6 ms·

It sounds like you think that values should be a description of which of two reasonable choices a company wants its employees to choose... For example, a compa

It sounds like you think that values should be a description of which of two reasonable choices a company wants its employees to choose... For example, a company's value as stated might be "Education and experience don't matter and the most junior employee can argue with architectural choices as long as they are willing to argue cogently and with evidence." Then if you "invert" it you get "Education and experience matter; give weight to other people's expertise, education and experience in a field." So both of them are "still something good", I guess. But a startup might choose the former. If I've understood your suggestion correctly, then the problem with your suggestion is that some cultural values are about things that tech startups get wrong, and the inversion is not any good at all. How do you invert something like "don't bully other employees or pick on them due to their belonging to some protected class - to overcome subconscious biases, if you do not belong to that class then stop for a moment and consciously treat them the same as if they belonged to the same class as yourself"? What is the "inversion" of this obvious cultural choice which is obviously good? Do you think that it is "bland and generic" just because it is obvious that it is right and its inversion is wrong? I don't think it's obvious at all, and I think a lot of companies get these cultural values completely wrong, and, for example, do foster an atmosphere of harassment. I want to get this comment away from the political so I'll make another, purely technical example: if a rule is, "make sure something actually builds before you check it in" then the inversion is "don't worry about making sure it builds before you check it in"? That's not "still something good" as you've stated, so...does it make the specific technical suggestion I listed "bland and generic"? So I'm not sure how helpful your rule is.

harryh 9y ago
dmlorenzetti & bryanlarsen both make the core point I try to get at in sibling comments to this one but I'll also dd that I think there are some useful things underneath your two specific examples: 1) I think a company that really epitomizes the point you are trying to make here is Slack. They seem to value diversity and inclusion more than any other SV company right now. This has probably helped them be successful, but to me it seems like they care about this value above and beyond the effect on their business. They want to make the world a better place and will expend resources to do so. Conversely I slick of PayPal back in 2000. Levchin has spoken explicitly about how they valued hiring a team of people with very similar world views and how that helped them avoid wasting time arguing and instead focus on execution. I've also heard stories about how engineers would literally wrestle to solve disputes[1]. These sound like very different companies! I can imagine people that would relish working at the former and hate working at the latter (or vice versa). Both quite successful though. 2) WRT building before you check in that obviously brings me back to FB's "move fast and break things." I dunno about breaking the build as I've never worked there, but I definitely know that for the longest time FB was very very cavalier about breaking their external API. From one perspective that certainly sounds like a bad thing, but on the other hand maybe that "move fast" part really was a big part of the key to FB's success? Perhaps some of the things that you think are absolutely wrong are just wrong according to your particular values. You should obviously want to work at a business that aligns with those values but perhaps there are other businesses that operate the opposite way and that oppositeness helps them succeed. 1. http://blakemasters.com/post/21437840885/peter-thiels-cs183-startup-class-5-notes-essay http://blakemasters.com/post/21437840885/peter-thiels-cs183-...
- logicallee 9y ago
  You make interesting points. I do think sometimes there really is no trade-off. So why doesn't every company adopt that policy which has no trade-offs? Because they don't know or haven't heard of it, thought of it. Simply writing a sentence could make anyone reading that sentence slap their forehead and say "why didn't I think of that" and instantly adopt it with no resistance - a policy can spread like a meme to everyone who's ever heard of it, resisted by no one. Then if you read it about a potential employer you can say "great! they've already heard of it." You might think I'm being silly and that real values aren't like that - that I'm just not seeing the alternative viewpoint or trade-off. But I actually think there are a huge class of values like this. I guess that's just my opinion.
  - harryh 9y ago
    I think they are a huge class of values like this too. I just don't think it's as useful to state them outright in a corporate values statement. String too many of them together and you get this: https://www.ibm.com/ibm/values/us/ https://www.ibm.com/ibm/values/us/ Just try to read it without your eyes glazing over. Can you even get to the end? It's not that anything in the list is wrong or bad. It's just boring. It's obvious. Who cares? I bet 90% of IBM employees have never even read the damn thing much less ever actually changed anything about how they do their job because of it. Great values statements are great because they are shocking, because they get people to pay attention, and because they actually get people to change how they do things. Move fast and BREAK THINGS(1). The god damn CEO telling employees to break things. That's how you differentiate yourself. 1. Sorry to keep using this example. It's just the best. I don't even particularly like Facebook but this is just a fucking great corporate values statement. It's so great that millions of people outside the company know it and have thought about it.
    - logicallee 9y ago
      I'm really glad you decided to link that IBM page because I can use to to show you that your "inversion" metric is one I really do reject. I've rewritten the top of the document to invert it. https://pastebin.com/YmKB0uNV https://pastebin.com/YmKB0uNV I stopped, but obviously could have continued to go through the rest of the document. So by your proposed standard of "is the inverted version still good" the answer is "absolutely". But that doesn't make these good values! I agree with you that it is not a great document at all. Even though it can be inverted without any problem or challenge. I simply can't accept the inversion tool you proffered.
bryanlarsen 9y ago
A "no harassment" clause doesn't tell you anything. It could be there because the company is serious about combating harassment. Or it could be there because the company has a harassment problem and is covering its ass. The lack of the clause could be because the company actually has a harassment culture or because the company has a great culture and has never seen the need to add the clause. The point is that every company will say that they're against harassment so the only way you can tell how effective they are about it is through deeds not words. But clauses that can be inverted positively actually have a chance of telling you something.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
dmlorenzetti 9y ago
[I]f a rule is, "make sure something actually builds before you check it in" then the inversion is "don't worry about making sure it builds before you check it in"? ...does it make the specific technical suggestion I listed "bland and generic"? I think you hit the nail on the head when you called it a generic technical rule -- it's not a value that distinguishes the culture of the company. So while it might be sensible corporate policy, it doesn't really say anything about the company culture (not sure I would call it bland, but that's just wordsmithing). Taking that a step further, suppose company policy included that and a host of other "bland technical rules" with which most practitioners agree. Then company values might state "We follow industry best practices." You can imagine an inversion, "We feel free to ignore best practices if it helps ship a product early", that would express something meaningful about the culture of working there.
jsjohnst 9y ago
I think you are over analyzing it and trying to find faults. At least two of the things you mentioned should be company policies, not values. Values are things you push for, but might not attain (think aspirational goals), but policies are "set in stone" and if you don't follow them you're punished. Using the examples you mentioned that are clearly policies, "don't bully other employees or pick on them due to their belonging to some protected class" is a perfect example of a policy vs value. That's clearly a policy and one that if didn't exist at a job, I'd never join said company. Bullying isn't something we strive not to do, it's something we must not do, or else be fired. Checking in broken code may get you a slap on the wrist the first time, but repeatedly do that and again you'll likely be punished.
- logicallee 9y ago
  I've reviewed your comment. Firstly, it sounds like you think "don't murder other employees" is a policy at 100% of companies, but I don't think I've ever worked at a company with such a policy and neither have you. Your definition of policy is weird - you think policies exist regardless of whether they do. I base this on your comment that you'd never work at a company without such a policy. Secondly, I'm afraid I disagree with the essence of your comment, even given your weird definition of the meaning of policy. It seems that your view is that the second a value is phrased in an actionable and effective way you call it a policy: I read your definition of a value as something that cannot be parsed or disagreed with such as "awesome is better than great and great is better than good; but good is better is than bad." That sounds like a value, but if I made it meaningful, actionable, and effective, then it would become a policy. (according to you.) We are just too far apart to have a meaningful conversation I'm afraid. I read your comment carefully several times before coming to this conclusion.
  - occamrazor 9y ago
    All companies I know of have "comply with applicable laws" in their policies, which subsumes "do not murder other employees".
    - 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

