4 ms·
Because I want to hire people that are invested, not wage slaves. If you're counting every hour, then you're already clocking in and out, and you're probably ei
by nhangen 13y ago
Because I want to hire people that are invested, not wage slaves. If you're counting every hour, then you're already clocking in and out, and you're probably either a) always looking for a better opportunity or b) the kind of person that wants to be comfortable and taken care of. I find that in the case of either, I get burned.
- v13inc 13y agoThis threw up a bit of a red flag for me: "the kind of person that wants to be comfortable and taken care of". Wouldn't that person be more productive? Likewise, I tend to think that the ass-in-the-seat 40+ hour workers tend to correlate with the "always looking for a better opportunity" workers.
- nhangen 13y agoI'm talking about the kind of person that wants to work 9/5 and retire with a watch. The baby boomers that are now struggling to find jobs and the millenials that are more concerned with self-discovery than in making a contribution and earning their wages.
- 4hthth4 13y agoWould you expect your HR or finance people to not work only 9-5?
- TheZenPsycho 13y agoYou want someone you can easily cheat, in other words. Someone who isn't looking after their own interests, and will gladly sacrifice their own time for no additional reward? Someone with no personal sense of identity, whom you can manipulate like a puppet on a string?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- mingmecca 13y agoWell then, you should probably incentivize them with generous equity in the company, right? Without it, why should they work so hard just to make you richer? And here is a truism: Even people who are 'invested' in their jobs are looking for something better, with 'better' being defined as more pay/equity, flexible hours, meaningful work, etc. If you want to employ someone who is just as invested in the company as you are, then you should compensate them just as well as you are.
- debacle 13y agoYou don't want employees who are interested in better opportunities? What kind of employees do you want, then? Loyal ones? In my experience, the most loyal employees are also the least productive.
- AznHisoka 13y agoIf I'm comfortable and taken care of, that also means I'm LESS likely to look elsewhere. But it doesn't mean I'm just gonna slack off and take advantage.
- edhebert 13y agoWhat about the sort of person that needs to make sure their child is picked up from day care?
- nhangen 13y agoI don't care about little things like that as long as they aren't abused (you aren't really picking up your child from day care). I don't care when a person works as long as they contribute according to their role.
- redblacktree 13y ago... and as long as it's more than 40 hours a week?
- nhangen 13y agoNo. As long as they don't expect to clock an exact 40 every week. If we just finished a sprint and things are going well, I'm happy to tell people to go home or take a break. If we're in a sprint, or shit hits the fan, or revenue is down, or anything else that requires hands on deck, I expect people to complete the task, even if it means more than 40 hours.
- NoodleIncident 13y ago...even if it means leaving their kids at daycare.
- dobbsbob 13y agoA sprint with "hands on deck" to finish wordpress themes?
- robodale 13y agoThere are plenty of businesses making things that, if they stopped making them, would not stop the world from turning. The point is, it's a business, who is likely competing against many other businesses that would be all-to-happy to scoop up their market share. I don't agree that employees should be expected to consistently work more than 40 hours week after week. I do agree that when situations arise in business that requires full and focused effort of entire departments or the whole company, the managers/owners first better come to the employees, with hat-in-hand, and discuss why this is important for the company and the team before issuing their mandatory overtime decree.
- steven777400 13y agoIf you want people to act like they're invested, the most straightforward solution is to make them actually invested: include equity, options, or profit-sharing as a portion of the compensation. If I'm being compensated straight salary, I'm not invested, and I'm not going to be working heroic hours or making sacrifices, no matter what my employer might wish for.
- nobodysfool 13y agoSee, even if I had that, I wouldn't be working more than 40 hours per week. I have a wife and kid, and I value my home life greatly. I wouldn't put in a 50+ hour work week because that takes away time from the rest of my life. I would make sure I get everything that needs to be done in those 40 hours. If you have good estimates then there should be no need to work more than 40 hours a week. If you are making estimates based on more than 40 hours a week, then you're doing it wrong.
- beat 13y agoThe only way I would ever be "invested" rather than a wage slave is if I own the business, or it's work that I truly cared passionately about - saving lives, saving the world. Most paying work isn't like that at all.
- ruswick 13y agoSo people with occupational aspirations and a desire to be happy are somehow unworthy of working for your company?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]