You have a weird, flawed and very pessimist view of the business world, if not the world in general.
Weird? Flawed? Pessimistic?
The business giant, Andy Grove had a philosophy that served him well during his leadership at Intel: "Only the paranoid survive."
Just a daily reminder that you could make a series of bad business decisions or external pressures could lead to the downfall of your company are worth keeping in mind when you have a business.
You're saying that giving people more time off...away from work...makes them more productive? How does that work?
Would you work for a company that gives you 1 week of vacation or one that gives you 3 weeks of vacation? All else being equal. Do you want people to burn out or quit?
It's about retaining your employees while attracting potential ones.
Would you work for a company that gives you 1 week of vacation or one that gives you 3 weeks of vacation? All else being equal. Do you want people to burn out or quit?
It's about retaining your employees while attracting potential ones.
Quite honestly, most large companies have been forced to get rid of full-time permanent employees due to legal liabilities and other competitive pressures. Considering the high number of negatives (from the employers perspective) most people are lucky to have any kind of job.
Keeping a startup mentality is a very good idea no matter how big the company. The alternative is... Microsoft.
Anyone who has EVER been in a real god damn start-up wouldn't say that. You can't stay in a start-up mentality more than 2-3 years.
I've been in 3 start-ups in 25 years and let me tell you, you cannot handle it at flame out level for more than 2-3 years. Simply IMPOSSIBLE.
Neither, Google, Apple., Amazon or Facebook are close to being run like start-ups internally these days. In the case of Apple, it hasn't been run like a real start-up since the early 1980s and the case of Google, probably around 2004. Stretching the definition of start-up I could maybe believe a 1998-2002 Apple being run as a "startup-up". But, hey, I knew people at Apple then and non worked as hard as I did...
When you have so many employees, cohesion that exists in a start-up by the fact you are small and know everyone collapses and keeping people motivated becomes a much larger issue. Many tech companies with weak supporting departments, especially HR, have collapsed under their own weight.
The core of a company, can sort of look like a pseudo start-up because of the high cohesiveness due to small number of people involved and the fact they're mostly all equally important to the success of the company individually. This is the kind of structure that can work even in large Tech firms and looks a bit what happens of Apples hierarchy.
Nice to have, but you know as soon as Apple runs into a down turn in business it will all go away. Company should never give what they can not support in both good and bad times. When things get bad and you take these kinds of perks then people tend to leave even faster and the good people leave first.
I think with hundreds of billions in the bank, they just might be able to swing it.
Would you work for a company that gives you 1 week of vacation or one that gives you 3 weeks of vacation? All else being equal. Do you want people to burn out or quit?
It's about retaining your employees while attracting potential ones.
Exactly.
Apple are trying to compete with Facebook, Netflix, Google et al for talent in Silicon Valley, and need to make sure they have benefits that will attract people.
When I'm hiring, I'm pretty sure I'll be able to beat Apple to the same person, partially because Apple is known to have a poor work life balance.
Nice to have, but you know as soon as Apple runs into a down turn in business it will all go away. Company should never give what they can not support in both good and bad times. When things get bad and you take these kinds of perks then people tend to leave even faster and the good people leave first.
Wow ... negative much? IMHO ... I don't see Apple is going to have many down times in the next few decades ...
Quite honestly, most large companies have been forced to get rid of full-time permanent employees due to legal liabilities and other competitive pressures. Considering the high number of negatives (from the employers perspective) most people are lucky to have any kind of job.
Nice to have, but you know as soon as Apple runs into a down turn in business it will all go away. Company should never give what they can not support in both good and bad times.
So they should not hire additional employees when they are growing?
Quite honestly, most large companies have been forced to get rid of full-time permanent employees due to legal liabilities and other competitive pressures. Considering the high number of negatives (from the employers perspective) most people are lucky to have any kind of job.
Wow. Stop digging, the hole you are in is deep enough.
Nice to have, but you know as soon as Apple runs into a down turn in business it will all go away. Company should never give what they can not support in both good and bad times. When things get bad and you take these kinds of perks then people tend to leave even faster and the good people leave first.
So give them close to nothing to start with & they will stick around until you give them less than that?
Anyone who has EVER been in a real god damn start-up wouldn't say that. You can't stay in a start-up mentality more than 2-3 years.
I've been in 3 start-ups in 25 years and let me tell you, you cannot handle it at flame out level for more than 2-3 years. Simply IMPOSSIBLE.
Neither, Google, Apple., Amazon or Facebook are close to being run like start-ups internally these days. In the case of Apple, it hasn't been run like a real start-up since the early 1980s and the case of Google, probably around 2004. Stretching the definition of start-up I could maybe believe a 1998-2002 Apple being run as a "startup-up". But, hey, I knew people at Apple then and non worked as hard as I did...
