4 ms·

I don't think his point was hypocritical, just a bit illogical. He realized he'd contradicted himself right at the same time he and Jessica both realized he'd

I don't think his point was hypocritical, just a bit illogical. He realized he'd contradicted himself right at the same time he and Jessica both realized he'd said something mildly insulting about the valley, which was a bit awkward. Jessica tried to make a joke (by saying that the press would have a field day with the comment) and Zuck bore down and restated his comment, in the process inadvertently de-emphasizing the original comment's counter-factual nature. His point was that the valley was critical to FB's success, but that if he were starting a new company today he'd do it in Boston b/c he no longer needs what the valley has to offer and his perception is that in Boston long term value is preferred over short term exits. I think Zuck's answer started out as a clever non-answer intended to communicate his appreciation of building long term value... probably 100% on message for Facebook's current growth strategy... but went slightly awry.

redcircle 15y ago
I don't agree with his point that employees stick it out for long-term success in other places, while they don't in the Valley. Just because people stay with a company for a longer time doesn't mean that they subscribe to a different culture. I've worked in lots of places, and I got the impression that many people hold onto their jobs due to insufficient opportunities in the local area. If they had those opportunities, and a feeling of better security, I bet that they would move around more. In a way, it sounds like he wants to have employees hang around longer without the company having to invest in a culture that makes them want to stay. The best way to keep employees onboard is a culture in the company that attracts the employees to want to stay. So many startups have compelling cultures at first, then bring in professional management, or excessive growth, and then the original employees seek their desired culture elsewhere. I sure don't want to hang around at a company that brings in traditional management techniques. I care about who I work with, and the conditions --- these days I think I prioritize those criteria over what I work on (and renumeration is a pretty low priority), because I can make lots of things that I work on interesting, but I can't change the management's attitudes (well, I'm trying to write a book to do so, but I wouldn't want to as a leaf node).

redcircle 15y ago

I don't agree with his point that employees stick it out for long-term success in other places, while they don't in the Valley. Just because people stay with a company for a longer time doesn't mean that they subscribe to a different culture. I've worked in lots of places, and I got the impression that many people hold onto their jobs due to insufficient opportunities in the local area. If they had those opportunities, and a feeling of better security, I bet that they would move around more. In a way, it sounds like he wants to have employees hang around longer without the company having to invest in a culture that makes them want to stay. The best way to keep employees onboard is a culture in the company that attracts the employees to want to stay. So many startups have compelling cultures at first, then bring in professional management, or excessive growth, and then the original employees seek their desired culture elsewhere. I sure don't want to hang around at a company that brings in traditional management techniques. I care about who I work with, and the conditions --- these days I think I prioritize those criteria over what I work on (and renumeration is a pretty low priority), because I can make lots of things that I work on interesting, but I can't change the management's attitudes (well, I'm trying to write a book to do so, but I wouldn't want to as a leaf node).