4 ms·

Look, I'm not here to sugarcoat it. It's clear that it is in my interest to get the dysfunctions reported. But you really are projecting or something in the se

Look, I'm not here to sugarcoat it. It's clear that it is in my interest to get the dysfunctions reported. But you really are projecting or something in the second part of the reply. The OP took time and opened a thread on HN with the purpose of fixing what is clearly a strained relationsihip. I'm giving feedback what you should do if you really want to fix it. I'm not expecting anyone to do anything and for what it's worth - if you don't care about the job/position then just walk away. Reallity is messy and it is not possible to have these perfect relationships across the company - everybody fucks up (just like you create bugs in the software). We're talking how you can move forward and try to fix it for everybody in the organisation - if you give a damn about the organisation.

yowlingcat 7y ago
Remember that being a great founder doesn't always make you a great leader. You might not even want to be a great leader. But you're still responsible for making sure your organization is being led well if you don't want your company to fail and your holdings to become worthless. Great leaders have an ability to pre-empt many of these org problems from even happening in the first place as it scales. Once you see them in action, you'll never look at people's problems inside the workplace the same way. It is a cruel irony that as a founder who would benefit the most from learning leadership from an excellent mentor, you are often forgoing some of your most valuable years and learnings you could earn at a mature organization learning how to build sustainable leadership and organizational growth and instead making your own mistakes on your own very costly dime, with no one above you to share the responsibility and help you clean up your messes in case you get in over your head. Have you ever seen two key employees spar at a high flying company that later on falls apart due to collateral damage between two warring political factions? If you haven't, let me tell you that I've seen that situation go in many ways, but two ways happen very frequently. In one way, executives take proactive but firm measures to squash the conflict -- if it can't be reconciled amicably and fully, one or both party goes (this usually happens regardless). In another way, executives reactively try to paper around the problem and minimize the damage of the conflict without removing one or both parties. The first way doesn't always end in success, but I've seen it work out 50/50. The second way has ended in failure every time I've observed it -- usually with one side winning albeit with a huge amount of attrition and collateral damage to the company in every way, along with a tacit endorsement of the idea that "might makes right". It is true that the reality of business is messy. However, there there are effective ways and ineffective ways for organizations to solve people's problems. You do yourself and your company a disservice if you're not constantly pushing yourself to find more of the former.

yowlingcat 7y ago

Remember that being a great founder doesn't always make you a great leader. You might not even want to be a great leader. But you're still responsible for making sure your organization is being led well if you don't want your company to fail and your holdings to become worthless. Great leaders have an ability to pre-empt many of these org problems from even happening in the first place as it scales. Once you see them in action, you'll never look at people's problems inside the workplace the same way. It is a cruel irony that as a founder who would benefit the most from learning leadership from an excellent mentor, you are often forgoing some of your most valuable years and learnings you could earn at a mature organization learning how to build sustainable leadership and organizational growth and instead making your own mistakes on your own very costly dime, with no one above you to share the responsibility and help you clean up your messes in case you get in over your head. Have you ever seen two key employees spar at a high flying company that later on falls apart due to collateral damage between two warring political factions? If you haven't, let me tell you that I've seen that situation go in many ways, but two ways happen very frequently. In one way, executives take proactive but firm measures to squash the conflict -- if it can't be reconciled amicably and fully, one or both party goes (this usually happens regardless). In another way, executives reactively try to paper around the problem and minimize the damage of the conflict without removing one or both parties. The first way doesn't always end in success, but I've seen it work out 50/50. The second way has ended in failure every time I've observed it -- usually with one side winning albeit with a huge amount of attrition and collateral damage to the company in every way, along with a tacit endorsement of the idea that "might makes right". It is true that the reality of business is messy. However, there there are effective ways and ineffective ways for organizations to solve people's problems. You do yourself and your company a disservice if you're not constantly pushing yourself to find more of the former.