What is the worst that could happen if an IT organization forces workers to work long hours toward one aggressive deadline after another, year after year, led by task master managers with minimal people skills who are just looking to meet the latest numbers? Really, how bad would this be for a company? Would it really suffer significant short- or long-term problems with performance or profitability? Would the company benefit from this strategy?
Wonder no more, thanks to Zynga. Taking the classic hard-charging silicon valley startup strategy to an extreme, Zynga's leader used his Harvard business school and Wall Street experience to create a data-driven super-meritocracy where the best were heavily rewarded and those who did not meet aggressive targets were marginalized or eliminated.
How did it go? Unlike other start-ups, Zynga became profitable quickly and grew fast. Some types of employees thrived in this atmosphere. In the early years, the best practices espoused for workforce management looked like they were headed for the dustbin.
The news is different now. And I do mean the news. Zynga and its leader are having their dirty laundry aired in public. Here's what is being reported now.
- Workers are so frustrated they are taking their complaints public
- Business deals are falling through
- The offensive behavior of leaders during these negotiations is being discussed publically by leaders of the other companies
- Zynga faces a talent drain as competitors look to poach workers
- Consultants have been brought in to collect worker input and train managers
Sure, Zynga is at the dark, far end of a spectrum for workforce management techniques, but there is still a lesson for any organization. The more you move in that direction, the more you risk the same results.
How does your workplace stack up?
