English 130
Here is the original article from New York Times
The Era of Happy Tech Workers Is Over.
Nadia Rawlinson
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2023 The New York Times Company
Silicon Valley as we know it -- with its radically transparent company cultures, empowered employees, flat hierarchies and rarefied perks like nap pods and free food -- is quickly disappearing. And it's unlikely to return.
For nearly two decades, tech companies heralded an approach that centered on making workers happy with benefits that were intended to seamlessly integrate work and life. They made well-being programs and unlimited vacation, initiatives that prioritized the whole person, standard employee benefits. This, along with high salaries and equity packages, was a way not just to win but also to dominate the war for talent. The rapid growth and success of Silicon Valley companies, driven in part by their unique people practices, reimagined workplace culture for a generation.
Times, as they say, are a-changin'. The industry is facing an uneven macroeconomic environment and a roiling stock market that is putting pressure on public tech companies and making for a less-than-ideal I.P.O. environment for private ones. Tech chief executives are now optimizing more for profitability than for growth at all costs, sometimes at the expense of long-held organizational beliefs.
The shift is most evident in the recent surge of tech layoffs. There has been lots of public discussion about the disruptive axing of half of Twitter's 7,500 employees, a move conducted under its new owner, Elon Musk. Haphazard and rolling, the layoffs were painful to watch. The employees who remained have had to endure greater workloads on significantly smaller teams. But while outsiders may have viewed these layoffs as impulsive, they seemed to have primed the environment for other tech companies to follow. In 2022, the tech industry laid off over 150,000 people. In the first few weeks of 2023, Microsoft announced 10,000 job cuts and Alphabet followed with 12,000.
According to multiple media outlets, Meta and Amazon use stack ranking for their employees, a controversial approach in evaluating talent. Popularized by G.E. in the 1980s (though the company later abandoned it), the process has managers rate their employees on a forced curve. Generally, only 20 percent are deemed top talent, and 10 to 15 percent must be designated as low performers. Although there are benefits, even in the best of times, the practice can create a competitive work environment that de-emphasizes employee improvement. With impending layoffs, people with the lowest ranking are typically the first to go.
The layoffs are part of a new age of bossism, the notion that management has given up too much control and must wrest it back from employees. After two decades of fighting for talent, chief executives are using this period to adjust for years of management indulgence that left them with a generation of entitled workers.
In 2012, to spur innovation and drive engagement, LinkedIn began the incubator program. A perk that encouraged employees to come up with approved ideas that they could work on full time for up to three months was generous even by Silicon Valley standards. Then there were the many lavish events that served to put a company's culture on display. It was par for the course for employees to attend elaborately themed holiday parties featuring the next new Instagrammable experience. If you happened to work at Uber in 2015 and attended its corporate event in Las Vegas, you were treated to a private performance from Beyoncé.
Executives across industries are leaning into their newfound bossism and ending pandemic-era work arrangements and incentives. Reed Hastings, Netflix's co-founder and co-C.E.O., said near the start of the pandemic that he didn't ''see any positives'' in working from home, and the company apparently allows only some remote work. TikTok reportedly told employees that it was sunsetting gym membership and Wi-Fi reimbursements as well as its $45 daily meal stipends to workers not tied to the company's main hubs, in its own efforts at restraint. These changes are bellwethers.
Not all tech employees see these shifts as signals. I recently spoke with a product marketing manager from Meta who was laid off. I assumed that she would be apprehensive about her job prospects; instead, armed with three months' severance and decent savings, she remains optimistic. With nearly 79 percent of software engineers and nearly 76 percent of marketers who were laid off in tech finding jobs within three months, her optimism isn't necessarily unfounded.
However, a few things are true now that make the shift in tech employee culture not just a moment in time but also a redefinition of how tech companies will be run.
Meta and Salesforce combined lost more than $700 billion in market cap last year. Both companies are now dealing with activist investors who have taken prominent positions in their stocks. The activists have called for the companies to slash costs, reduce nonstrategic investments and, notably in Meta's case, aggressively reduce its work force. Managers have less capacity to overhire and invest in employee initiatives that aren't tied directly to business execution.
For tech start-ups and founder-C.E.O.s, the past 10 years were a bull run. Interest rates were low, venture funding seemed limitless and valuations skyrocketed. With money being essentially free, founder-C.E.O.s dived in -- pursuing revenue, increasing their customer bases and investing in myriad people and projects.
However, with recent interest rates the highest they have been since late 2007 and continuing market uncertainty, investors are considering more investments in companies with strong fundamentals and cash flows. For founder-C.E.O.s, this means it will be harder to raise funding, and investors will have an even greater expectation of return on their money. For large tech companies and start-ups alike, cash is no longer free, and employee investments must pay off.
We are entering an era of external investor pressure, higher financing hurdles and overall market volatility. This environment calls for management to make structural changes in the way workplace culture is experienced for both labor and capital.
The current tech work force is used to every voice getting a vote, and it will now have to yield to a new world -- one with heightened expectations and disciplined investment. Not considering the winds of change will put the careers of many empowered workers at risk.
Nadia Rawlinson is a former chief people officer at Slack.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We'd like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips, and here's our email: letters@nytimes.com .
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
This article appeared in print on page SR9.
