9 ms·

That doesn't scale for motivated people. I was told the same thing when I joined FreshBooks when they were only a 20 person team. By the time they were a 45 per

That doesn't scale for motivated people. I was told the same thing when I joined FreshBooks when they were only a 20 person team. By the time they were a 45 person team the strain of lack of management (without the Github / Valve style decoupling) was obvious. Then I was tasked with hiring my boss. It sucked hard, I was doing awesome work (four raises in a year an a half) but when the writing is on the wall and you're only 25 years old the only play is to leave the company. I'm 95% convinced that companies larger than 50 people can't acquire truly outstanding people without having a decentralized system that doesn't reward power grabs and people pyramids.

pixelmonkey 13y ago
The reason "hiring your boss" sucked hard is because your boss was paid a lot more than you, right? What if he/she was a great manager but was actually paid on the same scale as you, and you were all advancing in pay with years of contribution?
- gaius 13y ago
  LOL true story: a couple of companies ago my team were tasked with hiring our new manager, because none of us wanted the job. We had one candidate who came in and said "well this is very unusual for workers to interview managers, the first thing I'll do is put a stop to that". She didn't get the job.
- bsder 13y ago
  If how much the person you are hiring gets paid relative to you is a criterion, you should not be part of the hiring process. I have hired people at salaries greater and lesser than mine. Occasionally, the person above me was earning less than me and in several cases the person under me was earning significantly more than me. The only question should be: is the person in the correct position and earning the amount they are being paid.
ska 13y ago
Can you elaborate why this "sucked hard"? Hiring your boss can be a lot better than just being handed one, after all. It sounds like the company was growing quickly and running into organizational issues because of it, makes sense they might be looking to hire some people with more experience than any 25 is likely to be able to offer. Or did you mean you were hoping for a Valve style structure, and they weren't going there?
- 3pt14159 13y ago
  I was going to go from being an influential person that directly reported to the CEO, CTO, and CMO to reporting to one person with his own agenda: the CDS (Chief Data Scientist). Here is what is going to happen next: He is going to get his own ideas about what I should work on, his own theories as to how to make the company grow faster, and his own vision as to what I should make. Prior to that it was obvious to everyone that I was killing it. I made the company a million dollars in my first month just by writing a custom classifier for adword optimization (this was back before some of this stuff was automated or startup-ified). But when he takes over what is going to happen next? He is going to take credit for his "idea" because he set me on the "path" to solving the problem or making more money. Fuck that noise, it's parasitism and par for the course for management.
  - dasil003 13y ago
    Well this is why great engineers should opt more for startups—because you get the opportunity to move the needle directly and everyone can see it. But I don't think that means management is parasitic. The fact is that at a certain size all organizations need management, and a good manager helps you be productive. Whether you are recognized for that or whether credit gets usurped by your manager is a separate question.
    - MadManE 13y ago
      The problem is that for most cases, management IS parasitic. It's only the edge cases with those great managers where they aren't.
jonnathanson 13y ago
"I'm 95% convinced that companies larger than 50 people can't acquire truly outstanding people without having a decentralized system that doesn't reward power grabs and people pyramids." I wonder if it's even possible to have a system that doesn't reward power grabs and pyramids at a certain company size. Maybe the number isn't 50; maybe it's slightly lower or slightly higher. But certainly above Dunbar's number, we start to see organizations where departmental siloing and fiefdoms emerge. Politics seems inevitable in these situations, and the people who a) want to play the game, and b) are good at playing the game are the people who win the game. The game exists because all it takes is one or two people to will it into existence. If a power vacuum opens up, or if enough competing VPs and Directors emerge, then someone is going to try to get ahead through politics. The only way to counter that is to play politics. Office politics, as a whole, is an emergent property of the individual players' political strategies and counter-strategies. I have yet to work for, or with, a large company where office politics wasn't a significant factor. It's a bigger problem at some companies than at others. But it's always there. It can never be completely curtailed; it can only be mitigated. The best way to mitigate politics is to implement communications, reward, promotion, and advancement policies that don't incentivize politics as much as other systems might. This is a nontrivial challenge, especially at big scale.
- mwhite 13y ago
  You need cops: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/gervais-macleod-23-managers-mentors-executives-cops-and-thugs/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/gervais-macle...
- RyanZAG 13y ago
  I wonder if the solution here is to simply not grow the company that large in the first place? Usually what happens is a company gets a new product idea or a big surge in new customers and does not have a process in place to deal with it through automation and existing systems. The easiest solution is to just hire new employees and let them work it out - it scales very well at first glance as the original employees can continue to work on improving and automating what they already have. Is it the best solution though? If the product is good, slowing down on features or customers seems fairly acceptable until you can cope with them. It's obviously not going to fly with a VC funded firm. For a bootstrapped or lifestyle business it might be the better long run approach, and I believe most people really want a lifestyle business even if they think they don't.
pjungwir 13y ago
One structure that I think could give programmers a lifetime of career growth as programmers is a partner/associates model at a software services firm. In this model partners would still code, just like law partners still practice law, even if they also take on responsibilities re sales/outreach/management/mentoring/etc. I'd love to start such a firm, if I can find one or two people I trust to start it with me.
jshen 13y ago
There is research on this. A good place to start is dunbar's number. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number

pixelmonkey 13y ago

The reason "hiring your boss" sucked hard is because your boss was paid a lot more than you, right? What if he/she was a great manager but was actually paid on the same scale as you, and you were all advancing in pay with years of contribution?