harryh 9y ago

dmlorenzetti & bryanlarsen both make the core point I try to get at in sibling comments to this one but I'll also dd that I think there are some useful things underneath your two specific examples: 1) I think a company that really epitomizes the point you are trying to make here is Slack. They seem to value diversity and inclusion more than any other SV company right now. This has probably helped them be successful, but to me it seems like they care about this value above and beyond the effect on their business. They want to make the world a better place and will expend resources to do so. Conversely I slick of PayPal back in 2000. Levchin has spoken explicitly about how they valued hiring a team of people with very similar world views and how that helped them avoid wasting time arguing and instead focus on execution. I've also heard stories about how engineers would literally wrestle to solve disputes[1]. These sound like very different companies! I can imagine people that would relish working at the former and hate working at the latter (or vice versa). Both quite successful though. 2) WRT building before you check in that obviously brings me back to FB's "move fast and break things." I dunno about breaking the build as I've never worked there, but I definitely know that for the longest time FB was very very cavalier about breaking their external API. From one perspective that certainly sounds like a bad thing, but on the other hand maybe that "move fast" part really was a big part of the key to FB's success? Perhaps some of the things that you think are absolutely wrong are just wrong according to your particular values. You should obviously want to work at a business that aligns with those values but perhaps there are other businesses that operate the opposite way and that oppositeness helps them succeed. 1. http://blakemasters.com/post/21437840885/peter-thiels-cs183-startup-class-5-notes-essay http://blakemasters.com/post/21437840885/peter-thiels-cs183-...

