8 ms·

This comment bothers me, but I can't quite put my finger on why. It's not you – your intentions are quite good. It's valuable information. I think it's bothers

This comment bothers me, but I can't quite put my finger on why. It's not you – your intentions are quite good. It's valuable information. I think it's bothersome because it's true. And that reveals just how subservient employees actually are. If you're an employee, you're servile. It permeates everything you do, and the way you're forced to interact and think with everyone around you. But especially those above and below you. In fact, "above" and "below" you are artificial terms. We're all people. Yet some people are more special than others. It's very hard to want to participate in such a system. But this is a personal flaw of mine.

pacala 9y ago
It's a search space. Think of people "above" as being more likely to know which direction to search next, and people "below" as being less likely to have a clue. Ignore people "above" at your own peril, fail to mentor people "below" at their peril.
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  If only. I love a good search space. (Really, there are few things more delightful.) The people above you are usually as clueless as you are. They just conceal it with confidence. Which they acquire because you can't fire the people above you, and it's less likely for their decisions to destroy the company/team than for your decisions to get you pruned. Being forced to bow your head and meekly speak in just the right way is enough to make me want to vomit. And I don't know where this feeling is coming from. It's very strong, and it came on in the last 6 months or so. It doesn't seem healthy. It probably sounds like I look down on people who act that way. Quite the opposite. It's more like realizing we're all forced to act that way, all the time, and suddenly I'm not so sure this system is one we should want to submit to. Even if people try to convince you that the power dynamic isn't there, it is. Every single decision you make is through the lens of "will this get me fired?" Especially when it matters, as this article illustrates. Which is by definition the most important time to take action.
  - angersock 9y ago
    I'd go so far to say that, at least for senior staff, you have a job precisely because the founders lack experise or wisdom in many topics. Their decisions are not guaranteed to be correct at all.
  - mseebach 9y ago
    Healthy teams have a dynamic where you can say what's on your mind and where you don't get fired for (single) mistakes. But this is not that. This is going to the board to get your co-founder fired. Damn right you better choose your words carefully.
  - zapita 9y ago
    > Being forced to bow your head and meekly speak in just the right way is enough to make me want to vomit. And I don't know where this feeling is coming from. It's very strong, and it came on in the last 6 months or so. It doesn't seem healthy. You work in a toxic environment. Start looking for a new job asap.
20180201 9y ago
that's a very pessimistic view, and one that doesn't take into account the reality of being an executive or board member. i'm a co-founder/executive of a small technology company. i have employees that used to be in my position when they were younger, but now they want to just do their jobs and go home. in other words, they don't have intense, heated discussions about strategy, make firing and hiring decisions, make large spending decisions, discuss the financial bookkeeping side of the business, try to raise money from or sell to really unpleasant people, soothe angry customers and employees, because they don't want to. they don't want their work day interrupted by a bunch of anxiety-ridden executive half-conversations and rants with no real conclusions or answers. almost none of their personal money is on the line, and very little of their potential income is on the line. they can go and find another 100k job tomorrow, they could possibly even make MORE money at their next job just by the dumb luck of losing their current one. did you ever think about that? but... now here's the part you won't like: the reason you hold your opinion is because you want something more than what you have now. and that fundamental mis-alignment is going to cause you some level of frustration, because you think of yourself as a shot caller, when you aren't (or, more specifically, don't have to be). and when you're told what to do you get resentful, because you think you know better. well, maybe you do, maybe you don't. but you don't write the checks, and that's what a business is. if you want to be involved at the upper levels, nothing is stopping you. you just need to either find that job, or create one for yourself. stepping into conversations in which you have no context and no skin in the game is a real fast way to get yourself shunned because you have shared NONE of the downside but you walk in the door like you have all the answers. quite frankly, that's bullshit. and quite frankly, even if it isn't, you don't have any influence in that situation so it's irrelevant.
- angersock 9y ago
  But...that's still the case with the founders too, no? Having a business puts you in a good position to get funding or customers for a new venture. The same labor market for your employees benefits you if you yourself have any technical skills worth mentioning. And your employees might care if they actually had a profit share in how the company did, or saw some direct upside when they did their job better or worse--which is usually not the case. Why break their back for an entitled owner resents them for knowing the value of their labor? You sound like somebody with the typical founder hubris.
Alex3917 9y ago
> In fact, "above" and "below" you are artificial terms. We're all people. Yet some people are more special than others. So would you be ok, for example, with your employer showing up at your house and telling you how you should be running your side project? It's their business, sometimes they are going to make mistakes, and by all means you should point out where you see room for improvement. But at the end of the day it's their reputation at stake so they need to be the ones making the decisions. And unless it's clear that they are defrauding investors or something then it's fine if those decisions don't work out, there is no ethical or legal issue there.
- wolco 9y ago
  If they had a 10% stake then yes.
  - Alex3917 9y ago
    If you have a 10% stake though then it's completely fine for you to talk to the board whenever you want in your capacity as an equity holder. But that's different than talking to the board in your capacity as an employee.
    - wolco 9y ago
      If the roles are separate yes. If the roles are mixed where you are being paid in stock then it should he fair.
      - Alex3917 9y ago
        > If the roles are mixed where you are being paid in stock then it should he fair. Yeah and I think that's fine. Whether you are investing sweat equity or capital shouldn't matter. But if you're an employee getting paid market rate with a nominal slice of equity then you really shouldn't be talking with the board unless there is some sort of misconduct, not merely because you disagree with the product direction or whatever.
bsbechtel 9y ago
In the long view of your career, many people you meet will be bosses at one point, colleagues at another, and subordinates at another, possibly within the same group of people. Yes, power structures exist, but meaningful human relationships can exist above them, and can also overturn them.

