6 ms·

I think it's first worth having policies that recognize the modern knowledge worker. Unlimited vacation, hardware budgets, a results-only work environment, opti

I think it's first worth having policies that recognize the modern knowledge worker. Unlimited vacation, hardware budgets, a results-only work environment, optional meetings. No company bullshit. Etc. That way folks won't go "maybe a vacation will help" - because you've already done it. Of course, that is just removing roadblocks. That's not an active measure. You should be having weekly one on ones with all direct reports (and so on up and down the chain). Rarely when a coworker quits is it completely unexpected. At some point a switch is flipped from "not going to even consider it" to "sure, I'll talk to recruiters." And then the clock starts ticking. In some ways, the organization has already lost if it got to that point. Raises and titles are not the only thing that drives people; I'd probably argue that's the worst sort of extrinsic motivation. If a bigger title is all that keeps someone working there, you've already failed. As a manager it's your job to know what motivates your people and help get them there accordingly.

uxp 14y ago
As a manager it's your job to know what motivates your people and help get them there accordingly. And keep them motivated, all the time, every day, every week, which you imply in the previous paragraph but I feel needs to be repeated explicitly. I recently just accepted a new job which is better for a variety of reasons, but there really was no reason I should have been looking for a new job given what I was doing at the time I resigned. I had sent my resume out months ago when my now former team started disbanding during a shakeup, leaving me as the only developer on the team. The implications of having a development team with no developers should be obvious.
psykotic 14y ago
> Unlimited vacation, hardware budgets, a results-only work environment, optional meetings. No company bullshit. Aside: I've become convinced unlimited vacation policies are a bad idea at scale. Everywhere I've seen them applied, they lead to less vacationing for the people who need it most: the eternally stressed and overworked who feel like the world will end in their absence or that they will get dinged or plain fired in their next performance review if they're not always in the office. You don't need to force people to take a vacation, but the old system of assigning them a fixed number of yearly days with some sort of limited rollover strikes a good balance I see no reason to upset. A system based on firm expectations can still accommodate exceptional events like honeymoons.
- lazerwalker 14y ago
  It's definitely a difficult cultural thing to balance, but if you're conscious of the delicacy required there are definitely ways to mitigate it. I worked at a large 'startup' (>1000 employees) that had an 'unlimited vacation' policy. One way they managed it was that at their quarterly company-wide meetings, they would give out a 'high performer' award to a few individuals that was basically them being told to take a vacation. The fine print was essentially "here's a few thousand bucks, but you can only use it on vacation-related expenses".
- jaggederest 14y ago
  > You don't need to force people to take a vacation Actually, you do. People who don't take vacations are worse at their jobs, full stop. It's the same as people who continually put in overtime every week of the year - you're sacrificing productivity for the illusion of effort.
  - spindritf 14y ago
    Source? I'm asking because we've had this discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4623289 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4623289 and there doesn't seem to be any strong support for your conclusion.
    - phillmv 14y ago
      Have you never burned out? People need to live their lives. I don't see much the point in creating companies where people can't be happy.
      - sillysaurus 14y ago
        I don't see much the point in creating companies where people can't be happy. The point is typically getting rich. A worker-happiness-focused culture just isn't contemporary mindset. Hopefully in a century or two things will shift towards worker-centric environment, but I can't think of any incentive for businesses to take that policy very seriously. (We love to tell ourselves that there are a bunch of reasons to take it seriously -- and there are. But if you think objectively and honestly about it from a bottom-line standpoint, which is the standpoint most businesses think about, then the policies don't matter much since all you care about is the bottom line anyway. And even if you don't now, you will at scale.)
switch007 14y ago
I'm not too fussed about having unlimited holidays but when I want to book 3 weeks in a row, don't give me that "well, OK, just this time" kind of response. Edit: fix typo
Deestan 14y ago
> If a bigger title is all that keeps someone working there, you've already failed. Remember there are a lot of implicit benefits in a bigger title that can really make your job more bearable. For example in large organizations where other people tend to treat you based on your title. A "Senior Architect" or something is more likely to get a single office, more likely to get his hardware purchases approved, and his opinions are less likely to be dismissed off-hand when discussing integration details with other offices.

uxp 14y ago

As a manager it's your job to know what motivates your people and help get them there accordingly. And keep them motivated, all the time, every day, every week, which you imply in the previous paragraph but I feel needs to be repeated explicitly. I recently just accepted a new job which is better for a variety of reasons, but there really was no reason I should have been looking for a new job given what I was doing at the time I resigned. I had sent my resume out months ago when my now former team started disbanding during a shakeup, leaving me as the only developer on the team. The implications of having a development team with no developers should be obvious.

psykotic 14y ago

> Unlimited vacation, hardware budgets, a results-only work environment, optional meetings. No company bullshit. Aside: I've become convinced unlimited vacation policies are a bad idea at scale. Everywhere I've seen them applied, they lead to less vacationing for the people who need it most: the eternally stressed and overworked who feel like the world will end in their absence or that they will get dinged or plain fired in their next performance review if they're not always in the office. You don't need to force people to take a vacation, but the old system of assigning them a fixed number of yearly days with some sort of limited rollover strikes a good balance I see no reason to upset. A system based on firm expectations can still accommodate exceptional events like honeymoons.

lazerwalker 14y ago
It's definitely a difficult cultural thing to balance, but if you're conscious of the delicacy required there are definitely ways to mitigate it. I worked at a large 'startup' (>1000 employees) that had an 'unlimited vacation' policy. One way they managed it was that at their quarterly company-wide meetings, they would give out a 'high performer' award to a few individuals that was basically them being told to take a vacation. The fine print was essentially "here's a few thousand bucks, but you can only use it on vacation-related expenses".
jaggederest 14y ago
> You don't need to force people to take a vacation Actually, you do. People who don't take vacations are worse at their jobs, full stop. It's the same as people who continually put in overtime every week of the year - you're sacrificing productivity for the illusion of effort.
- spindritf 14y ago
  Source? I'm asking because we've had this discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4623289 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4623289 and there doesn't seem to be any strong support for your conclusion.
  - phillmv 14y ago
    Have you never burned out? People need to live their lives. I don't see much the point in creating companies where people can't be happy.
    - sillysaurus 14y ago
      I don't see much the point in creating companies where people can't be happy. The point is typically getting rich. A worker-happiness-focused culture just isn't contemporary mindset. Hopefully in a century or two things will shift towards worker-centric environment, but I can't think of any incentive for businesses to take that policy very seriously. (We love to tell ourselves that there are a bunch of reasons to take it seriously -- and there are. But if you think objectively and honestly about it from a bottom-line standpoint, which is the standpoint most businesses think about, then the policies don't matter much since all you care about is the bottom line anyway. And even if you don't now, you will at scale.)

switch007 14y ago

I'm not too fussed about having unlimited holidays but when I want to book 3 weeks in a row, don't give me that "well, OK, just this time" kind of response. Edit: fix typo

Deestan 14y ago

> If a bigger title is all that keeps someone working there, you've already failed. Remember there are a lot of implicit benefits in a bigger title that can really make your job more bearable. For example in large organizations where other people tend to treat you based on your title. A "Senior Architect" or something is more likely to get a single office, more likely to get his hardware purchases approved, and his opinions are less likely to be dismissed off-hand when discussing integration details with other offices.