5 ms·

But this is obvious! Hiring admin assistant is the first thing to help the business. Where is the controversy there?

joshstrange 10y ago
It may be obvious to you but as someone currently working on launching their own company with a team of engineers/designer this was not on our roadmap at all as our first outside hires.
- atemerev 10y ago
  It would be during the first few months of operations :)
  - joshstrange 10y ago
    I think the point of the article is that you shouldn't wait till it is a problem, you should address it right away. Controversial may not be the right word, maybe "overlooked" is better to describe it?
    - jonnathanson 10y ago
      I agree with you on the wording. "Overlooked" is a better word for this hire. "Controversial" would be hiring, I dunno, a VP of Sales before the product is built. (Not that that ever stopped anyone in the '90s, but hey.)
whack 10y ago
This isn't directed solely at you, but it's extremely annoying to hear someone make a great argument for something, only to hear someone else put them down by saying something like "But it's so obvious! Why are you wasting your time and mine by writing this?" Just because it's obvious to you, doesn't mean it's obvious to everyone else. Just because it's obvious to you, doesn't mean it's not worth talking about. In this case, I've seen plenty of startups postpone hiring any admins until 15-20+ headcount, in the interests of cutting costs to the bone and being scrappy. Clearly to these people, the author's recommendation is not obvious at all. If you think that someone's advice is bad and want to call them out on it, go ahead. If you think that someone's advice is so obvious that it's not useful, then just ignore them or downvote them. But telling someone on a message board to shut up because you agree with everything they said, just comes across as both rude and not useful in any way.
- atemerev 10y ago
  But I was not telling anyone to shut up. I just been telling "a great idea, and quite obvious first thing to do — why it is controversial?" In no way it follows from my words that this post is redundant or should not be posted; in fact, I upvoted it. Some (perhaps most) good ideas are obvious. Still worth repeating them.
  - whack 10y ago
    Sorry if I misinterpreted your post. Glad to hear that we're on the same page.
  - reflexive 10y ago
    Actually you didn't say "why is it controversial" - you said "where is the controversy", implying that it isn't controversial at all.
    - atemerev 10y ago
      For me, it wasn't. But, as other fellow HN users have already enlightened me, apparently there exists some cult of heroic founders who sleep for 2 hours per day and doing everything themselves. I wouldn't invest in that.
pbreit 10y ago
No. Most people would advising avoiding an office manager for awhile. The idea is that the company should only be doing important things and important things are worth doing by the key people.
- gl338 10y ago
  Completely agree. It took us to 15 people before we hired an Office Manager. Silly in hindsight, but not obvious at all, and we debated it quite a bit.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- atemerev 10y ago
  All right, but who will be doing "less important" and perhaps boring things, which can lead to many problems in the future in case of neglecting them? I got bitten by this pretty badly. But perhaps bureaucratic load in Europe is much harder than in the US. And for me, it was never a question of need — the need for designated operations/administration employee was obvious from day 1 after incorporation, I just thought I can't afford it. Well, I was wrong. I couldn't afford not having such a person. Some people say the same about lawyers.
  - pbreit 10y ago
    What are some examples of less important things that left undone/underdone can lead to many problems? (I'm not sure that something that can compromise your business can be considered "less important")
- jstandard 10y ago
  That seems a pretty romantic view of running a business. An office manager provides leverage for key people to focus on doing their MOST important things, without spending as much time on the operational realities of running a company. Office managers typically help with a mix of accounting, HR, coordination, and dozens of other operational tasks. In many cases doing a better job than key people who were overloaded with them before. While I suspect that Suster is making an exaggerated conclusion to drive page views, it doesn't sound that off the mark to me. After raising an A round, you're going to want your key people spending as much time as possible on scaling the core business. An office manager is a great way to help them do that.
jonnathanson 10y ago
The myth of the heroic founder/CEO, staying up all day and all night, never spending a dime, pulling everything together, solving all problems, fueled by a limitless reserve of energy and a superhuman ability to get by on 2 hours of sleep every week, is potent. It's also ingrained in a lot of people's heads. What are the (potentially toxic) implications of this myth? First, that the founder/CEO isn't a "true founder" unless he or she is entirely self-sufficient. Second, that hiring an office manager or personal admin early on signals weakness -- that it's the founder being precious or high maintenance. Unheroic. You'd be surprised at how pervasive the myth is, and how many founders are either too self-conscious or too caught up in the scramble to even consider the benefits of hiring for this role. A solid office manager/admin is a really strong hire, and if anything, hiring one should signal maturity. It shows that the CEO knows how to segment the tasks into those he/she should be focused on, and those he/she should be delegating. It shows that the CEO knows how to value his/her time and energy appropriately. This may seem obvious to many, but certainly not to all.
- atemerev 10y ago
  I am truly surprised.
  - genericpseudo 10y ago
    The founder myth is that anything you can do you should do, and admitting otherwise is weakness. Been there. Self-destructive. Bad idea.

