Disclosure: All companies mentioned here, with the exception of Apple, are clients of the author.
One of the people I look up to in the tech world is Stella Low, who I met at Dell Technologies. She moved from Dell to Cisco to Apple, then quickly moved to HP. Dell, Cisco, and HP prioritize employee and partner job satisfaction, while Apple focuses much more on margins and cost reduction.
Which approach is better?
Apple's performance and market valuation show the financial benefits of its tactic, but problems with companies like Qualcomm and its constant efforts to suppress the ability of employees to leave can create serious hiring and retention problems once these methods are used. are discovered and widely known.
Apple seems to manage employees like they're commodities, an approach that's not uncommon, but often has results like unionization and high employee turnover. To compensate for this turnover, there are policies that restrict the movement of employees, which is also not uncommon. Dell, Cisco, and HP treat employees more like people, some might say more like an ideal family.
The theory is that Dell, Cisco, and HP's approach is less likely to result in employee unions, unsustainable employee turnover, or behavioral issues related to employee abuse. That's the theory, at least, though underlying perceptions may be more influenced by time than process.
What is happening right now marks one of the rare occasions when you see two conflicting employee management systems in the same industry being pursued at the same time on a large scale.
remote work theory
Arguably the company that most actively supports remote employees is Dell. Ordered from top to bottom, Dell has not only allowed any employee to work remotely, but is also the most aggressive with programs that try to help employees do a better job with work-life balance. , while placing a high priority on building relationships. . Inside the company.
Apple, on the other hand, has required employees to return to the office, and appears unwilling (or unable) to successfully manage those who choose to work from home. Dell prioritizes the wants and needs of employees, while Apple sees command and control as the top priority. Additionally, Apple appears to put office occupancy above employee satisfaction; Dell appears to be rethinking the importance of its office structure and how those offices should operate in the future.
Tactical vs Strategic
You can also differentiate Apple's approach from others as tactical versus strategic. Apple's approach is tactical in that it solves the problem of effectively managing remote workers by limiting them, which makes the problem more manageable. But the number of Apple employees now saying they might jump ship, especially since it's so public, suggests that Apple will pay a strategic cost for this move in terms of lost employees and reduced productivity.
Other technology companies seem to recognize that working from home is a key benefit, given the wide disparity in the cost of living in the regions where these companies reside. And they take the time to find new ways to alleviate the issues of command and control, work-life balance, and relationships that the remote model is known to have.
Companies like Dell should have less employee turnover, which should reduce the number of disgruntled and misbehaving employees. But it also means that managers will have to be retrained, and team building and related programs will have to evolve. The benefits of this effort are likely to accrue over time rather than be immediate.
It's more than the bottom line
Apple's high valuation suggests that its approach to commoditizing employees, placing them far below the company's profit target and need for control, will eventually backfire. Programs like those from Cisco, HP, and especially Dell should allow for better strategic execution over time, and more stability, but none of them may beat Apple in valuation. (The success of the company's smartphones isn't mirrored by any of the other companies, giving it a big boost.)
The danger is that if companies simply look at financial statements, they might conclude that treating employees like commodities is good practice. This could be disastrous and it would be a mistake. The difference in tactics is probably related to the unique nature of Apple's success in a segment that others don't play.
Apple pays well, and it's not uncommon for employees to put salary before other factors. But money doesn't make up for the pain of working in an uncaring environment, and it seems many Apple employees are trying to vote with their feet. Whether this is enough to stop this productivity-reducing practice remains to be seen. But I know how I would like it to end, with an industry that realizes that employees are its greatest asset and treat them accordingly.
Copyright © 2022 IDG Communications, Inc.