> It's not a matter of friendship, but of interests.
This is a good point, but missing one of the big things that affect dynamics: there is typically a huge imbalance of power between an employee and employer, so most often if your interests diverge, the employee will lose. The worst case scenario for this can be terrible, even for an employee who has done nothing wrong.
> It isn't your friend, in the sense that even if your boss may personally be your friend - the company has an interest that's contradictory to yours:
This depends on who your employer is: if your boss is your employer, and not just a higher ranked employee of the employer’s, your employer can be exactly as much of a friend as your boss is.
A network of current and ex-co-workers is valuable. The point I was trying to make was that a person shouldn't stay in a position solely out of a sense of comradery or loyalty to one's co-workers.
> Coupled with a bias towards an employee's best interest, I think saying "can't" is reasonable.
I was pointing out your bias, and now I will point out that even your expression "an employee's best interest" is likewise biased. Not that I feel differently, of course, however there are people who are fiercely loyal to companies for a variety of reasons that you or I may not embrace.
The OP, for example, wants to go back to work at Microsoft. Why is this wrong? He obviously identifies strongly with the company and obtains some emotional satisfaction from his association with them.
Let's compare and contrast to relationships. Many people fall into relatinships I would consider asymmetrical: One person is more fiercely loyal than the other. Many people feel this is a bad thing, and indeed some peopel are hurt in these affairs, especially if they secretly wish the other person to reciprocate in kind.
Yet there are people who are perfectly happy to be in these relationships where they are the expendable party. The movie "Adaptation" featured an example of this where one of the two Nicholas Cage characters describes having a High School crush on a girl that despised him. His "twin brother" felt differently, of course.
Please don't misunderstand, I fully agree with you that being an "expendable asset" is not financially advantageous, however I can't ignore the fact that may people out there seem to derive some satisfaction from such employment and I'm not sure they are ignorant of the potential consequences.
I conclude that there are people who are being perfectly realistic and rational about such employment choices, even if they are not the choices I would embrace.
At the start of his post, Ben Horowitz delineates between between "Important business partners" and "true friends".
The problem with the consensus argument here on HN that "if the other CEO no longer wants to be friends then it was a lousy friendship to begin with" is that we're talking about the former distinction. IE it never was a 'friendship' friendship to begin with.
In other words, it's not that the other CEO is no longer going to have you over for Thanksgiving Dinner but that you may now have strategically pissed of a valuable strategic partner.
Too many variables really to be able to cover a blanket one-size-all rule but I do think I would pass if the employee was in a vital role at a key vendor that would seriously damage my business if the vendor re-negotiated terms or withdrew service. Which they could in spite or even simply out of a perceived new conflict of interest with IP transfer in the hire.
No because it's not a friendship between two people; it's a working relationship between two entities.
Be thankful you reached an agreement to get paid for work from the company that provides you a living; however, there is no loyalty beyond the work that you promised to do once the contract is signed.
At the end of the day, you are two entities mutually benefiting from a working relationship. Beyond the work, there is no loyalty nor should there be any expectation of one from either side.
The company's purpose is to make money for its stakeholders. If you are a hinderance to that purpose, then you'll be cut. The company won't proactively look for another position for you no matter how many years of experience you have with them or how you stuck up for them to disgruntled workers. They don't hear or care about that. If you can't bring them profit, then you are gone.
Of course, there will be individuals who stick up for you or find a position for you at the company, but that is a human being and not an abstract entity (aka the company).
But also your fellow employees would not be wrong to leave their job (and hence you) if a better opportunity presented itself, and I don't think they should be disparaged for making that choice. Such is the peril of friendship via work.
> IMHO eventually employers will see which employees they should invest in in which they should let go.
A yes company loyalty.
Unless you are talking about small family business, the only loyalty companies have is to share holders and investors, believing otherwise is setting yourself up for a bitter surprise.
This is exactly why I won't hire good friends. The personal relations would skew business sense then, on both sides in order to stay loyal to your friends. This skew can be dangerous for business, and thus for the well-being of those who are involved and bet on its success.
> There are very few successful companies that don't go to great lengths to minimize employee turnover because it's economically beneficial.
Loyalty is not minimizing turnover when the times are good. Loyalty is
going out of one's way to protect the other side even when something bad
happens to either side of the relationship.
> One thing companies overlook is employee loyalty.
Loyalty? Why would anyone have loyalty to a company unless the company has shown significant loyalty to them first? And how would a company show loyalty? I don't mean your team or manager covering for you when something comes up or things like that. That should engender loyalty to those people. That is different from loyalty to the company. I might go further and say that loyalty to a company is wrongheaded. Loyalty to mission or ideal, sure. Loyalty to people. Loyalty to the function in society that needs to be fulfilled in order for society to work (garbage has to be picked up, sewers have to function).
But a company? It's an exchange of my time acting in their interests for their money. A legal abstraction and corresponding rituals that we use in our society as a unit of organization. It's like being loyal to your filing system.
And after the nonsense Francis dealt with, it's hard to imagine why he would feel loyalty to anyone involved in the direction and management of the company. He probably should have chosen his coworkers that he used for references more carefully, too.
"But since starting my professional life 17 years ago, I’ve seen many friends who “gave it all” as employees, only to be spit out when they were no longer needed."
What should one expect from a working relationship? Companies are there to make a profit, plain and simple. You are one of the many resources that allows them to do that.
