6 ms·

Teams don't usually blow it away over petty issues. What they do is manage to ignore/avoid/be blind to serious issues for stretches, especially when things (on

by mrkurt 14y ago

Teams don't usually blow it away over petty issues. What they do is manage to ignore/avoid/be blind to serious issues for stretches, especially when things (on paper) seem to be going well.

tptacek 14y ago
That does happen. But having been in my fair share of partner disputes, banal and stupid issues blow up teams just as often. When you're on the outside looking at a team, it must seem as if the members share a purposeful determination. And they often do. But just as often, the startup effort simply becomes a new norm, inhabited by human personalities, inclined towards squabbling just like dorm roommates. Membership in a startup team can amplify drama as much as suppress it. It fuels personal squabbles with a sense of import. The best way to resolve the overwhelming majority of conflicts is to walk away and let them cool down naturally. But in a startup, it's easy to tell yourself "we have to resolve this problem right now; the fate of the company is at stake!" It's also probably the case that a lot of long-term simmering "important" issues actually started out as manageable problems that could have been dealt with, but for poor conflict handling early on; either the issue is broached and turns into a scalding fight, or fear of that fight keeps the team from addressing it early enough. You would think this would mean founders with stable marriages would have an advantage. :)
- danielweber 14y ago
  I might view it in reverse: having been in a start-up is an advantage/practice for stable marriage.
  - rdl 14y ago
    s/stable marriage/early mission to Mars
    - tptacek 14y ago
      There's a metaphor that's going to get me hit with a couch pillow in here somewhere.
- mwetzler 14y ago
  tptacek, whenever I read your stuff, I think "he gets it". I bet stable founders have more stable relationships with their SO's. Dave Ramsey writes about how his company uses dinners with spouses as a part of their interview process. They won't hire anyone "married to crazy". They also fire anyone who cheats on their spouse. I found his book quite misogynistic and offensive (not to mention having the worst title ever), but I wonder if he's onto something. The idea of YC (or any company) using personal relationships as part of their filtering process makes me extremely uncomfortable, but it's interesting to think about.
  - spaghetti 14y ago
    I was just thinking about this today. To interview a potential co-founder I'd have a meal with the person and their SO. Then I'd observe the dynamic between them. Does the potential co-founder treat the SO poorly? Or is it reversed? Ideally they treat each other well. But there's more subtle hints to observe. Do they interrupt each other? If so what's the fallout? The point is to assess the person's "people skills." I think "people skills" or in general "emotional maturity" is by far the most important factor in someone you need to work with on an intense level. Be that co-founder, SO etc.
    - salemh 14y ago
      Or how they treat the staff at a dinner. Many other routes vs making some people uncomfortable that you may "require" a dinner with a SO. If they don't have a SO, what, invite a friend to an interview?
      - spaghetti 14y ago
        Good point. I wouldn't formally require the SO. I'd just phrase the invite to make it clear that my SO and I would like to have dinner. If they have an SO but don't bring them that's another potential signal (could be good or bad).
    - rdl 14y ago
      The whole idea some people have of meeting a cofounder a few times (especially in an artificial environment like a hackathon) and then making an all-of-nothing decision is flawed, IMO. The best process is to spend a LOT of time with the person, and work with him on progressively larger projects. Yes, how they interact with people is an important factor, but I'd try to spend many months (or years) on the process, not a few meals.

by mrkurt 14y ago

Teams don't usually blow it away over petty issues. What they do is manage to ignore/avoid/be blind to serious issues for stretches, especially when things (on paper) seem to be going well.

tptacek 14y ago

That does happen. But having been in my fair share of partner disputes, banal and stupid issues blow up teams just as often. When you're on the outside looking at a team, it must seem as if the members share a purposeful determination. And they often do. But just as often, the startup effort simply becomes a new norm, inhabited by human personalities, inclined towards squabbling just like dorm roommates. Membership in a startup team can amplify drama as much as suppress it. It fuels personal squabbles with a sense of import. The best way to resolve the overwhelming majority of conflicts is to walk away and let them cool down naturally. But in a startup, it's easy to tell yourself "we have to resolve this problem right now; the fate of the company is at stake!" It's also probably the case that a lot of long-term simmering "important" issues actually started out as manageable problems that could have been dealt with, but for poor conflict handling early on; either the issue is broached and turns into a scalding fight, or fear of that fight keeps the team from addressing it early enough. You would think this would mean founders with stable marriages would have an advantage. :)

danielweber 14y ago
I might view it in reverse: having been in a start-up is an advantage/practice for stable marriage.
- rdl 14y ago
  s/stable marriage/early mission to Mars
  - tptacek 14y ago
    There's a metaphor that's going to get me hit with a couch pillow in here somewhere.
mwetzler 14y ago
tptacek, whenever I read your stuff, I think "he gets it". I bet stable founders have more stable relationships with their SO's. Dave Ramsey writes about how his company uses dinners with spouses as a part of their interview process. They won't hire anyone "married to crazy". They also fire anyone who cheats on their spouse. I found his book quite misogynistic and offensive (not to mention having the worst title ever), but I wonder if he's onto something. The idea of YC (or any company) using personal relationships as part of their filtering process makes me extremely uncomfortable, but it's interesting to think about.
- spaghetti 14y ago
  I was just thinking about this today. To interview a potential co-founder I'd have a meal with the person and their SO. Then I'd observe the dynamic between them. Does the potential co-founder treat the SO poorly? Or is it reversed? Ideally they treat each other well. But there's more subtle hints to observe. Do they interrupt each other? If so what's the fallout? The point is to assess the person's "people skills." I think "people skills" or in general "emotional maturity" is by far the most important factor in someone you need to work with on an intense level. Be that co-founder, SO etc.
  - salemh 14y ago
    Or how they treat the staff at a dinner. Many other routes vs making some people uncomfortable that you may "require" a dinner with a SO. If they don't have a SO, what, invite a friend to an interview?
    - spaghetti 14y ago
      Good point. I wouldn't formally require the SO. I'd just phrase the invite to make it clear that my SO and I would like to have dinner. If they have an SO but don't bring them that's another potential signal (could be good or bad).
  - rdl 14y ago
    The whole idea some people have of meeting a cofounder a few times (especially in an artificial environment like a hackathon) and then making an all-of-nothing decision is flawed, IMO. The best process is to spend a LOT of time with the person, and work with him on progressively larger projects. Yes, how they interact with people is an important factor, but I'd try to spend many months (or years) on the process, not a few meals.