In the midst of the current US economic slowdown it is clear that the good old days are over. At least for some chunk of 2008,
more likely for the whole year, we are in for some gloomy times.
Companies are being forced to cut costs and let people go. Some smart people aren't sitting around waiting to be downsized - instead they're jumping ship and hopping aboard another.
Whether you are let go or you leave on your own, there is an impact. Of course conventional wisdom says that everyone is replaceable. That may still be true, but the really important question is: at what cost? Is the cost of replacing someone today the same as it was 10 years ago? Just because technology is cheaper and more abundant it does not mean that it is cheap to replace people.
The fact is that we are increasingly becoming a real-time information processing society. Because of that, each one of us processes an increasingly large amount of unique information on a daily basis. Knowledge-based workers are very different from workers on a factory line, and the cost of replacing them is also very different. While companies save money in the short term, the longer term impact of losing a person is not so clear. In this post we look at the impact cutting jobs has on modern companies and try to figure out: are YOU replaceable?
Story 1: Sorry Bob, you've been wonderful, but we will not be needing your services any longer. Here is Jack, fresh out of college, his salary is 25% of yours. Please train him in the next two weeks to do what you do.
Story 2: Hey boss, you've been wonderful, but I found a job that pays twice as much. Here is Jack, fresh out of college, his salary is 25% of mine. I will train him in the next two weeks to do what I do.
The aftermath of both stories is the same: Bob trains Jack in two weeks and then leaves. And even though Jack is very bright and had a 4.0 GPA in college, it is impossible to learn Bob's job in two weeks. It takes about two months for him to become productive. And this is quite a find. The long term cost is substantially lower and company benefits from the employee churn.
The problem is that today, two months ramp up time is not acceptable.
It is just way too long. For a startup, two months is an eternity, but even for large companies two months is a long time.
Today, people need to be replaced real-time - one is out and the next one is in full-speed, day one. This is difficult, particularly
because of the incredible amount of information that we end up processing daily.
Increasingly, modern business is becoming a complex, distributed information processing system. The nodes of this system are employees, tirelessly passing bits around to each other, crunching and filtering with the goal to compute, to gain competitive advantage, and to help the business survive.
The problem is that unlike factories or boxes in the computing cloud, employees in the modern company are not identical. Each one knows a unique piece of the information puzzle that makes a company tick. Two weeks is not enough to do the transition and two months is way to long to waste training up the new guy. This is why the old adage that everyone is replaceable may need some re-thinking.
Certainly, there are still plenty of examples where slackers are growing
old getting paid to work their 9-5 jobs while
getting little done. But safe havens for slackers are rapidly diminishing, because they are losing out to smarter, more agile, and faster competition.
A few years ago my wife, who is a clinical pharmacist, worked with a character that ultimately managed to get a pink slip in a huge company that had probably only ever fired one person - him. He started his day by searching the Internet for a rich relative. Yes, you read that correctly, the guy was searching for wealthy family members. At 11am, he walked around the office and asked what people thought would be offered in the cafeteria for lunch. Between 1pm and 2pm, he spent time reading the news, and then typically called his wife to discuss the dinner menu. This is funny, absurd, and sad at the same time. But think about it, can someone like that work in your company? No way! Companies can not afford to have people like this anymore.
In a way, the pressure of real-time information is polarizing - the hard working people are becoming harder to replace,
while slackers and perhaps less knowledgeable people are just not needed. We have seen this trend in software engineering
for a while - a handful of smart people can accomplish much more than an army of mediocre workers. A skilled, quick professional stands out
these days. The people who shine are the people who get the new world - a no nonsense approach, courtesy, and most importantly, speed.
Recently, my insurance broker switched companies. He quickly contacted me, offered an attractive new package, and then drove 1.5 hours from his office to my home to sign the papers. His commission would not want warrant the trip, but he was smart to make the investment of his time because he won me as a client. On the other hand, the cost of losing a talented employee for his old company just increased - they also lost a client, and I am sure I was not the only one.
Although my insurance agent lives in the technical world, he is part of new breed of folks that I call the digital elite. He uses Facebook to keep in touch with his friends, he was savvy enough to look up my company on the web, and he knows all the cool financial web sites. In other words, he is on top of what's going on. He knows all about the speed of information in our world. And this makes him a serious and important player, of the type that is really hard to replace.
Clearly after Bradley Horowitz moves to Google, Yahoo! survives. He will be replaced with someone else
just as talented and as passionate and the ship will sail forward. But saying that he will be replaced is
very different from computing the cost of his departure. Losing leaders and visionaries is very, very costly.
The knowledge, the vision, and the game plan that was in his head is unique and can not be replicated.
Great companies are defined by the great people behind them. There are no great companies without visionary leaders. And if you agree that all knowledge workers are becoming increasingly more valuable, the leaders are then 10 times more valuable. Retention of key leaders and managers is paramount to the success of modern large companies. So I am sure that Bradley, who grew through the ranks at Yahoo! and was one of the faces of the company, will be greatly missed.
And yet, churn is such a huge part of nature! Our world is based on transitions and changes. Changing jobs is an integral part of your career path. When people move around, society benefits from knowledge sharing and new alliances that lead to great new ideas. Remixing is good for both individuals and companies, so there is no way that churn will ever stop.
But still, it is now becoming more costly for the companies. Because of the increasing amount of information processing done by individuals and the uniqueness of each, getting replacements up to speed is more costly. Retaining and motivating the digital elite should be recognized as a high priority for any company.
So, tell us how you feel about all of this? Do you feel insecure in your current position? Are you looking for a new job? What is your company doing to motivate and retain key people?
Top image credit: New York Times
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
Instead of hoarding knowledge, I've learned to seek out new knowledge. I may end up being replaceable in my current role, but I'll have better success landing my next gig.
