正文
你可以被替代嗎?
In the midst of the current US economic slowdown it is clear that the good old days are over. At least for some chunk of 2008, more likely for the whole year, we are in for some gloomy times.
Companies are being forced to cut costs and let people go. Some smart people aren\'t sitting around waiting to be downsized - instead they\'re jumping ship and hopping aboard another.
Whether you are let go or you leave on your own, there is an impact. Of course conventional wisdom says that everyone is replaceable. That may still be true, but the really important question is: at what cost? Is the cost of replacing someone today the same as it was 10 years ago? Just because technology is cheaper and more abundant it does not mean that it is cheap to replace people.
The fact is that we are increasingly becoming a real-time information processing society. Because of that, each one of us processes an increasingly large amount of unique information on a daily basis. Knowledge-based workers are very different from workers on a factory line, and the cost of replacing them is also very different. While companies save money in the short term, the longer term impact of losing a person is not so clear. In this post we look at the impact cutting jobs has on modern companies and try to figure out: are YOU replaceable?
Somewhere In Corporate America 20 Years Ago...
Story 1: Sorry Bob, you\'ve been wonderful, but we will not be needing your services any longer. Here is Jack, fresh out of college, his salary is 25% of yours. Please train him in the next two weeks to do what you do.
Story 2: Hey boss, you\'ve been wonderful, but I found a job that pays twice as much. Here is Jack, fresh out of college, his salary is 25% of mine. I will train him in the next two weeks to do what I do.
The aftermath of both stories is the same: Bob trains Jack in two weeks and then leaves. And even though Jack is very bright and had a 4.0 GPA in college, it is impossible to learn Bob\'s job in two weeks. It takes about two months for him to become productive. And this is quite a find. The long term cost is substantially lower and company benefits from the employee churn.
Why Today is Different
The problem is that today, two months ramp up time is not acceptable. It is just way too long. For a startup, two months is an eternity, but even for large companies two months is a long time. Today, people need to be replaced real-time - one is out and the next one is in full-speed, day one. This is difficult, particularly because of the incredible amount of information that we end up processing daily.
Increasingly, modern business is becoming a complex, distributed information processing system. The nodes of this system are employees, tirelessly passing bits around to each other, crunching and filtering with the goal to compute, to gain competitive advantage, and to help the business survive.
The problem is that unlike factories or boxes in the computing cloud, employees in the modern company are not identical. Each one knows a unique piece of the information puzzle that makes a company tick. Two weeks is not enough to do the transition and two months is way to long to waste training up the new guy. This is why the old adage that everyone is replaceable may need some re-thinking.
The Days of Slackers are Over
Certainly, there are still plenty of examples where slackers are growing old getting paid to work their 9-5 jobs while getting little done. But safe havens for slackers are rapidly diminishing, because they are losing out to smarter, more agile, and faster competition.
A few years ago my wife, who is a clinical pharmacist, worked with a character that ultimately managed to get a pink slip in a huge company that had probably only ever fired one person - him. He started his day by searching the Internet for a rich relative. Yes, you read that correctly, the guy was searching for wealthy family members. At 11am, he walked around the office and asked what people thought would be offered in the cafeteria for lunch. Between 1pm and 2pm, he spent time reading the news, and then typically called his wife to discuss the dinner menu. This is funny, absurd, and sad at the same time. But think about it, can someone like that work in your company? No way! Companies can not afford to have people like this anymore.
The Emergence of the Digital Elite
In a way, the pressure of real-time information is polarizing - the hard working people are becoming harder to replace, while slackers and perhaps less knowledgeable people are just not needed. We have seen this trend in software engineering for a while - a handful of smart people can accomplish much more than an army of mediocre workers. A skilled, quick professional stands out these days. The people who shine are the people who get the new world - a no nonsense approach, courtesy, and most importantly, speed.
Recently, my insurance broker switched companies. He quickly contacted me, offered an attractive new package, and then drove 1.5 hours from his office to my home to sign the papers. His commission would not want warrant the trip, but he was smart to make the investment of his time because he won me as a client. On the other hand, the cost of losing a talented employee for his old company just increased - they also lost a client, and I am sure I was not the only one.
