6 ms·

I don't know, this feels like confirmation bias. When PG talks about founders being "nice", nice to whom? Their VC and advisor? Sure. Customers? Sure, hopefully

I don't know, this feels like confirmation bias. When PG talks about founders being "nice", nice to whom? Their VC and advisor? Sure. Customers? Sure, hopefully. But as we go down the line I'd argue that startups demonstrably aren't "nice": what does Uber pay drivers again? In fact, what startup in the task economy is "nice" to their workers? When your startup holds meetups at bars, you're not being nice to marginalized groups that don't do well in these settings. When you haven't examined your hiring practices you're not being nice to the people you've "culture-fitted" out of your organization. I like this vision, and I like the math. I'd just hope founders cast a wider net of niceness.

swsieber 11y ago
I've long thought of being nicer as coming in two flavors: increasing how nice you are to those you don't like (love your enemy" and increasing, as you put, the net of niceness (classifying less people as your enemy). That of course has a very simple view of niceness: you view people in only two categories. But I think it generalizes nicely to the nuanced groups people interact with: make the core group bigger or just be nicer to everyone. Of the two, I think the second is the hardest.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
XJOKOLAT 11y ago
I don't know, I took it to be a more simpler commentary which made sense to me. It's possible to be basically nice (firm, strong in your dealings, smart, deal-making, but nice all the same). Instead of being an archetypal asshole. p.s. I recoil at the term "culture-fit", shivers down the spine. You make some valid points.
- tbabb 11y ago
  I probably haven't had cause to encounter it for myself, but why does "culture fit" have a squicky connotation?
  - cbr 11y ago
    It can be a euphemism for discrimination.
  - vectorjohn 11y ago
    Because it's code for people just like me. A way to discriminate in an illegal way and say it's culture fit.
    - mistermann 11y ago
      It's also a way of only hiring yes-men. People who aren't yes-men are often considered to "have an attitude" and "not a good fit".
    - ryanSrich 11y ago
      I think it can actually mean something. Often times you'll get folks who aren't used to the pace of startups. They think they're coming into a nice cushy gig. Startups are cut throat. Some folks just aren't cut out for that. They'd be better off going to work for Google or Apple.
traskjd 11y ago
Arguably Uber was nice to the drivers when it was a start up. Frequently drivers commented they received more money than working as taxi drivers. Uber is now most certainly not a start up, and now that it has power it's starting to exert that power on those "down the line", as you say.
- chmike 11y ago
  It could be that the new people in charge are introducing the shift in policy. It may give the impression to earn more, but as PG shows, this is a false impression as long as growth is steady. Like PG I also think that it hurts gowth.
cowwithbeef 11y ago
The Uber example is a balance between benefiting customers and drivers. If the prices are too high, there won't be enough riders and if the prices are too low, there won't be enough drivers. There is a balanced price where the supply of drivers and riders is equal and fluctuations in this balance are seen in the surge prices. If Uber's share of the ride price went up, then the accusations of underpaying drivers would be more justified.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
merpnderp 11y ago
Isn't Uber a bad example? Their drivers have zero leverage because they require very little training and there is a high probability they'll be replaced in 5 years with self driving cars. But take the IT industry. I just saw a startup offering unlimited Amazon books, unlimited Starbucks coffee, half day Fridays, zero cost health care, and remote work, all in an attempt to attract employees. I'm not saying the Uber drivers should all go into IT, but there is a shortage of business administrators, educators, and health care workers in this country (and I'm sure lots of other fields).
- mattmanser 11y ago
  Why is that a bad example? I think it's the perfect example of where you'd have to be nice to pay well. There's no competitive advantage to paying your drivers well, there's no legal compulsion to pay drivers well, the only reason to pay your drivers well is to be nice. Your example is bad because the reason all those incentives are offered is because IT workers are in demand and so market forces are forcing employers to offer lots of benefits. Not because they're nice.
  - blackoil 11y ago
    Under isn't doing it for niceness, but to entice drivers into system ensuring the customers quick service, and driver's a minimum lucrative compensation during the time they are building customer base. It is same as first ride free, to attract people into system. Once you have critical mass of driver's and customers, they'll optimize for profit.
- Spooky23 11y ago
  It's a bad example because they are in the customer service business. Happy workers == happy customers. Uber's technology isn't novel and will be replicated. Robot cars will probably make them a commodity. Alienating the frontline is selling the future. Before Wal-Mart adopted a business model dependent on government subsidy of the workforce, they paid well and gave even part time workers significant discounts on stock purchases. When that stopped, and they took the asshole route, the shopping experience turned into the current state -- a few steps away from DMV.
pekk 11y ago
People aren't allowed to hold events at bars? Do you think it is nice to make that demand?
- drhayes9 11y ago
  Never said they weren't allowed, I'm not making a demand, and I'm not the one PG said is generally a nice person.
x404 11y ago
Personally I believe the "nice" should follow your heart. So don't think "nice to whom", just try your best and be yourself.
lexcorvus 11y ago
