4 ms·

If I was working for you, I'd wonder why I should put my interest in CS / software in the hands of your company. If the necessary minimum to work for a paycheck

by WA 14y ago

If I was working for you, I'd wonder why I should put my interest in CS / software in the hands of your company. If the necessary minimum to work for a paycheck is 3 hours per day, I'd work 3 hours per day and spend the rest of my time doing my own projects at home or in a place of my choosing. This has at least two advantages: - I get the benefits of whatever I create (e. g. sales) - I choose the projects that I want to work on and I never ever have to justify anything to anyone. Your plan works only if people are as passionate about the stuff your company does as you are without having any interest in pursuing their own ideas. Developing own ideas in a company environment and outside of it are two entirely different things. I believe employment ends up in a Nash Equilibrium. The most rational thing to do for an employee is to work the minimum amount of time required for a paycheck (and considering working overtime mostly for career advancement). For an employer, the rational thing to do is to somehow "motivate" people to work more on company-related stuff, because it makes the company more money.

michaelochurch 14y ago
If I ever end up calling the shots in a company (which is unlikely, because I'm +3 sigma of anti-authoritarian) I would make it a place where people would generally rather implement their ideas there (with the resources and people available) than on their own. Of course, they'd be free to do either one. But I'd try to create an open-allocation environment where people would rather go to work and build something with the great people there and capture a smaller percentage of the gross profits, than go off on their own but have to corral resources and people all over again. If I'm not providing synergy and making them more productive/effective per unit of effort than they would be on their own, then I'm failing and they have right to leave (and should). Employment has multiple equilibria, I believe. You can invest almost nothing in employee career advancement, and then they (metaphorically) take whatever isn't nailed down. (I'm not saying they're unethical, but that they focus solely on their advancement because no one else will, and will spend 6+ hours per day on side projects or Coursera if they can. I'm the same way, so I'm ethically OK with this.) Or you can invest a lot of their careers and, yes, some of them will take what they learn from you and go off and do other things-- that's a good thing, because not everyone is built to stay at the same company for 30 years-- but the people who stay are likely to pay you back multiply.
quesera 14y ago
I think you answered your own question. To align interests, you give employees a meaningful ownership stake, or at least profit-sharing. If you hire people who are already interested in your field/industry, you make it easy for them to put their best efforts toward your shared goals. This isn't sneaky. Some (many!) people want to work hard (and expect to be rewarded for success) but prefer to avoid taking all of the risks personally/handling the janitorial work of a business by themselves too. Offer a good balance, and remember that regardless of what you require from your staff, they always volunteer the most important parts. Hiring is hard, and these kinds of conditions make it even harder. But getting it right is transformative.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  Some (many!) people want to work hard (and expect to be rewarded for success) but prefer to avoid taking all of the risks personally/handling the janitorial work of a business by themselves too. Exactly. If you're older than 25 and it's no longer socially acceptable to mooch, you recognize that personal financial risk is toxic sludge to be kept out of your life if at all possible. Why do people take it on when forming businesses? They have no other choice. Bank loans require personal liability, VCs run a reputation economy that's almost certainly illegal. However, you can give people an environment where they can be truly "intrapreneurial" (this doesn't work in most companies for political reasons, but it can in an open-allocation environment where doing work is more important than controlling it) and participate in the upside (profit-sharing, bonuses, increasing interestingness of work) partially but don't have to take on any personal risk. People won't leave such an environment lightly.
r00fus 14y ago
Isn't this where a bonus structure comes into play? I've heard a lot of success from management types in using low-mid salary + ample bonus based on hours contribution or project completions. The only complications with this are those silly limits/calcs based on your salary (ie, life insurance, 401k, ESPP, etc)

by WA 14y ago

michaelochurch 14y ago

If I ever end up calling the shots in a company (which is unlikely, because I'm +3 sigma of anti-authoritarian) I would make it a place where people would generally rather implement their ideas there (with the resources and people available) than on their own. Of course, they'd be free to do either one. But I'd try to create an open-allocation environment where people would rather go to work and build something with the great people there and capture a smaller percentage of the gross profits, than go off on their own but have to corral resources and people all over again. If I'm not providing synergy and making them more productive/effective per unit of effort than they would be on their own, then I'm failing and they have right to leave (and should). Employment has multiple equilibria, I believe. You can invest almost nothing in employee career advancement, and then they (metaphorically) take whatever isn't nailed down. (I'm not saying they're unethical, but that they focus solely on their advancement because no one else will, and will spend 6+ hours per day on side projects or Coursera if they can. I'm the same way, so I'm ethically OK with this.) Or you can invest a lot of their careers and, yes, some of them will take what they learn from you and go off and do other things-- that's a good thing, because not everyone is built to stay at the same company for 30 years-- but the people who stay are likely to pay you back multiply.

quesera 14y ago

I think you answered your own question. To align interests, you give employees a meaningful ownership stake, or at least profit-sharing. If you hire people who are already interested in your field/industry, you make it easy for them to put their best efforts toward your shared goals. This isn't sneaky. Some (many!) people want to work hard (and expect to be rewarded for success) but prefer to avoid taking all of the risks personally/handling the janitorial work of a business by themselves too. Offer a good balance, and remember that regardless of what you require from your staff, they always volunteer the most important parts. Hiring is hard, and these kinds of conditions make it even harder. But getting it right is transformative.

michaelochurch 14y ago
Some (many!) people want to work hard (and expect to be rewarded for success) but prefer to avoid taking all of the risks personally/handling the janitorial work of a business by themselves too. Exactly. If you're older than 25 and it's no longer socially acceptable to mooch, you recognize that personal financial risk is toxic sludge to be kept out of your life if at all possible. Why do people take it on when forming businesses? They have no other choice. Bank loans require personal liability, VCs run a reputation economy that's almost certainly illegal. However, you can give people an environment where they can be truly "intrapreneurial" (this doesn't work in most companies for political reasons, but it can in an open-allocation environment where doing work is more important than controlling it) and participate in the upside (profit-sharing, bonuses, increasing interestingness of work) partially but don't have to take on any personal risk. People won't leave such an environment lightly.

r00fus 14y ago

Isn't this where a bonus structure comes into play? I've heard a lot of success from management types in using low-mid salary + ample bonus based on hours contribution or project completions. The only complications with this are those silly limits/calcs based on your salary (ie, life insurance, 401k, ESPP, etc)