
My Company is a Family - edawerd
http://blog.edward-kim.com/my-company-is-a-family
======
rubiquity
> _Firstly, it’s important to remember that when I use the word “family,” I
> don’t mean the literal sense of the word._

Just don't use the word family then.

Since you didn't stop there, though...

Nah, your company isn't a family. Because when financial shit hits the fan
everyone will split in every which direction and be very unlikely to ever
interact with you again.

Culture, and a good and fair culture at that, is what companies should be
striving for. Pretending to be a family when that won't be reciprocated 100%
of the time (or at least nine-nines of the time, because hey, no family is
perfect) like a real family is manipulative.

Scenario: I'm your VC and the latest numbers force me to tell you to lay off
75% of your employees. Go go gadget, deploy this "family" thing you speak of.

~~~
toomuchtodo
"Culture persists, family is immutable."

------
greenyoda
How many of your employees would come to work if you didn't pay them? How many
of your employees would continue to work for you if they were offered twice
the salary elsewhere? My guess is that none of them would, and while they may
genuinely enjoy working for your company, they're really working there only
because it's the best deal they can currently get.

From the other side: if your company's revenues suddenly plummeted, would you
take on personal debt to pay your employees' salaries until sales improved, or
would you lay off your employees?

See, it's not a family, it's a business.

~~~
edawerd
I disagree that people work at companies because it's the best "deal" they can
get. True, we live in a capitalist society, but money is not the only variable
in the equation. A good culture is not the only other variable either.

~~~
Mandatum
Culture is part of the deal. People will trade bad culture and more money for
good culture and shit money. It's person dependant, but to deny that people do
this is injudicious.

~~~
greenyoda
And there are all sorts of other non-monetary things that are part of the
overall deal: commute time, what city the company is in, what industry the
company is in, etc. (In economic terms, the employee is maximizing their
complicated utility function over a large number of variables, one of which is
money.)

------
jaaron
I prefer the "we're not a family, we're a sport team" analogy. You're (1)
together to achieve a specific goal and (2) expect everyone to perform to
accomplish that goal.

There are similarities: you come together in times of difficulty. You have fun
together. You support each other.

There are difference too. In a family, roles are diffuse. In a team, they're
specific and critical. You don't, and can't, fire your uncle for his bad,
racist jokes. You do fire that asshole at your workplace. A good team will
understand everyone has slumps and challenges, but at some point, if you can't
perform, you don't play.

A team comes together to play, to win. It's voluntary and it's goal driven.
When I go to work, I want to be part of team. When I go home, I want to be
part of a family. There's an important difference.

------
yongjik
I assume he's probably second- or third-generation Korean-American, so maybe
the word "family" doesn't invoke quite the same meaning to him as me, but I
find it rather icky.

In Korea there have been companies, small and big, saying they're like
families. Usually, that's a code word for saying "We expect you to sacrifice
your life, including your health, time, and relationship to your _actual_
family, for the good of the company, and not want anything in return."

I'm sure Edward Kim meant none of this, but still that's a metaphor I won't
touch with a ten-foot pole in a corporate setting.

------
normloman
Yeah but there are downsides to that.

1\. What if you already have a family? When it's 5'o clock, would you rather
go home to your spouse and kids, or go on a company bar crawl?

2\. I am friendly with people who I work with. But if we didn't work together,
we'd have no reason to speak to each other. You're going to pass out on a lot
of great workers if you insist everyone be your friend. Why can't a co-worker
relationship suffice?

3\. If you're company is too friendly, and begins to think alike, I'd be wary
of groupthink.

4\. That nickname thing seems like it'd get annoying fast.

~~~
edawerd
1\. That's perfectly fine! We have people who work until 5:30 3 days out of
the week, and work 2 days from home. Nothing about the company being a family
precludes you from having your own.

2\. No one's forcing anyone to be friends with anyone. And truth be told, not
everyone is best buddies with everyone at work. But given the option to
choose, I'd rather work with friends than co-workers. I do realize that's not
for everyone though.

