Maybe it's just my millenial entitlement, but that strikes me as a bad strategy. Unless the business was a cleaning or maintenance company, cleaning the bathroom seems far removed from anything relevant to my work and is in essence busywork. Questions that immediately spring into mind: is this some weird attempt at saving money by having employees do both their job and cleaning? Is this supposed to be some hazing ritual? Will this be representative of my time at the company?
Pitching in when it needs to be cleaned? Sure. Boss paying attention to who voluntarily cleans it? Sure. Making employees clean it on their first day? Not so much.
- millenial who cleans up after himself in the company kitchen
This had nothing to do with relevance, busywork, hazing, saving money, or evaluating talent.
It had a single purpose: to determine willingness to do an undesirable job. That's it. Which, interestingly, is just as important in a software start-up as it was in my father's business so many years ago.
In this case the cleaning is clearly an initiation ritual/test.
The psychological traits needed to submit to arbitrary unnecessary labour (brownnosers good, independent thinkers bad) are entirely different from the psychological traits needed to spot problem areas and deviate from assigned tasks to fix them (independent thinkers good, bronnosers bad).
I think the purpose of these kinds of litmus tests (to find people who are willing to get the job done, even if it looks stupid, boring, or detestable) is more important than filtering for independent thinkers.
Quite frankly, a good manager would be able to determine whether someone's a brownnoser or an independent thinker through other means. Heck, just talking with people will be sufficient for managers who are experienced and talented. But a litmus test like this reveals a lot about the nature of a person that can't come out in a conversation. You see them talk the talk, now see them walk the walk; not in terms of their professional skills, but in terms of their human nature/personality/potential for leadership.
Because the thing is, this kind of litmus test has one other very positive goal. See how someone responds to stupid orders. It's a huge sign for how well they'd be able to handle conflict and politics, which exist in any organization, even startups. It's the unfortunate nature of the beast, but good conflict management also does much to foster amazing outcomes, productivity, and creativity.
You want that kind of independent thinker over a guy who's a prima donna, even if he is an undisputed talent. To think that litmus tests cause organizations to hire only brownnosers would say more about the quality of the managers than litmus tests themselves.
Don't hate the litmus test, hate the managers who don't have higher purposes. We shouldn't be petty about that kind of stuff, it says a lot about our ability (or lack thereof) to handle human interaction well.
I'm much more willing to do an undesirable job related to my position than cleaning.
If you make it clear during interviewing that it's a small company and the employee will be expected to help with cleaning, then there's no problem.
(For the sake of argument; I actually don't mind cleaning all that much but nevertheless it's not high on my list of things to do at work. I'd prefer fixing hairy old VBScript code.)
Relevance is besides the point, you're paid to work. Your job title isn't some kind of license to refuse work you don't want to do.
You keep trying to frame this as being an issue of relevancy when really it's that you're simply not eager enough to get dirty like edw's father wanted out of his people.
You tell me to clean the bathroom on my first day, I'll ask where the scrub and bottle of 409 are.
Now if we're talking months down the line, the dishes need done, and you want me to do them, I'll wonder how my value diminished enough that it wouldn't be more cost effective to hire a cleaner.
I am not eager to clean bathrooms on my first day as a software developer. Relevance to my job title, which is important to me for both self-fulfillment and career management reasons, is a big part of why. I am eager to create software, and I understand this includes the mentally dirty parts. If I was eager to get physically dirty I'd go and make more money for an easier job at the tar sands.
You want someone who will do whatever you pay them to do, hire a cocker spaniel. [1]
It's Friday evening. You and your team will be at the office through the weekend to finish a release. The toilet backed up, spilling onto the bathroom floor. The building's cleaning staff will not be around until Monday, and there is no protocol for emergencies. Will you clean the bathroom?
What I have done is contrive a plausible scenario where cleaning the bathroom is something that just has to get done in order for you to fulfill your stated role as a software developer. I agree with edw519's point and that of the article author's: leaders get done what has to get done regardless of what it is. Sometimes that means crawling around on your hands and knees stringing along ethernet cords. Sometimes that means implementing boring but necessary infrastructure code. Sometimes that means cleaning the bathroom.
Yes. (Though I better be getting paid overtime for that weekend work if the schedule slip isn't the dev team's fault.)
There is a large difference between cleaning a bathroom in an emergency on a Friday evening and cleaning a bathroom because the boss wants to test you on a Monday morning.