Posted by: Ben | February 19, 2008 9:56 PMAs an entrepreneur, I hope to be replaceable. My sole job is to build a business system where I can replicate myself as quickly and often as possible.
Chris
Posted by: Chris Goward | February 19, 2008 10:30 PMhttp://www.widerfunnel.com/blog
This is a modern day example of Social Darwinism;
This constant striving to compete and self-improve will produce a more heavily skilled proficient American workfoce.
However, unfortunately there will be a severe underclass of unemployed and homeless comprising of those who can't keep up with the growing pace.
Posted by: Search◆ Engines Web | | February 19, 2008 10:49 PMYou left a whole class of slackers out of the tableau: Middle Management of Technical Project slackers. I am not saying that every level of management needs to have a CS degree, and indeed, I don't have one (although I was a programmer). No, there are many good product managers, program managers, and project managers that add real value.
But, as a contract channels analyst, I get called in when things are not right; this is my stock in trade, to put things right. I have been witness to some professionally honed management slacking that has reached the level of an art form.
These are the 20+ participant meeting specialists. They like to use the term, 'liaise'.
Cutting this fat from the work corps would boost the Valley;s productivity and possibly save the local tech economy from what is almost a certain bloodbath. I am sure that the fat trimming at YAhoo is concerned primarily with just such an incestuous culture of slacker managers.
Posted by: Alan Wilensky | February 19, 2008 11:26 PMThe end of slackers? I really don't think so. I worked for three years in this big big dotcom company, somewhere in Europe. Yeah, that big brand which is being bought my MS... Slackers were everywhere.
Typical day for my boss was coming at 10.30, having breakfast until 11.30, forwarding emails until 12.30, having lunch until 3pm, then searching the web for stories he could tell during business lunches, taking dozens of smoking breaks, and leaving 5.30. Everyday. For 4 years, never firedn and everybody knew.
He was far from being alone in the process, the whole company was composed of slackers. And because they put such people at management, employees and interns turned to be a lot worse. Everyone clever in the building predicted 2 years ago all what the "outside world" is seeing now: a drawing company.
Posted by: partypeople | February 20, 2008 1:12 AMGreat post, Alex. I'll link to it around and about.
But y'know, I have never worked with a lazy person, ever.
And because this comment is becoming like a post, I'll bodge off to my own blog and link to you from there.
I'll tell you about non-lazy people and why recessions are great!
Posted by: Jo | February 20, 2008 2:16 AMAs a developer, I try to automate my job as much as possible. The sooner I can move off of a self-sustaining project and onto something else, the better. This gives me the freedom to explore side projects and new opportunities, while also ensuring that I'm not leaving anyone out in the cold.
The age of making your self irreplaceable by thriving on hopelessly obscure workflows is over. That just leaves everyone unhappy.
Posted by: Scott A. | February 20, 2008 4:22 AMThanks for this post. Literally in the mist of a change now, and this was a good deal of a wake up call. Thanks for your frankness.
Posted by: Antoine of MMM/Brighthand | February 20, 2008 6:50 AMTo automate our work isnt most healthful, since it would become routine and boring. To adapt the technology to ours environment, even to our office would help much more.
Posted by: CanCar | February 20, 2008 7:25 AMAlex Iskold writes, "the leaders are then 10 times more valuable."
Ten times, perhaps, but the facts show a much larger and growing inequity between the pay of "leaders" and the workers who implement the leaders' orders.
---------------
"Nobody beats the U.S. when it comes to the difference in pay between CEOs and the average worker. In 2000, on average, CEOs at 365 of the largest publicly traded U.S. companies earned $13.1 million, or 531 times what the typical hourly employee took home. The corresponding ratio in 1980 was only 42, and in 1990 it was 85."
http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10002825.shtml
---------------
"Growing pay inequality corrodes the basic concept of fair reward that underpins a thriving society – and may also damage the performance and long-term success of organisations as staff become cynical and disillusioned."
http://www.management-issues.com/2006/12/29/research/ceo-pay-a-perversion-of-market-principles.asp
---------------
New Zealand: CEO pay skyrockets as workers' living standards fall
In contrast to the huge sums being awarded to CEOs, the New Zealand Income Survey (2005) showed that the average weekly income for wage and salary earners last year was $592, or $30,784 per annum.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jun2006/newz-j05.shtml
---------------
... while CEO pay rose 298.2% by 2005, and corporate profits by 106.7%, the average worker pay has only risen by 4.3%.
The chart seems to show no direct relationship between CEO pay and profit performance, however, CEO pay does track nearly parallel with the S&P 500.
http://consumerist.com/consumer/executive-pay/ceo-pay-up-298-average-workers-43-1995+2005-250838.php
---------------
Just do a Google search or just watch the news. The quotes above are from the press in Ireland, England, New Zealand, and the United States, but it is the same the world over.
Alex Iskold also wrote, "Companies are being forced to cut costs and let people go." Perhaps, but perhaps there is a relationship here that is being ignored or overlooked.
Posted by: Adam | February 20, 2008 7:40 AMClear to whom? KMart employees? Since when is the web industry going through gloomy times?
I'm sure the rest of the article is great.
Posted by: Aaron | February 20, 2008 8:09 AMI just wrote a post about this CEO nonsense. Do you know why most of you aren't CEOs? We don't want the resposibility. They get the big bucks because few people are up to the challenge.
However, in defense of those critical. CEO pay and bonuses should be tired to company performance, but you know what? They don't accept terms in contracts that allow them to lose. Why do we? We don't have to, but we do.
Posted by: Steve Olson | February 20, 2008 12:22 PMGreat article Alex. You right, and you insurance agent too.
Posted by: Nestor | February 21, 2008 6:33 AM