LinkedIn Founder institutes worker "Tours of Duty"

[dmcowen674]

7-14-2014

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/a-radical-approach-to-hiring-152858417.html

Reid Hoffman's radical approach to hiring



Reid Hoffman changed the way individuals networked and searched for jobs as co-founder of LinkedIn


Now the billionaire venture capitalist has plans for revolutionizing the way employees work. In his new book Hoffman outlines a new employee-employer contract -- one in which employees sign up for "tours of duty."



Reid instituted such a radical policy at LinkedIn; new hires were given a 2-year or 4-year tour of duty and if managers were pleased with their contributions, employees were awarded with another tour of duty

 

[dmcowen674]

Just another excuse to abuse employees with no raises and change them out with fresh ones.

 

[TheVrolok]

That's pretty funny.

 

[Babbles]

I bet it gets scrapped.

While I am not usually a fan of status quo, I do believe in some sense of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Looks like he is trying to change a system simply to change it. I think his attitude would build distrust and lack of confidence in employees. There is no reason for employees not to be on the job hunt. There is a lot to be said about loyalty but this seems to create disloyalty from day one.

 

[ch33zw1z]

*Tour of Doody

crappy idea.

 

[gotsmack]

so he wants to make permanent employees into contract employees. I don't like the uncertainty, but it'll get rid of the dead wood.

This is def going to erode the middle class. It's part of the race to the bottom. I can only see it working in upper management and project manager types of jobs.

 

[Brovane]

So can the employee be dismissed at will during the "tour of duty"?

 

[sunzt]

I bet it gets scrapped.

While I am not usually a fan of status quo, I do believe in some sense of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Looks like he is trying to change a system simply to change it. I think his attitude would build distrust and lack of confidence in employees. There is no reason for employees not to be on the job hunt. There is a lot to be said about loyalty but this seems to create disloyalty from day one.

Who says it ain't broke?

He has a point where the modern approach is dishonest and does not benefit both sides as much as it could.

http://www.businessinsider.com/management-advice-from-linkedin-founder-reid-hoffman-2014-7?op=1

A new hire gets hired and is exited to add value and contribute

The direct manager is warm, welcoming and colleagues tries to help the employee fit into the culture and "work family"

This gets the new hire exited about the opportunity and gets them hopeful of a long term commitment. Loyalty is high for the employee

Then HR comes in and tells/emphasizes the new hire that they are on a probation period and after that can be fired at anytime for any reason. Now the employee does not really consider the company as a long term commitment and is suddenly thinking of the next job during this conversation. The employee is more motivated to constantly scan for the next opportunity rather than focusing on maximizing their current opportunity. The employee is less engaged on their current job since the focus immediately becomes short-term vs long-term for the employee and the company.

Now management is stuck because they have trouble retaining employees and have to go back to square one again. Trust and loyalty between management, employees, and the company becomes harder to build and is not productive to long-term goals.

Companies can't innovate if everyone acts like free agents and no one is invested in the long-term.
_____________________________

I don't have a problem with "at will" employment, but the relationship between the employee and company needs to be refocused.

The employee invests in the company's success. The company invests in the employee's market value (improving skill set and valuable experience). This is the shift in the conversation that Reid is really referring to.

I think the tour-of-duty thing is independent of what i mentioned above and is really not necessary.

 

[Babbles]

Who says it ain't broke?

He has a point where the modern approach is dishonest and does not benefit both sides as much as it could.

http://www.businessinsider.com/management-advice-from-linkedin-founder-reid-hoffman-2014-7?op=1

A new hire gets hired and is exited to add value and contribute

The direct manager is warm, welcoming and colleagues tries to help the employee fit into the culture and "work family"

This gets the new hire exited about the opportunity and gets them hopeful of a long term commitment. Loyalty is high for the employee

Then HR comes in and tells/emphasizes the new hire that they are on a probation period and after that can be fired at anytime for any reason. Now the employee does not really consider the company as a long term commitment and is suddenly thinking of the next job during this conversation. The employee is more motivated to constantly scan for the next opportunity rather than focusing on maximizing their current opportunity. The employee is less engaged on their current job since the focus immediately becomes short-term vs long-term for the employee and the company.