Although my insurance agent lives in the technical world, he is part of new breed of folks that I call the digital elite. He uses Facebook to keep in touch with his friends, he was savvy enough to look up my company on the web, and he knows all the cool financial web sites. In other words, he is on top of what\'s going on. He knows all about the speed of information in our world. And this makes him a serious and important player, of the type that is really hard to replace.
Are Leaders and Visionaries Replaceable?
Clearly after Bradley Horowitz moves to Google, Yahoo! survives. He will be replaced with someone else just as talented and as passionate and the ship will sail forward. But saying that he will be replaced is very different from computing the cost of his departure. Losing leaders and visionaries is very, very costly. The knowledge, the vision, and the game plan that was in his head is unique and can not be replicated.
Great companies are defined by the great people behind them. There are no great companies without visionary leaders. And if you agree that all knowledge workers are becoming increasingly more valuable, the leaders are then 10 times more valuable. Retention of key leaders and managers is paramount to the success of modern large companies. So I am sure that Bradley, who grew through the ranks at Yahoo! and was one of the faces of the company, will be greatly missed.
Conclusion
And yet, churn is such a huge part of nature! Our world is based on transitions and changes. Changing jobs is an integral part of your career path. When people move around, society benefits from knowledge sharing and new alliances that lead to great new ideas. Remixing is good for both individuals and companies, so there is no way that churn will ever stop.
But still, it is now becoming more costly for the companies. Because of the increasing amount of information processing done by individuals and the uniqueness of each, getting replacements up to speed is more costly. Retaining and motivating the digital elite should be recognized as a high priority for any company.
So, tell us how you feel about all of this? Do you feel insecure in your current position? Are you looking for a new job? What is your company doing to motivate and retain key people?
目前美國的經濟正在走下坡路，這無疑表明曾經的“好日子”行將結束了。至少，擺在麵前的2008年是布滿了愁雲慘霧。
在這種情況下，一些公司被迫削減成本和大舉裁員。而與此同時，一些聰明的員工不再坐以待斃了，他們早就準備著伺機跳槽了。
不管是被炒還是跳槽，或多或少對公司都有一定的影響。當然，俗話說，你不幹還有別人來幹。關鍵是你的替代成本有多高？這個成本和十年前相比又有多高？當然現在的員工替代成本比十年前低多了，但並不是因為他們比以前便宜了，而是因為技術進步使他們貶值了：在機器麵前大多數人都成了冗員。