When your startup holds meetups at bars, you're not being nice to marginalized groups that don't do well in these settings. When you haven't examined your hiring practices you're not being nice to the people you've "culture-fitted" out of your organization. Freedom of association covers this case. If Company A irrationally discriminates systematically against any competent group, Company B can hire members of that group at a discount and beat Company A on labor costs. As companies C, D, E, etc., figure this out, their demand bids up wages, and everyone wins except Company A. But no. Freedom of association is biased against "marginalized" groups—an ever-expanding set that seems to be converging on "anyone who isn't a normal white (or maybe Asian) male". In the land of the free, "freedom" means "your company can hire whom it pleases, as long as the demographic pattern of those hires pleases me." It's not the job of companies to make "marginalized" groups feel welcome, or to be a good "culture fit" for anyone in particular, unless you (and the US Federal Government) make it their job. Which it seems you're only too happy to do. Destroying freedom of association? Apparently a small price to pay.
- drhayes9 11y ago
  You seem to have a particular political axe to grind. Fair enough. > It's not the job of companies to make "marginalized" groups feel welcome, or to be a good "culture fit" for anyone in particular, unless you (and the US Federal Government) make it their job. That would be the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Yes, it is your company's job to ensure that you are hiring fairly across all marginalized groups. You are free to "associate" with whomever you wish, at all times. But when through seeming coincidence some 96% of tech jobs are held by men I'd say there's something larger afoot. My theory is sexism. It provides a testable hypothesis that has been proven multiple times. It makes predictions on other effects we'd see. Those have also been proven. What's yours?
  - lexcorvus 11y ago
    That would be the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. That's the one. It seems like an obviously good idea. Are all seemingly good ideas actually good ideas? But when through seeming coincidence some 96% of tech jobs are held by men I'd say there's something larger afoot. Through what seeming coincidence are 100% of NFL player jobs held by men? Or 80% of health-care jobs held by women? My theory is sexism. It provides a testable hypothesis that has been proven multiple times. It makes predictions on other effects we'd see. Those have also been proven. Sexism is (a) not mutually exclusive with group differences and (b) is, in many of its claimed forms, wildly inconsistent with many observable facts. As an exercise, I suggest you try making a list of such facts. You might start by listing job categories dominated by women. (I'll get you going: health care, day care, education, publishing.) As a follow-up, try listing areas where men are objectively worse-off than women. (Maybe start with: homelessness, intellectual disability, autism, workplace fatalities, imprisonment, lifespan.) If you scratch most supposedly definitive examples of unfairness caused by sexism, you'll find some variant of the Blank Slate hypothesis underneath. Once you admit the possibility that men and women might not be blank slates, many of the patterns that appear to be "sexist" suddenly make sense. For example, many people assume that women and men have the same innate aptitude and inclination for "tech" (broadly defined). From this point of view, any deviations from "equality" (i.e., proportional representation) must derive either from overt sexism or from an endemic sexist culture. But when you accept the possibility that men and women may differ in more than stature and genitalia, suddenly it's not so clear. What's yours? Due to a combination of genetic and non-genetic differences, different groups are systematically different, and have different aptitudes and inclinations. Group differences lead to a first-order effect: all NFL players are male because all qualified players are male; some majority of those inclined to health care are female. The preponderance of a particular group also leads to a group culture reinforcing group identity. This leads to a second-order effect: female health-care workers create a feminine culture, attracting further female workers (while repelling male workers). This latter effect is sometimes called "sexism", but it's an inevitable consequence of human nature. Efforts to fight it will (a) cause massive collateral damage while (b) not working. (Has the Civil Rights Act of 1964 brought racial and gender harmony? It seems to me that in many ways things are worse than ever.) I'd guess we actually agree on many things, and in particular we want many of the same outcomes—or, at least, I want a subset of the outcomes you want. Let's say I want O and you want O + O'. Included in O is people of all races, colors, religions, genders, and national origins living prosperous, fulfilled lives free (as much as possible) of conflict and strife. Included in O' is the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Often (as with the Civil Rights Act) the intent of policies in O' is to achieve outcomes in O, but I believe that not only does O' not achieve O, it frequently achieves not-O. Believers in O' would rather wreck college athletics with Title IX, or wreck the black community with welfare, than admit that O' doesn't achieve its stated goals. That would lead to their being accused of "sexism" or "racism", and O'-believers are as eager to avoid such accusations as they are quick to deploy them against their enemies. (Whereas I don't care, because I see them for the Orwellian terms of abuse they are. Just call me a "crimethinker" and be done with it.)
brc 11y ago
It only talks about customer pricing and there is a lot more to it than that. On overly nice founder might have trouble of disposing of a bad employee, which could destroy the culture or destroy the product. They might accept worse investment terms by being nice to investors which might allow themselves to be removed. So, in terms of not overpricing the product, there is a valid discussion to have. But in terms of being a pushover, that's a bad thing. Often nice people get taken advantage of. So ther needs to be a clear differentiator between nice pricing/marketing and being firm and leading from the front. A founder needs respect from their team and nice might not make that happen.
- brlewis 11y ago
  Yes, if you define "nice" as being a pushover and conflict-avoider who would rather destroy the company culture than confront a problem employee, then yes, it's easy to be too nice. Try defining "nice" as a willingness to sacrifice your own interests for the interests of others and the essay will make a lot more sense.