Are you assuming that just because someone cleaned it when their boss forced them to as condition of continued employment, they will step up and volunteer to do it in the future rather than try to pawn it off on someone else? Are you assuming the inverse is also true?
This has very little to do with leadership, by the way.
--
edit: If I come in for my first day on a Monday morning and the boss tells me that the team is scrambling to finish up a release, the toilet is backed up, and the cleaning staff won't be here until the evening, I'll look at him weird and maybe not think highly of his organizational skills, but I'd be much more likely to help than in the case of being asked to clean just to see if I am willing to put up with shit.
I'm paid salary and I'm under the impression that's the norm. Nevertheless there is a fairly standard work week and more than one way of compensation for exceeding that.
>there is a fairly standard work week and more than one way of compensation for exceeding that.
I call it a raise or a promotion.
Or keeping your job for doing it. You're salaried at a particular rate under the assumption that step up to the plate in case of emergency/deadline, otherwise they'd pay you less or pay you hourly.
Which kind goes back to edw's anecdote about his dad.
At my workplace we've been offered incentive bonuses or additional paid vacation time in addition to standard raises/promotions, but hey, whatever works for you and your employer.
I doubt accepting unnecessary unrelated busywork is very strongly correlated with "rising to the occasion," unless the occasions are death marches.
This whole thread strongly convinces me that this approach was an excellent one. I'm sorry, Jarek: you may be an excellent software developer, but I'd rather hire someone else. Because in my OWN years as a software developer I have found that my willingness to do whatever needed doing has made as much difference as my skill at writing and maintaining difficult programs. Sure, most other people didn't have the skills to do the latter. But most people didn't have the WILL to do the former, and both have made a huge difference for one reason or another.
That's fair enough. That's your decision. I would rather work for someone else. The original test is a false indicator with only mild correlation to any characteristic useful in a professional work setting and plenty of room for false positives.
Yea seriously, maybe if I was right out of college I would consider it but I seriously doubt that. My talents are better utilized doing other things and unless you are paying me a considerable amount of money you can clean the bathroom yourself. I happen to work for a company in the top 10 best places to work for in IT and something like that would never ever be expected or asked period, not even on a principle base.
> Your job title isn't some kind of license to refuse work you don't want to do.
Why, yes it is. If you're a janitor you're not expected to code.
In some places a job title and job description are even mandatory and they are used in case of a labour dispute. Whether this is a good for companies and employees is a separate question, but it's a big stretch to say that job titles aren't relevant.
How do you feel about being required to work 80 hours each week, being paid only for 40, and then being required to work an additional 10 hours on top of that cleaning the bathrooms and kitchen because since you're on salary, your time is free?
The problem is I would both clean the bathroom and continue looking for a job. Smile, pitch in, and quietly get the fuck out of there. Net cost me not much. Net cost to the company 10-30+k depending on how long I stay.
PS: Turnover at the 3-6 month period is the most expensive for a SW company. You just lost all that hiring momentum, wasted all that time getting someone up to speed, damage moral, and they leave before you get any real work out of them all at the same time.
That's a bit of a catch-22, isn't it? "Wow, you hate our company. I'm glad we made you hate us so we could find out." Note: an unnecessary undesirable job.
Not to mention he's not screwing a company, he's leaving a contract under established terms after discovering an incompatibility. When you screw up and get fired, you don't really get to say "I'm glad I screwed up before you had the chance to fire me."
I don't want any employees doing jobs they find undesirable. I want employees that enjoy their work. And if they ever find that they don't I want employees that ask for a different internal job, or quite to find a new external job.
It had a single purpose: to determine willingness to do an undesirable job.
Yes but consider that the undesirable job in your example is assigned arbitrarily by the boss. This might conceivably test a person's willingness to "do what's necessary" - to keep going when the going gets rough. But it just as well might test a willingness to mindlessly labor through whatever BS the boss throws at them. If someone aims to hire people with latter attitude, that someone shouldn't be surprised if those people display a lack of initiative.
> Maybe it's just my millenial entitlement, but that strikes me as a bad strategy.
I don't know if has anything to do with your "millenial" (seriously, you use this word to describe yourself?) entitlement, but it's not a bad strategy for both you or the company. You don't want to work for a company like that, and they don't want employees like you.
Extrapolate that into numerous other "First Day/First Week/First Month" tasks other companies use, and it serves it's purpose.
