Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

210 Zappos employees – 14% of the staff – take buyouts after CEO ultimatum

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 327 posts

Re: 210 Zappos employees – 14% of the staff – take buyouts after CEO ultimatum

#91

Post by jotux »

libria wrote: post #81
jotux wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>in one sentence with fewer than 20 words Seems like an arbitrary restriction to put on something that's probably complex.

It's essentially "Explain it like I'm 5", which in this case can help discern between an interesting corporate experiment and PR bullshit. No one wants to get halfway through an article claiming the former and ending up being the latter. If Zappos has a unique take on how to replace middle management, let's all hear it.

The ability or inability to describe an idea in simple terms has no relation to the validity of the idea.

>If Zappos has a unique take on how to replace middle management, let's all hear it.

I think their idea is in this book, mentioned in the article, that they asked all zappos employees to read: http://www.reinventingorganizations.com/

Re: 210 Zappos employees – 14% of the staff – take buyouts after CEO ultimatum

#92

Post by bsg75 »

logicalmind wrote: post #22

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…

> It was unclear what his intentions were.

When you don't know how to run a business, cut costs and call the result a profit. Then take the bonus for "hitting the target", and pull the golden parachute ripcord.

Re: 210 Zappos employees – 14% of the staff – take buyouts after CEO ultimatum

#94

Post by lmg643 »

exelius wrote: post #37
logicalmind wrote: post #22

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…

I think the idea with Zappos is that they're supposed to be such a great place to work that you wouldn't want to leave. And in Zappos' case, I get why they offered severance deals. They were embarking on a radical experiment in organizational structure, and not everyone is going to be on board with it. Rather than having a bunch of people at the water cooler talking shit about the changes, you offer them money to lea…

it's easy to forget that zappos was acquired by amazon. i am interested to what extent sales growth or lack thereof, would be a driver of radical restructuring.

Re: 210 Zappos employees – 14% of the staff – take buyouts after CEO ultimatum

#96

Post by 1123581321 »

gergles wrote: post #54

Every time this comes up, I have one simple question that I have yet to have answered to any degree of satisfaction. (Someone who endorses this structure) explain to me in one sentence with fewer than 20 words how a 'lead link' is not the same role as a 'manager'.

A lead link can appoint people to roles, but the people have autonomy in that role. A manager has the authority to both appoint roles and micromanage execution.

Also, there is a parallel to lead link called rep link who is appointed by the lead link's circle to check against bad decisions/behavior by the lead link.

Re: 210 Zappos employees – 14% of the staff – take buyouts after CEO ultimatum

#97

Post by emodendroket »

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #15

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.

That's still rather different than a company with a hierarchy several levels deep.

Re: 210 Zappos employees – 14% of the staff – take buyouts after CEO ultimatum

#98

Post by velodrome »

munificent wrote: post #90
velodrome wrote: post #34

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.

> The ones that could land another job by the quit date. The ones that are confident they could land another better job by the quit date. It's not enough to be possible to get any job. The offer only makes sense if you are certain you will trade up.

I doubt those 14% are that confident. Confident makes it sound like it is a sure thing. I think it is more like: If they could, they would.

And it does not have to be a better job, it could be even one that pays less. If the person needed cash fast, this is one way of getting it. They could spread those losses over a year. It's still better than a payday loan.

Re: 210 Zappos employees – 14% of the staff – take buyouts after CEO ultimatum

#100

Post by x43b »

scott_karana wrote: post #20
basseq wrote: post #13

Thought experiment: ignore the holacracy angle and offer everyone in any company 3-months severance if they quit by a certain date. What percentage would quit? I wouldn't be surprised if the average was 10-20% and a vast majority of these people are taking advantage of what they see as a good deal irregardless of their feelings on holacracy as a management style.

Actually, that aspect of Zappos's strategy isn't new at all. Here's an article from 2008. tl;dr is "If you quit today, we will pay you for the amount of time you’ve worked, plus we will offer you a $1,000 bonus." https://hbr.org/2008/05/why-zappos-pays-new-employees/

"tl;dr is "If you quit today, we will pay you for the amount of time you’ve worked, plus we will offer you a $1,000 bonus.""

Paying you for the amount of time you worked is a legal obligation. So really you are talking about can you find an equivalent or better job in the amount of time you would have earned $1,000 if you stayed. Even in the lowest of paying legal jobs in the US, it does not take that long to earn $1,000 relative to securing a job. Not to mention that new job is not guaranteed to fit into your current living situation and other factors that cause the inertia for staying with a current job to be quite large. Seems a bit like a gimmick to me.

Post reply on HN