3 ms·

I'm not surprised this theme would be popular with founding CEOs but not really sure what the promised "Ground-breaking Management Mode you Won't Believe!" actu

by skeeter2020 2y ago

I'm not surprised this theme would be popular with founding CEOs but not really sure what the promised "Ground-breaking Management Mode you Won't Believe!" actually is. Is it take your favourite employees on a retreat, don't worry about the message this sends? Stop hiring mediocre middle managers and do... something else? Run a giant public company like a 20-person start-up, only don't? Delegate yet stay in control of everything? Sharing how impactful the event/talk/whatever was, without the actual content, lots of name-dropping to build credibility, selective repackaging of conventional, well-known wisdom and a conclusion that fits nicely with exactly what SV executives want to hear == every Paul Graham post in the past 5+ years.

crop_rotation 2y ago
I think one point is that there is no shortcut to building a great product/company/society/nation. You seem to be looking for a checklist where none exists. As many people have outlined in this thread, the difference is a founder takes everything about the company personally as an extension of themselves, and as a central point who can keep everything aligned. A manager ensures that directives given from top are followed and results delivered to the best of their abilities and any prevalent constraints.
dbuser99 2y ago
100% agreed. If you read this piece from the lens of a SV executive or VC it makes perfect sense and serves the interests of all parties. Content? Who cares
alexey-salmin 2y ago
> Is it take your favourite employees on a retreat, don't worry about the message this sends? Well the message is "be excellent and next year you'll be there too". A failure to reward great employees out of fear of picking favorites is IMO one of the big problems of modern corporate management. An impact of an outstanding employee is an order of magnitude bigger than that of an average one. You should reward people accordingly and openly. Here "accordingly" can literally mean "an order of magnitude bigger comp" and "openly" means you tell everyone this guy is rewarded because he works so well. Instead what often happens is "here's a 20% raise but don't tell anybody so they don't think you're special. We're all equals here".
itsoktocry 2y ago
This post is literally all over social media. The argument seems no deeper than "hire good people who care about the business". Not exactly rocket science.

crop_rotation 2y ago

I think one point is that there is no shortcut to building a great product/company/society/nation. You seem to be looking for a checklist where none exists. As many people have outlined in this thread, the difference is a founder takes everything about the company personally as an extension of themselves, and as a central point who can keep everything aligned. A manager ensures that directives given from top are followed and results delivered to the best of their abilities and any prevalent constraints.

dbuser99 2y ago

100% agreed. If you read this piece from the lens of a SV executive or VC it makes perfect sense and serves the interests of all parties. Content? Who cares

alexey-salmin 2y ago

> Is it take your favourite employees on a retreat, don't worry about the message this sends? Well the message is "be excellent and next year you'll be there too". A failure to reward great employees out of fear of picking favorites is IMO one of the big problems of modern corporate management. An impact of an outstanding employee is an order of magnitude bigger than that of an average one. You should reward people accordingly and openly. Here "accordingly" can literally mean "an order of magnitude bigger comp" and "openly" means you tell everyone this guy is rewarded because he works so well. Instead what often happens is "here's a 20% raise but don't tell anybody so they don't think you're special. We're all equals here".

itsoktocry 2y ago

This post is literally all over social media. The argument seems no deeper than "hire good people who care about the business". Not exactly rocket science.