It may be obvious to you but as someone currently working on launching their own company with a team of engineers/designer this was not on our roadmap at all as our first outside hires.

atemerev 10y ago
It would be during the first few months of operations :)
- joshstrange 10y ago
  I think the point of the article is that you shouldn't wait till it is a problem, you should address it right away. Controversial may not be the right word, maybe "overlooked" is better to describe it?
  - jonnathanson 10y ago
    I agree with you on the wording. "Overlooked" is a better word for this hire. "Controversial" would be hiring, I dunno, a VP of Sales before the product is built. (Not that that ever stopped anyone in the '90s, but hey.)

whack 10y ago

This isn't directed solely at you, but it's extremely annoying to hear someone make a great argument for something, only to hear someone else put them down by saying something like "But it's so obvious! Why are you wasting your time and mine by writing this?" Just because it's obvious to you, doesn't mean it's obvious to everyone else. Just because it's obvious to you, doesn't mean it's not worth talking about. In this case, I've seen plenty of startups postpone hiring any admins until 15-20+ headcount, in the interests of cutting costs to the bone and being scrappy. Clearly to these people, the author's recommendation is not obvious at all. If you think that someone's advice is bad and want to call them out on it, go ahead. If you think that someone's advice is so obvious that it's not useful, then just ignore them or downvote them. But telling someone on a message board to shut up because you agree with everything they said, just comes across as both rude and not useful in any way.

atemerev 10y ago
But I was not telling anyone to shut up. I just been telling "a great idea, and quite obvious first thing to do — why it is controversial?" In no way it follows from my words that this post is redundant or should not be posted; in fact, I upvoted it. Some (perhaps most) good ideas are obvious. Still worth repeating them.
- whack 10y ago
  Sorry if I misinterpreted your post. Glad to hear that we're on the same page.
- reflexive 10y ago
  Actually you didn't say "why is it controversial" - you said "where is the controversy", implying that it isn't controversial at all.
  - atemerev 10y ago
    For me, it wasn't. But, as other fellow HN users have already enlightened me, apparently there exists some cult of heroic founders who sleep for 2 hours per day and doing everything themselves. I wouldn't invest in that.

pbreit 10y ago

No. Most people would advising avoiding an office manager for awhile. The idea is that the company should only be doing important things and important things are worth doing by the key people.

gl338 10y ago
Completely agree. It took us to 15 people before we hired an Office Manager. Silly in hindsight, but not obvious at all, and we debated it quite a bit.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
atemerev 10y ago
All right, but who will be doing "less important" and perhaps boring things, which can lead to many problems in the future in case of neglecting them? I got bitten by this pretty badly. But perhaps bureaucratic load in Europe is much harder than in the US. And for me, it was never a question of need — the need for designated operations/administration employee was obvious from day 1 after incorporation, I just thought I can't afford it. Well, I was wrong. I couldn't afford not having such a person. Some people say the same about lawyers.
- pbreit 10y ago
  What are some examples of less important things that left undone/underdone can lead to many problems? (I'm not sure that something that can compromise your business can be considered "less important")
jstandard 10y ago
That seems a pretty romantic view of running a business. An office manager provides leverage for key people to focus on doing their MOST important things, without spending as much time on the operational realities of running a company. Office managers typically help with a mix of accounting, HR, coordination, and dozens of other operational tasks. In many cases doing a better job than key people who were overloaded with them before. While I suspect that Suster is making an exaggerated conclusion to drive page views, it doesn't sound that off the mark to me. After raising an A round, you're going to want your key people spending as much time as possible on scaling the core business. An office manager is a great way to help them do that.

jonnathanson 10y ago

The myth of the heroic founder/CEO, staying up all day and all night, never spending a dime, pulling everything together, solving all problems, fueled by a limitless reserve of energy and a superhuman ability to get by on 2 hours of sleep every week, is potent. It's also ingrained in a lot of people's heads. What are the (potentially toxic) implications of this myth? First, that the founder/CEO isn't a "true founder" unless he or she is entirely self-sufficient. Second, that hiring an office manager or personal admin early on signals weakness -- that it's the founder being precious or high maintenance. Unheroic. You'd be surprised at how pervasive the myth is, and how many founders are either too self-conscious or too caught up in the scramble to even consider the benefits of hiring for this role. A solid office manager/admin is a really strong hire, and if anything, hiring one should signal maturity. It shows that the CEO knows how to segment the tasks into those he/she should be focused on, and those he/she should be delegating. It shows that the CEO knows how to value his/her time and energy appropriately. This may seem obvious to many, but certainly not to all.

atemerev 10y ago
I am truly surprised.
- genericpseudo 10y ago
  The founder myth is that anything you can do you should do, and admitting otherwise is weakness. Been there. Self-destructive. Bad idea.