gaius 13y ago
LOL true story: a couple of companies ago my team were tasked with hiring our new manager, because none of us wanted the job. We had one candidate who came in and said "well this is very unusual for workers to interview managers, the first thing I'll do is put a stop to that". She didn't get the job.
bsder 13y ago
If how much the person you are hiring gets paid relative to you is a criterion, you should not be part of the hiring process. I have hired people at salaries greater and lesser than mine. Occasionally, the person above me was earning less than me and in several cases the person under me was earning significantly more than me. The only question should be: is the person in the correct position and earning the amount they are being paid.

ska 13y ago

Can you elaborate why this "sucked hard"? Hiring your boss can be a lot better than just being handed one, after all. It sounds like the company was growing quickly and running into organizational issues because of it, makes sense they might be looking to hire some people with more experience than any 25 is likely to be able to offer. Or did you mean you were hoping for a Valve style structure, and they weren't going there?

3pt14159 13y ago
I was going to go from being an influential person that directly reported to the CEO, CTO, and CMO to reporting to one person with his own agenda: the CDS (Chief Data Scientist). Here is what is going to happen next: He is going to get his own ideas about what I should work on, his own theories as to how to make the company grow faster, and his own vision as to what I should make. Prior to that it was obvious to everyone that I was killing it. I made the company a million dollars in my first month just by writing a custom classifier for adword optimization (this was back before some of this stuff was automated or startup-ified). But when he takes over what is going to happen next? He is going to take credit for his "idea" because he set me on the "path" to solving the problem or making more money. Fuck that noise, it's parasitism and par for the course for management.
- dasil003 13y ago
  Well this is why great engineers should opt more for startups—because you get the opportunity to move the needle directly and everyone can see it. But I don't think that means management is parasitic. The fact is that at a certain size all organizations need management, and a good manager helps you be productive. Whether you are recognized for that or whether credit gets usurped by your manager is a separate question.
  - MadManE 13y ago
    The problem is that for most cases, management IS parasitic. It's only the edge cases with those great managers where they aren't.

jonnathanson 13y ago

"I'm 95% convinced that companies larger than 50 people can't acquire truly outstanding people without having a decentralized system that doesn't reward power grabs and people pyramids." I wonder if it's even possible to have a system that doesn't reward power grabs and pyramids at a certain company size. Maybe the number isn't 50; maybe it's slightly lower or slightly higher. But certainly above Dunbar's number, we start to see organizations where departmental siloing and fiefdoms emerge. Politics seems inevitable in these situations, and the people who a) want to play the game, and b) are good at playing the game are the people who win the game. The game exists because all it takes is one or two people to will it into existence. If a power vacuum opens up, or if enough competing VPs and Directors emerge, then someone is going to try to get ahead through politics. The only way to counter that is to play politics. Office politics, as a whole, is an emergent property of the individual players' political strategies and counter-strategies. I have yet to work for, or with, a large company where office politics wasn't a significant factor. It's a bigger problem at some companies than at others. But it's always there. It can never be completely curtailed; it can only be mitigated. The best way to mitigate politics is to implement communications, reward, promotion, and advancement policies that don't incentivize politics as much as other systems might. This is a nontrivial challenge, especially at big scale.

mwhite 13y ago
You need cops: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/gervais-macleod-23-managers-mentors-executives-cops-and-thugs/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/gervais-macle...
RyanZAG 13y ago
I wonder if the solution here is to simply not grow the company that large in the first place? Usually what happens is a company gets a new product idea or a big surge in new customers and does not have a process in place to deal with it through automation and existing systems. The easiest solution is to just hire new employees and let them work it out - it scales very well at first glance as the original employees can continue to work on improving and automating what they already have. Is it the best solution though? If the product is good, slowing down on features or customers seems fairly acceptable until you can cope with them. It's obviously not going to fly with a VC funded firm. For a bootstrapped or lifestyle business it might be the better long run approach, and I believe most people really want a lifestyle business even if they think they don't.

pjungwir 13y ago

One structure that I think could give programmers a lifetime of career growth as programmers is a partner/associates model at a software services firm. In this model partners would still code, just like law partners still practice law, even if they also take on responsibilities re sales/outreach/management/mentoring/etc. I'd love to start such a firm, if I can find one or two people I trust to start it with me.

jshen 13y ago

There is research on this. A good place to start is dunbar's number. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number