swsieber 11y ago

I've long thought of being nicer as coming in two flavors: increasing how nice you are to those you don't like (love your enemy" and increasing, as you put, the net of niceness (classifying less people as your enemy). That of course has a very simple view of niceness: you view people in only two categories. But I think it generalizes nicely to the nuanced groups people interact with: make the core group bigger or just be nicer to everyone. Of the two, I think the second is the hardest.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

XJOKOLAT 11y ago

I don't know, I took it to be a more simpler commentary which made sense to me. It's possible to be basically nice (firm, strong in your dealings, smart, deal-making, but nice all the same). Instead of being an archetypal asshole. p.s. I recoil at the term "culture-fit", shivers down the spine. You make some valid points.

tbabb 11y ago
I probably haven't had cause to encounter it for myself, but why does "culture fit" have a squicky connotation?
- cbr 11y ago
  It can be a euphemism for discrimination.
- vectorjohn 11y ago
  Because it's code for people just like me. A way to discriminate in an illegal way and say it's culture fit.
  - mistermann 11y ago
    It's also a way of only hiring yes-men. People who aren't yes-men are often considered to "have an attitude" and "not a good fit".
  - ryanSrich 11y ago
    I think it can actually mean something. Often times you'll get folks who aren't used to the pace of startups. They think they're coming into a nice cushy gig. Startups are cut throat. Some folks just aren't cut out for that. They'd be better off going to work for Google or Apple.

traskjd 11y ago

Arguably Uber was nice to the drivers when it was a start up. Frequently drivers commented they received more money than working as taxi drivers. Uber is now most certainly not a start up, and now that it has power it's starting to exert that power on those "down the line", as you say.

