B- environment merits B- effort

http://37signals.com/svn/posts/3461-b-environment-merits-b-effort

by mickeyben • 13 years ago

95 41 13 years ago

ry0ohki• 13 years ago

While I certainly think a bad environment can make people perform worse, I'm not sure the reverse is true. There are just some people who don't give a shit regardless of the awesome trusting environment you give them.

jameskilton• 13 years ago

He covers this point in the first paragraph, basically saying that they aren't worth your time. In short, fire them.

arkitaip• 13 years ago

"the statistical outliers who do not follow this are not worth focusing policy on"

This is a great idea that 37signals keeps coming back to, i.e. don't shape HR policies based on outliners and exceptions.

DannyBee5• 13 years ago

This is because they don't have a large enough group of outliers to matter.

So yeah, I wouldn't shape HR policy in a small company based on outliers.

But if i had a company of 50k people, i probably have at least 3500 significant outliers, performance wise.

rescripting• 13 years ago

What does the size of the company matter? If 5% of the workforce in a 100 person company slacks off, vs 5% in a 50k person workforce, why is should policy be any different for the 50k workforce?

If you're implying the percentage of slackers scales non linearly as the size of a company grows then I'd love to see some research to back that up, as I'd be genuinely interested if that were the case.

cmaher2• 13 years ago

Corporate policies can miss their targets. If a policy targeting the slackers existed, than part of it's job would be to target said slackers, which it would only be able to successfully do with some probability. However, if there isn't a statistically significant number of slackers, the policy could end up falsely targeting more hardworking employees than slackers. It's a classic probability/confusion matrix problem and goes to show that you have to be damn sure that your policy is only targeting the right people.

A company willing to risk harming its honest employees for minimal benefit is not one I would like to work for.

zeidrich• 13 years ago

I don't think he meant let those people hang around being disruptive. Just don't structure policy around them. If they are outliers in that respect, then will any policy you come up with make those people productive? Will it have overall positive benefit or will it damage the ability for the other 95% to work?

If you have 95% of your workforce who want to succeed and 5% of your workforce who are "slackers', you can provide tools to help those who want to succeed and fire the slackers. On the other hand, you can force through workflow policies that force the slackers to do minimal work while frustrating and slowing down the workflow of the rest of the staff who want to excel.

As well, the more freedom you give to those staff who want to excel, the more rope you give those staff who will not to hang themselves with. Force them to jump through hoops to show that they are working and they will do what they can to hide the fact that they're not. Give them free reign to slack off and they will not have false metrics to hide behind, nor will they feel the need to hide so much.

calinet66• 13 years ago

And you should still not focus on them! That is a statistical fallacy.

Improve the system, and everything improves. Don't focus on outliers—they will always exist. You'll be killing individual ants when you really want to go after the queen.

calinet66• 13 years ago

Absolutely. It's just good statistics and systems thinking. In other words, "the truth."

See: W. Edwards Deming and his Key Principles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming#Key_principle... —I'm consistently dumbfounded why this systems thinking genius from over 50 years ago has not become prevalent or even decently respected in this modern world.

lifeisstillgood3• 13 years ago

Deming is both prevalent and respected. He acheived demi-god status in Japan, there are several channels of business shows dedicated to his work, and everyone, but everyone who writes a business book says the same as you...

He is like a hermit buying drinks at the bar while people talk:

- it is so sad that hermit is tucked away in his cave,

- ignored by everyone,

- no ice in mine thank you W.E.,

- Shame really

jheriko• 13 years ago

"Being a slacker is not an innate human quality"

I really can't swallow this. Laziness is /the/ primary motivator for invention. People want to do the least possible to attain their goals - this isn't a negative quality - but in the context of earning a paycheque it hurts the employer.

I've noticed the larger the company i've worked at, the more people treading water and hiding inbetween people who actually do work.

On the other hand I do broadly agree that window dressing is not enough. We end up judging employers by actions more than words by nature...

kolektiv• 13 years ago

Laziness does not have to equate to being a slacker. Lazily (or inventively) pursuing your employers goals is not a problem - generally if you find a way to satisfy them with less work, everyone's happy. Slacking would be following your own goals (loafing around, hiding) when they conflict with your employer.

