7 ms·
Company with a 10% lifetime employee turnover shows their real secret is trust
- bumby 3y agoWhat's the data on pluralistic societies and trust? Does having a mish-mash of different ethnicities, value systems, and political outlooks tend to make for a low-trust society?
- bumby 3y agoIt’s odd that a simple comment making no claim is getting downvoted. They does seem to be some evidence that homogeneity is related, however. >High trust countries are characterized by ethnic homogeneity, Protestant religious traditions, good government, wealth (GDP per capita), and income equality. Delhey, J. and Newton, K., 2004. Social trust: global pattern or Nordic exceptionalism? (No. SP I 2004-202). WZB Discussion Paper.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- femiagbabiaka 3y agoWhat is the origin of the high/low trust society theory? It seems to be quoted as fact when talking about places with low crime like Finland and Japan, but I’m not sure what its empirical basis is. Even the Wikipedia entry is low on quality citations.
- valianteffort 3y agoSome balance of homegeneity and wealth seem to produce high trust societies. You can see many wealthy nations with low trust (US) and likewise very homogenous nations with similar issues (SEA, India, African). You could argue that tribal/ethnic/caste differences cause the issues but regardless, homogeneity appears to be a contributing factor. At the same time you could chalk it up to cultural differences. Japan is unique, and Finland is sparsely populated. Smaller communities tend to be higher trust, even in the US.
- narcindin 3y agoIndia is not homogeneous. Neither are most (all?) countries in Southeast Asia or Sub-Saharan Africa.
- valianteffort 3y agoHomogenous is a pretty loaded term imo. You could have two genetically identical groups claiming they belong to different ethnicities or tribes and are thus, not homogenous. Or in the case of Japan you have two major ethnic groups, evenly disperses and so intertwined no one thinks about it, making them homogenous. Homogenous thus in my opinion is more like a mix of homogeneity of appearance/culture. Indian people largely share the same appearance and culture, so in that regard, they are homogenous. Africans likewise. Whether some sub-groups have their own distinct appearance, or cultural practice, they are largely similar.
- femiagbabiaka 3y agoUnfortunately this (overfocus on genotype) is the mistake the west made when it came to determining homogeneity (and creating nationstates out of whole cloth) and it (plus other phenomena, not meaning to shift blame) has resulted in much of the ethnic cleansing of the 20th century. As an example, the formation of African states, cutting across traditional tribal lines which resulted in the ethnic cleansing of the Igbo in former Yorubaland/Nigeria. India has so many complex cases of this that covering it is an essay of its own. Even Japan, with its claims of being an ethnostate, became one by force of ideology -- force so strong that it seems like common sense even though it was not true then or now.
- hiAndrewQuinn 3y agoInterestingly, Japan and Finland are also legendarily friendly with one another. Many small towns in Finland are sister cities with small towns in Japan, and it forms a kind of clandestine EU-Asia corridor for skilled workers looking for a change of pace. All high trust societies alike, all low trust in their own special way, perhaps?
- ethanbond 3y agoYou can form your own empirical basis by just traveling to a bunch of different places. The differences will pretty much smack you in the face (or the wallet).
- Halen7 3y agoThese articles are so silly. Of course you have low turn over rate, you live in a city in the middle of nowhere with little to no competition.
- gspencley 3y agoAnd like someone else said, the company is only 12 years-old. Of course I've seen start-ups with insanely high turnover rate. But if you've not existed long enough to see people stay until retirement then you don't really have a significant data set. If a company like IBM or GE could claim a 10% lifetime turnover rate that would be something to marvel at (only used them because of how long they've been around for, I'm sure they are far from the most wonderful places to work).
- FirmwareBurner 3y agoThat and the focus of the company being relatively niche with little to no competition in the space. Like sure, there are other fancy furniture companies who could probably pay you more, but you'll most likely have to uproot yourself and move to a completely different city or even a different country. With all this in mind, low turnover is natural.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- alberth 3y agoSince the article doesn't directly link to the company they reference, its: https://www.frameryacoustics.com https://www.frameryacoustics.com The company is only 12-years old. It should be no surprise that, for a company still in business after a decade but also not a super old company either - that they have hired way more than let go. (Seems a bit of confirmation bias combined with survivor bias going on)
- stavros 3y agoIt's not just "let go", it's also "left". That's the surprising bit.
- zamadatix 3y agoIs it that surprising considering the company went from 0 to 400 people in 12 years? Most of these people will have been onboarded towards the tail end of this and won't have been there that long. The few that were there in the early days are likely in cushy jobs riding a rocket ship that has yet to have a period of pointing back to earth. Neither is particularly surprising.
- earnesti 3y agoIt is pretty much a marketing piece, overall. I'm from Finland and there are tons of layoffs all the time. No one wants to do layoffs, sometimes companies just have to do them to survive.