chmike 11y ago
It could be that the new people in charge are introducing the shift in policy. It may give the impression to earn more, but as PG shows, this is a false impression as long as growth is steady. Like PG I also think that it hurts gowth.

cowwithbeef 11y ago

The Uber example is a balance between benefiting customers and drivers. If the prices are too high, there won't be enough riders and if the prices are too low, there won't be enough drivers. There is a balanced price where the supply of drivers and riders is equal and fluctuations in this balance are seen in the surge prices. If Uber's share of the ride price went up, then the accusations of underpaying drivers would be more justified.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

merpnderp 11y ago

Isn't Uber a bad example? Their drivers have zero leverage because they require very little training and there is a high probability they'll be replaced in 5 years with self driving cars. But take the IT industry. I just saw a startup offering unlimited Amazon books, unlimited Starbucks coffee, half day Fridays, zero cost health care, and remote work, all in an attempt to attract employees. I'm not saying the Uber drivers should all go into IT, but there is a shortage of business administrators, educators, and health care workers in this country (and I'm sure lots of other fields).

mattmanser 11y ago
Why is that a bad example? I think it's the perfect example of where you'd have to be nice to pay well. There's no competitive advantage to paying your drivers well, there's no legal compulsion to pay drivers well, the only reason to pay your drivers well is to be nice. Your example is bad because the reason all those incentives are offered is because IT workers are in demand and so market forces are forcing employers to offer lots of benefits. Not because they're nice.
- blackoil 11y ago
  Under isn't doing it for niceness, but to entice drivers into system ensuring the customers quick service, and driver's a minimum lucrative compensation during the time they are building customer base. It is same as first ride free, to attract people into system. Once you have critical mass of driver's and customers, they'll optimize for profit.
Spooky23 11y ago
It's a bad example because they are in the customer service business. Happy workers == happy customers. Uber's technology isn't novel and will be replicated. Robot cars will probably make them a commodity. Alienating the frontline is selling the future. Before Wal-Mart adopted a business model dependent on government subsidy of the workforce, they paid well and gave even part time workers significant discounts on stock purchases. When that stopped, and they took the asshole route, the shopping experience turned into the current state -- a few steps away from DMV.

pekk 11y ago

People aren't allowed to hold events at bars? Do you think it is nice to make that demand?

drhayes9 11y ago
Never said they weren't allowed, I'm not making a demand, and I'm not the one PG said is generally a nice person.

x404 11y ago

Personally I believe the "nice" should follow your heart. So don't think "nice to whom", just try your best and be yourself.

lexcorvus 11y ago

When your startup holds meetups at bars, you're not being nice to marginalized groups that don't do well in these settings. When you haven't examined your hiring practices you're not being nice to the people you've "culture-fitted" out of your organization. Freedom of association covers this case. If Company A irrationally discriminates systematically against any competent group, Company B can hire members of that group at a discount and beat Company A on labor costs. As companies C, D, E, etc., figure this out, their demand bids up wages, and everyone wins except Company A. But no. Freedom of association is biased against "marginalized" groups—an ever-expanding set that seems to be converging on "anyone who isn't a normal white (or maybe Asian) male". In the land of the free, "freedom" means "your company can hire whom it pleases, as long as the demographic pattern of those hires pleases me." It's not the job of companies to make "marginalized" groups feel welcome, or to be a good "culture fit" for anyone in particular, unless you (and the US Federal Government) make it their job. Which it seems you're only too happy to do. Destroying freedom of association? Apparently a small price to pay.