As the article says, if your people aren't bothered or motivated by your goals, they probably shouldn't be there (at least in skilled positions - of course there are plenty of jobs which are purely for the paycheck). It's not worth changing your company based on the attitudes and motivations of people who shouldn't be there anyway.

It is easier to hide in (many) big companies, but that doesn't mean that the solution should be to remove all potential hiding places - it should be to remove (or re-motivate) those who are hiding.

GhotiFish• 13 years ago

I've got that kind of mind that can drift off while reading. By the time I had regained my focus, the article had descended into this:

   "If you’re doing work in a less than star environment, 
    you owe less than star effort. Quid pro quo. By all
    means, do yours to affect and change the environment.
    Nudge it towards the stars. But also, accept the
    limitations of your power. You can drag a horse to the
    water, but you can’t make it drink.

    So ration your will and determination. Invest what’s
    left over, after meeting the bar of your work
    environment, in your own projects, skills, and future.
    The dividends is what’s going to lead you to the next,
    better thing.

    Everyone deserves to work at a place that inspires them
    to give their very best. Don’t stop reaching until you
    have that."

Thank goodness I was worried I was going to run out of platitudes today.

thetrumanshow• 13 years ago

Once you earn the spot of a visionary with an audience, you have to continue to espouse ideas. Movements require that ideas be constantly re-framed to draw more and more people into the fold. Also, you must reinforce the same ideas for the existing audience.

If you're beyond the need to receive the "milk of the gospel" and are ready for the meat, then its probably time for you to be a producer and not merely a consumer. But, don't blame the minister for continuing to feed the babes.

anoncow• 13 years ago

That is exceptionally deep, my friend.

sageikosa2• 13 years ago

Personally I was hoping for something a little more mathematical, since I was re-reading Melvin Conway's: How Committee's Invent yesterday and came to expect a heuristic for efficiency versus organizational style.

logn• 13 years ago

The 37 Signals blog posts on here every week all like this one make me not want to work there.

jiayo• 13 years ago

Looks like DHH is channeling his inner Sancho Panza.

gohwell• 13 years ago

"It can serve as a cherry on top, but if the rest of the cake is full of shit, that’s not going to make it any more appealing." Got to love that

zenogais• 13 years ago

Reminds me of a lot of shitty start-ups out there - where management is terrible but thinks it can bribe people into sweatshop-style labor with meaningless perks.

rquantz• 13 years ago

I used to do freelance work in a big open office setup with a lot of different companies all owned by the same big holding company. Once or twice a week one of the partners of the parent company would come in with a box of brownies or some such thing. The startup kids who hadn't paid themselves in months would all stand around eating the treat, saying "god, this is the best place to work."

hipsters_unite• 13 years ago

"If you’re doing work in a less than star environment, you owe less than star effort. Quid pro quo."

This describes every bad job I've ever had. You do a great job, nobody cares, you do a mediocre job, you feel bad. Lose lose.

slantyyz2• 13 years ago

DHH leaves professionalism and personal pride out of his analogy.

I try to do good work even for bad employers. Instead of reducing the quality of my work product, what I would do is quit and find a better employer.

dyno12345• 13 years ago

Another 37signals post! Let's get started!

> If you want star quality effort, you need to provide a star quality environment. No, window dressing like a free meal is not it.

Boy, we've all been there. I know what he's talking about! Now I want to know what specific advice he has.

> It can serve as a cherry on top, but if the rest of the cake is full of shit, that’s not going to make it any more appealing.

Hahaha, now he's got me on the hook!

> Make people proud to work where they work by involving them in projects that matter and ignite a fire of urgency about your purpose. Find out who you are as a company and be the very best you. Give people a strategic plan that’s coherent and believable and then leave the bulk of the tactical implementation to their ingenuity.

Oh.

No specific advice. Free food isn't good enough, so... do some other stuff to get people excited. So this is another Chicken Soup for the Startup Soul post. Or maybe a more charitable interpretation, instead of just blowing hot air at us, he's asking us to blow hot air at employees?

sageikosa2• 13 years ago

I say this to my kids all the time: "Bye! Make good choices!"

I stole it from Jamie Lee Curtis's character in Freaky Friday when she drops her kids off at school.

calinet66• 13 years ago

My dad's was "Bye! Don't be stupid!"

It was endearing, and it stuck.

B- environment merits B- effort

Related Stories