正文
你可以被替代吗?
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?
目前美国的经济正在走下坡路，这无疑表明曾经的“好日子”行将结束了。至少，摆在面前的2008年是布满了愁云惨雾。
在这种情况下，一些公司被迫削减成本和大举裁员。而与此同时，一些聪明的员工不再坐以待毙了，他们早就准备着伺机跳槽了。
不管是被炒还是跳槽，或多或少对公司都有一定的影响。当然，俗话说，你不干还有别人来干。关键是你的替代成本有多高？这个成本和十年前相比又有多高？当然现在的员工替代成本比十年前低多了，但并不是因为他们比以前便宜了，而是因为技术进步使他们贬值了：在机器面前大多数人都成了冗员。
事实上，我们越来越无法摆脱这个“实时信息”的社会。因为我们每天都要处理大量独特的信息。正是因为所处理信息类型的不同，知识型员工和工厂里的一线员工的替代成本也就相差很大。在这篇文章里，我们来看一下裁员对新兴公司有什么影响，并希望每个人都反思一下：你是可以被替代吗？
20年前美国公司的场景
场景一：对不起，Bob，你的确很优秀，但是现在不再需要你为公司服务了。这是JACK，刚从大学毕业，他的薪水只是你的1/4。接下来的两周，你培训一下让他来接替你的位置。
场景二：老板你好，你的确是一位出色的老板，但我还是要离开了，因为我现在找到一份新工作，薪水是我目前的两倍。这是Jack，刚从大学毕业，他的薪水只是我的1/4。接下来的两周，我会培训一下让他来接替我的位置。
其实，不管被炒还是炒老板，故事的结果都是一样的：Bob培训完Jack就离开公司了。尽管Jack十分聪明，并且具有4分的GPA成绩，但是让他培训两周就接任Bob的职位仍是勉为其难，因为这个职位至少需要两个月才能上手。但对公司来说，这不失为明智之举，因为这样做使其长期成本明显降低，因而从中受益。
为什么今天不一样了？
因为在倡导“快公司”的今天看来，两个月的时间的确太长了。对于一个初创公司来说，两个月的时间可能意味着“永远”，即使对一个大公司来讲，两个月也是太长了。现在的公司更倾向于“实时替代”，即一个员工出局了，另一个马上跟进来。但真正做到这一点还是比较困难的，特别是对于那些需要每天处理大量不同信息的员工。
现代商业体系日渐复杂，越来越像一个“分布式信息处理系统”，或者像一张的不断交叉融合的信息网。在这张网上，那些疲于奔命的员工们构成了一个个的节点，他们在强颜欢笑的背后则是蝇营狗苟，努力养家糊口的同时使公司不至于倒闭。
问题是，新兴公司的员工不同于过去工厂或者车间里的工人了，现在每个人都可以露一手，每个人都掌握着和别人不同的信息通道和处理技巧。现在培训一个新人，两周的时间已经足够了，两个月反而是浪费时间。由此看来，“每个人都是可以被替代的”这句话应该值得反思一下了。
坐享其成的日子结束了
当然，目前在一些公司里吃闲饭的仍大有人在。但很明显，这样的人会越来越少，因为他们势必会被那些更聪明，更有效率的员工取代。
我妻子是一个临床药剂师，几前她的公司曾经解雇过一个吃闲饭的。那家伙是公司历史上唯一的一个被解雇的员工，而他的这份工作则是一个亲戚介绍的。每到中午十一点时，他就开始办公室里走来走去，问问同事中午食堂都会提供什么午餐。下午一点到两点时，他便读读新闻，和老婆煲煲电话粥，借此来打发时光。这的确令人感到好笑，但同时也替这个公司感到悲哀。想想你的公司会容许这样的员工存在吗？绝对不会，因为这样的人完全是公司的累赘！
数字精英的出现
事实上，来自“实时信息”的压力可能导致两极分化：努力工作的员工越来越难被替代，而偷懒耍滑和知识欠缺的员工则日益变成冗员。这种趋势在软件工程行业尤为突出，几个优秀的员工可以抵得上一大把平庸的员工。熟练和专业代表着这个时代的方向。那些实干、谦恭和效率至上的员工才能在当下如鱼得水地生存。
最近，我的保险经纪人跳槽了。跳槽后，他迅速和我联系，并亲自驱车将一个礼物送到我手上。其实，按照协议，他并没有这么做的义务，但他非常聪明，他明白这么做是值得的，因为他赢得了一个客户。另一方面，他原来的公司则损失了一个人才同时也损失了一个客户，当然肯定不止一个。