logicallee 9y ago
You make interesting points. I do think sometimes there really is no trade-off. So why doesn't every company adopt that policy which has no trade-offs? Because they don't know or haven't heard of it, thought of it. Simply writing a sentence could make anyone reading that sentence slap their forehead and say "why didn't I think of that" and instantly adopt it with no resistance - a policy can spread like a meme to everyone who's ever heard of it, resisted by no one. Then if you read it about a potential employer you can say "great! they've already heard of it." You might think I'm being silly and that real values aren't like that - that I'm just not seeing the alternative viewpoint or trade-off. But I actually think there are a huge class of values like this. I guess that's just my opinion.
- harryh 9y ago
  I think they are a huge class of values like this too. I just don't think it's as useful to state them outright in a corporate values statement. String too many of them together and you get this: https://www.ibm.com/ibm/values/us/ https://www.ibm.com/ibm/values/us/ Just try to read it without your eyes glazing over. Can you even get to the end? It's not that anything in the list is wrong or bad. It's just boring. It's obvious. Who cares? I bet 90% of IBM employees have never even read the damn thing much less ever actually changed anything about how they do their job because of it. Great values statements are great because they are shocking, because they get people to pay attention, and because they actually get people to change how they do things. Move fast and BREAK THINGS(1). The god damn CEO telling employees to break things. That's how you differentiate yourself. 1. Sorry to keep using this example. It's just the best. I don't even particularly like Facebook but this is just a fucking great corporate values statement. It's so great that millions of people outside the company know it and have thought about it.
  - logicallee 9y ago
    I'm really glad you decided to link that IBM page because I can use to to show you that your "inversion" metric is one I really do reject. I've rewritten the top of the document to invert it. https://pastebin.com/YmKB0uNV https://pastebin.com/YmKB0uNV I stopped, but obviously could have continued to go through the rest of the document. So by your proposed standard of "is the inverted version still good" the answer is "absolutely". But that doesn't make these good values! I agree with you that it is not a great document at all. Even though it can be inverted without any problem or challenge. I simply can't accept the inversion tool you proffered.

bryanlarsen 9y ago

A "no harassment" clause doesn't tell you anything. It could be there because the company is serious about combating harassment. Or it could be there because the company has a harassment problem and is covering its ass. The lack of the clause could be because the company actually has a harassment culture or because the company has a great culture and has never seen the need to add the clause. The point is that every company will say that they're against harassment so the only way you can tell how effective they are about it is through deeds not words. But clauses that can be inverted positively actually have a chance of telling you something.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

dmlorenzetti 9y ago

[I]f a rule is, "make sure something actually builds before you check it in" then the inversion is "don't worry about making sure it builds before you check it in"? ...does it make the specific technical suggestion I listed "bland and generic"? I think you hit the nail on the head when you called it a generic technical rule -- it's not a value that distinguishes the culture of the company. So while it might be sensible corporate policy, it doesn't really say anything about the company culture (not sure I would call it bland, but that's just wordsmithing). Taking that a step further, suppose company policy included that and a host of other "bland technical rules" with which most practitioners agree. Then company values might state "We follow industry best practices." You can imagine an inversion, "We feel free to ignore best practices if it helps ship a product early", that would express something meaningful about the culture of working there.

jsjohnst 9y ago

I think you are over analyzing it and trying to find faults. At least two of the things you mentioned should be company policies, not values. Values are things you push for, but might not attain (think aspirational goals), but policies are "set in stone" and if you don't follow them you're punished. Using the examples you mentioned that are clearly policies, "don't bully other employees or pick on them due to their belonging to some protected class" is a perfect example of a policy vs value. That's clearly a policy and one that if didn't exist at a job, I'd never join said company. Bullying isn't something we strive not to do, it's something we must not do, or else be fired. Checking in broken code may get you a slap on the wrist the first time, but repeatedly do that and again you'll likely be punished.

logicallee 9y ago
I've reviewed your comment. Firstly, it sounds like you think "don't murder other employees" is a policy at 100% of companies, but I don't think I've ever worked at a company with such a policy and neither have you. Your definition of policy is weird - you think policies exist regardless of whether they do. I base this on your comment that you'd never work at a company without such a policy. Secondly, I'm afraid I disagree with the essence of your comment, even given your weird definition of the meaning of policy. It seems that your view is that the second a value is phrased in an actionable and effective way you call it a policy: I read your definition of a value as something that cannot be parsed or disagreed with such as "awesome is better than great and great is better than good; but good is better is than bad." That sounds like a value, but if I made it meaningful, actionable, and effective, then it would become a policy. (according to you.) We are just too far apart to have a meaningful conversation I'm afraid. I read your comment carefully several times before coming to this conclusion.
- occamrazor 9y ago
  All companies I know of have "comply with applicable laws" in their policies, which subsumes "do not murder other employees".
  - 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]