5 ms·

The premise of this is that advice to hire "Hire good people and give them room to do their jobs" is bad because that turns into "hire professional fakers and l

by coahn 2y ago

The premise of this is that advice to hire "Hire good people and give them room to do their jobs" is bad because that turns into "hire professional fakers and let them drive the company into the ground". So, if I get this right, hiring is done by the founder, who is not capable of choosing good people in a sea of fakers, and because of founders incompetency the advice is bad? I do agree that every founder/CEO should have a tool for gauging how their company is behaving out of their bubble, but I see this new mode as a dangerous proposition which will invite all sorts of paranoid founders/managers to take micromanaging/abuse to a whole new level. Maybe a better question founders(VCs) should be asking themselves is why are there so many "professional fakers" in top/middle level positions, instead of figuring out how to augment their behavior?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
wiradikusuma 2y ago
I think because you can't give C-level/(senior) manager candidates whiteboard interviews. The answers are all "it depends" and also depend on how the person explains it. Not to mention tech founders are usually technical people who are not used to bullshitters. Your concern is valid, but since the company is their "baby", they care more than those for-hire professionals who can go to greener pastures.
- bjornsing 2y ago
  > Your concern is valid, but since the company is their "baby", they care more than those for-hire professionals who can go to greener pastures. This is the main aspect I think, that everyone keeps missing. The “professional fakers” work first and foremost for themselves. They make great decisions, for them. But not necessarily for the company.
maaaaattttt 2y ago
Also, I'm 99% sure that Steve Job once said (paraphrasing): "We don't hire talented people to tell them what to do, we hire them to tell us what to do". Which to me sounds like "Hire good people and give them room to do their jobs". So there is a discrepancy here as Steve Job is also used as an example of a "Founder Mode" CEO. Not saying there is a contradiction, just a piece missing somewhere in the essays logic.
- mejutoco 2y ago
  I believe it was Henry Ford, or maybe both.
  - kragen 2y ago
    henry ford was also pretty far from this warren buffett mode of letting the upper management of the company do what they want. very deeply involved in every level of the company, much like steve jobs
    - 082349872349872 2y ago
      WRT https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41417363 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41417363 the story I heard about Ford management vs GM management was that Ford had a "system" which involved looking around at the heights of various stacks of reports in his office and intervening where he felt things were out of whack. Upon reflection, if each sheet of each report, on average, dealt with about the same dollar value of things as the other sheets in its stack, then his system, far from being madness, would've just been an early, analogue and low-pass-filtered, lo-tech "business intelligence" dashboard.
- kijin 2y ago
  Letting your employees tell you what you need to do is not the same as giving them room to do what they want. In the former, you are immediately aware of what they're doing and why, because they're telling you! You can ask questions if their reasoning doesn't sound convincing, intervene early if there's disagreement as to what should be done, and decide whose project takes priority. Steve Jobs was a very active CEO in this regard. Bullshitters will not survive long in such an organization. The latter, on the other hand, is often taken to imply that you should not intervene unless absolutely necessary -- which often means, until it's too late.
  - maaaaattttt 2y ago
    I believe you're right. That was the piece I was missing. And it makes a big difference indeed.
elawler24 2y ago
Staying in the details is different from micromanagement. It’s the difference between understanding (and deeply caring) about what’s happening vs. telling ICs how to solve a problem. You can’t be a good leader, mentor, or decision maker if you’re not invested in the details.
- kragen 2y ago
  are we talking about steve jobs here? iphone in the fishtank steve jobs? roundrects are everywhere steve jobs? because that sounds pretty close to telling ics how to solve a problem

by coahn 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

wiradikusuma 2y ago

I think because you can't give C-level/(senior) manager candidates whiteboard interviews. The answers are all "it depends" and also depend on how the person explains it. Not to mention tech founders are usually technical people who are not used to bullshitters. Your concern is valid, but since the company is their "baby", they care more than those for-hire professionals who can go to greener pastures.

bjornsing 2y ago
> Your concern is valid, but since the company is their "baby", they care more than those for-hire professionals who can go to greener pastures. This is the main aspect I think, that everyone keeps missing. The “professional fakers” work first and foremost for themselves. They make great decisions, for them. But not necessarily for the company.

maaaaattttt 2y ago

Also, I'm 99% sure that Steve Job once said (paraphrasing): "We don't hire talented people to tell them what to do, we hire them to tell us what to do". Which to me sounds like "Hire good people and give them room to do their jobs". So there is a discrepancy here as Steve Job is also used as an example of a "Founder Mode" CEO. Not saying there is a contradiction, just a piece missing somewhere in the essays logic.

mejutoco 2y ago
I believe it was Henry Ford, or maybe both.
- kragen 2y ago
  henry ford was also pretty far from this warren buffett mode of letting the upper management of the company do what they want. very deeply involved in every level of the company, much like steve jobs
  - 082349872349872 2y ago
    WRT https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41417363 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41417363 the story I heard about Ford management vs GM management was that Ford had a "system" which involved looking around at the heights of various stacks of reports in his office and intervening where he felt things were out of whack. Upon reflection, if each sheet of each report, on average, dealt with about the same dollar value of things as the other sheets in its stack, then his system, far from being madness, would've just been an early, analogue and low-pass-filtered, lo-tech "business intelligence" dashboard.
kijin 2y ago
Letting your employees tell you what you need to do is not the same as giving them room to do what they want. In the former, you are immediately aware of what they're doing and why, because they're telling you! You can ask questions if their reasoning doesn't sound convincing, intervene early if there's disagreement as to what should be done, and decide whose project takes priority. Steve Jobs was a very active CEO in this regard. Bullshitters will not survive long in such an organization. The latter, on the other hand, is often taken to imply that you should not intervene unless absolutely necessary -- which often means, until it's too late.
- maaaaattttt 2y ago
  I believe you're right. That was the piece I was missing. And it makes a big difference indeed.

elawler24 2y ago

Staying in the details is different from micromanagement. It’s the difference between understanding (and deeply caring) about what’s happening vs. telling ICs how to solve a problem. You can’t be a good leader, mentor, or decision maker if you’re not invested in the details.

kragen 2y ago
are we talking about steve jobs here? iphone in the fishtank steve jobs? roundrects are everywhere steve jobs? because that sounds pretty close to telling ics how to solve a problem