~~~
greenyoda
_" I'd rather work with friends than co-workers."_

You might come to regret this if you ever have to fire one of your friends.
You're a manager/owner of the business, and you need to realize that the
people who report to you have a very different relationship with you than they
have with each other (even if it's not obvious to you) - you sign their
paychecks, you can fire or promote them, etc.

I speak from the experience of having been a manager whose friendship with his
staff made it hard to make the most effective business decisions.

------
polemic
_"...I only consider a couple of them close enough to call my brothers...
...My “brothers” know all about me and I them, just like my real sisters
do..."_

Subtle sexism aside: hanging out, enjoying being together and having nicknames
does NOT make you a family, and this is where OP misses the point. And you
expose the naivety here:

 _" As it turns out, making decisions to protect our family is often the best
way for us to achieve our goals as a team."_

And when those goals are not aligned? When a member of your "family" isn't
playing as part of the "team" do you stand by them, or do you do what's best
for your company. _Should_ you? What happens when they prioritise their _real_
family over the _company_ one?

No, this is dangerous for your staff. You're selling something that you cannot
deliver in the long run. When you're exposed you're going to really hurt
people that I do think you care about.

~~~
npizzolato
> Subtle sexism aside

Uh, what? How did that sentence display any sexism?

~~~
polemic
The company is a family of "brothers", hundreds of friends but only a few
"brothers".

Consider how that sounds to a woman considering a position there. I'm not
saying it's deliberate, but it's sending a message.

~~~
npizzolato
Sometimes I feel like people are trying to be offended... If you look at the
full quote, he wasn't talking about his company. He was talking about his
friends in his personal life.

"Allow me to draw an example from my personal life. I have hundreds of
friends, but I only consider a couple of them close enough to call my
brothers. They call me the same. That doesn’t mean we have the same mother and
came from the same womb. It’s simply a way to say that my relationship with
them is more akin to the one I have with my two actual sisters than it is to
most of my friendships. My “brothers” know all about me and I them, just like
my real sisters do."

Maybe the only close friends he has that are as close as family are male. Are
you suggesting he's sexist for that?

~~~
polemic
I'm suggesting that he should be _mindful_ of what he's saying, and how that
impacts his staff, and the message that he's projecting to future hires.

I really don't mind if people roll their eyes at me :) just that they consider
the possibility that it was a poor choice of words.

~~~
kelnos
I wouldn't agree that it was a poor choice of words. The kind of people who
are so sensitive that they get offended by trivial things like that are not
the kind of people I'd want working with/for me.

And yes, that's a value judgment of mine that it's "trivial". Others are
welcome to feel differently, but I'm welcome to (as you put) roll my eyes, and
think it's a bit silly.

------
ForHackernews
"Area CEO Likes To Think Of Family As Small, Close-Knit Business":
[http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-ceo-likes-to-think-
of-...](http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-ceo-likes-to-think-of-family-as-
small-closekn,34852/)

~~~
zenogais
Hahaha first thing I thought of when I saw this article.

------
seanhandley
"Family" is the wrong word. In the army, you get "brothers in arms". Maybe
what you have is brothers in armchairs.

------
smoyer
Wait until you hire someone who seems perfect and (a couple years later) turns
out to be the family's "black sheep". And have you ever noticed how clique-
filled large family reunions can seem? I predict your coziness will disappear
gradually as you grow.

------
timdiggerm
>We eat meals in the office around the dining table.

Yes, teams never eat together

>Most everyone has nicknames for each other.

This is certainly a thing no athlete does.

>We take our shoes off in the office

You're right; athletes hate being comfortable

>Not everything we do together is all about work.

Again, you're so right. Sports teams do not ever hang out together outside of
practice.

------
ForHackernews
Ick. I would hate to have a job dominate my life like this.

To each their own, I guess.