尽管我的保险代理人并没有从事高技术领域的工作，但我仍将他称之为数字精英，这是信息社会特有的一类人。他通过FACEBOOK和好友联系，通过互联网搜索关于我公司的资料，他知道很多有价值的金融网站。换句话说，他是能把握住这个时代的脉搏。他熟悉这个信息社会的游戏规则，这让他变得具有不可替代性。
那些主管和创新人才可以被替代吗？
当Bradley Horowitz¹跳槽到Google后，Yahoo接下的路更难走了。当然，Yahoo完全可以另外找一个和Horowitz一样有才华和激情的主管，并且Yahoo的战略方向也不会因此而改变。显然，他的跳槽不能简单地用公司因此带来的损失来衡量，当然也不是找一个同样优秀的主管就可以简单弥补的。失去领军人物和创新人才的代价是十分高昂的，因为集知识、创新和策略于一身的人是独特的，不可复制的。
但凡大公司背后都有优秀的企业家资源，没有哪家优秀的公司不存在几个创造性主管的。如果你同意知识型员工越来越有价值，那么知识型主管将更有价值。公司核心人物和管理层对于一个大型的现代企业是至关重要的。所以可以肯定地说，曾经身为Yahoo核心人物之一的Bradley，他的出走势必让 Yahoo所痛心不已。
结论
新陈代谢是自然界的必然规律，人类社会也是在不断地变革与演进的。跳槽不过是你职业生涯中的一段小插曲罢了。人才的流动势必促进知识共享和观念创新，从而推动社会进步。同时，知识交融会使个人和公司均受益匪浅，这种趋势是不可阻挡的。
但与此同时，这种人才流动的代价又是高昂的。因为每个人都处理着大量与别人不同的信息，这使新旧员工之间的“无缝对接”变得异常艰难。所以，留住并激励那些在岗的数字精英们应该是公司战略的重中之重。
写到这里，你有什么感觉呢？你在目前的职位上有一种危机感吗？你是不是在伺机跳槽？你的公司是怎么激励并留下核心员工的？
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?
目前美国的经济正在走下坡路，这无疑表明曾经的“好日子”行将结束了。至少，摆在面前的2008年是布满了愁云惨雾。
在这种情况下，一些公司被迫削减成本和大举裁员。而与此同时，一些聪明的员工不再坐以待毙了，他们早就准备着伺机跳槽了。
不管是被炒还是跳槽，或多或少对公司都有一定的影响。当然，俗话说，你不干还有别人来干。关键是你的替代成本有多高？这个成本和十年前相比又有多高？当然现在的员工替代成本比十年前低多了，但并不是因为他们比以前便宜了，而是因为技术进步使他们贬值了：在机器面前大多数人都成了冗员。
事实上，我们越来越无法摆脱这个“实时信息”的社会。因为我们每天都要处理大量独特的信息。正是因为所处理信息类型的不同，知识型员工和工厂里的一线员工的替代成本也就相差很大。在这篇文章里，我们来看一下裁员对新兴公司有什么影响，并希望每个人都反思一下：你是可以被替代吗？
20年前美国公司的场景
场景一：对不起，Bob，你的确很优秀，但是现在不再需要你为公司服务了。这是JACK，刚从大学毕业，他的薪水只是你的1/4。接下来的两周，你培训一下让他来接替你的位置。
场景二：老板你好，你的确是一位出色的老板，但我还是要离开了，因为我现在找到一份新工作，薪水是我目前的两倍。这是Jack，刚从大学毕业，他的薪水只是我的1/4。接下来的两周，我会培训一下让他来接替我的位置。
其实，不管被炒还是炒老板，故事的结果都是一样的：Bob培训完Jack就离开公司了。尽管Jack十分聪明，并且具有4分的GPA成绩，但是让他培训两周就接任Bob的职位仍是勉为其难，因为这个职位至少需要两个月才能上手。但对公司来说，这不失为明智之举，因为这样做使其长期成本明显降低，因而从中受益。
为什么今天不一样了？