Now management is stuck because they have trouble retaining employees and have to go back to square one again. Trust and loyalty between management, employees, and the company becomes harder to build and is not productive to long-term goals.

Companies can't innovate if everyone acts like free agents and no one is invested in the long-term.
_____________________________

I don't have a problem with "at will" employment, but the relationship between the employee and company needs to be refocused.

The employee invests in the company's success. The company invests in the employee's market value (improving skill set and valuable experience). This is the shift in the conversation that Reid is really referring to.

I think the tour-of-duty thing is independent of what i mentioned above and is really not necessary.

I don't think any of those points will be solved by essentially making everybody a temporary employee; "Let's build long-term commitment by making everybody a short-term employee!"

As I said previously, while I don't necessarily want to be against change, I find it difficult to believe that when just about every single employer does a certain practice there is likely some over-whelming consensus as to what best practices are. Heck, if this at least came from academia or some top tier consulting firm that would at least have research backing this, then I would be more inclined to agree.

Maybe I am just cynical and pessimistic, but this sounds like new ways for employers to take advantage of employees.

 

[theeedude]

He'll have to pay more for same work if he wants to structure it like that.

 

[z1ggy]

I would expect to get paid significantly more if I were signing a contract like this. I don't necessarily think it's a terrible idea, but if your entire company is built like this, it could back fire on you when none of the employees sign a new contract with you.

I know at my company, we are all salary workers. However, the company has the right to terminate us for any reason what so ever, as long as it is legal of course. So why not just hire people salary full time, then if they don't perform up to par, just fire them for not meeting the qualifications of the position anymore.

Unless he wants to hire everybody as contract workers to avoid paying out for health insurance or something...then that is shady stuff.

 

[LegendKiller]

Sounds like the next level of "Cross calibration" where everybody throws everybody else's employees under the bus to get better reviews, and money, for their own workers. They go sit in a room and do it in public, thrashing the employees they want to perceive as "the bottom". Didn't Microsoft do something like this only to end up in endless internecine battles?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Sounds like the next level of "Cross calibration" where everybody throws everybody else's employees under the bus to get better reviews, and money, for their own workers. They go sit in a room and do it in public, thrashing the employees they want to perceive as "the bottom". Didn't Microsoft do something like this only to end up in endless internecine battles?

Yeah, Microsoft used what was called stack ranking. I worked for a company that also used stack ranking and it was just stupid. I was lucky in that I was always ranked in the top 10%, but it created animosity, back stabbing, and a hostile work environment.

 

[PokerGuy]

Sounds like a lousy approach, but the proof will be in the pudding. Personally, I think you're going to do better with retention and attracting talent by having an engaged workforce. That means the employees have to feel that the company plays "fair" -- fair compensation, fair processes in terms of hiring/firing etc. That basic concept of fairness goes a lot further than whatever hokey new strategy someone comes up with to essentially make short term temps out of all employees.

 

[theeedude]

More detailed description from last year:
http://hbr.org/2013/06/tours-of-duty-the-new-employer-employee-compact
There is a lot of wishy washy stuff about how employer is all of the sudden going to be interested in employee's career, including pursuing it at another company. That's wishful thinking in general.

The main issue is employees are going to:
A. Request higher pay to compensate for higher risk of being out of work, including accelerated vesting.
B. Continuing to look for jobs throughout their employment.
The side effect of B is that people who are looking for jobs are likely to follow through and leave if they get a comparable offer. Or they will demand higher pay from employer to match offers they are getting from outside.
The end result of which will be employer spending more money for comparable work of a non-loyal non-invested employee.
I think he may have confused the stuff he could get away with pre-IPO with the way things will work long term. Employees will put up with this BS from a startup with a lot of IPO upside potential for them. At a mature company, employees expect higher stability.