pacala 9y ago

It's a search space. Think of people "above" as being more likely to know which direction to search next, and people "below" as being less likely to have a clue. Ignore people "above" at your own peril, fail to mentor people "below" at their peril.

sillysaurus3 9y ago
If only. I love a good search space. (Really, there are few things more delightful.) The people above you are usually as clueless as you are. They just conceal it with confidence. Which they acquire because you can't fire the people above you, and it's less likely for their decisions to destroy the company/team than for your decisions to get you pruned. Being forced to bow your head and meekly speak in just the right way is enough to make me want to vomit. And I don't know where this feeling is coming from. It's very strong, and it came on in the last 6 months or so. It doesn't seem healthy. It probably sounds like I look down on people who act that way. Quite the opposite. It's more like realizing we're all forced to act that way, all the time, and suddenly I'm not so sure this system is one we should want to submit to. Even if people try to convince you that the power dynamic isn't there, it is. Every single decision you make is through the lens of "will this get me fired?" Especially when it matters, as this article illustrates. Which is by definition the most important time to take action.
- angersock 9y ago
  I'd go so far to say that, at least for senior staff, you have a job precisely because the founders lack experise or wisdom in many topics. Their decisions are not guaranteed to be correct at all.
- mseebach 9y ago
  Healthy teams have a dynamic where you can say what's on your mind and where you don't get fired for (single) mistakes. But this is not that. This is going to the board to get your co-founder fired. Damn right you better choose your words carefully.
- zapita 9y ago
  > Being forced to bow your head and meekly speak in just the right way is enough to make me want to vomit. And I don't know where this feeling is coming from. It's very strong, and it came on in the last 6 months or so. It doesn't seem healthy. You work in a toxic environment. Start looking for a new job asap.

20180201 9y ago

that's a very pessimistic view, and one that doesn't take into account the reality of being an executive or board member. i'm a co-founder/executive of a small technology company. i have employees that used to be in my position when they were younger, but now they want to just do their jobs and go home. in other words, they don't have intense, heated discussions about strategy, make firing and hiring decisions, make large spending decisions, discuss the financial bookkeeping side of the business, try to raise money from or sell to really unpleasant people, soothe angry customers and employees, because they don't want to. they don't want their work day interrupted by a bunch of anxiety-ridden executive half-conversations and rants with no real conclusions or answers. almost none of their personal money is on the line, and very little of their potential income is on the line. they can go and find another 100k job tomorrow, they could possibly even make MORE money at their next job just by the dumb luck of losing their current one. did you ever think about that? but... now here's the part you won't like: the reason you hold your opinion is because you want something more than what you have now. and that fundamental mis-alignment is going to cause you some level of frustration, because you think of yourself as a shot caller, when you aren't (or, more specifically, don't have to be). and when you're told what to do you get resentful, because you think you know better. well, maybe you do, maybe you don't. but you don't write the checks, and that's what a business is. if you want to be involved at the upper levels, nothing is stopping you. you just need to either find that job, or create one for yourself. stepping into conversations in which you have no context and no skin in the game is a real fast way to get yourself shunned because you have shared NONE of the downside but you walk in the door like you have all the answers. quite frankly, that's bullshit. and quite frankly, even if it isn't, you don't have any influence in that situation so it's irrelevant.

angersock 9y ago
But...that's still the case with the founders too, no? Having a business puts you in a good position to get funding or customers for a new venture. The same labor market for your employees benefits you if you yourself have any technical skills worth mentioning. And your employees might care if they actually had a profit share in how the company did, or saw some direct upside when they did their job better or worse--which is usually not the case. Why break their back for an entitled owner resents them for knowing the value of their labor? You sound like somebody with the typical founder hubris.

Alex3917 9y ago

> In fact, "above" and "below" you are artificial terms. We're all people. Yet some people are more special than others. So would you be ok, for example, with your employer showing up at your house and telling you how you should be running your side project? It's their business, sometimes they are going to make mistakes, and by all means you should point out where you see room for improvement. But at the end of the day it's their reputation at stake so they need to be the ones making the decisions. And unless it's clear that they are defrauding investors or something then it's fine if those decisions don't work out, there is no ethical or legal issue there.

wolco 9y ago
If they had a 10% stake then yes.
- Alex3917 9y ago
  If you have a 10% stake though then it's completely fine for you to talk to the board whenever you want in your capacity as an equity holder. But that's different than talking to the board in your capacity as an employee.
  - wolco 9y ago
    If the roles are separate yes. If the roles are mixed where you are being paid in stock then it should he fair.
    - Alex3917 9y ago
      > If the roles are mixed where you are being paid in stock then it should he fair. Yeah and I think that's fine. Whether you are investing sweat equity or capital shouldn't matter. But if you're an employee getting paid market rate with a nominal slice of equity then you really shouldn't be talking with the board unless there is some sort of misconduct, not merely because you disagree with the product direction or whatever.

bsbechtel 9y ago

In the long view of your career, many people you meet will be bosses at one point, colleagues at another, and subordinates at another, possibly within the same group of people. Yes, power structures exist, but meaningful human relationships can exist above them, and can also overturn them.