因为在倡导“快公司”的今天看来，两个月的时间的确太长了。对于一个初创公司来说，两个月的时间可能意味着“永远”，即使对一个大公司来讲，两个月也是太长了。现在的公司更倾向于“实时替代”，即一个员工出局了，另一个马上跟进来。但真正做到这一点还是比较困难的，特别是对于那些需要每天处理大量不同信息的员工。
现代商业体系日渐复杂，越来越像一个“分布式信息处理系统”，或者像一张的不断交叉融合的信息网。在这张网上，那些疲于奔命的员工们构成了一个个的节点，他们在强颜欢笑的背后则是蝇营狗苟，努力养家糊口的同时使公司不至于倒闭。
问题是，新兴公司的员工不同于过去工厂或者车间里的工人了，现在每个人都可以露一手，每个人都掌握着和别人不同的信息通道和处理技巧。现在培训一个新人，两周的时间已经足够了，两个月反而是浪费时间。由此看来，“每个人都是可以被替代的”这句话应该值得反思一下了。
坐享其成的日子结束了
当然，目前在一些公司里吃闲饭的仍大有人在。但很明显，这样的人会越来越少，因为他们势必会被那些更聪明，更有效率的员工取代。
我妻子是一个临床药剂师，几前她的公司曾经解雇过一个吃闲饭的。那家伙是公司历史上唯一的一个被解雇的员工，而他的这份工作则是一个亲戚介绍的。每到中午十一点时，他就开始办公室里走来走去，问问同事中午食堂都会提供什么午餐。下午一点到两点时，他便读读新闻，和老婆煲煲电话粥，借此来打发时光。这的确令人感到好笑，但同时也替这个公司感到悲哀。想想你的公司会容许这样的员工存在吗？绝对不会，因为这样的人完全是公司的累赘！
数字精英的出现
事实上，来自“实时信息”的压力可能导致两极分化：努力工作的员工越来越难被替代，而偷懒耍滑和知识欠缺的员工则日益变成冗员。这种趋势在软件工程行业尤为突出，几个优秀的员工可以抵得上一大把平庸的员工。熟练和专业代表着这个时代的方向。那些实干、谦恭和效率至上的员工才能在当下如鱼得水地生存。
最近，我的保险经纪人跳槽了。跳槽后，他迅速和我联系，并亲自驱车将一个礼物送到我手上。其实，按照协议，他并没有这么做的义务，但他非常聪明，他明白这么做是值得的，因为他赢得了一个客户。另一方面，他原来的公司则损失了一个人才同时也损失了一个客户，当然肯定不止一个。
尽管我的保险代理人并没有从事高技术领域的工作，但我仍将他称之为数字精英，这是信息社会特有的一类人。他通过FACEBOOK和好友联系，通过互联网搜索关于我公司的资料，他知道很多有价值的金融网站。换句话说，他是能把握住这个时代的脉搏。他熟悉这个信息社会的游戏规则，这让他变得具有不可替代性。
那些主管和创新人才可以被替代吗？
当Bradley Horowitz¹跳槽到Google后，Yahoo接下的路更难走了。当然，Yahoo完全可以另外找一个和Horowitz一样有才华和激情的主管，并且Yahoo的战略方向也不会因此而改变。显然，他的跳槽不能简单地用公司因此带来的损失来衡量，当然也不是找一个同样优秀的主管就可以简单弥补的。失去领军人物和创新人才的代价是十分高昂的，因为集知识、创新和策略于一身的人是独特的，不可复制的。
但凡大公司背后都有优秀的企业家资源，没有哪家优秀的公司不存在几个创造性主管的。如果你同意知识型员工越来越有价值，那么知识型主管将更有价值。公司核心人物和管理层对于一个大型的现代企业是至关重要的。所以可以肯定地说，曾经身为Yahoo核心人物之一的Bradley，他的出走势必让 Yahoo所痛心不已。
结论
新陈代谢是自然界的必然规律，人类社会也是在不断地变革与演进的。跳槽不过是你职业生涯中的一段小插曲罢了。人才的流动势必促进知识共享和观念创新，从而推动社会进步。同时，知识交融会使个人和公司均受益匪浅，这种趋势是不可阻挡的。
但与此同时，这种人才流动的代价又是高昂的。因为每个人都处理着大量与别人不同的信息，这使新旧员工之间的“无缝对接”变得异常艰难。所以，留住并激励那些在岗的数字精英们应该是公司战略的重中之重。
写到这里，你有什么感觉呢？你在目前的职位上有一种危机感吗？你是不是在伺机跳槽？你的公司是怎么激励并留下核心员工的？
评论
目前还没有任何评论
登录后才可评论.