- jandrese 3y ago> The company is only 12-years old. That explains a lot. Not only is it not much time for turnover, but it almost certainly means the original management is still running the show. Trusting in a person is easy, but keeping that company trust for year after year is very hard, especially if the company grows. It only takes one asshole manager to break that trust and once broken it takes many many years to rebuild, if ever. This happened a lot in the US where companies would cultivate loyalty in their employees throughout the 50s and 60s and even into the 70s. Then the old guard retired and new management came in and started abusing the trust in the name of a higher bottom line--doing mass layoffs, cutting pensions, slashing benefits, outsourcing, engaging in huge stock buybacks with the funds instead of investing in R&D, typical 80s and beyond behavior. Then they went all Pikachu face when employee loyalty dried up and their competitiveness faltered and the companies found themselves unable to compete without government assistance.
- danielovichdk 3y agoI did like the Open Door Policy. That is a good idea for enabling transparency I believe.
- bumby 3y agoI used to think so too, until I heard Cy Wakeman's perspective. Too often an open door policy turns into a venting session or, in her words, "a portal for drama." I got to witness this first-hand when I had an office across the hall from my former boss. https://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2017/09/25/hr-department-rethink-open-door-policy/ https://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2017/09/25/hr-department-reth...
- matt3D 3y agoI think that the open door policy needs all of the other layers of trust. What Cy Wakeman experienced was an open door policy independent of any other culture change.
- isk517 3y agoYes, people don't just vent because the boss's door is open, they vent because some pressure has been built up. Closing the door doesn't make the drama go away, it just buries it underground were it will continue to make certain groups of employees who are unable to ignore it continuously more uncomfortable and less dedicated to their jobs.
- bumby 3y agoAgain, the link is not against an open door policy. It’s saying an open door policy itself won’t fix anything without focusing efforts towards a solution. Without that nuance it risks creating a toxic culture of endless complaining and limited accountability.
- SpicyLemonZest 3y agoThis feels like a clickbait framing. She says at the end that she didn't shut the door, just tried to drive the conversation in a helpful direction rather than letting people engage in unlimited unstructured venting. I'd still call that an open door policy.
- JaDogg 3y agoI assume majority of the hacker news readers, no matter how good their job is want to quit and do their own thing.. do you think my assumption is correct? is that the norm? or am I just abnormal ?(wanting to do my own thing)
- webel0 3y agoIt depends on how realistic one is being. In a perfect world? Maybe. In the actual world? I think a lot of people get to a point in their career where they want a solid, steady paycheck with minimal drama. There are also a lot of “deep tech” areas where it makes more sense to be in a larger firm than to be out on your own trying to do a startup or whatever.
- NKosmatos 3y agoYou’re not abnormal, many people would love to do their own thing in an ideal world. There are various reason (cost of living, family, location, responsibilities, capabilities…) most of us stay in our current positions and don’t move out of our comfort zones. IMHO each one of us needs to ask/answer the reason for wanting to do something on its own. Is it for the money? Is it out of love for a specific activity? Is it out of need for success? Is it because of a need for a different lifestyle?
- JaDogg 3y agoThis is why we need to transition to a post-scarcity world and eliminate the need for finance and economy. I'm not advocating for communism (as it doesn't work when money is involved), it merely allows certain people to accumulate power while everyone else works for free. Capitalism is better because it offers the opportunity to climb the ladder, but it still leaves poor people suffering. More people might find happiness under capitalism compared to communism. Universal Basic Income (UBI) will not work, as it is still similar to printing money, and poor people might end up worse off in the long run due to UBI-powered inflation. In any case, I do not know if we can achieve a post-scarcity world. Will it lead to corruption and accumulation of power, similar to communism? I do not know. However, we can at least try to educate people more so that we can aim for a post-scarcity future in the next generation.
- vsareto 3y ago>The trust that’s given to employees will be returned tenfold–or even hundredfold. Everyone wins. I must be a mercenary because that still reads to me as "we can do these things instead of paying you more". In fact, there is no mention of where their compensation falls, so it would be especially rude to do all of these things and then underpay your employees.
- hnthrowaway0315 3y agoPay is just part of the story. I'm so frustrated with the current company that I'm willing to cut my TC to transfer to something I'm happier with.
- ethanbond 3y agoI mean we know that compensation isn't the primary factor for most people's happiness and satisfaction in their professional life. Put mercenary in and get mercenary out if you want, but for most people that's not the optimal strategy.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago>I mean we know that compensation isn't the primary factor for most people's happiness and satisfaction in their professional life. It isn't, but housing is, and housing costs money, a lot of money in the last few years.
- bumby 3y agoIs there data showing that housing is the primary driver? I vaguely remember Sebastian Junger's book Tribe describing how people in low socio-economic community housing generally were happier than more well-off people in individual housing. I think his thesis was modern life, with suburban living, tends to disconnect us from community. From that perspective, it would seem like community is more of a primary driver than housing.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
- SpicyLemonZest 3y agoI'm pretty skeptical of an analysis of a company's turnover rate written by that company's head of HR. It's just too easy to leave out relevant factors to draw any conclusions from reading this. If their real secret were something unsavory like "we have large golden handcuffs" or "our employees don't have good options", would they share that?
- diob 3y agoMy favorite version of talking about this sort of stuff was from a company that acquired the startup I was at. "We retain 90% of our top 10% of talent". Riiiiight.
- black_13 3y ago[dead]
- naikrovek 3y agocue the scam artists flocking over there to "con those rubes."