Trouble Hiring? Create A Cult - Shortage of IT People in Silicone Valley

[ilconsiglliere]

http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/31/trouble-hiring-create-a-cult/

Maybe there is a shortage in Silicone Valley but there certainly isnt a shortage anywhere else.

[David Randolph]

I once rode a bicycle across Iowa with a name tag saying I was from Silicone Valley - the home of all those fake boobs.

Part of the problem is that VC money has been concentrated in Silicon Valley. That money has been going in cycles - boom in the 80's, bust, boom in the late 90's, dot-com bust, now another boom. That pushes the technical talent out of state to places more stable.

Let us weep crocodile tears for those VC funded companies with no profit trying to make another Facebook clone and promising the programmers all this money when they go public.

[choppedwood]

This, article, is actually correct.  I work very hard to avoid commuting, because it's brutal here, but social media in San Francisco is where the work is.  Brush up on your Javascript / JQuery, AJAX or whatever and go work for a 25 year old.

[The Gorn]

It sounds so similar to the late 90s when people who coded HTML or Perl were pulling down almost $100K in some situations. The hiring market was completely distorted in one particular region for one kind of skill.

Look how that ended for those people.

[Richardk]

$100K for HTML or Perl - I wish.

That article makes it sound like jobs are plentiful and employers can't shower you with enough money / benefits to stay. Here in the Midwest you can find jobs but skill lists are long and many salaries are lackluster. "Real companies" still pay decently but I've also seen 38% pay cuts from one large employer and SMB's offering IT jobs at $10 / hour.

At the same time I've heard from employers stating that they can't find qualified people and it's not just in IT. One had a long list of requirements and got plenty of applicants at twice the posted salary.

So unlike Silicone Valley, either our employers are expecting too much or our employees are. Both seem to want money in their pockets instead of the other guys.

[I D Shukhov]

Well, thanks for posting this.  The old-time robber baron capitalists had nothing on these millennials when it comes to managing  human resources/factors of production. 

By building a sense of family, you build lasting connections between your employees that will keep them motivated and around

Except it really isn't a family, is it?   It's like appealing to a 18 y/o's yearning to prove their manhood and sense of adventure to join the military and go fight somewhere.  The need is genuine but it's being manipulated to serve the need of others -- in this case, the business owners.

[Richardk]

By building a sense of family, you build lasting connections between your employees that will keep them motivated and around

Except it really isn't a family, is it?   It's like appealing to a 18 y/o's yearning to prove their manhood and sense of adventure to join the military and go fight somewhere.  The need is genuine but it's being manipulated to serve the need of others -- in this case, the business owners.

That's exactly it; It's not a family. When they say 'we take care of our own' they mean the top few people and you're actually the 'extended family', too far out to help.

OK, I guess that works for joining the military or young employees starting out in a good company but I still question the motives as being more manipulation and less genuine care of the employees. 

[David Randolph]

And more importantly, it works by manipulating the biological need of late teens/early twenties to be part of a tribe. That is one reason why the companies do not want to hire older people; those older people see through the manipulation.

[I D Shukhov]

And more importantly, it works by manipulating the biological need of late teens/early twenties to be part of a tribe. That is one reason why the companies do not want to hire older people; those older people see through the manipulation.

Right.  It may also manipulate the desire to *rejoin* the family.  I went away to college just before my 18th birthday, promptly dropped out during the 1969-70 class  boycotts and didn't go back to school (back at home) until I was 21.  By that time I felt closer to my family.  I might have shown some interest in signing on to a vision like what is being cynically promoted in the article to manage their workers.   I probably would not have been very good material, though.   I  always find some way to find problems with organizations like that and leave.  I've never been a joiner.

[The Gorn]

I might have shown some interest in signing on to a vision like what is being cynically promoted in the article to manage their workers.   I probably would not have been very good material, though.   I  always find some way to find problems with organizations like that and leave.  I've never been a joiner.

I think the line between cult and standard business practices is pretty blurry. How about Japanese auto makers like Honda in the US that have worker calisthenics to start the work day?

If you started a worker-owned co-op (the model that you discuss frequently) I am certain that you'd have to kick start the motivation for new hires with similar practices.

I'm not sure it's that cynical. It's more like pragmatic. Or it's reinforcing behavior. Take your pick. Having group lunches (hopefully optional) probably works to bond a team.

Most innovative businesses develop that culture. They feel they have to promote their secret sauce continually.

[I D Shukhov]

I might have shown some interest in signing on to a vision like what is being cynically promoted in the article to manage their workers.   I probably would not have been very good material, though.   I  always find some way to find problems with organizations like that and leave.  I've never been a joiner.

I think the line between cult and standard business practices is pretty blurry. How about Japanese auto makers like Honda in the US that have worker calisthenics to start the work day?

If you started a worker-owned co-op (the model that you discuss frequently) I am certain that you'd have to kick start the motivation for new hires with similar practices.

I'm not sure it's that cynical. It's more like pragmatic. Or it's reinforcing behavior. Take your pick. Having group lunches (hopefully optional) probably works to bond a team.

Most innovative businesses develop that culture. They feel they have to promote their secret sauce continually.

