Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




William Whyte's rule

Very interesting...  We'll be moving to a new office in 2004 with an unspecified location.  We'll probably find Dick Cheney wearing a lampshade and a martini.  That aside, I noticed that all the initial prefered locations were an easy commute for the Financial officer - who lives in Seattle- who was tasked wih finding the new site.  Hardeehar.

That changed recently, as the founders live near Redmond (as well as most of the development staff - not surprisingly).  Our CEO lives in Denver, and has promised we're not moving there.  So now it appears that a covert slow motion tug of war is in progress.

Nat Ersoz
Saturday, March 29, 2003

When a company risk loosing so much institutional knowledge when they relocate, why don't they let the employees chose the new location?

Thomas Eyde
Saturday, March 29, 2003

Nat,

I am betting that your company's new location will be as the Financial guy wishes ...:-)

prepare yourself for the commute:-)

Prakash S            
Saturday, March 29, 2003

And why do companies need to move to different cities or states? In this digital age, why does location need to change for an *established* company?

runtime
Saturday, March 29, 2003

"And why do companies need to move to different cities or states? In this digital age, why does location need to change for an *established* company?"

Among various other reasons -- lower taxes and labor costs are two reasons companies change location.

One Programmer's Opinion
Sunday, March 30, 2003

Cost.  First CEO (fired along with minions for sheer incompetence) leased the most expensive property on the Seattle East Side (gorgeous view of lake washington).  We'll be living in the bat cave from now on...

Nat Ersoz
Sunday, March 30, 2003

where was the first CEO's house?

Prakash S
Sunday, March 30, 2003

This is so funny because the previous company I worked for relocated to the CEO's hometown (over 1000 miles away).  They didn't close the location where I worked, but they shrank it and laid off those who didn't choose to move along with their job.

Now that CEO is no longer with the company, and he is enjoying a severance package of "only" 1 year's salary.

Never forget that the goal of CEOs is to derive as much personal benefits as possible (in cash and other conveniences) ... and it is not to put money in the shareholders' or employees' pockets.  If the company's board is sensible they will ensure that the CEO's goals will also promote the achievement of the shareholders' goals and vice versa, but that isn't always the case -- especially when the CEO himself is chairman of the board, or two CEOs are on the boards of each other's companies.

T. Norman
Sunday, March 30, 2003

You are so right about CEO's goals. But we can learn from them. You start out taking pencils and notebooks home, then you bring some forgotten equipment home from the storeroom. Then you start a little business on the side selling registrations to the company's most expensive software. Then you just go ahead and sell the source code to the competitors. What's good for the CEO is good for the peons, right? After all it's all about teamwork.

Ernie the Earnest Embezzler
Sunday, March 30, 2003

Yes Ernie, I agree, however, we will go to jail, whereas the CEO will get a lttle rap over the knuckles and be forced to sell his Ferrari and buy a BMW instead.

Realist
Sunday, March 30, 2003

Nice to know that even with all the wacky schenanigans, I could still have done worse.  Party on.

Nat Ersoz
Sunday, March 30, 2003

"Yes Ernie, I agree, however, we will go to jail, whereas the CEO will get a lttle rap over the knuckles and be forced to sell his Ferrari and buy a BMW instead."

Not quite.  The CEO will keep his Ferrari, and get a fat severance package so he can also afford a BMW and a new Ferrari.

T. Norman
Sunday, March 30, 2003

<<When a company risk loosing so much institutional knowledge when they relocate, why don't they let the employees chose the new location?>>

You're kidding, right? I'm not sure where you work, but it's hard enough getting people on what to eat for lunch, let alone where to move a company. Maybe if you've got a company with three employees it would work, but beyond that...

Chris Winters
Monday, March 31, 2003

I work in a company with 6 employees, but that's not why I mentioned it. I just read about Semco in Brazil and was inspired,

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0446670553/ref=lib_rd_ss_TT01/103-1225447-8910250?v=glance&s=books&vi=reader&img=3#reader-link

but I have no clue on how they manage to get all employees to actually play on the same team, hence work for a serious and workable solution. I guess it depends on real power. If some manager has the final word, it won't work.

Thomas Eyde
Monday, March 31, 2003

Thomas,

I enjoyed Maverick as well.  If you want to know how to build such a culture, check out The Great Game of Business. 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/038547525X/qid=1049163248/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_2/002-6989084-5424064?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

The key to getting everyone in the company to participate is to open the books and let everyone help to run it.  It's harder to do than top-down management, but there are so many benefits that are usually forgotten (because they're hard to measure) that it's very worth it.

aa
Monday, March 31, 2003

Thomas,

that is the next book in my books to read list. Thanks.

Prakash S
Monday, March 31, 2003

I've just realized that I've worked for a company that did relocate near the CEO's house. It was a small company with 8 employees. The reason I left wasn't because of the relocation but because I felt I was exploited. A talented programmer feels like that when he's paid 10$/hour.

Application Specialist
Tuesday, April 01, 2003

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home