Comment by nine_k | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nine_k | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Why, this makes sense.

In every industry, there are employees whose influence on the company success is outsized, and who are hard to hire or train. In software industry, they are experienced engineers and product managers. In a fashionable restaurant, they are experienced cooks. In an airforce, they are experienced pilots and repairmen. Etc.

When these people are happy with their work, they achieve great results. When they are unhappy, they look for ways to conveniently jump ship, because they have a number of opportunities elsewhere waiting for them to become available. They are in short supply. Every boss has an incentive to keep these people content and loyal.

OTOH every industry has positions for which supply is plentiful, compared to demand. Aspiring game developers without experience, dish washers, burger flippers, etc, can be readily hired, paid little, and easily fired, too. There is no incentive for their bosses to walk an extra mile to keep them happ, especially when pressing them a bit more yields an extra bit of performance, so they mostly aren't happy about their jobs.

Look at the success Trader Joe's and Costco have had. Either company could replace the happy, experienced checkers, who care about what they're doing and how they're doing it with $10/hr people who have no stake in what's going on. The important distinction is the stake that your employees take in what's happening.

The people who are closest to and most affected by problems are the best suited to solve them. If you hire a fleet of people who don't care about solving those problems, they won't get solved. You hire a fleet of people who give a shit day in and day out, you're going to get those nagging issues that, in the long run, cost you the most.

Those companies that think that boots on the ground are replaceable in any industry overestimate the importance of management.

I rely on my people to keep me abreast of the issues, as a manager, that I need to be aware of. I expect them to fix the issues that are within their power to fix and escalate the rest of them.

Ultimate stake is that the employees are also the owners themselves.

This is why a (small) grant of stock, or at least options, is a typical way to pay part of the compensation for higher-level employees.

Reminded me of a Jocko Willink quote I just came across today:

"People that don't love what they're doing, that don't like what they're doing, they have problems. They're not enjoying it, they're not putting in the extra hours, they're not being creative in trying to find new solutions. So when you love something and you're passionate about it, you put the extra effort into it naturally, you try and get creative with it naturally, and you end up more successful naturally because it's something that you care about."

Another hypothesis that equally well explains the data: employees at successful companies tend to be happy because the rising tide lifts (almost) all boats. Companies that are doing poorly will tend to look to cut staff, wages, and benefits, which could be a source of unhappiness. Etc. I don't really think the evidence presented here gives much reason to believe that seeking the well-being of your employees will do anything for the bottom line. OTOH, it's easy for me to believe that improving the top line will improve your employees' happiness.

> Another hypothesis that equally well explains the data

As noted in other comments, this DID check for causation and found employee happiness led the benefits, not the other way around.

You can't check for causation unless you manipulate a subsample of the companies randomly.

Article: "However, the authors cite studies of changes within individual firms and organisations which seem to show that improvements in employee morale precede gains in productivity, rather than the other way round."

A theory could be that employers see the improvement in productivity before they are measureble by the methods employed and therefore are happier. E.g. bad processes are replaced which gives happier employees before the gains are evident.

Right. Sometimes you can eliminate obvious correlates, but it's quite difficult to eliminate all of them.

My point is that you have to keep your key people content, else they will leave. During a downturn, you especially want your key engineers, best sales reps, most well-connected customer liaisons to stay around. If they leave, this will hit the bottom line, and getting a replacement will be expensive, or often impossible. This is a known way into oblivion [1].

There are booming industries where the boom mostly floats top executive boats, though. Ask an Uber driver, or an Amazon warehouse worker.

[1]: https://steveblank.com/2009/12/21/the-elves-leave-middle-ear...

Hey I'm an Amazon warehouse worker, and while I would have to agree, I love the chances to climb to management or an actual career. I'm part of the career choice program which pays for 95% of my college tuition, fees, and books for an IT program (which I chose). The job is boring but not too difficult. I know others might say otherwise though.

Great to know!

Now you need the job more then the job needs you; eventually you may find yourself in a position where employers compete to have you in the team instead.

> There is no incentive for their bosses to walk an extra mile to keep them happ, especially when pressing them a bit more yields an extra bit of performance, so they mostly aren't happy about their jobs

That's the theory - but I don't see the distinction you listed ever proven. People do it because it's the easiest thing, that doesn't make it the best thing. I can just as easily theorycraft that happy employees improve production ACROSS THE BOARD, with lasting and compounding results. The studies that argue this never make the distinction you've listed.

Yes, having everyone happy is likely the best long-term policy.

Pressuring a bit on the suckers that got to cling to their jobs still looks like a good short-term policy, especially if the higher-up executing it is also not very happy but is clinging to the job.

That is, the best org is where everyone is level 4 or 5 on the "Tribal leadership" scale [1], but a lot of orgs are at level 2 at the lowest rungs.

[1]: https://emergentbydesign.com/2012/06/28/a-step-by-step-guide...

I suspect one aspect behind these connections in both directions - agency. Those who have outsized influence can make increasing demands and gain more control over the enterprise. If they are competent their changes will have a positive impact, they feel motivated and both company and them will experience growth. If not well either it gets corrected or things go pathological and they and/or the enterprise goes downhill.

The reverse where employees feel restricted is bad for both productivity and morale. While procedures have their place (more consistentcy) they also have costs. That sort of strategy may actually work in some cases or be neccessary but it often caps or bottlenecks growth both individually and institutionally. For example medicine is a conservative field partially because of the complexity of the body and the stakes. For every "germ theory" introduction of experimental ideas there are thousands of "just try high doses of amphetamines or radium to strengthen the heart"!

Most of the happiless business seems susceptible of robotization.

Robots aren't going to give you feedback on how to improve the customer experience, or implement kaizen workflow improvements.

This comment just gave me hope for humanity :)

What's being left out is unhappy, discardable employees cost you customers. Customers you would otherwise have never get put in the spreadsheet.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com