Managing People in High-Tech Cultures: Ain’t that hard

Certainly, there is little doubt that the technology hubs which emerged in Silicon Valley in the late 1970s, and are now scattered in like fashion around the Globe, changed the work dynamic. Just as the industrial revolution allowed societies to transition from agricultural based economies to factory production lines, the high-tech revolution gave rise to the knowledge worker. There has been some suggestion that, due to the rapid pace of innovation required, and need to accelerate delivery to market, that traditional human resource practices have become somewhat of an anachronism.  One such postulation is that companies in this sphere are short-lived, as they will either go bankrupt or sell to the highest bidder in short order. Focusing on developing and maintaining a life-long workforce of engaged employees would be too time consuming and unnecessary in the end analysis. This argument is perhaps best synopsized by one research paper when the authors write that “Renderings of the new economy have tended to portray organization-building as (at best) irrelevant or (at worst) a source of organizational drag…” (Baron and Hannon 2). At a cursory assessment, this seems to be reasonable. That is, why focus on building long-term committed employees when you are hoping to ‘cash out’ as soon as possible. Setting aside the obvious answer – that being that people that don’t care about the business are likely to provide real innovative input; another benefit entailed within the high-tech world may answer the question another way.  That is, the very nature of high-tech employment engages and motivates employees with very little effort. The very nature of the work is interesting and challenging; and the money and/or stock options take care of the compensation side of things. Referring to research on this topic in general, substantial analysis of work cultures seems to have confirmed that interesting work is a primary motivator for individuals. Quoting one such peer reviewed journal “Empirical evidence, however, has suggested only one clear attribute of the work itself that consistently influences job satisfaction – the cognitive challenge of the work” (Judge and Klinger 107).

If this is true, and it seems reasonable to accept, then effectively ignoring traditional HR principles, without any undesired consequences may actual work out. Not simply because the CEO is too focused on going fast and making money, but because everyone else is too. Why pretend there is a desire to do anything else but do interesting work and make money. Once the market responds and the company goes IPO, then everyone can move on, with wads of cash. Or not.  Other side benefits likely motivate employees as well…free coffee and snacks, video game room and the other assorted accoutrements that only these small start-ups can offer.  Even if one wants to align with the latest thinking in HR policies, money and satisfying work still come out on top, and as we have seen, the high-tech organizations have plenty of both.  It’s tough bringing new and innovative products to market, it seems however that if the work is interesting it will draw the best people and you can let them get to it with little concern for their loyalty or lack of engagement.

References

Baron, James N., and Michael Hannon. "Organizational Blueprints for Success in High-Tech Start-Ups: Lessons from the Stanford Project on Emerging Companies." Harvard Business Review.

     University of California Berkeley, n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2017.

Judge, Timothy A., and Ryan Klinger. "Promote Job Satisfaction through Mental Challenge." Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior: Indispensable Knowledge for Evidence-Based Management 2

     (2009): n. pag. Web