71–80 of 327 posts
I stopped buying shoes from Zappos because I don't like their selection of shoes any longer. Not because I thought their management structure needed a drastic, messy public overhaul. I dunno, it just seems silly and fanciful to me but then again I'm not Tony Hsieh.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What percentage would quit? The ones that could land another job by the quit date. They would essentially get a 3-month "bonus" for doing nothing. I would say this is only possible if the these people were looking to jump ship anyway.
That is assuming that everyone is a hired mercenary. I could rather easily find a job that pays me a 10%-30% raise over what I currently make. I don't do that because I already make "enough" and I like my current job, company, and coworkers. It isn't even a matter of loyalty, it is a matter of different priorities that puts money further down the list than job satisfaction. Finding a good paying job is much easier th…
I work at a company that was in bad shape during the financial crisis. A temporary CEO was put in charge. Ultimately, a number of companies were merged to create one company that could survive. In the end, one of the CEO's of the merged companies became the CEO of the final company. His first act as CEO was to offer everyone in the company a tenure-based package to leave the company. I don't know the full numbers, bu…
What a buy-out does is take money out of the equation. It makes it so that everyone who is there for financial reasons has a financial reason to leave. This can be logical if the company has little to offer financially, as in, for example, a company that's in bad shape during the financial crisis. The only employees who're left are those who are not in it for financial reasons - the true believers in the company, those who like their coworkers, and those who want to gain skills. Those people will be a lot happier when they don't have to listen about their financially-motivated colleagues grousing about how the company is going under, and they'll be more productive when they're happier.
The CEO's fatal mistake was that he forgot that his board is financially motivated. From their perspective, he's acting insane, because why would anyone stay at a company for reasons other than money? And they're his bosses, so they can have him removed. For this to have worked, he probably should've taken the company private, or at least packed the board with people who bought into his vision for what kind of company it should be.
The board's fatal mistake was in removing the CEO. By offering buyouts, he had just aligned the company in one direction. By removing him, they suddenly took the company in a different direction - one that they had less than zero capital in, because the CEO's previous actions had alienated everyone who might've helped them.
In both cases, the failure was in understanding that people are different and may have different motivations, and that a company survives based on how well it can hold together people who all have their own goals and worldviews and motivations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What percentage would quit? The ones that could land another job by the quit date. They would essentially get a 3-month "bonus" for doing nothing. I would say this is only possible if the these people were looking to jump ship anyway.
That is assuming that everyone is a hired mercenary. I could rather easily find a job that pays me a 10%-30% raise over what I currently make. I don't do that because I already make "enough" and I like my current job, company, and coworkers. It isn't even a matter of loyalty, it is a matter of different priorities that puts money further down the list than job satisfaction. Finding a good paying job is much easier th…
Strange it isn't former CEO as you wouldn't have a CEO in a flat company. Seems hypocritical to me, but maybe it isn't and I don't get the distinction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's like cleaning your email subscriber list every few months.
Not really; people who can't get a job elsewhere possibly because of skill wouldn't be taking the offer. But someone who gets constant job offers by other companies? Unless you're absolutely in love with Zappos why wouldn't you? I know I would have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's like cleaning your email subscriber list every few months.
Not really; people who can't get a job elsewhere possibly because of skill wouldn't be taking the offer. But someone who gets constant job offers by other companies? Unless you're absolutely in love with Zappos why wouldn't you? I know I would have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What percentage would quit? The ones that could land another job by the quit date. They would essentially get a 3-month "bonus" for doing nothing. I would say this is only possible if the these people were looking to jump ship anyway.
What percentage of any competent IT team can't have a competitive offer in writing by the end of the day? Even if your anticipated time between jobs is 1-2 months, you can still confidently quit by the deadline and end up with six weeks paid vacation and a six weeks bonus.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is assuming that everyone is a hired mercenary. I could rather easily find a job that pays me a 10%-30% raise over what I currently make. I don't do that because I already make "enough" and I like my current job, company, and coworkers. It isn't even a matter of loyalty, it is a matter of different priorities that puts money further down the list than job satisfaction. Finding a good paying job is much easier th…
I can find a good job easier than I can find $30k+ free money.
My experience working for one of "the big 3" automakers is that the very best employees take the buyout offer, confident that they can find a better job for better pay elsewhere. Years after the employee buyout programs began in the auto industry, they were requesting buyout packages of their own to save the company as a whole. I believe this is the beginning of the "death spiral" described by PG in his "What happene…