事實上，我們越來越無法擺脫這個“實時信息”的社會。因為我們每天都要處理大量獨特的信息。正是因為所處理信息類型的不同，知識型員工和工廠裏的一線員工的替代成本也就相差很大。在這篇文章裏，我們來看一下裁員對新興公司有什麽影響，並希望每個人都反思一下：你是可以被替代嗎？
20年前美國公司的場景
場景一：對不起，Bob，你的確很優秀，但是現在不再需要你為公司服務了。這是JACK，剛從大學畢業，他的薪水隻是你的1/4。接下來的兩周，你培訓一下讓他來接替你的位置。
場景二：老板你好，你的確是一位出色的老板，但我還是要離開了，因為我現在找到一份新工作，薪水是我目前的兩倍。這是Jack，剛從大學畢業，他的薪水隻是我的1/4。接下來的兩周，我會培訓一下讓他來接替我的位置。
其實，不管被炒還是炒老板，故事的結果都是一樣的：Bob培訓完Jack就離開公司了。盡管Jack十分聰明，並且具有4分的GPA成績，但是讓他培訓兩周就接任Bob的職位仍是勉為其難，因為這個職位至少需要兩個月才能上手。但對公司來說，這不失為明智之舉，因為這樣做使其長期成本明顯降低，因而從中受益。
為什麽今天不一樣了？
因為在倡導“快公司”的今天看來，兩個月的時間的確太長了。對於一個初創公司來說，兩個月的時間可能意味著“永遠”，即使對一個大公司來講，兩個月也是太長了。現在的公司更傾向於“實時替代”，即一個員工出局了，另一個馬上跟進來。但真正做到這一點還是比較困難的，特別是對於那些需要每天處理大量不同信息的員工。
現代商業體係日漸複雜，越來越像一個“分布式信息處理係統”，或者像一張的不斷交叉融合的信息網。在這張網上，那些疲於奔命的員工們構成了一個個的節點，他們在強顏歡笑的背後則是蠅營狗苟，努力養家糊口的同時使公司不至於倒閉。
問題是，新興公司的員工不同於過去工廠或者車間裏的工人了，現在每個人都可以露一手，每個人都掌握著和別人不同的信息通道和處理技巧。現在培訓一個新人，兩周的時間已經足夠了，兩個月反而是浪費時間。由此看來，“每個人都是可以被替代的”這句話應該值得反思一下了。
坐享其成的日子結束了
當然，目前在一些公司裏吃閑飯的仍大有人在。但很明顯，這樣的人會越來越少，因為他們勢必會被那些更聰明，更有效率的員工取代。
我妻子是一個臨床藥劑師，幾前她的公司曾經解雇過一個吃閑飯的。那家夥是公司曆史上唯一的一個被解雇的員工，而他的這份工作則是一個親戚介紹的。每到中午十一點時，他就開始辦公室裏走來走去，問問同事中午食堂都會提供什麽午餐。下午一點到兩點時，他便讀讀新聞，和老婆煲煲電話粥，借此來打發時光。這的確令人感到好笑，但同時也替這個公司感到悲哀。想想你的公司會容許這樣的員工存在嗎？絕對不會，因為這樣的人完全是公司的累贅！
數字精英的出現
事實上，來自“實時信息”的壓力可能導致兩極分化：努力工作的員工越來越難被替代，而偷懶耍滑和知識欠缺的員工則日益變成冗員。這種趨勢在軟件工程行業尤為突出，幾個優秀的員工可以抵得上一大把平庸的員工。熟練和專業代表著這個時代的方向。那些實幹、謙恭和效率至上的員工才能在當下如魚得水地生存。
最近，我的保險經紀人跳槽了。跳槽後，他迅速和我聯係，並親自驅車將一個禮物送到我手上。其實，按照協議，他並沒有這麽做的義務，但他非常聰明，他明白這麽做是值得的，因為他贏得了一個客戶。另一方麵，他原來的公司則損失了一個人才同時也損失了一個客戶，當然肯定不止一個。
盡管我的保險代理人並沒有從事高技術領域的工作，但我仍將他稱之為數字精英，這是信息社會特有的一類人。他通過FACEBOOK和好友聯係，通過互聯網搜索關於我公司的資料，他知道很多有價值的金融網站。換句話說，他是能把握住這個時代的脈搏。他熟悉這個信息社會的遊戲規則，這讓他變得具有不可替代性。
那些主管和創新人才可以被替代嗎？
當Bradley Horowitz¹跳槽到Google後，Yahoo接下的路更難走了。當然，Yahoo完全可以另外找一個和Horowitz一樣有才華和激情的主管，並且Yahoo的戰略方向也不會因此而改變。顯然，他的跳槽不能簡單地用公司因此帶來的損失來衡量，當然也不是找一個同樣優秀的主管就可以簡單彌補的。失去領軍人物和創新人才的代價是十分高昂的，因為集知識、創新和策略於一身的人是獨特的，不可複製的。
但凡大公司背後都有優秀的企業家資源，沒有哪家優秀的公司不存在幾個創造性主管的。如果你同意知識型員工越來越有價值，那麽知識型主管將更有價值。公司核心人物和管理層對於一個大型的現代企業是至關重要的。所以可以肯定地說，曾經身為Yahoo核心人物之一的Bradley，他的出走勢必讓 Yahoo所痛心不已。
結論
新陳代謝是自然界的必然規律，人類社會也是在不斷地變革與演進的。跳槽不過是你職業生涯中的一段小插曲罷了。人才的流動勢必促進知識共享和觀念創新，從而推動社會進步。同時，知識交融會使個人和公司均受益匪淺，這種趨勢是不可阻擋的。
但與此同時，這種人才流動的代價又是高昂的。因為每個人都處理著大量與別人不同的信息，這使新舊員工之間的“無縫對接”變得異常艱難。所以，留住並激勵那些在崗的數字精英們應該是公司戰略的重中之重。
寫到這裏，你有什麽感覺呢？你在目前的職位上有一種危機感嗎？你是不是在伺機跳槽？你的公司是怎麽激勵並留下核心員工的？
In the midst of the current US economic slowdown it is clear that the good old days are over. At least for some chunk of 2008, more likely for the whole year, we are in for some gloomy times.
