Perhaps one of the toughest challenges of running an organization with a large tech team is how to kindle the passion it takes to make great products. Tougher still is understanding what it takes to foster this passion in the first place. I’m not talking about the default actions it takes to make sure everyone on a team wakes up in the morning and has it in them to make it to their first meeting on time with a good attitude. I’m talking about the passion that makes people think in the middle of the night about a problem. The kind that keeps the best interest of the company in the forefront of their mind with all the decisions they make. The fire that burns that makes you want to skip lunch to break through the solution you’re working on and if you do take a break, it’s spent excitedly cheering with your peers over yet another solved problem. It’s true passion; it’s natural, unteachable and unbridled.
This is certainly a problem I’ve battled with over the years. As each of these attributes are those that aren’t naturally built, particularly with non-founders or investors. Sure, sure, there are the standard procedures companies can do to try and help this along, but none of them really work for the long-term. Stock options or grants, for example, are a great way to share part of the company with everyone who works for it. With most companies that participate in options and grant programs, there’s a known level of dilution and lack of return (particularly with privately held companies) that turns these gestures into nothing more than what they are: nice gestures. Handcuffed to vesting schedules and strict regulations, without a great return on non-diluted shares, buying someone a Kia in return for five years of 60-70 hour weeks and no vacation is not as palatable as it was originally intended. Ultimately, the same is really true with any gift-based reward system in any company. What you will find is a short-term gain with a long-term loss. By no means is this to suggest anyone should stop these programs as just as lack-luster they can become, they are still expectations in some industries. This is the foundation of the recursive problem these gift-based reward systems take. I like to think of it much like I do with raising my children: if I give them a prize every time they clean their dishes, they begin to expect a prize every time they clean their dishes. Yes, the prize will motivate them to clean their dishes but at the end of the day, even though the dishes will be clean, their hands will be out. What I really want is for them to want to clean the dishes, with their reward being a clean house not monetary reimbursement. The same is true with business. Although I believe monetary reward is necessary on many levels and they are a big key to sustained happiness overall, I don’t think it is something that should be scheduled or planned or most: expected. Hard work is rewarded after a cumulative average and trend of hard work has been given. Simply put: if you kick ass, you get rewards. But there inlies the hardest challenge every business leader has: how do you bridge those two traditionally opposing polarities? How do you create an environment that allows people to be rewarded by their own work, making great solutions and being proud of what they’ve accomplished? What can define your legacy is how to make the people you chose to work with actually care about the well-being, long-term outlook and overall success of your company. Certainly, I don’t have the perfect answer as I mostly believe this is a condition that is specific per person which becomes a challenge in and of itself to manage. However, I also believe there are some paradigms that you can adhere to that will breed self-motivation.
Culture Shock
I believe part of this challenge is fought by ensuring the culture of an organization makes sense for what you are trying to accomplish. This goes beyond the standard things that companies need to do: treating employees like people, not resources; ensuring people are not considered commodities, etc. On top of this all, we have to remember that in most larger software organizations, one of the (if not the) largest expenses is the product development team’s total compensation. That said, you may as well treat it like such.
Freedom and flexibility are two extremely powerful things to undertake. In a lot of ways, great developers are much like artists and most projects are nothing more than an empty canvas for them to work with. In most traditional organizations, it is standard operating procedure to structure the project into a defined rut, defining how each stroke will be made for countless reasons. Standardized methods, look and feel, maintainability, amongst many other things are all justifications for this approach. To an extent, I believe that harboring maintainable code and infrastructures is more than a good idea, it’s a necessity. There is obvious return when a bug takes minutes rather than hours to accomplish. Taking a step back though, would you ever consider putting any restrictions on a painter? When you ask someone to paint a mountain, it is pretty standard to let them paint a mountain. And unless you completely forgot to look at their past work, when they’re done, you will have a painting of a mountain. When you show your friends, they will say “that’s a nice mountain”. Without this creative freedom, the arts wouldn’t be where they are today. Creativity is born when barriers are dropped as barriers define “the box” that everyone tries to think outside of. What I am suggesting is instead of trying to think outside of the box, take the box away and suddenly nobody can think inside the box. Let your product team be creative by letting them work in a much less structured climate. Not just their desk or computer, but the literal work they accomplish. Even the little things like sustaining their preference of cuddled braces. Yes, it will cause coding inconsistencies and perhaps some maintenance challenges, but the rewards will be so much greater. Furthermore, we are a species that has grown accustom to evolution. With happiness comes satisfaction, with satisfaction comes long-term employment and what will evolve from that is a consistency between team members and an organically grown style that is an amalgamation of everyones.
At the highest level, this is only one example given of so many that can be taken into this light. Yet, I still need to take a little consideration to the length here. Still, I hope the point is clear. You need to hire good people. You need to hire people who want to learn and want to grow in what they do (and I will talk more about this later). If you hire well, you should have near-immediate trust and therefore grant the ability to give freedoms in a traditionally constrained world.
Hire the Best
Everyone tries to do this. Multiple interviews; stringent resume, background and history checks – the list goes on and on. This all needs to be done. However, this really only accomplishes two main objectives: can they do the job and will they fit with the team. Of course, these are two enormous considerations every hiring manger has to think of. But, these should be thoughts at a subconscious level, not ones that are on the forefront of the entire interview process. If they won’t fit with the team or can’t do the job: don’t hire them. Done. What goes beyond the interviews, the resumes and the history is what is their passion? How did they get into the industry? Why do they love the industry? Can they prove this is more than a job? For example, when I have two very capable and proven candidates being considered for hire into a single job opening, not even assuming all things are equal, if one has demonstrated the love the game of programming computers, it’s their passion, it’s what makes them tick – I want to hire that one. I don’t care about what type of degree they have, or if they have one at all. I don’t care if they worked at Home Depot or Google before they interviewed. What I do care about is why they have a server room in their garage. Again, they need to fit with the team and must be able to do the job as defined by the job description. Assuming those things can be done, I will take the person who loves what they do over the person who just happens to be good at what they do. The former can grow into the latter and the latter will plateau and begin to decline.
What to Remember
Finding people with the true and natural passion for what they do is much easier than you would imagine, you just have to look for it. And assuming you can do these things, I encourage you to give them as ultimate freedom as possible. Not ultimate freedom, something closer to a governed democracy based off of freedom (sound familiar?), but freedom nevertheless. I encourage this as when you take down barriers for creativity, you get creativity. Creativity is an ingredient of the stew that births innovation and brilliant products. It comes with consequences, but the benefits will become overwhelmingly brilliant, drowning the tone of negative consequences from your change.
So this is your challenge, think about what you can do and whether or not you agree with me. Good luck and I want to hear back.
Tags: Business, Development, hiring, Strategy