I notice that the power of these new behemoths are a risk to SMEs. Kaseya/Datto/ITGlue/CWM/Automate/Sophos/BG/Sell... These all used to be of a size that could communicate and deal with small business. Far more focus weighted towards enterprise now.
Common, successful marketing: If a brand is poisoned, distance yourself from the name & rebrand. At its extreme, it is used alongside phoenix company tactics.
It works, although a (likely minority) customer portion will keep their finger on the pulse.
In our experience, it's the current winner amongst the flourishing low code/db app/spreadsheet app space. It is one of few that to me, proves that this space should (and will) eat market share from excel/gsheets on one end, and expensive bespoke tools on the other. Also eager to see these offering more competition against small ERPs, CRMs and the like - Perhaps this will eventually even give behemoths such as ConnectWise, Salesforce et al a run for their money. Those companies need some competition on both innovation and price. For now though obviously, this is best used for business automation, small tools, and stitching data/processes together.
Not affiliated, just a very happy customer. Customer support is above and beyond. Trialed internally to great success, thus preparing to consider in client solutions.
If we grant partial personhood based on our knowledge of 'complexity or maturity of consciousness', we are setting ourselves up to a) see ourselves as qualified to do so, and even to 'act as god' in some circumstances, b) creating an expensive, difficult challenge for ourselves, and c) declaring that there is an appropriate hierarchy - arguably comparable of a caste system (Which is scary).
Not granting any personhood/ rights at all (our current state) is a subset of this, and the most extreme example of heirarchical positioning based on 'right to be there'.
On the other hand, granting equal rights to all means treating a squirrel as reverently as a human, which society does not seem to agree with.
One of the biggest conversations for the 21st century.
Perhaps the former is a means to an end, and the answer is to slowly assimilate other species into coverage of legislation, with the end game of protecting all live equally.
It feels as if future societies would look back and judge us for not immediately siding with the latter.
Coming from an emotional angle highlights the fact that teams are family style groups that spend most of their waking days together, which is nice in a way. Having said that - It feels that even after many of these conclusions in this article are made, a lot of the offboarding process is still tangled up with that emotion - Which isn't beneficial for any party.
> Never take them back
I have examples of team members returning once or even twice and adding great value each time (both permanent and contract). Some examples of people returning and spending 4+ (and counting) years in a new or the same position. "You are welcome back any time" is uttered many times to departing team members. They are welcomed back with open arms. (re)Onboarding is a breeze. If neither party burns bridges and has a graceful transition, then the relationship can be picked up again later.
> should respond to this unwelcome news
Perhaps it doesn't need to be viewed as 'unwelcome news', and instead viewed more pragmatically. It's all part of the Personnel lifecycle. Personal Life > Work Life... That employee shouldn't view your organization as their highest priority. A business owner has a responsibility to help someone transition out of the firm. If they're leaving, it's for a reason. Good luck to them. Perhaps there is something that the business can do to facilitate. That person has provided value over their tenure - And if not, then that's just data for the business to improve it's employment processes (role design, forecasting, responsibility assignment, recruitment, interviewing, contract finance).
> "Do an exit interview...If your company has a dedicated HR team, they will have this baked into their process
I think this touches on the best takeaway - The process should be codified (not just the exit interview). An employee shouldn't have to drive this, and it shouldn't be made difficult for them. They shouldn't have to ask for pay slips, final payments, references etc. - The business should ideally have done this all proactively. This is all part of employee welfare, and even if the employee is leaving they are still owed that welfare.
When a team member triggers a transition (inter or intra organization) by handing in their notice or request for transfer, a templated job should immediately be created in the business's system with tasks for
- handovers
- exit interview
- contract end procedures
- recruitment / forecasting triggers
- A prompt, nice, diplomatic email to the business (or business unit) that says 'J Smith is leaving' (without giving away personal information), and 'thanks for what they have done' (a genuine message of thanks).
It's not taking the heart away from the team/process by automating this, it's just ensuring that a proactive checklist is generated for due diligence in offboarding and replacing the team member. And it's about abstracting this away from emotion and ad hoc reaction, and doing right by people.
If the news catches you unaware, it may indicate that there is room for improving team communication (depending on the reason for leaving). In plenty of close-knit organizations, team members feel comfortable discussing their discontent with their line managers (whether it's salary related or otherwise). And those line managers then help the employee to resolve them (often by changing role in the team/org, or helping them adjust their employee roadmap/development path), or help them transition away (with more notice in which to recruit). On occassion, businesses have actually lined up the employee's next job for them.
Severe performance issues at scale, unable to recommend as a solution to most clients. As yet insufficient evidence of long term solutions. Rebuttals to this comment from bubble.is staff are welcome.
>the company shifted to a four-day week, with Fridays off. At first, Nagele says, it went smoothly, since summers are slower. By the fall, they realized they needed to make some adjustments; some members of the support team now work on Fridays but have Mondays off, and vice versa, so that there’s consistent coverage throughout the week
(Treating flex-hours & 3-day weekend models as a dichotomy) We posit that flex-hours and working week caps are more feasible and beneficial than fixed or rotating 3 day weekends.
- If the company takes Friday off, it is essentially asking a favor from its partners and customers. Those parties are now obligated to wait an extra 24 hrs for service. Flex-time offers better coverage for external parties, and it is easier to operate Incident Management / Customer Support functions.
- (Rotating or fixed) 3 day weekends make individual staff unavailable for >72 hrs. Especially for those staff members that have 'workaholic' traits, this can make it difficult to truly relax/unwind on the weekend. 'Flex-time' workers anecdotally are perceived as more 'available' than 4-day-weekers.
- Fixed/rotating 3 day weekends appear to require similar levels of forecasting/rostering as flex-time models do. Flex-time offers more value to staff.
- A single flex-time model is perceived as fairer, and results in fewer caveats (for parents, carers and those with other obligations).
- A flex-time model + a working week cap has a neater roadmap than 4 day weeks. A graceful reduction in hours over time allows staff and operations to adjust. Further, the gradual reduction arguably allows the same productivity-output to be 'fit into the same hours' more easily than jarring steps toward a 4 day week do.
- A flex-time model is arguably more compatible with weekend & overnight coverage initiatives.
- 3 day weekends don't aid (relative to flex-models): Commuter time, city traffic, life>work priority, improved customer support, life emergencies, inter-time-zone communications.
Out of interest, may we ask - How do you reconcile your carbon emission research against other ecological considerations?
Does your group use a preexisting model to map externalities / run simulations?
Many thanks
(Apologies for taking the conversation out of scope slightly)
And you wouldn't necessarily know where to start.
And you would have the mental hurdles of "where do I start", "who do I listen to", etc.