Companies are being forced to cut costs and let people go. Some smart people aren\'t sitting around waiting to be downsized - instead they\'re jumping ship and hopping aboard another.
Whether you are let go or you leave on your own, there is an impact. Of course conventional wisdom says that everyone is replaceable. That may still be true, but the really important question is: at what cost? Is the cost of replacing someone today the same as it was 10 years ago? Just because technology is cheaper and more abundant it does not mean that it is cheap to replace people.
The fact is that we are increasingly becoming a real-time information processing society. Because of that, each one of us processes an increasingly large amount of unique information on a daily basis. Knowledge-based workers are very different from workers on a factory line, and the cost of replacing them is also very different. While companies save money in the short term, the longer term impact of losing a person is not so clear. In this post we look at the impact cutting jobs has on modern companies and try to figure out: are YOU replaceable?
Somewhere In Corporate America 20 Years Ago...
Story 1: Sorry Bob, you\'ve been wonderful, but we will not be needing your services any longer. Here is Jack, fresh out of college, his salary is 25% of yours. Please train him in the next two weeks to do what you do.
Story 2: Hey boss, you\'ve been wonderful, but I found a job that pays twice as much. Here is Jack, fresh out of college, his salary is 25% of mine. I will train him in the next two weeks to do what I do.
The aftermath of both stories is the same: Bob trains Jack in two weeks and then leaves. And even though Jack is very bright and had a 4.0 GPA in college, it is impossible to learn Bob\'s job in two weeks. It takes about two months for him to become productive. And this is quite a find. The long term cost is substantially lower and company benefits from the employee churn.
Why Today is Different
The problem is that today, two months ramp up time is not acceptable. It is just way too long. For a startup, two months is an eternity, but even for large companies two months is a long time. Today, people need to be replaced real-time - one is out and the next one is in full-speed, day one. This is difficult, particularly because of the incredible amount of information that we end up processing daily.
Increasingly, modern business is becoming a complex, distributed information processing system. The nodes of this system are employees, tirelessly passing bits around to each other, crunching and filtering with the goal to compute, to gain competitive advantage, and to help the business survive.
The problem is that unlike factories or boxes in the computing cloud, employees in the modern company are not identical. Each one knows a unique piece of the information puzzle that makes a company tick. Two weeks is not enough to do the transition and two months is way to long to waste training up the new guy. This is why the old adage that everyone is replaceable may need some re-thinking.
The Days of Slackers are Over
Certainly, there are still plenty of examples where slackers are growing old getting paid to work their 9-5 jobs while getting little done. But safe havens for slackers are rapidly diminishing, because they are losing out to smarter, more agile, and faster competition.
A few years ago my wife, who is a clinical pharmacist, worked with a character that ultimately managed to get a pink slip in a huge company that had probably only ever fired one person - him. He started his day by searching the Internet for a rich relative. Yes, you read that correctly, the guy was searching for wealthy family members. At 11am, he walked around the office and asked what people thought would be offered in the cafeteria for lunch. Between 1pm and 2pm, he spent time reading the news, and then typically called his wife to discuss the dinner menu. This is funny, absurd, and sad at the same time. But think about it, can someone like that work in your company? No way! Companies can not afford to have people like this anymore.
The Emergence of the Digital Elite
In a way, the pressure of real-time information is polarizing - the hard working people are becoming harder to replace, while slackers and perhaps less knowledgeable people are just not needed. We have seen this trend in software engineering for a while - a handful of smart people can accomplish much more than an army of mediocre workers. A skilled, quick professional stands out these days. The people who shine are the people who get the new world - a no nonsense approach, courtesy, and most importantly, speed.
Recently, my insurance broker switched companies. He quickly contacted me, offered an attractive new package, and then drove 1.5 hours from his office to my home to sign the papers. His commission would not want warrant the trip, but he was smart to make the investment of his time because he won me as a client. On the other hand, the cost of losing a talented employee for his old company just increased - they also lost a client, and I am sure I was not the only one.