drhayes9 11y ago
You seem to have a particular political axe to grind. Fair enough. > It's not the job of companies to make "marginalized" groups feel welcome, or to be a good "culture fit" for anyone in particular, unless you (and the US Federal Government) make it their job. That would be the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Yes, it is your company's job to ensure that you are hiring fairly across all marginalized groups. You are free to "associate" with whomever you wish, at all times. But when through seeming coincidence some 96% of tech jobs are held by men I'd say there's something larger afoot. My theory is sexism. It provides a testable hypothesis that has been proven multiple times. It makes predictions on other effects we'd see. Those have also been proven. What's yours?
- lexcorvus 11y ago
  That would be the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. That's the one. It seems like an obviously good idea. Are all seemingly good ideas actually good ideas? But when through seeming coincidence some 96% of tech jobs are held by men I'd say there's something larger afoot. Through what seeming coincidence are 100% of NFL player jobs held by men? Or 80% of health-care jobs held by women? My theory is sexism. It provides a testable hypothesis that has been proven multiple times. It makes predictions on other effects we'd see. Those have also been proven. Sexism is (a) not mutually exclusive with group differences and (b) is, in many of its claimed forms, wildly inconsistent with many observable facts. As an exercise, I suggest you try making a list of such facts. You might start by listing job categories dominated by women. (I'll get you going: health care, day care, education, publishing.) As a follow-up, try listing areas where men are objectively worse-off than women. (Maybe start with: homelessness, intellectual disability, autism, workplace fatalities, imprisonment, lifespan.) If you scratch most supposedly definitive examples of unfairness caused by sexism, you'll find some variant of the Blank Slate hypothesis underneath. Once you admit the possibility that men and women might not be blank slates, many of the patterns that appear to be "sexist" suddenly make sense. For example, many people assume that women and men have the same innate aptitude and inclination for "tech" (broadly defined). From this point of view, any deviations from "equality" (i.e., proportional representation) must derive either from overt sexism or from an endemic sexist culture. But when you accept the possibility that men and women may differ in more than stature and genitalia, suddenly it's not so clear. What's yours? Due to a combination of genetic and non-genetic differences, different groups are systematically different, and have different aptitudes and inclinations. Group differences lead to a first-order effect: all NFL players are male because all qualified players are male; some majority of those inclined to health care are female. The preponderance of a particular group also leads to a group culture reinforcing group identity. This leads to a second-order effect: female health-care workers create a feminine culture, attracting further female workers (while repelling male workers). This latter effect is sometimes called "sexism", but it's an inevitable consequence of human nature. Efforts to fight it will (a) cause massive collateral damage while (b) not working. (Has the Civil Rights Act of 1964 brought racial and gender harmony? It seems to me that in many ways things are worse than ever.) I'd guess we actually agree on many things, and in particular we want many of the same outcomes—or, at least, I want a subset of the outcomes you want. Let's say I want O and you want O + O'. Included in O is people of all races, colors, religions, genders, and national origins living prosperous, fulfilled lives free (as much as possible) of conflict and strife. Included in O' is the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Often (as with the Civil Rights Act) the intent of policies in O' is to achieve outcomes in O, but I believe that not only does O' not achieve O, it frequently achieves not-O. Believers in O' would rather wreck college athletics with Title IX, or wreck the black community with welfare, than admit that O' doesn't achieve its stated goals. That would lead to their being accused of "sexism" or "racism", and O'-believers are as eager to avoid such accusations as they are quick to deploy them against their enemies. (Whereas I don't care, because I see them for the Orwellian terms of abuse they are. Just call me a "crimethinker" and be done with it.)

brc 11y ago

It only talks about customer pricing and there is a lot more to it than that. On overly nice founder might have trouble of disposing of a bad employee, which could destroy the culture or destroy the product. They might accept worse investment terms by being nice to investors which might allow themselves to be removed. So, in terms of not overpricing the product, there is a valid discussion to have. But in terms of being a pushover, that's a bad thing. Often nice people get taken advantage of. So ther needs to be a clear differentiator between nice pricing/marketing and being firm and leading from the front. A founder needs respect from their team and nice might not make that happen.

brlewis 11y ago
Yes, if you define "nice" as being a pushover and conflict-avoider who would rather destroy the company culture than confront a problem employee, then yes, it's easy to be too nice. Try defining "nice" as a willingness to sacrifice your own interests for the interests of others and the essay will make a lot more sense.