They also wrote a blog post on being laid off here:
Ford learned, as everyone does in manufacturing, that the “1,000 things” an intrinsically motivated, long term employee does are not interchangeable.
It was Taylor (of Taylorism) who proposed companies should work this way. It has never been proven to work & often disproven.
In every org, that I’ve personally seen the inside of, the concept of interchangeable talent has been an utter fiction.
Even at franchises, one key employee is often the difference between success & disaster.
However, our leadership class has both a social and educated POV that is articulated in this post.
While I don’t disagree that a shareholder-return driven entity can never properly appreciate the value of individual team members, Henry Ford took the case all the way to the Supreme Court to fight against that. He lost.
The preternatural rise of the entrepreneurial spirit - wherever it occurs - rarely devalues loyal, thoughtful team members. Those that do are sending up a flare gun that they are pushing to an exit with little concern for what happens after they cash out.
Unfortunately we’ve hit the zenith where finance philosophies (which is what they are, not facts) have become so ubiquitous it’s career suicide to say otherwise.
I’m so grateful founding is still a viable alternative path.
If I am looking for a co-founder, who that person and their very unique combination of skills, perspectives, etc, matters a ton. If I am looking for SRE #20,000 for a FAANG, I need them to do the basic SRE role in a way that aligns with how we think about our caliber and culture. Obviously the person can do that in their own way to an extent, but we're not really looking for them to have insights like "actually, I don't think reliability matter - I am gonna stop doing it"
First of all, "If I am looking for a co-founder, who that person and their very unique combination of skills, perspectives, etc, matters a ton." Is that not just a well defined slot by another name? It sounds like your whole process is slots from conception to death.
"Obviously the person can do that in their own way to an extent", can they? This feels like a platitude. I can't speak to the SRE roll but most places I've worked you might get to choose from a list of pre-written algorithms and a few small UX details. And when you talk about collaborating on larger problems most individuals don't usually even get a choice of code style.
At a mature company I will agree that no, you shouldn't be hiring SRE's for product insight. Unless they fit into an insanely small bucket insight into your product is well outside of their scope. A contracting firm like McKinsey & Company would be a better fit for that kind of guidance. But tech insight? yes, you should be getting that from your SREs.
Also your example "insight" just feels... bad faith.
It's very possible I read into your comment to much and you were just saying "it is what it is". And I agree, it's just that I also think... https://yarn.co/yarn-clip/b097417f-9a28-4369-af3a-6739f1d361...
I've frustrated just about every manager I've had because of this. On the flip side, my spirit has allowed me to pursue paths others had dismissed. This has led to many situations where I've accomplished something that was thought to be impossible, or made significant improvements that compound and would not have been prioritized otherwise.
Everyone does their job with love and belief until they get punched in the face with a pink slip.