Although my insurance agent lives in the technical world, he is part of new breed of folks that I call the digital elite. He uses Facebook to keep in touch with his friends, he was savvy enough to look up my company on the web, and he knows all the cool financial web sites. In other words, he is on top of what\'s going on. He knows all about the speed of information in our world. And this makes him a serious and important player, of the type that is really hard to replace.
Are Leaders and Visionaries Replaceable?
Clearly after Bradley Horowitz moves to Google, Yahoo! survives. He will be replaced with someone else just as talented and as passionate and the ship will sail forward. But saying that he will be replaced is very different from computing the cost of his departure. Losing leaders and visionaries is very, very costly. The knowledge, the vision, and the game plan that was in his head is unique and can not be replicated.
Great companies are defined by the great people behind them. There are no great companies without visionary leaders. And if you agree that all knowledge workers are becoming increasingly more valuable, the leaders are then 10 times more valuable. Retention of key leaders and managers is paramount to the success of modern large companies. So I am sure that Bradley, who grew through the ranks at Yahoo! and was one of the faces of the company, will be greatly missed.
Conclusion
And yet, churn is such a huge part of nature! Our world is based on transitions and changes. Changing jobs is an integral part of your career path. When people move around, society benefits from knowledge sharing and new alliances that lead to great new ideas. Remixing is good for both individuals and companies, so there is no way that churn will ever stop.
But still, it is now becoming more costly for the companies. Because of the increasing amount of information processing done by individuals and the uniqueness of each, getting replacements up to speed is more costly. Retaining and motivating the digital elite should be recognized as a high priority for any company.
So, tell us how you feel about all of this? Do you feel insecure in your current position? Are you looking for a new job? What is your company doing to motivate and retain key people?
目前美國的經濟正在走下坡路，這無疑表明曾經的“好日子”行將結束了。至少，擺在麵前的2008年是布滿了愁雲慘霧。
在這種情況下，一些公司被迫削減成本和大舉裁員。而與此同時，一些聰明的員工不再坐以待斃了，他們早就準備著伺機跳槽了。