------
davmar
serious question: how many senior executives, long time employees, loved by
their peers and core to the company culture, have you been forced to
terminate?

maybe you've done it and your team is still tight like family. if so, good on
you. in my experience, when that happens people realize that work is business,
not personal. in a family, you can't terminate someone.

------
hawkice
I'm confused by the notion that using nicknames mean you're substantially
closer to someone than you would be as members of a team. This is, actually,
extremely surprising to me, given my previous experience on sports teams!
Sports, in particular, has it's fair share of intermittent shoelessness and
chatting about other subjects as well.

------
alaskamiller
Are you willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice for me?

That's the only bar for this word. Other than that, you're just people linked
together by checking accounts and employee contracts.

The only other organization I've worked for that matches that standard was the
US Marine Corps. It's a head trip to leave that community and reintegrate into
society.

------
zenbowman
Sounds more like a team than a family.

One of the primary distinguishing characteristics of a family is that members
never exit the family once they are in. A second is that families are
decidedly not meritocratic.

------
cafard
I wish you the best, but has it occurred to you that the inmates of a prison
have meals around the same table, and if one can believe the movies they have
nicknames, too?

------
jamra
Get your laptops off of your crotches. Macbooks especially run hot and you are
heating your sexual reproductive organs. That is not good for your ability to
procreate particularly in males. It can even have long-term effects.

[http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/17664.php](http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/17664.php)
I'm not sure about the credibility of this link, but I would do the research
myself.

------
Spooky23
As someone who was close to a real family who happens to operate a company
together, I'd say the only thing that kept them together was the fact that
they took great pains to separate business from family life.

The biggest challenge they had as a family was people taking the work roles
home with them.

------
zenogais
Knock it off. You run a business not a family. The divisiveness of using such
a term is appalling.

------
Cerium
If it works for you and your fellow members then that's great. I enjoyed
seeing a quick view of how your office runs. There are obvious downsides, but
also obvious upsides. Sound's like a fun commune that actually makes some
money!

------
aashishkoirala
> "Firstly, it’s important to remember that when I use the word 'family,' I
> don’t mean the literal sense of the word. 'Family' is a metaphor" ... AND
> then I stopped reading.

------
benihana
This is so infantilizing. I'm your employee. I'm not your child. We have an
agreement - I do work for you, you pay me. I like you, otherwise I wouldn't
work for you. But I'm not your family member. I don't want to spend every
waking moment with you. I don't want to see you after work very often. I have
my own life, with my own opinions, and my own thoughts, i.e. my own identity
that exist outside of work at your company. Your company may be your life,
that's fine. It isn't mine.

~~~
kelnos
It's completely fine that you feel that way, but many people (including the
author and the other employees of ZenPayroll) feel differently. It's great
that they can work for a company that fits their ideals, and that you can do
the same. No need to vehemently argue for your way or dismiss theirs.

~~~
7Figures2Commas
You're missing a few points:

1\. Not everybody who works at these companies welcomes the blurring of their
personal and professional lives equally. There are absolutely employees who
want an employer to provide a social experience, but you shouldn't assume that
there aren't others who merely tolerate it because they want the job.

2\. These types of environments create a certain level of peer pressure among
employees. Don't want to go on weekend bike rides with the folks you work with
because you have a significant other, friends of your own, etc.? Want to lunch
quietly by yourself and recharge for the afternoon? Prefer not to do your
happy hour drinking with your coworkers? Be careful. If you too frequently
refuse to engage with your "family" outside of regular work hours, it's likely
to be noticed. That's problematic when your employment is contingent on
"culture fit."

