I think I've commented about stuff like this before, and I don't see an end in sight. It's the epitome of cargo cult mentality. These companies don't know why google/apple/facebook/amazon are...
Exemplary
I think I've commented about stuff like this before, and I don't see an end in sight.
It's the epitome of cargo cult mentality. These companies don't know why google/apple/facebook/amazon are successful, or rather, maybe they do know why, but realize they can't replicate those reasons, so they just try to emulate the easy surface level stuff that gets press. Silicon valley behemoths are successful in spite of their management practice, not because of them.
There's no real data or research that goes into these decisions, these execs just go "Well silicon valley does this, and silicon valley is successful, so we should also do this", without realizing that
They're completely different industries, locations, and demographics, so assuming what works for google works for a meat distribution company is ridiculous from the get go
Just because a company does something doesn't mean that that's the reason they're successful. There are infinite ways a given company in the valley does things different than any other company. Assuming that just because they do a given thing, and they're successful that that given thing is the reason for their success is a massive fallacy.
and finally,
The things that make those companies successful are not things that you, as a paper mill, or an insurance reseller, or a medical management company can replicate. They were on the ground floor of a massive, world changing technological revolution. They were in the right place at the right time, and managed to attract some of the smartest people in the entire world and retain them. You do not have access to the smartest people in the world, and even if you did, you can't retain them with ping pong. Ping pong is a tiny little side perk that google tosses in along with their seven figure salaries. You cannot afford seven figure salaries, and no one works at a company for ping pong. When google backs up their ping pong with money, it becomes a nice little perk. When you offer ping pong along with a 30k a year salary, it's embarrassing and insulting.
I wish these management consultants would actually do their jobs and give tested, workable solutions tailor fit for the companies they give advice to, but that would be difficult and expensive. Much easier to just tell them what Google's doing, call it a day, and then make the entire workforce miserable I guess.
In The Idea Factory it’s argued that the main reason for Bell Labs’ success (aside from the 10% R&D fee collected as part of the monopolistic Bell System) was due to the organizations physical...
In The Idea Factory it’s argued that the main reason for Bell Labs’ success (aside from the 10% R&D fee collected as part of the monopolistic Bell System) was due to the organizations physical structure. The building and campus in Murray Hill was so highly regarded that the likes of Google and other SV types took campus tours to emulate the design. In many ways this was potentially another cargo cult mentality, and that Bell Labs also uniquely had some of the smartest minds on the verge of the greatest technical revolution of the modern age.
If my memory serves me correctly, there were three main qualities of the Bell Labs design that lead to innovation:
Long hallways that force people to walk past each other to get to other offices, increasing cross pollination
An open door policy for offices, this egalitarian policy allowed junior employees to feel more comfortable approaching senior leaders with new ideas
Movable walls within the cafeteria. Everyone ate together, so multiple departments could sit at the same table and discuss what they were working on. The movable walls could create an impromptu conference room where they could write on a blackboard to work through new ideas
These cross pollination opportunities was the crux of creatively combining new and disparate ideas. However, management consultant probably equate “open doors” with “open office” and miss the point entirely.
I don't think ping pong is the problem. I remember that as a college intern I worked at a small company that was in a big industrial building, and they had a ping pong table. (Not ours but we...
I don't think ping pong is the problem. I remember that as a college intern I worked at a small company that was in a big industrial building, and they had a ping pong table. (Not ours but we could use it.) This doesn't seem at all new. Companies have often had team sports as well.
I'm not sure we need data to justify perks. You have some space that's a bit away from the workplace and some employees want to play ping pong, so why not? It's natural for there to be trends as people copy perks from each other and it doesn't need to be data-driven.
But I'm happy not to be working in an open office anymore; that's one trend I could do without.
I think the distinction that's being drawn (continuing the ping pong example) is between companies that happen to have a table, and companies that brag that they have a table and how much everyone...
I think the distinction that's being drawn (continuing the ping pong example) is between companies that happen to have a table, and companies that brag that they have a table and how much everyone enjoys it.
One is probably a decent office that takes breaks occasionally. The other is practicing the aforementioned cargo-culting.
The second half of the article gets at the real problem. Having free perks is absolutely fine. Using free perks as a way to secretly get people to work longer hours is not. A culture which...
The second half of the article gets at the real problem. Having free perks is absolutely fine. Using free perks as a way to secretly get people to work longer hours is not. A culture which combines perks which make working more casual and less stressful but also doesn't strictly enforce or heavily encourage 50+ hour work weeks is fine, but the reality is most corporations are in it for profit and they're not going to implement perks like these without also trying to squeeze extra profitability out of their employees.
Some companies have lots of free perks. Others expect people to work long hours. It's unclear how often they are connected in any causal way. The perks often get chosen by HR and the long hour...
Some companies have lots of free perks. Others expect people to work long hours. It's unclear how often they are connected in any causal way. The perks often get chosen by HR and the long hour expectations come from more from teams or sometimes managers who want to get something done quickly.
For example, at Google there were often rumors that perks like dinner were to encourage people to work longer, but never any real expectation (at least for the teams I was on) that you would do that. People with families would work regular hours. Single people less so, but they often came in later too.
I also heard a story once that the long lines at lunch time were intentional to get people to talk to each other. You sometimes have what are essentially workplace legends like this, nothing verifiable, that things are more planned out than they really are. (More likely, it's just a bunch of people wanting lunch at the same time.)
