

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

======
arkitaip
"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.

~~~
DannyBee
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.

~~~
zeidrich
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.

~~~
DannyBee
I agree you should fire the slackers. But that is a policy, and you've focused
on them and structured it around dealing with them, which goes against what he
just said you should do :)

~~~
absconditus
I think that he means do not do things like create a process that everyone
must follow, full of red tape, simply because your worst employees cannot
perform a task correctly.

------
dyno12345
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?

~~~
sageikosa
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.

~~~
calinet6
My dad's was "Bye! Don't be stupid!"

It was endearing, and it stuck.

------
jheriko
"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
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.

------
ry0ohki
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
He covers this point in the first paragraph, basically saying that they aren't
worth your time. In short, fire them.

------
hipsters_unite
"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.

~~~
slantyyz
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.

------
gohwell
"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
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
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."

~~~
pekk
If you can afford not to get paid for months...

------
GhotiFish
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
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
That is exceptionally deep, my friend.