Do not for a moment confuse cleaning the bathroom as the strategy. It's not. The strategy is sound. Your comment, if anything, is proof of this. Which again, is a good thing. =)
I was referring your use of the word 'millenial', not the entitlement part. As for anyone referring to their entitlement seriously: yes. I see it happen all the time. I guess, however, they just don't realize it's their 'entitlement' they are talking about.
The entire "maybe it's just my millenial entitlement" was tongue in cheek. I've never seen anyone seriously refer to their own entitlement using the word "entitlement" in a positive content.
Zappos employs the same strategy by offering up money for someone to leave. People who take the money aren't the type of person they want at Zappos. They won't fit in.
The military does this as well. Basic training is more than just training. If you can't get through basic training, you aren't the type of person that will work out in the military.
As for cleaning the bathroom: It's not cleaning the bathroom. It's shared ownership in the upkeep, presentation, and workings of the company. It's a small company, so everyone knows everyone I imagine. Someone not willing to clean the bathroom would probably not fit into the company.
You seem stuck on the fact that it's cleaning a bathroom.
What about committing code the first day you're on the job? Being forced to take ownership. What about being handed a computer and being told to put it together?
Lots of companies have rituals their first day. Things the new guy does that essentially boils down to the final test to see if they'll belong. If they'll fit in.
Don't make the assumption that the strategy is only cleaning a bathroom. Don't assume you have to clean a bathroom.
> What about committing code the first day you're on the job?
Wow, talk about another test that would be super successful. I'm not sure I want to work at any place where any first-dayer is made to break the build in the name of shared ownership by checking in code to a codebase he couldn't have possibly had enough time to understand to a necessary level. I suppose he will be fixing it later that evening, in the name of shared upkeep.
Responsibility and desire to belong will naturally drive the new guy (it's not like it'd be a woman, is it?) to commit something small, simple, and in the big picture totally irrelevant. As with all of these tests, what you actually get is a token activity that will tell you nothing useful and that will fail to screen out anyone who doesn't want to be screened out, company fit or otherwise.
The military is the only setting in which these tests will be useful, because there being masculine and doing whatever the boss says the company needs doing with no questions asked is the entirety of the job description.
> Wow, talk about another test that would be super successful. I'm not sure I want to work at any place where any first-dayer is made to break the build in the name of shared ownership by checking in code to a codebase he couldn't have possibly had enough time to understand to a necessary level. I suppose he will be fixing it later that evening, in the name of shared upkeep.
You make an awful lot of wrong assumptions here. Who said anything about breaking a build? And while they may not be major projects, bug fixes go a long way.
I can only say that if those things are the first things that came to your mind, I'd hate to work at the places you've worked out.
> As with all of these tests, what you actually get is a token activity that will tell you nothing useful and that will fail to screen out anyone who doesn't want to be screened out, company fit or otherwise.
We'll have to disagree then. Granted, with the vast number of successful companies employing these strategies, I feel I'm in good company.
Unless you have a ten-line† program or one hell of a suite of unit tests documenting every single interaction with the world your system ever performs‡, you can never be sure that a first-day employee 'fixing' a bug hasn't introduced a new obscure one somewhere.
It's not like being told to put together your computer or your desk, where the only environment you'd be changing is your own.
> We'll have to disagree then.
About which part? Do you deny that this test is trivial to game for those who want to game it? Or do you claim that just passing this test, at whatever motivation, is a useful signal? If so, what does it signal, other than not being philosophically opposed to meaningless tests?
† hyperbole; ‡ most real world brownfield projects don't
> Unless you have a ten-line† program or one hell of a suite of unit tests documenting every single interaction with the world your system ever performs‡, you can never be sure that a first-day employee 'fixing' a bug hasn't introduced a new obscure one somewhere.
New employee creates test to cover bug.
Fixes bug.
Runs test suite. Test suite passes.
Commits code.
All under the watchful eye of another developer.
You keep pushing specific work environments into different situations. Not all tests work for all cases. Stop assuming this. Your entire argument against this strategy is that X doesn't work in Y. You ignore that X works with X.
> Do you deny that this test is trivial to game for those who want to game it?
Yes, if you want to work for a company that does something you don't like, it's easy to game.
> Or do you claim that just passing this test, at whatever motivation, is a useful signal?
If you choose to do the task rather than just game it, it helps in several specific ways. Taking the code committing part, it ensures you have everything set up correct, from development environment, testing suite, VM, connections to dev, intergrated, staging and live, etc. You have your editor setup, connections to source control, understand the ticketing system.
