ago
  I don’t really feel like I need to make charitable donations. That’s what taxes are for right? At least that’s something I like my goverment to take care of.
  - randcraw 5y ago
    I assume you don't live in America.
- redanddead 5y ago
  About making money for good... this is something I think about often, especially in my manufacturing businesses. Let me explain: Say you were to pull in 50M USD in revenue to your co. over 20 years, you own a plastics processing factory for example and you sell plastic products b2b, maybe you are a broker between multiple plastics recycling depots for example, there are many ways for you to cause 500M USD in total damages that cannot be traced back to you (for now) in pollution costs We should follow your example of charity and apply it more broadly, on a systemic level and establish businesses that are more sustainable I'm not a scientist, I'm just ranting
foolfoolz 5y ago
a lot of people are in a situation where they could do the same amount of work, most likely with better people and not have the culture i described above, for 30-50% more cash and more equity (at face value although it’s potential). this has nothing to do with america. you have to be really loving your job to turn down that kind of change. its not about having enough. it’s getting a LOT more for the small price of a few zoom calls

HeadsUpHigh 5y ago

Any excuse to not pay more.

gwd 5y ago

When you think of "toxic work culture", is "failure to promote diversity" the first thing that comes to mind? Are people really quitting SpaceX and Netflix in droves because they're not sufficiently supporting minority / LGBTQ rights? If anything, doing some "window dressing" for "diversity" is probably a lot easier than actually changing toxic patterns of behavior of the existing set of employees. (And of course actually promoting racial and cultural diversity is a lot more difficult than both.)

asd4232 5y ago
Yeah, toxic workplaces are usually toxic to also people other than those belonging to particular minorities.
kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
Actually aggressively promoting "diversity" (like forcing people into diversity trainings) would count as toxic workplace culture to me.
- awakeasleep 5y ago
  This seems like a good post to remind everyone that diversity training exists because it shields companies from financial liability when found guilty of discrimination. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c5184a20-085e-4e9b-bc26-472db410e92f https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c5184a20-085e...
  - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    Interesting, but not really reassuring.
- KennyBlanken 5y ago
  I'm a straight white cis male well into adulthood and somehow I've never been "forced" into this diversity training you're concerned about. I've never seen it happen. I don't know a single coworker who has had it happen to them. I don't know a single friend who has. If you've been "forced" into diversity training, especially if it's happened to you more than once and doubly so if it hasn't happened to others on your teams - you might want to engage in a bit of self-introspection. Your comment really feels like the kind of comment I would expect from someone who does in fact need 'diversity training'.

rdtwo 5y ago

Those diversity trainings and targeted raises and promotions for Diversity candidates are part of the toxic culture.

pyrale 5y ago

I really think your point here makes the case for toxic culture: > Once it’s regular the culture becomes different, this isn’t a place to stay and grow, it’s a place to be a launchpad for the next place. Because that is the established culture, salary becomes the only relevant criterion people can consider. The other criterion (attractiveness for the next job) is just a derivative for future salary. Alternatives to salary incentives could be workers feeling that their work is useful for the society, that they get more of a say in where the company goes than they would elsewhere, that they are not pawns for management games (recent example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29813949 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29813949), etc. As it turns out, the only bargain currently available at many large tech companies is your soul for a boatload of money, and people are looking for more.

ssharp 5y ago

> The other side of pay is current valuations are insane. Many startups are getting A, B and even D rounds with 300-500x (i’ve seen higher than 1000x) revenue to value ratios. Your FAANG may hope to 2x or 3x in stock value while these startups promise 20-30x returns. So you have to pay even more to beat the potential earnings they could get at a startup. Are startups paying more in salary or is the potential value just coming from options? If they're coming from options, do they have any private liquidity? From the recent IPOs and SPACs of the past year or two, it seems like many are down 50%+ and some of their current market caps are below valuations from their final private funding rounds. Maybe everyone is cashing out super early after public listing before the markets catch up and start to devalue but it still seems like a risky proposition without private liquidity to gamble on that vs. a FAANG. Plus, with tech market caps still considerably higher than they were 2 years ago, those RSU grants that are vesting now seem like a fantastic retention tool.