Playing Field

We like to talk about companies as if they are people, and it feels good to start having emotional attachment to them. Like sports teams when growing up, it feels good to worry less about yourself and more about the team. Anything that makes us able to have a broader definition of ourselves seems to makes us feel happier.

One issue with this is that there is a disproportionate imbalance in power between the company and the employee. There are very few cases where a single individual hire or loss will change the direction of the company. Tough to swallow, but everyone is replaceable and life goes on almost unaffected for the firm. For every job, there are multiple applications and saying No to a CV is relatively easy. At the other end when someone leaves, it is a much bigger impact on their lives than on the companies.

I was recently thinking about a response I had heard to the 'Enron lesson'. When Enron collapsed, it took many people's pensions with them. Many employees saw it as a sign of loyalty to invest their pension in the companies stock. They bet their entire financial future on the place where they spent all their time. On the business they had 'married'. They lost everything.

The lesson that many took is to separate where you invest from the business you are in. I think that is partly right. The broader lesson though is never let any one bet bring you down - keep a margin of safety. I do think that there is still value though in every employee being an owner of the business. I also think that it is helpful for every employee to be a client of the business. Specialisation may mean that you are working for a company that doesn't produce anything you need - I guess that is an exception but it must require something else then to make the work meaningful.

1. Don't work for a company if you wouldn't buy their shares.
2. Don't work for a company if you wouldn't buy their product.

This is one way of levelling the playing field between labour and capital, between employee and employer. If you own shares, even just a months salary, you start to have an interest in both sides. You aren't just a cog. If you or people you care about don't use the product, then it must be hard to find meaning. Now this can all come across as a rather privileged view since most people simply take the job they can get. I accept that. The thing is we spend so much time at work, it has to be something that is a source of happiness. If you do your job because you have to and not because you want to, I think that is a form of poverty.

Another lesson that could be learnt from Enron, but would be harder, is to rethink the whole way we approach the employee/employer relationship. The world is dynamic. Professions become redundant. Products become redundant. Companies grow and the team you joined is not the team you are in. Acknowledging this may mean a company you work for becomes more like a business you invest in. You don't choose one business. You invest in a few. Your career becomes a portfolio rather than a bet. Imagine a world where you worked on projects or problems together. Your network broadened and you worked with different people from different areas depending on what needed doing. You weren't defined by your employer.

This isn't new at all. It is what consultants or contract workers do, but perhaps technology is changing enough to allow markets to find and market your specific skills. Perhaps it will get to the point where it is very unusual to get an employees undivided attention, and so that commands a premium. It is odd that the lesson learned from Enron and alike isn't that working for a single firm is perhaps a very risky strategy. I think TaskRabbit is doing some exciting work. It allows you to outsource errands and provides a market-place for both users and those who are doing the work. It would be interesting if this concept could be extended beyond just errands to bigger projects.

Then, like a company with several CVs coming across the desk, you may have several projects coming across your desk. That would be a more level playing field.