It seems like there is a whiff of the company not being paternal enough for some people in these rumors? I think it's more likely that that you are not so special and it's up to you to set boundaries. The company isn't going to set them for you. If you forget to go to lunch then you might not get it. But whose fault is that if you don't block it out in your calendar?
We do need to be careful about cultural expectations setting in. I don't know how Japanese work culture got started but it seems not to have much to do with productivity; it's just some weird cultural thing.
On the other hand the game industry has a well-known problem with having insane crunches sometimes. That seems more of a case of economic pressure; game studios have precarious economics and unyielding deadlines.
Sad thing is that if they worked to improve employee happiness, they'd get that extra profitability through the extra productivity it would grant. The problem is that it'd take a little time to...
Sad thing is that if they worked to improve employee happiness, they'd get that extra profitability through the extra productivity it would grant. The problem is that it'd take a little time to show, so it tends to fly by the all-too-often myopic structure of most corporations.
I think I've commented about stuff like this before, and I don't see an end in sight.
It's the epitome of cargo cult mentality. These companies don't know why google/apple/facebook/amazon are successful, or rather, maybe they do know why, but realize they can't replicate those reasons, so they just try to emulate the easy surface level stuff that gets press. Silicon valley behemoths are successful in spite of their management practice, not because of them.
There's no real data or research that goes into these decisions, these execs just go "Well silicon valley does this, and silicon valley is successful, so we should also do this", without realizing that
They're completely different industries, locations, and demographics, so assuming what works for google works for a meat distribution company is ridiculous from the get go
Just because a company does something doesn't mean that that's the reason they're successful. There are infinite ways a given company in the valley does things different than any other company. Assuming that just because they do a given thing, and they're successful that that given thing is the reason for their success is a massive fallacy.
and finally,
I wish these management consultants would actually do their jobs and give tested, workable solutions tailor fit for the companies they give advice to, but that would be difficult and expensive. Much easier to just tell them what Google's doing, call it a day, and then make the entire workforce miserable I guess.
In The Idea Factory it’s argued that the main reason for Bell Labs’ success (aside from the 10% R&D fee collected as part of the monopolistic Bell System) was due to the organizations physical structure. The building and campus in Murray Hill was so highly regarded that the likes of Google and other SV types took campus tours to emulate the design. In many ways this was potentially another cargo cult mentality, and that Bell Labs also uniquely had some of the smartest minds on the verge of the greatest technical revolution of the modern age.
If my memory serves me correctly, there were three main qualities of the Bell Labs design that lead to innovation:
These cross pollination opportunities was the crux of creatively combining new and disparate ideas. However, management consultant probably equate “open doors” with “open office” and miss the point entirely.
I don't think ping pong is the problem. I remember that as a college intern I worked at a small company that was in a big industrial building, and they had a ping pong table. (Not ours but we could use it.) This doesn't seem at all new. Companies have often had team sports as well.
I'm not sure we need data to justify perks. You have some space that's a bit away from the workplace and some employees want to play ping pong, so why not? It's natural for there to be trends as people copy perks from each other and it doesn't need to be data-driven.
But I'm happy not to be working in an open office anymore; that's one trend I could do without.
I think the distinction that's being drawn (continuing the ping pong example) is between companies that happen to have a table, and companies that brag that they have a table and how much everyone enjoys it.
One is probably a decent office that takes breaks occasionally. The other is practicing the aforementioned cargo-culting.
The second half of the article gets at the real problem. Having free perks is absolutely fine. Using free perks as a way to secretly get people to work longer hours is not. A culture which combines perks which make working more casual and less stressful but also doesn't strictly enforce or heavily encourage 50+ hour work weeks is fine, but the reality is most corporations are in it for profit and they're not going to implement perks like these without also trying to squeeze extra profitability out of their employees.
Some companies have lots of free perks. Others expect people to work long hours. It's unclear how often they are connected in any causal way. The perks often get chosen by HR and the long hour expectations come from more from teams or sometimes managers who want to get something done quickly.
For example, at Google there were often rumors that perks like dinner were to encourage people to work longer, but never any real expectation (at least for the teams I was on) that you would do that. People with families would work regular hours. Single people less so, but they often came in later too.
I also heard a story once that the long lines at lunch time were intentional to get people to talk to each other. You sometimes have what are essentially workplace legends like this, nothing verifiable, that things are more planned out than they really are. (More likely, it's just a bunch of people wanting lunch at the same time.)
It seems like there is a whiff of the company not being paternal enough for some people in these rumors? I think it's more likely that that you are not so special and it's up to you to set boundaries. The company isn't going to set them for you. If you forget to go to lunch then you might not get it. But whose fault is that if you don't block it out in your calendar?
We do need to be careful about cultural expectations setting in. I don't know how Japanese work culture got started but it seems not to have much to do with productivity; it's just some weird cultural thing.
On the other hand the game industry has a well-known problem with having insane crunches sometimes. That seems more of a case of economic pressure; game studios have precarious economics and unyielding deadlines.
Sad thing is that if they worked to improve employee happiness, they'd get that extra profitability through the extra productivity it would grant. The problem is that it'd take a little time to show, so it tends to fly by the all-too-often myopic structure of most corporations.