不管是被炒還是跳槽，或多或少對公司都有一定的影響。當然，俗話說，你不幹還有別人來幹。關鍵是你的替代成本有多高？這個成本和十年前相比又有多高？當然現在的員工替代成本比十年前低多了，但並不是因為他們比以前便宜了，而是因為技術進步使他們貶值了：在機器麵前大多數人都成了冗員。
事實上，我們越來越無法擺脫這個“實時信息”的社會。因為我們每天都要處理大量獨特的信息。正是因為所處理信息類型的不同，知識型員工和工廠裏的一線員工的替代成本也就相差很大。在這篇文章裏，我們來看一下裁員對新興公司有什麽影響，並希望每個人都反思一下：你是可以被替代嗎？
20年前美國公司的場景
場景一：對不起，Bob，你的確很優秀，但是現在不再需要你為公司服務了。這是JACK，剛從大學畢業，他的薪水隻是你的1/4。接下來的兩周，你培訓一下讓他來接替你的位置。
場景二：老板你好，你的確是一位出色的老板，但我還是要離開了，因為我現在找到一份新工作，薪水是我目前的兩倍。這是Jack，剛從大學畢業，他的薪水隻是我的1/4。接下來的兩周，我會培訓一下讓他來接替我的位置。
其實，不管被炒還是炒老板，故事的結果都是一樣的：Bob培訓完Jack就離開公司了。盡管Jack十分聰明，並且具有4分的GPA成績，但是讓他培訓兩周就接任Bob的職位仍是勉為其難，因為這個職位至少需要兩個月才能上手。但對公司來說，這不失為明智之舉，因為這樣做使其長期成本明顯降低，因而從中受益。
為什麽今天不一樣了？
因為在倡導“快公司”的今天看來，兩個月的時間的確太長了。對於一個初創公司來說，兩個月的時間可能意味著“永遠”，即使對一個大公司來講，兩個月也是太長了。現在的公司更傾向於“實時替代”，即一個員工出局了，另一個馬上跟進來。但真正做到這一點還是比較困難的，特別是對於那些需要每天處理大量不同信息的員工。
現代商業體係日漸複雜，越來越像一個“分布式信息處理係統”，或者像一張的不斷交叉融合的信息網。在這張網上，那些疲於奔命的員工們構成了一個個的節點，他們在強顏歡笑的背後則是蠅營狗苟，努力養家糊口的同時使公司不至於倒閉。
問題是，新興公司的員工不同於過去工廠或者車間裏的工人了，現在每個人都可以露一手，每個人都掌握著和別人不同的信息通道和處理技巧。現在培訓一個新人，兩周的時間已經足夠了，兩個月反而是浪費時間。由此看來，“每個人都是可以被替代的”這句話應該值得反思一下了。
坐享其成的日子結束了
當然，目前在一些公司裏吃閑飯的仍大有人在。但很明顯，這樣的人會越來越少，因為他們勢必會被那些更聰明，更有效率的員工取代。
我妻子是一個臨床藥劑師，幾前她的公司曾經解雇過一個吃閑飯的。那家夥是公司曆史上唯一的一個被解雇的員工，而他的這份工作則是一個親戚介紹的。每到中午十一點時，他就開始辦公室裏走來走去，問問同事中午食堂都會提供什麽午餐。下午一點到兩點時，他便讀讀新聞，和老婆煲煲電話粥，借此來打發時光。這的確令人感到好笑，但同時也替這個公司感到悲哀。想想你的公司會容許這樣的員工存在嗎？絕對不會，因為這樣的人完全是公司的累贅！
數字精英的出現
事實上，來自“實時信息”的壓力可能導致兩極分化：努力工作的員工越來越難被替代，而偷懶耍滑和知識欠缺的員工則日益變成冗員。這種趨勢在軟件工程行業尤為突出，幾個優秀的員工可以抵得上一大把平庸的員工。熟練和專業代表著這個時代的方向。那些實幹、謙恭和效率至上的員工才能在當下如魚得水地生存。
最近，我的保險經紀人跳槽了。跳槽後，他迅速和我聯係，並親自驅車將一個禮物送到我手上。其實，按照協議，他並沒有這麽做的義務，但他非常聰明，他明白這麽做是值得的，因為他贏得了一個客戶。另一方麵，他原來的公司則損失了一個人才同時也損失了一個客戶，當然肯定不止一個。
盡管我的保險代理人並沒有從事高技術領域的工作，但我仍將他稱之為數字精英，這是信息社會特有的一類人。他通過FACEBOOK和好友聯係，通過互聯網搜索關於我公司的資料，他知道很多有價值的金融網站。換句話說，他是能把握住這個時代的脈搏。他熟悉這個信息社會的遊戲規則，這讓他變得具有不可替代性。
那些主管和創新人才可以被替代嗎？
當Bradley Horowitz¹跳槽到Google後，Yahoo接下的路更難走了。當然，Yahoo完全可以另外找一個和Horowitz一樣有才華和激情的主管，並且Yahoo的戰略方向也不會因此而改變。顯然，他的跳槽不能簡單地用公司因此帶來的損失來衡量，當然也不是找一個同樣優秀的主管就可以簡單彌補的。失去領軍人物和創新人才的代價是十分高昂的，因為集知識、創新和策略於一身的人是獨特的，不可複製的。
但凡大公司背後都有優秀的企業家資源，沒有哪家優秀的公司不存在幾個創造性主管的。如果你同意知識型員工越來越有價值，那麽知識型主管將更有價值。公司核心人物和管理層對於一個大型的現代企業是至關重要的。所以可以肯定地說，曾經身為Yahoo核心人物之一的Bradley，他的出走勢必讓 Yahoo所痛心不已。
結論
新陳代謝是自然界的必然規律，人類社會也是在不斷地變革與演進的。跳槽不過是你職業生涯中的一段小插曲罷了。人才的流動勢必促進知識共享和觀念創新，從而推動社會進步。同時，知識交融會使個人和公司均受益匪淺，這種趨勢是不可阻擋的。
但與此同時，這種人才流動的代價又是高昂的。因為每個人都處理著大量與別人不同的信息，這使新舊員工之間的“無縫對接”變得異常艱難。所以，留住並激勵那些在崗的數字精英們應該是公司戰略的重中之重。
寫到這裏，你有什麽感覺呢？你在目前的職位上有一種危機感嗎？你是不是在伺機跳槽？你的公司是怎麽激勵並留下核心員工的？
評論
目前還沒有任何評論
登錄後才可評論.