Gorn, I think the ownership and governance structure decides whether morale-boosting strategies are manipulative or genuinely trying to help the members of an organization.

If owners decide that some activity is going to boost morale for non-owners with the idea that the non-owners will therefore be more productive and make them more money, then that's manipulative.   That's what the article was all about. 

If worker-cooperators get together and democratically decide that some some activity will help them perform better and make their business better, then that's self-help.

Granted, employees can still say they have an interest in the company they work for, that they want it to do well so that their jobs will be more secure, but it's not the same thing.

[The Gorn]

If owners decide that some activity is going to boost morale for non-owners with the idea that the non-owners will therefore be more productive and make them more money, then that's manipulative.   That's what the article was all about. 

And I thought I was the top cynic on this board.

That does not even begin to reach the bar of manipulation.

The article said:

Instead, focus on providing an environment that builds community within your company. Often heard example: provide company lunches. It isn’t just efficient, but it increases opportunities for serendipitous discussion over meal times and employees will be more likely to become friends. The more friends at a company, the more enjoyable the job and the more you want to stay where you are.

My friend Matt Brezina’s company, Sincerely, creators of postcard sharing app Postagram, goes beyond that. The entire company takes week-long workcations in Mexico. They heavily recruit within social circles and when a candidate flies in for an interview they will put him up in an Airbnb in a neighborhood he would be likely to live, and the team will spend the weekend hanging out with him. By building a sense of family, you build lasting connections between your employees that will keep them motivated and around.

This doesn't feel sinister or even manipulative in the least. I think the writer is trying to create a bit of an attention getting "pop" by using the word "cult."

I'd call this heavy influencing. Maybe not even that heavy. It's more like a very heavy handed company culture.

Some of the stuff in this quote, I would not be interested in participating in ("AirBNB" is a way to essentially sell the use of your home to overnight visitors from the general public - NO THANKS in either direction - get a business license to operate a B&B and then we can talk - but I guess kids would see it as great fun). But none of it rises to the standard of manipulation.

I consider "manipulation" to be the case when a person is influenced to do something that normally they would refuse doing, usually through deception.

[Carrie Cobol]

I think the line between cult and standard business practices is pretty blurry. How about Japanese auto makers like Honda in the US that have worker calisthenics to start the work day?

If you started a worker-owned co-op (the model that you discuss frequently) I am certain that you'd have to kick start the motivation for new hires with similar practices.

I'm not sure it's that cynical. It's more like pragmatic. Or it's reinforcing behavior. Take your pick. Having group lunches (hopefully optional) probably works to bond a team.

Most innovative businesses develop that culture. They feel they have to promote their secret sauce continually.

As my weight continues to go up while I get stiff from sitting 9 hours a day, I've often thought it might be nice for the company culture to make us all stand up and stretch or do a short walk once or twice a day.  Having a gym in the main building is nice... for the people in the main building.  I'm not going to drive over there to work out, though.  Like everybody else, I have obligations before and after work.

Anyway, it might be off topic, or just the opposite pendulum swing, but I've seen team building go wrong.  I think if a company is too big, they shouldn't even try that, because management at that level has no clue what the workers need or want.  I'm thinking of the defense contractor I worked at.  Once they hosted an ice cream social, which sounded fantastic.  It failed in execution, because everybody went and talked shop within their own project teams.  The same company tried rearranging our cubicle assignments to mix up the teams on the theory that we'd get to know each other and make a tighter large team.  Wrong again.  Of course this was the culture where people wouldn't even say hi passing you in the hall unless they knew you.

[The Gorn]

...but I've seen team building go wrong.  I think if a company is too big, they shouldn't even try that, because management at that level has no clue what the workers need or want.  (examples provided)

Carrie, extremely insightful. Agreed. Great point.

The team building usually works where it is needed. A big company doesn't really need it, or if they have it, it needs to be really low key and part of the background.

I used to think group calisthenics sounded like a cult, but any more, I don't think it's a bad idea if the group stuff is at the level of wellness promotion.

Calisthenics are not selling an idea or ideology or engaging in deception. They're to improve health.

[Walter Mitty]

Carrie,

Excellent points!

I'm going to lean on what I picked up in the Peace Corps once again. 

When the company gets involved in creating the ice cream social or rearranging the cubicle, they are taking on the role of "agent of cultural change".  A lot of people who take on this role do so with little, if any, understanding of the culture they are trying to change,  or of the desired culture that they are trying to create.  When they lack this understanding, things are almost guaranteed to go wrong.

Part of the trouble, especially for analytic types like most of us is that the courses that teach about culture, group psychology, interpersonal relationships, sensitivity and things like that all have the look and feel of touchy-feely let's sit down and sing kumbaya subject matter that lacks any real substance.  We want things to be concrete and objective.  That's what we like about computing.  I include myself in this.

There is actually some meat in this subject matter, but it's lot more amorphous than how to code in java.  And it's often taught wrong.

When it comes to the "company urged exercise break",  I remember how I reacted when I first saw Japanese companies doing this.  "How paternalistic", I thought.  "I could never adapt to an employer like this."  But the thing is,  Japanese culture is much less averse to paternalism than I am.