4 ms·

Thanks for your comment. I think you make good points about how a larger company has more leverage to take advantage of small gains in efficiency. I think you

Thanks for your comment. I think you make good points about how a larger company has more leverage to take advantage of small gains in efficiency. I think you omitted one valid priority for many startups, being a great place to work. I think many entrepreneurs are interested in this priority, separately from when it moves the needle in the areas you mentioned which help the business survive. For many, survival, in business and in life, is not enough.

rdl 13y ago
"Make sure you build a company where you want to work" is also one of the top-5 pieces of advice, yes. But I think the general argument is that at least at some points in a startup's life, it's an all-out fight for survival. Ben Horowitz probably wrote the best essay about this, peacetime vs. wartime ceo[1]. And he notes there are certain really good things that only happen in the "peacetime" type company (where it isn't about just survival). In this case, maybe it's a cost/benefit thing. If the cost of going from an informal consensus common salary to a more transparent formal salary (in implementation cost, and risk if it screws up) is low, go for it. If it's something like "we're going to try a new thing: only working one day a week", the cost is probably really high, so you'd want to be sure it was core. [1] http://bhorowitz.com/2011/04/15/peacetime-ceowartime-ceo/ http://bhorowitz.com/2011/04/15/peacetime-ceowartime-ceo/
- apendleton 13y ago
  > at least at some points in a startup's life, it's an all-out fight for survival There are certainly situations where that's true, but it doesn't seem applicable here. They just launched a major new release of their core product, and suddenly found themselves with a bunch of extra money in the bank that they were deciding what to do with. That's not a "fight for survival" situation.
- thomaslangston 13y ago
  That's an interesting comparison. I think you could extend the analogy as well. There are strategies a company, or country, should abandon when survival is in jeopardy, but there are also values which are core to your identity. Abandoning those values when you come under pressure has a pragmatic effect on perceptions and ethical ramifications. I also agree with you that being sure of what exactly your core values are is very important. However, our example appears to be a company in peacetime. Our example experiment also appears to be very low cost. It isn't useful data to judge if non-survival core values for a company are worth defending in wartime. For a country, defending non-survival core values during wartime is clearly worthwhile. This is where the analogy breaks down. For a company, there is clearly less moral obligation and practical costs to abandoning these values. We can't say without doubt that defending values in a wartime company is the wrong priority. A combination of personal ethics and potential damage make that a case by case decision.

rdl 13y ago

"Make sure you build a company where you want to work" is also one of the top-5 pieces of advice, yes. But I think the general argument is that at least at some points in a startup's life, it's an all-out fight for survival. Ben Horowitz probably wrote the best essay about this, peacetime vs. wartime ceo[1]. And he notes there are certain really good things that only happen in the "peacetime" type company (where it isn't about just survival). In this case, maybe it's a cost/benefit thing. If the cost of going from an informal consensus common salary to a more transparent formal salary (in implementation cost, and risk if it screws up) is low, go for it. If it's something like "we're going to try a new thing: only working one day a week", the cost is probably really high, so you'd want to be sure it was core. [1] http://bhorowitz.com/2011/04/15/peacetime-ceowartime-ceo/ http://bhorowitz.com/2011/04/15/peacetime-ceowartime-ceo/

apendleton 13y ago
> at least at some points in a startup's life, it's an all-out fight for survival There are certainly situations where that's true, but it doesn't seem applicable here. They just launched a major new release of their core product, and suddenly found themselves with a bunch of extra money in the bank that they were deciding what to do with. That's not a "fight for survival" situation.
thomaslangston 13y ago
That's an interesting comparison. I think you could extend the analogy as well. There are strategies a company, or country, should abandon when survival is in jeopardy, but there are also values which are core to your identity. Abandoning those values when you come under pressure has a pragmatic effect on perceptions and ethical ramifications. I also agree with you that being sure of what exactly your core values are is very important. However, our example appears to be a company in peacetime. Our example experiment also appears to be very low cost. It isn't useful data to judge if non-survival core values for a company are worth defending in wartime. For a country, defending non-survival core values during wartime is clearly worthwhile. This is where the analogy breaks down. For a company, there is clearly less moral obligation and practical costs to abandoning these values. We can't say without doubt that defending values in a wartime company is the wrong priority. A combination of personal ethics and potential damage make that a case by case decision.