It is nice when you have possibility to move horizontally across the company. It brings a lot of new insights how other teams work. This is good even in small companies.
Secondments at Zapier
21–30 of 55 posts
Re: Secondments at Zapier
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
I saw a fraction of an episode of Richard Branson’s “The Apprentice” and was struck by the fact that (unlike a different host of the US The Apprentice) he considered the act of firing someone very painful. It was an existence proof that billionaires do not have to be heartless psychopaths - even though media consistently gives us this impression. And - predictably - his version of the show did not rate very well, and…
One lesson from Branson’s Apprentice that always stuck with me: He was hoisted up in a capsule with different contestants above Angel Falls. Branson encouraged the contestants to abandon their fears and press a button that would release the cables and send the capsule plunging to the water below. Whoever pressed the button was kicked off the show. The drop was high enough to kill them both and Branson said he couldn’…
Yes that’s the episode I saw. I’m not sure if they were kicked off for pressing the button - they were definitely punished and “taught a lesson”. Maybe they had less points or dollars going into the next challenge or something.
Edit: someone linked to a summary of the episode, below, and they did kick the person off for it. Harsh!
Re: Secondments at Zapier
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
I saw a fraction of an episode of Richard Branson’s “The Apprentice” and was struck by the fact that (unlike a different host of the US The Apprentice) he considered the act of firing someone very painful. It was an existence proof that billionaires do not have to be heartless psychopaths - even though media consistently gives us this impression. And - predictably - his version of the show did not rate very well, and…
One lesson from Branson’s Apprentice that always stuck with me: He was hoisted up in a capsule with different contestants above Angel Falls. Branson encouraged the contestants to abandon their fears and press a button that would release the cables and send the capsule plunging to the water below. Whoever pressed the button was kicked off the show. The drop was high enough to kill them both and Branson said he couldn’…
> Branson said he couldn’t afford to have people around him that were afraid to tell him no.
So the lesson here is even for a decision that will kill him and everyone around him, he would still rather not entertain debate and challenge from his subordinates?
Re: Secondments at Zapier
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems more of a TV gimmick than a test for sycophants. You know Branson does daring activities, you know you're on a TV show where the utmost care is taken by a whole team of professionals, ... it's a cheap trick. So, instead of people who trust the proven professionals around them to do their job you get people scared of heights or averse to physical risks (who could be perfectly happy taking massive financial risks…
I must have seen it ~20 years ago on FOX I think. It was certainly a “made for TV” / theatrical way of making a point. But the point stuck with me as it was pretty diametrically opposed to the other Apprentice show which rewarded people for following instructions. Looks like it was Victoria Falls: https://youtu.be/BrA__e6s1kg Clip starts at 4:38 > you know you're on a TV show where the utmost care is taken by a whole…
> I think that’s kind of the point though, is if you’re saying you’re capable of being President of Virgin (the prize I believe), then there is little to no safety net. You are the professional in charge responsible for everyone else’s safety.
But you're not, in that situation. That's sort of the point.
This isn't hiring for prudence, this is hiring for ability to guess Branson's gotcha.
Re: Secondments at Zapier
#25Plaid did something similar during the pandemic but still ended up laying off 20% a couple of years later.
It's a noble thing to do (even if it delays layoffs for some). Good on both companies
Re: Secondments at Zapier
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
One lesson from Branson’s Apprentice that always stuck with me: He was hoisted up in a capsule with different contestants above Angel Falls. Branson encouraged the contestants to abandon their fears and press a button that would release the cables and send the capsule plunging to the water below. Whoever pressed the button was kicked off the show. The drop was high enough to kill them both and Branson said he couldn’…
> Branson said he couldn’t afford to have people around him that were afraid to tell him no. So the lesson here is even for a decision that will kill him and everyone around him, he would still rather not entertain debate and challenge from his subordinates?
I think you understood the statement wrong. It also took me a second read to get it.
Written differently the sentence could also be phrased the following:
> Branson said he want's to have people around him that dare to tell him no.
Re: Secondments at Zapier
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
I must have seen it ~20 years ago on FOX I think. It was certainly a “made for TV” / theatrical way of making a point. But the point stuck with me as it was pretty diametrically opposed to the other Apprentice show which rewarded people for following instructions. Looks like it was Victoria Falls: https://youtu.be/BrA__e6s1kg Clip starts at 4:38 > you know you're on a TV show where the utmost care is taken by a whole…
> I think that’s kind of the point though, is if you’re saying you’re capable of being President of Virgin (the prize I believe), then there is little to no safety net. You are the professional in charge responsible for everyone else’s safety. But you're not, in that situation. That's sort of the point. This isn't hiring for prudence, this is hiring for ability to guess Branson's gotcha.
Well the contestant believed they were in charge of the drop. Common sense tells you that a 350’ drop will kill you, but they assumed it was safe because Branson was there. So, he wants people who will view a scenario objectively and not be biased by his presence or opinions.
As a control it would have been interesting to have half the contestants in a capsule by themselves and see how many were willing to drop without him there. I bet many would have still pressed the button.
Some people are blinded by winning and take huge, inappropriate risks to try to win. It’s a skill to be able to not play the game when the risks are too high.
Or, it could have just been a test to see who’s brave enough to call bullshit when things get absurd.
Re: Secondments at Zapier
#28Nice approach. However, my main take-away from the article is that they have 40 recruiters for a company of 800, which seems high. I know a company expecting growth is going to need more recruiters, but still 20:1 feels excessive. Is there a widley-known ratio which is sufficient to make regular turnover of staff manageable?
According to this, those 40 recruiters grew Zapier from 550 to 800 in 2022. So they added 250 staff with about 40 recruiters, or 6.25 new hires per recruiter. That means less than 1 new hire per recruiter per month. Gitlab target 4-5 new hires per recruiter per month as per https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/hiring/metrics/
Re: Secondments at Zapier
#29Nice approach. However, my main take-away from the article is that they have 40 recruiters for a company of 800, which seems high. I know a company expecting growth is going to need more recruiters, but still 20:1 feels excessive. Is there a widley-known ratio which is sufficient to make regular turnover of staff manageable?
According to this, those 40 recruiters grew Zapier from 550 to 800 in 2022. So they added 250 staff with about 40 recruiters, or 6.25 new hires per recruiter. That means less than 1 new hire per recruiter per month. Gitlab target 4-5 new hires per recruiter per month as per https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/hiring/metrics/
Agree, especially for being a remote company, this number is extremely low. However, other parameters, like compensation, may be affecting their ability to hire.
Re: Secondments at Zapier
#30Nice approach. However, my main take-away from the article is that they have 40 recruiters for a company of 800, which seems high. I know a company expecting growth is going to need more recruiters, but still 20:1 feels excessive. Is there a widley-known ratio which is sufficient to make regular turnover of staff manageable?
It's definitely excessive. Realistically, an efficient internal recruiter should be hiring a minimum of 20 people per year to justify their role. If Zapier are planning on at least doubling their headcount, then a team of 40 makes sense.