When you have so many employees, cohesion that exists in a start-up by the fact you are small and know everyone collapses and keeping people motivated becomes a much larger issue. Many tech companies with weak supporting departments, especially HR, have collapsed under their own weight.
The core of a company, can sort of look like a pseudo start-up because of the high cohesiveness due to small number of people involved and the fact they're mostly all equally important to the success of the company individually. This is the kind of structure that can work even in large Tech firms and looks a bit what happens of Apples hierarchy.
I've been in 2 startups in less than 20 years and disagree with your assessment.
Comments
Weird? Flawed? Pessimistic?
The business giant, Andy Grove had a philosophy that served him well during his leadership at Intel: "Only the paranoid survive."
Just a daily reminder that you could make a series of bad business decisions or external pressures could lead to the downfall of your company are worth keeping in mind when you have a business.
Would you work for a company that gives you 1 week of vacation or one that gives you 3 weeks of vacation? All else being equal. Do you want people to burn out or quit?
It's about retaining your employees while attracting potential ones.
Quite honestly, most large companies have been forced to get rid of full-time permanent employees due to legal liabilities and other competitive pressures. Considering the high number of negatives (from the employers perspective) most people are lucky to have any kind of job.
Keeping a startup mentality is a very good idea no matter how big the company. The alternative is... Microsoft.
Anyone who has EVER been in a real god damn start-up wouldn't say that. You can't stay in a start-up mentality more than 2-3 years.
I've been in 3 start-ups in 25 years and let me tell you, you cannot handle it at flame out level for more than 2-3 years. Simply IMPOSSIBLE.
Neither, Google, Apple., Amazon or Facebook are close to being run like start-ups internally these days. In the case of Apple, it hasn't been run like a real start-up since the early 1980s and the case of Google, probably around 2004. Stretching the definition of start-up I could maybe believe a 1998-2002 Apple being run as a "startup-up". But, hey, I knew people at Apple then and non worked as hard as I did...
When you have so many employees, cohesion that exists in a start-up by the fact you are small and know everyone collapses and keeping people motivated becomes a much larger issue. Many tech companies with weak supporting departments, especially HR, have collapsed under their own weight.
The core of a company, can sort of look like a pseudo start-up because of the high cohesiveness due to small number of people involved and the fact they're mostly all equally important to the success of the company individually. This is the kind of structure that can work even in large Tech firms and looks a bit what happens of Apples hierarchy.
I think with hundreds of billions in the bank, they just might be able to swing it.
Would you work for a company that gives you 1 week of vacation or one that gives you 3 weeks of vacation? All else being equal. Do you want people to burn out or quit?
It's about retaining your employees while attracting potential ones.
Exactly.
Apple are trying to compete with Facebook, Netflix, Google et al for talent in Silicon Valley, and need to make sure they have benefits that will attract people.
When I'm hiring, I'm pretty sure I'll be able to beat Apple to the same person, partially because Apple is known to have a poor work life balance.
Having always worked for very large companies it's nice to see one giving more to it's employees rather than taking away benefits.
Why don't you ask Richard Branson. He seems pretty successful.
Wow ... negative much? IMHO ... I don't see Apple is going to have many down times in the next few decades ...
So are you suggesting the more time people spend at work the more productive they will be?
In which case chain them to their workstation and restrain them from all non-work activities such as sleeping, eating and going to the toilet.
Quite honestly, most large companies have been forced to get rid of full-time permanent employees due to legal liabilities and other competitive pressures. Considering the high number of negatives (from the employers perspective) most people are lucky to have any kind of job.
You are insane.
Nice to have, but you know as soon as Apple runs into a down turn in business it will all go away. Company should never give what they can not support in both good and bad times.
So they should not hire additional employees when they are growing?
or give pay raises?
or benefits? (this article)
Now that is something the competitors won't ever copy
Quite honestly, most large companies have been forced to get rid of full-time permanent employees due to legal liabilities and other competitive pressures. Considering the high number of negatives (from the employers perspective) most people are lucky to have any kind of job.
Wow. Stop digging, the hole you are in is deep enough.
Nice to have, but you know as soon as Apple runs into a down turn in business it will all go away. Company should never give what they can not support in both good and bad times. When things get bad and you take these kinds of perks then people tend to leave even faster and the good people leave first.
So give them close to nothing to start with & they will stick around until you give them less than that?
What’s incorrect about what he said?
You must not think much of the minimum wage either. Say, didn't you once work for Dunder Mifflin?????
I've been in 2 startups in less than 20 years and disagree with your assessment.
If you're not actually doing anything, you're not being productive, now are you?