Their is a lot of value knowing that everything is setup. There is also a lot of value with the person knowing they just deployed code.
> other than not being philosophically opposed to meaningless tests?
Just because you assume something is meaningless doesn't mean it is.
> About which part?
About the strategy being useful or not. You think the strategy is useless. I believe it's not, and has proven it's value.
That being said, the only thing you've done is construct hypothetical worst case scenarios and question how it's good, which is next to worthless.
If you have honest questions about the strategy, go ahead and ask. If you just want to play more games with hypothetical situations, let's just end the discussion here.
>> other than not being philosophically opposed to meaningless tests?
> Just because you assume something is meaningless doesn't mean it is.
For the record, I meant philosophically opposed to tests the tested believes to be meaningless - which is the only useful definition.
Your explanations push the hypothetical case far, far away from the test presented initially. It sounds less like the equivalent of cleaning bathrooms and more like actual work. I will end the discussion now.
> For the record, I meant philosophically opposed to tests the tested believes to be meaningless - which is the only useful definition.
Then, for the record, in this case, it helps to highlight people who think they know it all when they really don't.
> Your explanations push the hypothetical case far, far away from the test presented initially. It sounds less like the equivalent of cleaning bathrooms and more like actual work.
Again, confusing execution and strategy.
But then again, you're philosophically opposed to tests the you believe are meaningless.
So, you wouldn't work out at a place like Zappos, where everyone had to hit the phones and do customer support their first two weeks, from application developers to executives.
"Making employees clean it on their first day? Not so much."
What will you do your first day as a business owner (that is, if that's the end goal for you)? That's just one of the many things you'll do yourself for awhile, just FYI.
No, I personally wouldn't work at Zappos. But their reason to hit the phones is to understand the business and its customers. Unless edw519's father's company was in cleaning or maintenance, cleaning bathrooms won't help you understand its business.
While I currently have no concrete plans for my own business, I imagine that on the first day, I will be working from my home, which I currently clean myself. When it gets big enough to need an office, it'll be big enough to pay for cleaning (likely through the facilities' central management).
"But their reason to hit the phones is to understand the business and its customers."
No it's not. If I'm a DB admin, I sure as _hell_ wouldn't be caught dead reading through a sizing chart for some chatty gal in Texas. No way.
At least that's the so-called "millenial" mentality, right?
Cleaning bathrooms is a task. You're hired by your employer to do a job, which involves many tasks I'm sure. You're not just a title holder or a problem domain solver. And, as long as you "have no concrete plans" to be your own boss, you'll _always_ be looked upon as an employee. I think you conflate your titles with "I do no other thing than that with which I am programmed". That's what we layfolk call a machine, not an employee.
But, if you prefer abject reductionism of the employee definition, you're a unit of work. That includes whatever the employer wants. Request in, results out; regardless of what the request is. I don't need you to understand my business; that's _my_ business. I just need you to work for me.
While I appreciate being judged without being known as much as the next guy, no, you're wrong. (How's that for a millenial thing to say!)
I'm not sure where "I won't clean bathrooms on my first day as a software developer" turns into "I do no other thing than that with which I am programmed" (emphasis added). If you were a DB admin, would you think walking the owners' dog is beneficial for your career? Will you do everything an employer asks of you? If not, where do you draw the line, and why?
These actions have results. By making everyone hit the phones, you select against those not comfortable with talking to people they don't know on the phone. (Do I need to point out that you have no idea if they're socially incompetent, spoiled, or they don't like talking on the phone because of a hearing impediment?) By making people clean the bathrooms on their first day, you select against those who aren't interested in proving their willingness to get their hands dirty with busywork absolutely unrelated to their careers. That might be your intended goal. That is fine. Just realize what you're doing. I heard good employees are hard to find these days.
An employer is absolutely free to treat me as a machine to perform units of whatever work happens to be necessary. And I am absolutely free to not work for employers like that.
What I call a machine is someone who does whatever the management asks of them with no personal thoughts, concerns, or plans to speak of. Someone will have to understand your business, and unless you have no concrete plans to grow beyond a five-person shop, that will have to include someone other than the big boss.
Also leads to your development team self-selecting for only people of at least average social skill, but whether this is a bad thing depends on your point of view.
Pitching in when it needs to be cleaned? Sure. Boss paying attention to who voluntarily cleans it? Sure. Making employees clean it on their first day? Not so much.
- millenial who cleans up after himself in the company kitchen