3 ms·

I'm surprised how negative most of the comments here are. The guy's views are a bit extreme, but in my experience there is a lot of truth to what he's saying. I

I'm surprised how negative most of the comments here are. The guy's views are a bit extreme, but in my experience there is a lot of truth to what he's saying. In a perfect world you'll have brilliant, self-driven employees; you can give them great conditions and direction, collect status reports once a week, and everything will get done. In a real world this is nearly impossible - most smart people are not self-driven, if you give them good conditions they'll sit around and browse the web all day. Think how much this applies to most of us! Unless there is uncertainty and a reasonable degree of pressure, most people won't perform well. Employees that are smart and self-driven are one in million, there aren't nearly enough of them for thousands of businesses in America.

BRadmin 17y ago
I concur. I think not wanting to implement this type of workplace for my small service based company is exactly what's been keeping us from taking things to the next level. For us, it's been worth it to have a relaxed work environment with happy employees, but I'd be lying to myself if I didn't think it came at the cost of some decreased profits. I also find myself questioning our motivations for doing such -- is it just easier on us, as owners, to have a less stressed workplace? Are we afraid of being disliked by employees? Are these good reasons? Anyways, the article does sound like a nightmare for any technical person, where creative liberty and freedom to innovate aren't fostered while under micromanagement. However most US businesses, despite HN's demographic, don't fall into this category.
pyre 17y ago
> The guy's views are a bit extreme I really hope that you are understating that. This guy's views are not just a 'bit' extreme.
scorpioxy 17y ago
I always wondered what self-driven means. I always thought that it was HR-speak for "enjoys doing slave labor for very little money while making somebody else more rich". Although I have stayed up all night coding for the benefit of someone else, I have long since grown and learned that it was a stupid thing to do.

BRadmin 17y ago

I concur. I think not wanting to implement this type of workplace for my small service based company is exactly what's been keeping us from taking things to the next level. For us, it's been worth it to have a relaxed work environment with happy employees, but I'd be lying to myself if I didn't think it came at the cost of some decreased profits. I also find myself questioning our motivations for doing such -- is it just easier on us, as owners, to have a less stressed workplace? Are we afraid of being disliked by employees? Are these good reasons? Anyways, the article does sound like a nightmare for any technical person, where creative liberty and freedom to innovate aren't fostered while under micromanagement. However most US businesses, despite HN's demographic, don't fall into this category.

pyre 17y ago

> The guy's views are a bit extreme I really hope that you are understating that. This guy's views are not just a 'bit' extreme.

scorpioxy 17y ago

I always wondered what self-driven means. I always thought that it was HR-speak for "enjoys doing slave labor for very little money while making somebody else more rich". Although I have stayed up all night coding for the benefit of someone else, I have long since grown and learned that it was a stupid thing to do.