I am fundamentally opposed to the concept of “putting up with” things. To me, that phrase means constantly enduring negative emotions over things that happen regularly in your life.
Certainly, there are circumstances where you have no choice but to tolerate a situation. However, I find this acceptable exclusively when things are completely outside my sphere of control. A classic example is visiting a government agency to obtain a document. I cannot change how that organization is structured, nor can I influence the lines or the level of service. I need a specific outcome, and since I have no power to change the conditions, I am willing to grin and bear it.
Yet, when it comes to my own company’s employees, the idea of “putting up with” anything becomes entirely inapplicable. This business was created, designed, and managed by me. It is a system that falls wholly and completely within my control. Therefore, the notion that an entrepreneur should have to tolerate anything inside their own company is fundamentally flawed from the start.
Different People and the Culture of Dissent
Read also
All people are different, and employees are no exception. There are specialists with an open communication style: driven by high self-confidence, they express their opinions directly, and this isn’t necessarily criticism. Then there are those who prefer to keep their thoughts to themselves due to personal habits—whether it’s introversion or other personality traits. This has no direct bearing on corporate culture; a business needs different kinds of talent for different tasks. Whether a person stays silent or voices disagreement is neither a plus nor a minus in itself. However, when an employee makes a well-reasoned argument against their manager, I view that as an unequivocal positive.
The ability to openly push back against leadership signals a healthy company atmosphere, a high level of self-confidence, employee mindfulness, and trust in management. Naturally, I’m not talking about petty squabbles or “no, you’re the idiot” exchanges. I am referring to constructive, substantive debate: discussing ideas, testing hypotheses, and analyzing data. I firmly believe that truth is genuinely born out of such debates.
I don’t consider myself untalented, but I am certainly not gifted at everything. I have my own experience and knowledge, just as others have theirs. I respect other people’s perspectives and am genuinely interested in hearing them.
That said, there are two important exceptions here:
- Chronic arguers. Some people exist in a specific emotional state where they feel compelled to object for no good reason at all. Incidentally, managing them is quite simple and amusing: you just have to use reverse psychology and say, “You probably wouldn’t want to go to the movies with me anyway,” and they will immediately agree to go. Still, it is best to avoid dealing with people who are perpetually dissatisfied and argue just for the sake of arguing—both in life and in business.
- Crisis situations. In moments when the business is in danger or time is critical, any decision is better than no decision at all. During these periods, there is no time for brainstorming sessions. A leader must say, “Right now, we are doing it this way, and we will discuss it later.” A reasonable employee will always accept that stance.
The Fallacy of Inflated Expectations
It is unreasonable to demand the same level of commitment from an employee that a business owner puts in, if only because the employee does not own the company.
A business owner has a distinct role: shaping the strategy, ideology, and rules by which the company operates. Until the company is sold, the entrepreneur is its alpha and omega. The business’s victory is their personal victory; the company’s collapse is their personal defeat. In a properly functioning system, the owner invests incomparably more, but they also reap a fundamentally different kind of reward.
An employee joins a company with a different set of responsibilities and tools. They might love the project, the culture, the atmosphere, and the founder; they might find great personal fulfillment in their work, yet their level of responsibility remains fundamentally different.
A family analogy fits well here. I am the father to my son, and we also have a nanny. It would be naive of me to expect the nanny to have the same tender, profound devotion and constant concern for my child’s future as I do. She is the nanny; I am the dad. Our roles dictate the difference in our level of investment, and that is completely normal.
If key top managers truly make massive contributions, they naturally climb the career ladder and often go on to become partners and co-owners of the company. Their role changes, and along with it, their level of commitment aligns accordingly.
The Limits of Salary and the Power of Purpose
Compensation is frequently overestimated when companies try to use it as a tool to change people’s attitudes toward their work. Money works, yes, but its impact is strictly limited.
A high income and generous bonuses make the job itself valuable. People recognize that value and are afraid of losing it. But does the size of a paycheck directly impact creative output, intrinsic motivation, and the quality of work? It does, though very indirectly.
A vivid illustration of this principle is the famous experiment by the American company Gravity Payments, which was widely covered by the BBC. In 2015, its founder, Dan Price, radically slashed his own $1.1 million salary and established a minimum annual income of $70,000 for every employee.
On one hand, the primary effect of high pay was confirmed: their jobs became exceptionally valuable to the staff. Company turnover dropped to half the industry average. People were relieved of everyday financial stress: 70% of employees paid off their debts, many were able to buy their own homes for the first time, and the birth rate among the staff increased tenfold. The company grew from 120 to 200 people, and its payment processing volume jumped from $3.8 billion to $10.2 billion.
On the other hand, the case exposed the hard limits of money as a motivator. First, a simple, across-the-board salary hike triggered an exodus of several key senior specialists; they felt it was unfair that entry-level newcomers were suddenly making the exact same amount as seasoned professionals who had put in years of hard work. Second, even a $70,000 salary does not inherently turn a routine executor into a passionate innovator—it merely keeps a person in their seat.
Salaries must be market-competitive, adequate, fair, and attractive to both parties. This is the baseline: its sole purpose is to ensure an employee’s desire to work doesn’t actively decline.
However, money alone is not enough to actually increase that desire. Strong, creative, capable specialists can earn good money anywhere. What truly compels people to pour their souls and extra creativity into their work lies entirely outside the financial realm.
Top talent needs purpose:
- ambitious company goals and a clear understanding of how to achieve them;
- engaging, challenging projects;
- clear prospects for career advancement;
- opportunities to develop their professional competence;
- gamification and well-earned recognition.
In my experience, most companies handle salaries reasonably well. Yet when it comes to all the other components of motivation, things are often in terrible shape. And this exact area is where a business owner needs to focus their attention. It is a space where you can quickly bring order and achieve outstanding results.
Alexander VISOTSKY
