The Way it is Right Now

I am a bit of a joke in the workplace.

Oops.

I mean joker.

I am someone who will take the piss out of almost anyone, no matter rank or position in the company. Though I try to do it with tact and style so that it is not cruel, nor belittling, so that the people are part of the joke, not the joke itself. I also only do it with people I know who can handle the "ridicule" and can hold their own, meaning they are able to give it back just as hard. These kinds of people do not lose face in these situations, they gain it.

However, because I tend to make a joke about most things, it often surprises some people who don't know me that well as to how hard I can be with some of my opinions. For example, I think yesterday one of my colleagues was almost speechless when we were talking about people who are unwilling to change their behaviors to the company methodology and processes.

Change, or leave.

This surprised them and they thought for a minute and said,

"but it is hard for some people when they are forced to change their job."*

Yes it is. But, this is where they have gone wrong. Because,

It is not their job.

It is a job that is required to be performed by the company and its process and they have signed a contract and are getting paid to perform. While this doesn't mean they are forced to change, they Are forced to make a decision whether they continue in the role with the changed job requirements, or whether they choose to leave.

While logically this is easy for most people to understand, emotionally it is difficult, because it feels unfair. But, what is actually unfair here? As long as the employer isn't breaking the law, they are well within their right to demand employees act according to company policy and with the changing business needs, job tasks, requirements and description changes also. While some of these have to be negotiated with the employee as to whether they continue on or not, some can just be introduced.

Of course, demanding people change is piss-poor change management process, but it may be required at some points, especially when people are unable or unwilling to make the shift to meet the needs themselves. At some point, employees have to adhere to policy and it really is a "if you don't like it, leave" situation.

However, when you hear stories like those coming out of Twitter at the moment where Elon Musk (the owner) is demanding employees sign on to long hours working at high intensity in an email, where if it isn't signed off-on within two days they will be let go - It seems like he is a bastard, and he very well may be.

But, as his company, he makes the rules.

It doesn't matter what was happening at the company yesterday or last year. It doesn't matter if it will force the company into a poor culture with disgruntled employees. It doesn't matter if anyone likes it or not.

Elon Musk can do as he likes within the constraints of the law.

And, if it was any of those employees who had their own 44 billion dollars sunk into a piece of shit like Twitter, they would very likely act in much the same way, except with more "draconian" measures.

And while many people will hate the new Twitter culture, what people don't factor in is, there are probably people who thrive under those kinds of conditions. And, those who take Musk up on the offer might actually find that not only do they thrive in that environment, but they have much more growth opportunity once the "deadwood" has been cleared from the grounds.

Sounds cruel, eh?

But what everyone should realize is that not everyone is suited to every position, no matter what the title of the job may be. For example, being the CEO of a company that is in its startup phase, mature business phase or restructuring phase may require three very different types of people. The one who is able to negotiate growth, might not be the right person to create stability or restructure.

Similarly, employees who thrive in startups often leave companies once they are maturing and stabilizing, because while this is what they were always working toward, the job loses its appeal. When they choose to leave for new startups, does the company say "it's not fair, we pay you to do a job, just because you don't like it doesn't mean you can leave"?

No. Even if they would like to, they can't force someone to stay, only convince them. Ultimately though, they rarely can keep them for much longer, even when they offer obscene amounts of money, it just delays the inevitable.

But, we are increasingly living in a culture where the "me" is being applied to situations where the "me" has no authority - like for most employees when it comes to job requirements. Very few employees can ever "do what they want" even for those who can build their own job role, because as soon as that position is no longer aligned with the direction of the company, it is going to be changed, like it or not.

Now, having said this and as I said above, invoking force and policy to get people to change their behavior rarely works - But, it does have an effect. For example, it is very possible that in order for Twitter to survive the current situation and become profitable for the first time since 2017 - it is going to have to disrupt itself, which means completely changing the entire structure of the company.

Asking people to fundamentally change their role and circumstances away from what they have signed up for, is never going to see the changes happen quickly enough. Also, if a highly engaged and motivated workforce is required, it might be necessary to very quickly clean the table and set the new standards, rather than trying to massage people over the space of years.

Likely, many of the people who Twitter need to be successful are going to leave, but this only creates an opening for bringing in people who are willing to signup for those long hours of intense work. It is likely that once all the unnecessary is cleaned away, Twitter might be able to do just as much, if not more, than it was, with a quarter of the people. This could "save" them and if successful, that 25% might be able to be rewarded with what would have gone to the other 75% that weren't working or weren't willing to work to new standards and policies.

Introducing any change into a company is nearly always met with resistance and complaint, no matter how small that change may be or, even if that change is positive for the employees. However, someone coming in as a new employee the day after the change was implemented, will be inducted under the new methods and think nothing of it - it is just part of the job they signed up for.

And, this is important to recognize as unless an actual slave, employees have the ability to opt-out of their employment. Of course, personal circumstances are going to dictate the ease or difficulty in doing this, but being a "slave to the wage" is not because of the company or the policy, it is because of other decisions made in life.

Like most things.

Many of the people who work at Twitter are actually among the most privileged on earth, having lives that have allowed them safety and opportunity to end up there in the first place. This can of course breed entitlement and an inflated sense of importance to the point where it becomes easy to forget that "doing my job" is actually, "doing the job".

You see the issue? People are identifying with the job they are contracted to do, as if it is part of them, part of who they are. Thinking and believing that, doesn't make it true.

If none of this had happened as it has with Musk taking over Twitter and instead Twitter announced insolvency and bankruptcy with everyone let go immediately, no one would be saying "it isn't fair". It would just be, the way it is.

Now with Musk in control of the direction and decisions for the company, employees should see it similarly, this is now the way it is. Unlike in the scenario of bankruptcy where they are forced to leave, they still have a choice they can make - but no one is forcing them to stay.

This is just the way it is in business, when you are an employee.

But interestingly, it is the way it is when you are an owner also. Owners get to "do what they want" but that doesn't actually mean they can, because they are also trying to build a profitable business, which requires decisions and activities that lead to that end, based on the available conditions and resources.

I don't believe that any owner takes glee in firing people for no reason, as they are not generally sadists. However, it isn't possible to build a successful and lasting business by giving employees everything they want, when they want it, in the way way they want to have it. Business isn't about chasing butterflies while riding unicorns, there is shit that needs to be done.

And sometimes, there is a lot of shit that needs to be done in a particular way.

While apparently no one actually wants to and as hard as it may be at times - people have to grow up and just do what needs to be done. The employees at Twitter might actually count themselves lucky, because they can leave debt free. That is a liberty that Musk no longer has - he is not free to do what he wants to do at all.

How unfair.

Just remember, Musk tried to get out of buying Twitter, but the board forced the sale through, because they knew he was overpaying. And what that means is, they knew he was going to have to make some drastic changes to save the investment.

They threw the employees under the bus, because they knew they were filling jobs that didn't need to be done, or were being done in the wrong way. Because if everything was going well, Twitter would have been profitable and Musk wouldn't have been able to buy it at all.

Who is to blame?

Perhaps no one.

That's just the way it is.

Tomorrow might be different.

Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]