"use your social network to promote the company, recruit friends to the team, go to events in the evening, and use your personal equipment."
Companies may expect this, but I will never give this much to a company..unless it's my own or I have a significant share. You just need to learn to say no. If enough people do this, companies won't expect it.
My advice is to only do this when you need to prove yourself/get your foot in the door/you are trying to build some experience because you are first starting out.
"All of this would be fine if employees benefited from their sacrifice in the same way their bosses do"
Employees don't benefit a much, because they often times either aren't making key decisions, don't have as much money or reputation on the line. You get rewarded more for a larger risk or a unique ability.
Would you open up a credit line in your name in exchange for a percentage of the company? If the company tanks, you owe that money to the bank.
This is what pretty much all business owners go thought and most employees aren't willing to risk.
"Bullshit! A business isn’t a bloodline. A business is a business, and anyone who treats it otherwise will be disappointed."
Totally agree. This is a way to make it difficult to quit and guilt you into staying when things get rough.
"If your company gets acquired for $30 million (good luck!), your 0.1% is worth $30,000 (at best). Acquired for $1 million? You get $1,000. Crash and burn? 0.1% of zero is zero."
The problem with numbers like this is that every situation is different. A company that takes in tons of VC and is overvalued and then sold a few years later, will pay out to the VC first.
You also need to learn to read contracts (or get a lawyer to do it for you) and never sign something you don't understand or want. I take the emotion out of business and it makes things much easier.
"At least a startup gives you a “lottery’s chance” of being rewarded as an employee."
If you want a chance to make millions, don't work for a startup, create your own. The risk is much higher, but so is the reward.
"I don’t think you should give your best ideas to your employer."
I agree here too. I always saved my best ideas for myself and now run a profitable company with those ideas. My old boss is bankrupt.
"Create a side-project. Do something independently. Carve out a piece of your life, and mold it your way."
Be careful though. Many companies (especially in silicon valley) lay claim to all of your work.
I personally won't sign contracts like this and will specifically list all of my current businesses/side projects as my own and get it in writing. It's never really been a problem for me.
The post is narrowly focused. Unless the author plans to make no friends with anyone at a place where most people spend more than half of his awake hours, his plan is insufficient to make it easier to leave a job. At this point, I would say letting down my peers and friends at work is a strong motivation for me. Perhaps in the eyes of some people, perhaps the author, caring about what others think of me makes me somehow weaker or less "rational". As a matter of preference, I would rather trade off some independence for the benefits of friendship and camaraderie.
Furthermore, his argument is unrealistic. Most of us don't compare one job with no benefits vs. another with benefits. The situation in the Bay Area at least means that we are often comparing jobs with very similar benefits. Thus, the benefits offered by my current employer is nullified by the equally good benefits of the competing offer, just as companies offering the benefits hope they would do. In the end, most jobs in the Bay Area are fairly comparable in terms of benefits and pay. What matters are the less tangible things: culture, opportunity, challenge, etc. The biggest factor that's keeping me at my company right now are the friends I've made there over the years and I have no regrets about having tied myself down with friendship.
It's not about colluding, it's just that the new CEO is bound to not hire you out of loyalty to his/her friend. Social laws and laws on the books don't always line up well.
> Employees aren't friends and really shouldn't be.
That's a fine view to take! But don't come rattling the cup around going "but poor founders, so lonely, nobody to talk to" when they've made that choice.
> No company is loyal to its employees. People are capable of loyalty, but companies are simply not capable of loyalty.
This is a good point. I have had bosses I liked and trusted and I trusted them, but not the "company" as such. If you replaced them, it wouldn't be the same. Maybe I'd be able to trust the new person or maybe I wouldn't, but that's what would matter.
That aside, the company culture and rules can influence whether it's more likely to hire good people or bad ones. There are some companies set up to do regular layoffs and compete strongly enough that people are sabotaging each other and that just seems miserable.
I work for a place now that's a quiet, enjoyable workplace where everyone is trying to help each other do better while getting good compensation. Maybe I could make a bit more somewhere else, but I'm not sure it'd be worth giving up what I have now. Most people who work here have really long tenures (10+ years) and that's a good thing.
> don't be surprised when employees treat you as interchangeable in return.
how could it be otherwise? The concepts of "company loyalty" from the employee and "being taken care of" by the company always baffled me. Why would you think a company is going to take care of you? Why would a company expect loyalty from an employee? A deal is a deal, if either side doesn't uphold their part of the agreement then the agreement is over. I don't see how it can be otherwise.
> Why aren't employees more loyal to their employers?
Because employers are not loyal to their employees in the slightest. A minor
financial bump leads to layoffs. A controversial opinion leads to being fired.
A tasteless but otherwise harmless joke leads to being fired. No regular
significant raises unless the employee changes the jobs. Freshly hired
employee getting higher salary for the same position, what makes it look like
the company puts a tax on the employees that stayed there longer instead of
rewarding them. No systematic, predictable, and generally available way to
learn new skills, so the employee is stuck forever on the same position unless
changes the jobs.
Why would anybody offer their loyalty in return for virtually nothing?
This is a good point, but missing one of the big things that affect dynamics: there is typically a huge imbalance of power between an employee and employer, so most often if your interests diverge, the employee will lose. The worst case scenario for this can be terrible, even for an employee who has done nothing wrong.
reply