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2023 The New York Times Company
Here is my initial response to the article above from the New York Times:
ENG 130 Module One Reading Response
Author: Dean Hartwig.Professor: Julie Ramon.October 2023
For my project, I have selected “The Era of Happy Tech Workers” by Nadia Rawlinson. I chose this text because it is currently happening in our lives. It is relevant to living in the here and now.
This article is about how economic times impact the ability for workers to find a good job and keep a good wage, as well as understanding that harder work ethics might be forced upon the average worker soon.
This is an informative article that makes the future of working in the world seem intimidating.
The author seems to have written the article to educate readers on their sense of how they might need to expect to go into the workforce with an attitude that they are willing to work hardcore with less pay. This article sets the expectations of the reader for an uneasy job market.
This article was written in the early twenty-first century, a time when a transition between an entire world market and individual state and country markets were beginning to blur.
This article was written within the context of the downfall of business perks and the increase of heightened work ethics. Evidence for this is cited as thus: “Silicon Valley as we know it – with its radically transparent company cultures, empowered employees and flat hierarchies and rarified perks like nap pods and free food is quickly disappearing…” and, “Tech Chiefs executives are now optimizing more for profitability than for growth at all costs sometimes at the expense of long held organizational beliefs.”
Looking forward to the populace of tech workers and employees in general need to step up their game to become more competitive; seeing as the market for tech workers will be hyper-competitive.
Within Elon Musk’s companies there were many layoffs. “the employees who remained have had to endure greater workloads on significantly smaller teams.” Other tech companies began to do the same. “In 2022 the tech industry laid off over 15,000 people.” These include Microsoft, Alphabet, Meta, and Amazon as well as many others.
Below are the questions that I will answer in my response to the NYT article concerning tech workers.
- What kind of writing does the article remind you of?
- What are some of the typical aspects of this kind of writing?
- How does the style, format, and tone help you to identify the genre?
- Who do you think the author is writing for?
- Is there a specific group that the author is trying to convey their message to?
- How does the author attempt to connect with the audience?
- Does the author use facts, colorful stories, humor, citations of credible sources?
- What strategies does the author employ to draw in the audience and keep them reading?
- What is the author trying to do in the article?
- What is the author’s underlying message?
- How is the purpose different from the subject?
- How are the purpose and the genre related?
- How are the purpose, subject, and audience related?
The feelings that I got from reading the article make me think that the future will be tough. I believe that the article came across as one that would motivate a student who has recently graduated from high school to look forward to working very hard so that would be expected of them. The expectations placed on the student for an upcoming job industry are set high in this article. I have heard similar speeches and read similar articles. They typically are geared towards making sure that the student is prepared for the worst. In actuality, the job market is just as tough as it was fifty years ago. The genre of writing is educational in future tense. It is speculative in general. The actual outcomes of said market are unknown, however based on when this was written we can now see, that a lot of those theories of speculation came true.
The author uses facts and citations of credible sources to illustrate the point of a dire future. The future is looked at as if it will be difficult, and that one must buckle up for a rough ride. It is a depressing article, but if one has an attitude of positivity, they can see that doing hard work and going against the odds is worth it! A person must think, “who do they think I am? Do they really believe that I will slump into my seat and simply accept a sad future and status quo?” Those are the people that make the future bright, instead of being complacent with their surroundings. In other words, a lot of times individuals underestimate people’s drive for life. I personally have learned that to underestimate anybody is a gross
flaw. That estimation placed on people will make them arduously do the opposite and give them more motivation to grow further than was thought.
Nadia Rawlinson connects with her audience by depicting the work-life standard of previous generations.
Quoting from the second paragraph of her article Rawlinson states that, “For nearly two decades, tech companies heralded an approach that centered on making workers happy with benefits that were
intended to seamlessly integrate work and life.” Seeing her target audience as new workers who’ve just graduated from high school or college, those people have had experiences with their parents working at said tech companies. Those companies had lavish benefits that were unheard of before, or after.
Nadia Rawlinson is attempting to draw in the audience with realistic expectations concerning the future of work-life in the tech industry. The purpose of the article is to inform the audience of the hardships awaiting a future employee at a tech company. The subject of the article is an informative description of where things are headed.
Simply stated, the target audience is a younger generation preparing for the job market in the tech
industry. There are many facts given to support the argument of where the industry is headed. There is
not much to say about the other side of the argument. The article is simply her opinion. It’s set in the future and is not completely factual. It bases its predictions on what has happened. No one can know the future, but going on many, many numbers, and typical processes of company patterns, one can surmise the future of the industry. This article was not very emotional. It was data driven. There were slight mentions of how nice things used to be. She stated that, “Silicon Valley as we know it -- with its radically transparent company cultures, empowered employees, flat hierarchies and rarefied perks like nap pods and free food,” and “Times, as they say, are a-changin'… making for a less-than-ideal I.P.O.
environment…” There tends to be multiple times in history when there is a hyped-up venture to do
something cool or radical. These rarely last long. It seems that we have recently gone through one. It
was the dot com bubble. That bubble has burst. Now we are left to come back to normal life where the internet is still around, but the explosion of a brand-new place for real estate has normalized and the journey to the unknown is now known. The same went for the gold rush, and the prospect for oil and land. The internet was a new discovery, and now that it’s known, the drive to discover is gone.
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2023 Dean Russel Hartwig
Comments
Post a Comment