
Zappos offers new employees $3000 to quit after a week - chrislloyd
http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/sep2008/sb20080916_288698.htm
======
bryanlarsen
Turning down $3000 requires people to internalize a solid commitment to the
company. And engenders a huge sense of camaraderie when you know that
everybody else you work with has also turned down the money.

And they get these two massive effects by _NOT_ giving away money. It's worth
the $3000 to get rid of employees who aren't that committed, but that's minor
compared to the effects on the employees who stay.

~~~
markng
I wonder how well this would work were it extended further into employment,
too. A $3000 bonus to quit when you've worked somewhere for x years and are
still in a job because of habit or fear could be a nice way to get rid of dead
weight.

------
joshklein
FYI, this article is back from September 2008. I'm not sure whether or not
this practice is still in place now that they've grown exponentially.

~~~
wheaties
Yeah, doubt the same thing can be done in today's climate where we have a 10%
unemployment rate.

~~~
j_baker
If anything, that would mean that they could offer more. With 10%
unemployment, not only would people be less likely to take the money, but it
would be easier to find new people.

~~~
wheaties
Yes, they could offer more but the choice of an easy 3k and then a quick stint
of unemployment then versus the long stint of unemployment makes 3k a
pittance. Having a job is so overwhelmingly important these days that even
something as "large" as 3k pails in comparison.

------
jim_h
Is that $3,000 after taxes or before?

It's not really that much (either way) unless you really needed the instant
money on the spot. $3000 might only be 2-3 weeks of pay or less.

Offer $10,000 and see how well it works out.

~~~
sdizdar
As far as I know this is offered for $15/hour call center people in Las Vegas
(or something like that). Friend of mine told me that is about $2000 in first
week and then after training it is $3000. This is quite significant chunk of
money for Las Vegas area.

I have no reference or proof that above is how it works, just information from
person who is familiar with Zappos.

~~~
j_baker
Wow? For a call center? I know that if the call center I worked for in college
did that, there wouldn't be anyone left after training.

~~~
wilzy
It would have been hard for the people you speak of to obtain a job at Zappos
in the first place.

------
mynameishere
That's about what banks offer people in foreclosure to quietly leave the house
and not destroy anything. Same thinking.

------
redthrowaway
I'd be really interested to see how well this would scale. There's two
problems, as I see it:

1) Larger company with more employees means more applicants, and likely a
lower overall quality of applicant. Responsibly maintaining this system would
require more HR to conduct more in-depth interviews, etc. I can see them
reaching a point where this is no longer profitable for them.

2) Corporate environment changes as companies grow. An expansion of the
bureaucracy, though necessary to manage a larger workforce, legal team, client
relations, etc, tends to kill the entrepreneurial atmosphere that attracts
quality applicants in the first place. The kinds of people who want to join a
startup and are willing to turn down a chunk of cash just for the opportunity
to work there are likely not the kind of people who are itching to join a
large Amazon subsidiary.

I could be grossly mistaken on this last point, and would be quite interested
to hear how things have worked out for Zappos in this regard.

------
DrJosiah
$3k or even $10k (as another commenter suggested) to bail out on a company
that you just started at, is a way of making the people who really don't like
the company not feel bad about leaving. Even at great companies, there are
people who join who hate the environment, culture, or whatever. They are
miserable. But they stay because they need a job. The walking money of $3k is
a matter of getting rid of them, which is a great investment for the company.

For people who like a company, or who really want the job, a quick $3k isn't
worthwhile. And in the case of Zappos, I'm sure that they've generally had
people stay longer, lower attrition rate, etc., primarily because they've
gotten rid of the people who would generally be a drag on the company, because
they've already bought them out.

------
zachware
Perhaps this is a late comment but as a new Zappos hire I can attest that
Zappos still makes this offer (and now it's $3,000 and is valid for 3 weeks
after training). The reason is two fold.

First, Zappos wants to retain employees that _want_ to be here. The culture is
unlike anyplace you'll ever work. For some people it's attractive from the
outside but overwhelming once you get in the door. Zappos wants to provide an
enticement to help you make the decision to leave in case you want to.

More importantly, Zappos realizes that for a lot of people, staying in a job
is a matter of finances. I may be miserable but I can't afford to miss a
paycheck or two. For a lot of people, $3,000 can provide a few weeks or more
of stability to help them find a new job. It makes fiscal sense.

------
jmount
Likely any benefit is a cognitive dissonance type effect. The article says
that only 2-3% take the offer (so not much of a filtering effect) and that
while you would think people would come in and abuse the offer HR doesn't seem
to have a lot of special pre-screening. So likely the idea is to get the new
employee to value the position as the internalize the lost value of the money
they just turned down to continue the position. Not so much filtering people
as attempting to nudge them a bit.

------
brianlash
I wonder if this is one of those things that's more effective when no one
knows about it in advance. Otherwise it works like marketing to new hires
which - at least it seems - might somewhat defeat the purpose.

------
tieTYT
I think there's a typo in the title. The article says it's $2000, not $3000.

~~~
mikeklaas
> [Note: The bonus amount increased by $1,000 since the Bill Taylor piece.]

------
pmiller2
I wonder if 97% will still stay when the economy gets better and there's a
reasonable certainty of finding another job in short order.

~~~
dalke
I'm lead to believe that if you're the type of person who would leave for that
reason then Zappos doesn't want you as an employee.

~~~
oiujhygtfyhjuk
The money isn't about the sort of person that would leave for $3k.

It's about people who immediately discovered they don't want to work there -
but can't leave after a month because they just paid an apartment deposit, or
moving costs. These people are going to spend the next 3-6months looking for
work while costing you money. That's who you desperately want to get rid of on
day 1.

Most companies do exactly the opposite - they hire you in Nowheresville Nev
but if you leave after a month you have a big chunk of
location/training/recruitment expenses to pay back. These companies are
actively forcing you to stay there - hating them - for 6/9 months while you
job hunt. And they somehow think the rules boost 'retention'!

------
codyguy
when did they start doing this? Was it in the initial days too?

------
sundae79
Mind games like this has a name when a SO tries something similar.

~~~
istari
When your SO is paying you they have a name for that as well.