3\. From what I can tell, more and more companies, especially younger startups
in San Francisco, have this type of approach, so it's increasingly difficult
to escape if you're dead set on working at a typical early-stage startup here.

~~~
kelnos
I'm not missing that at all, and I totally get that. In my early professional
life I wanted a much more strict separation between work and non-work, but
I've since changed.

To address your points:

1\. I think it's up to the founders and early employees to set the culture
they want. It will usually change as the company grows, but my general feeling
is that if you don't like a company's culture, don't join it. Yes, it sucks if
you get a bad feel for it while interviewing, or are misled, but that should
be the exception, not the rule.

2\. The author of the original article actually directly addressed this, and
pointed out that not everyone joins in, and it's ok. The kind of atmosphere
where there's that pressure is indeed pretty toxic, but I don't think the
family-type culture necessarily has that bug... though they certainly are a
place where it can breed. But again: if you (as a founder/early employee) are
willing to put up with a much smaller talent pool in search of people who
really truly fit the culture you want, that's your choice and your business.

3\. That's definitely a genuine concern, but I don't think it's ever really
been any other way at small, early startups, at least in the Valley. My
experience is certainly not extensive, but for the work-your-ass-off early
startup type, they just tend to end up that way, because you spend _so_ much
time with your colleagues that closer bonds just end up forming.

On the other hand, the non-crazy, have-a-life-outside-work type early startup
is also a thing, and (I would guess) tends not to have that type of approach.

~~~
greenyoda
_" if you (as a founder/early employee) are willing to put up with a much
smaller talent pool in search of people who really truly fit the culture you
want, that's your choice and your business."_

It's your choice, unless your cultural norms are systematically (although
perhaps not explicitly) discriminating against certain legally protected
classes of people who are less likely to "fit in" to your culture. For
example:

\- Women might not enjoy beer and pizza and sports as much as men do, so they
"wouldn't be a good cultural fit".

\- People over 40, who have their own families and don't want to spend time
socializing at work? They "wouldn't be a good cultural fit".

\- Members of religious groups who can't eat the food or drink the alcohol you
serve at the office, e.g., religious Jews or Muslims? They just "wouldn't be a
good cultural fit".

So whenever these kinds of people apply for jobs at your company, you always
pass them up in favor of someone who is a better cultural fit.

See the problem?

~~~
kelnos
I see the potential legal problem, but I don't see the... moral(?) problem.

This goes both ways, though. If I fell into one of these groups you describe,
and interviewed at this hypothetical company, assuming I got a good taste of
this culture during the interview process, I wouldn't want to work there
anyway. So what, should the company give me an offer, and I accept it, only to
be miserable because I don't fit in with my colleagues?

Real discrimination is a problem. Not hiring women, or people of a particular
color or religious group, etc. because you "don't like them" is horrible. But
that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about people being deemed a
poor culture fit on an individual, case-by-case basis. It's not saying, "we're
not going to consider Muslim candidates because they won't drink", it's
saying, "we brought this guy in, and after talking with him, we decided not to
give him an offer because he doesn't fit socially/culturally". And while his
religion might -- coincidentally -- be the _root_ of that, I don't see that as
discriminatory in the legal sense. (Of course it's "discriminatory" in the
dictionary-definition sense, but so is "discriminating" against someone
without the required qualifications.) I see this as people who want to work
with people who they really gel with, and while that might be unfortunate
(different points of view informed by different backgrounds is almost
universally an advantage), I believe it's a valid choice for people in a
company (especially a new, small one) to make.

~~~
greenyoda
The courts seem to be concerned with the _results_ of hiring criteria, not
simply whether they're intentionally discriminatory. For example, there was a
ruling that a written employment exam for a fire department that
disproportionately more white people than minority people passed was illegal
discrimination, since it had no particular relevance to the candidate's
ability to be a good firefighter. (On the other hand, a test to see whether
you could carry an average-weight person out of a burning building would be
OK, even if it excluded most women, since it was job-related.) Similarly, a
candidate's willingness to drink has no relevance to their ability to be a
good developer.

------
mantraxC
Your "normal day" photo shows people working on laptops in all sorts of
uncomfortable positions.

Does being like a family preclude you from using desks and chairs like normal
people, or I'm missing something?

Or maybe you work 10 minutes at a time and have a break. It's the only way I
can imagine working in that space.

~~~
normloman
I noticed this too. Seems distracting as hell to have everyone in the same
tiny living room. It's fun for movie night, but not a place I'd wanna work.

