4 ms·

But that's not true, the idea that a company will go out of business if one person doesn't work overnight is simply and factually false. The business desires t

by Kranar 5y ago

But that's not true, the idea that a company will go out of business if one person doesn't work overnight is simply and factually false. The business desires that a person to work overtime to reduce costs, avoid hiring additional staff, etc... not because it's an existential threat.

whatshisface 5y ago
>the idea that a company will go out of business if one person doesn't work overnight is simply and factually false. If you don't think that can happen, you don't know much about startup chaos. :-) I agree with your implication, though, that when there is no need for the employee to work overtime, there is no right way to ask them to work overtime.
- watwut 5y ago
  No, not even in startups.
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    I don't understand your skepticism, if a deadline is in a contract, and the company is not heading towards meeting that deadline, someone has to speed up or else the client will be lost, or worse the penalty clauses will kick in. I think you're imagining B2C SAAS startups when making that assertion. If your EULA indemnifies you from failure to provide service, and investor capital indemnifies you from failure to get revenue, then yeah it doesn't really matter what the engineers do - but that's hardly a universal principle of business.
    - watwut 5y ago
      Overworking people dont get you faster releases. It is magical thinking. This just feel good like doing something, but that is is. Also, if you are really in this situation, you already lost, because mo way this late night code wont be complete crap. So you might just start prioritizing and negotiating now rather then later.
- Kranar 5y ago
  I am the sole founder of a startup that is now 10 years old and prior to this I've worked at 3 other startups either as a founder or CTO, so I think I know something about it. At no point would I ever allow the existence of my company to rely on a single individual. That is simply irresponsible.
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    >That is simply irresponsible. Then we agree, because we both know that people often do things that seem irresponsible in hindsight. It is especially common in business situations that require a lot of diverse expertise, in which case having any redundancy at all could mean doubling the size of your workforce. It is easier when you're talking about pure software, but even then a nontechnical founder could allow two programmers to segregate their responsibilities without realizing it was happening. The thing about advice is it's easy to say, "don't get in to that situation," but every day managers wake up in that situation. If your startup grows enough, some of your own managers might find themselves waking up in that situation.
    - Kranar 5y ago
      We do not agree because this is a matter of assigning causal relevance to a company failure and my position is that the causal relevance you're assigning is irresponsible and results in bad decision making and hence is wrong/invalid. If you are in charge of a business, it is invalid to assign causal relevance to a business failure over a single individual who does not work overtime. A similar situation would be assigning causal relevance to an intern deleting the production database on a company failure. Based on how you're viewing the situation, it seems like you think that would be a plausible explanation to hold; certainly interns have deleted production databases by accident before and so certainly it would seem like such an action would cause a company to fail. My argument is that the intern deleting the database is not the cause of the company failure and has no relevance in understanding the cause of a company failure. It is simply not possible to attribute a corporate failure to an intern deleting a database. The causal reason for the failure would be a failure to protect the production database from an intern. Similarly it is simply not possible to see a company as failing because someone decided not to work overtime. That is never a criteria that a company failure can be attributed to. I am confident based on my experience running a successful company that my assignment of causal relevance has stronger explanatory power and results in better judgement than the causal relevance you're assigning. I would encourage other people looking to run a business to adopt my assignment over the one you're arguing in favor of. The company did not fail because someone didn't work overtime just like the company did not fail because of the intern. The company failed because someone in a position of authority failed to properly allocate resources, failed to have good policies in place to protect production databases, failed to have security policies in place, failed to properly incentivize work, overpromised beyond what could be delivered, or a host of other reasons that have nothing to do with blaming a small group of individuals. This assignment of causal relevance will yield greater insight into how to properly prepare for a vast array of scenarios and also appreciate the risks involved in running a business and strategies to mitigate those risks.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by Kranar 5y ago

whatshisface 5y ago

>the idea that a company will go out of business if one person doesn't work overnight is simply and factually false. If you don't think that can happen, you don't know much about startup chaos. :-) I agree with your implication, though, that when there is no need for the employee to work overtime, there is no right way to ask them to work overtime.

watwut 5y ago
No, not even in startups.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  I don't understand your skepticism, if a deadline is in a contract, and the company is not heading towards meeting that deadline, someone has to speed up or else the client will be lost, or worse the penalty clauses will kick in. I think you're imagining B2C SAAS startups when making that assertion. If your EULA indemnifies you from failure to provide service, and investor capital indemnifies you from failure to get revenue, then yeah it doesn't really matter what the engineers do - but that's hardly a universal principle of business.
  - watwut 5y ago
    Overworking people dont get you faster releases. It is magical thinking. This just feel good like doing something, but that is is. Also, if you are really in this situation, you already lost, because mo way this late night code wont be complete crap. So you might just start prioritizing and negotiating now rather then later.
Kranar 5y ago
I am the sole founder of a startup that is now 10 years old and prior to this I've worked at 3 other startups either as a founder or CTO, so I think I know something about it. At no point would I ever allow the existence of my company to rely on a single individual. That is simply irresponsible.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  >That is simply irresponsible. Then we agree, because we both know that people often do things that seem irresponsible in hindsight. It is especially common in business situations that require a lot of diverse expertise, in which case having any redundancy at all could mean doubling the size of your workforce. It is easier when you're talking about pure software, but even then a nontechnical founder could allow two programmers to segregate their responsibilities without realizing it was happening. The thing about advice is it's easy to say, "don't get in to that situation," but every day managers wake up in that situation. If your startup grows enough, some of your own managers might find themselves waking up in that situation.
  - Kranar 5y ago
    We do not agree because this is a matter of assigning causal relevance to a company failure and my position is that the causal relevance you're assigning is irresponsible and results in bad decision making and hence is wrong/invalid. If you are in charge of a business, it is invalid to assign causal relevance to a business failure over a single individual who does not work overtime. A similar situation would be assigning causal relevance to an intern deleting the production database on a company failure. Based on how you're viewing the situation, it seems like you think that would be a plausible explanation to hold; certainly interns have deleted production databases by accident before and so certainly it would seem like such an action would cause a company to fail. My argument is that the intern deleting the database is not the cause of the company failure and has no relevance in understanding the cause of a company failure. It is simply not possible to attribute a corporate failure to an intern deleting a database. The causal reason for the failure would be a failure to protect the production database from an intern. Similarly it is simply not possible to see a company as failing because someone decided not to work overtime. That is never a criteria that a company failure can be attributed to. I am confident based on my experience running a successful company that my assignment of causal relevance has stronger explanatory power and results in better judgement than the causal relevance you're assigning. I would encourage other people looking to run a business to adopt my assignment over the one you're arguing in favor of. The company did not fail because someone didn't work overtime just like the company did not fail because of the intern. The company failed because someone in a position of authority failed to properly allocate resources, failed to have good policies in place to protect production databases, failed to have security policies in place, failed to properly incentivize work, overpromised beyond what could be delivered, or a host of other reasons that have nothing to do with blaming a small group of individuals. This assignment of causal relevance will yield greater insight into how to properly prepare for a vast array of scenarios and also appreciate the risks involved in running a business and strategies to mitigate those risks.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]