4 ms·

I guess it depends on the employer, employee and culture. We hire those who want to learn, and we go way out of our way to ensure that those working for the co

by buro9 14y ago

I guess it depends on the employer, employee and culture. We hire those who want to learn, and we go way out of our way to ensure that those working for the company really do learn and improve. The benefit to us, the company and founders, is substantial. And the benefit to the employee is obvious. If we can't offer a killer salary yet, and the equity is toilet paper for a few years, then the biggest thing we can offer is a vibrant environment in which skills are developed and mastered, in which we can understand more of each other's role and how all of the bits fit together. At the moment I can say that every person in the company is learning every day. Real learning. We drop tools to educate each other, to teach and learn. We really believe doing so is the key to producing good work faster, that works with the output of everyone else.

michaelochurch 14y ago
What's the company?
- buro9 14y ago
  Just a small London startup in the community space: http://microco.sm/ http://microco.sm/ There's only three of us considered full-time right now, with an additional pool of volunteers and helpers that churn around us. Our core team have different skills, and so we think it's good to cross-fertilise that knowledge, to teach and learn more of each other's skills as well as to support the mastery of our own skill in sharing it and learning how to communicate it. We have people - freelancers mostly - who help for a month for free, and then go do something else for a bit before coming back between jobs to help more and learn more. They get to work on something they care about and learn new things at the same time. We're not kidding ourselves about wanting to pay well, to build a successful business, and to only be bootstrapping this hard while we have to... but this process is really helping build this strong learning and teaching environment and that's been a real benefit to us, so we can all see that staying even after the numbers side adds up more. The core value that has emerged is that everyone has something to teach, and everyone has something to learn. By helping improve career security for all of our workers, we really feel we're improving security for us as employers and job security for the employees. There's no downside to this.
  - michaelochurch 14y ago
    The core value that has emerged is that everyone has something to teach, and everyone has something to learn. You are awesome. I would really like to throw 99% of "management" out the historical window for good. It's a goddamn anachronism. The only genuine source of credibility is teaching. Show me why your idea is awesome, and if you're right and you teach it well, I'll believe you. You could be a 190 IQ genius or a Big Swinging Dick rain-maker, but the only way you add true value is by showing other people the way. "Because I said so" / "I can fire you, shithead" management (i.e. authority without teaching) can go die in a fire. It's 2013, which makes it about damn time for that. I have no idea what you do, and I'm probably not a candidate for your company (machine learning specialty, plus need to stay in the US for the next 6 months) but I really hope you succeed.
    - buro9 14y ago
      Thanks, much appreciated. And my view of management, is mostly that they're drawn in the wrong place on org charts. They should be below the workers, assisting and helping to support the workers rather than ordering them. Workers themselves are the ones with the knowledge and most qualified to make decisions based on sharing that knowledge. I can't find the link I meant to, but this one deals with this view pretty well: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/DevelopmentAbstraction.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/DevelopmentAbstractio...
      - michaelochurch 14y ago
        I don't really like the idea of putting managers "below" workers. The fundamental reason why middle managers behave in such shitty ways is that they're insecure. (Their job is to be leaders, but they often aren't the leaders the group would pick; they're compliant stooges selected by executives who trust them to favor upward interests.) Putting management at a level below workers is just as bad and will probably produce even more incompetent management than the dogshit we already get. We need to accept different that isn't below or above. What we need is a radically transparent system that allows for division of labor and investor/worker symbiosis but doesn't turn that into an excuse for parasitic behavior at any level: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/gervais-macleod-17-building-the-future-and-financing-lifestyle-businesses/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/gervais-macle...

by buro9 14y ago

michaelochurch 14y ago

What's the company?

buro9 14y ago
Just a small London startup in the community space: http://microco.sm/ http://microco.sm/ There's only three of us considered full-time right now, with an additional pool of volunteers and helpers that churn around us. Our core team have different skills, and so we think it's good to cross-fertilise that knowledge, to teach and learn more of each other's skills as well as to support the mastery of our own skill in sharing it and learning how to communicate it. We have people - freelancers mostly - who help for a month for free, and then go do something else for a bit before coming back between jobs to help more and learn more. They get to work on something they care about and learn new things at the same time. We're not kidding ourselves about wanting to pay well, to build a successful business, and to only be bootstrapping this hard while we have to... but this process is really helping build this strong learning and teaching environment and that's been a real benefit to us, so we can all see that staying even after the numbers side adds up more. The core value that has emerged is that everyone has something to teach, and everyone has something to learn. By helping improve career security for all of our workers, we really feel we're improving security for us as employers and job security for the employees. There's no downside to this.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  The core value that has emerged is that everyone has something to teach, and everyone has something to learn. You are awesome. I would really like to throw 99% of "management" out the historical window for good. It's a goddamn anachronism. The only genuine source of credibility is teaching. Show me why your idea is awesome, and if you're right and you teach it well, I'll believe you. You could be a 190 IQ genius or a Big Swinging Dick rain-maker, but the only way you add true value is by showing other people the way. "Because I said so" / "I can fire you, shithead" management (i.e. authority without teaching) can go die in a fire. It's 2013, which makes it about damn time for that. I have no idea what you do, and I'm probably not a candidate for your company (machine learning specialty, plus need to stay in the US for the next 6 months) but I really hope you succeed.
  - buro9 14y ago
    Thanks, much appreciated. And my view of management, is mostly that they're drawn in the wrong place on org charts. They should be below the workers, assisting and helping to support the workers rather than ordering them. Workers themselves are the ones with the knowledge and most qualified to make decisions based on sharing that knowledge. I can't find the link I meant to, but this one deals with this view pretty well: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/DevelopmentAbstraction.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/DevelopmentAbstractio...
    - michaelochurch 14y ago
      I don't really like the idea of putting managers "below" workers. The fundamental reason why middle managers behave in such shitty ways is that they're insecure. (Their job is to be leaders, but they often aren't the leaders the group would pick; they're compliant stooges selected by executives who trust them to favor upward interests.) Putting management at a level below workers is just as bad and will probably produce even more incompetent management than the dogshit we already get. We need to accept different that isn't below or above. What we need is a radically transparent system that allows for division of labor and investor/worker symbiosis but doesn't turn that into an excuse for parasitic behavior at any level: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/gervais-macleod-17-building-the-future-and-financing-lifestyle-businesses/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/gervais-macle...