7 ms·

Agreed that the biggest challenges are often non-technical. The article really hit home, especially the ‘Tragedy of the Commons”. I’m just about to leave a ‘u

by poof131 11y ago

Agreed that the biggest challenges are often non-technical. The article really hit home, especially the ‘Tragedy of the Commons”. I’m just about to leave a ‘unicorn’ startup that is beginning to implode due to team and individual sub-optimization. All directors in R&D report to the CEO and the only way to get teams to work together is with the CEO in the room. My director once said, “Why are you helping that team, if it fails, it’s their fault.” Developers are judged on commit counts and bugs fixed. No one can figure out why quality is tanking and velocity is plummeting. It’s sad to watch, like a slow motion train wreck, but it’s also a poisonous environment and no one can change it except the CEO, who blindly trusts his “Generals”, which only exacerbates the situation.

DanielBMarkham 11y ago
One of the things that continues to amaze me is the vast space between the simplicity of the problems groups of tech developers have and the intellectual capability they bring to the table to solve tough problems. You could take 100 teams that are experiencing this kind of dysfunction and show each member of team an article like this. Most individual team members would easily be able to understand it. Yet in the aggregate they seem unable to do anything about it.
- qznc 11y ago
  My guess would be: the CEO knows. He either feels unable to change anything in his specific situation or he does not care.
  - DanielBMarkham 11y ago
    I've seen the infighting generals thing before, and many times behaviors like that might work in one situation but not in another. It could be taking a lesson from somewhere else and mis-applying it. It could be he doesn't care. Also -- and this is wild -- it could be the best behavior given the circumstances and our OP just isn't aware of all of the extenuating circumstances. Many times teams/orgs in bad situations are filled with intelligent people acting as wisely as possible, within a narrow scope. It's only at the macro level, when you add it all up, that it becomes totally whacked.
    - poof131 11y ago
      Agree with your points. There are plenty of smart people in the org all trying to do the best they can. There is a sink or swim mentality, which can be effective, but as the company grows it’s tougher to reward the swimmers and not have their work obfuscated by politicians. It’s also tough to promote cross team collaboration in this environment. Building something from nothing is tough, and so is turning an elite team into multiple elite teams. It strikes me as the latter gets less focus in SV since it is much less frequent and goes against the entrepreneurial grain. It’s easier to bash large companies than to think about how to actually build one. I recognize that I’m likely missing relevant factors, but some of the key problems seem to be a flat org, no VP of engineering, and no encouragement of cross team work. When managing people, you really need to meet with more than one level below you. In a flat org, with 20 people reporting to the CEO and 40 people reporting to each of them, there is no way for the CEO to meet with all 800 people. The CEO just ends up having to blindly trust his or her direct reports that everything is good. A few bad ones can result in large sections of the company rotting from within. Promoting cross team collaboration is tough. A company needs to emphasize this in how it promotes / rewards people and crafts the org chart. Easier said than done, but no VP of Engineering and directors promoting loyalists with no emphasis on helping other teams doesn’t help. Having multiple directors involved in promotions may help. I like the CEO and think that he does care. He may be able to fix things, but unfortunately I don’t see it happening. I am tired of hearing everyone complain and find myself getting angry at nice people that I like due to bad incentives. My only option is to vote with my feet. He can trust his ‘Generals’ but thankfully this isn’t the military and I can leave. The grass may or may not be greener, but I’d rather take a chance on change than the status quo. Putting in my notice was an amazing relief.
thaumasiotes 11y ago
> it’s also a poisonous environment and no one can change it except the CEO, who blindly trusts his “Generals” No chance of a coup?

by poof131 11y ago

DanielBMarkham 11y ago

One of the things that continues to amaze me is the vast space between the simplicity of the problems groups of tech developers have and the intellectual capability they bring to the table to solve tough problems. You could take 100 teams that are experiencing this kind of dysfunction and show each member of team an article like this. Most individual team members would easily be able to understand it. Yet in the aggregate they seem unable to do anything about it.

qznc 11y ago
My guess would be: the CEO knows. He either feels unable to change anything in his specific situation or he does not care.
- DanielBMarkham 11y ago
  I've seen the infighting generals thing before, and many times behaviors like that might work in one situation but not in another. It could be taking a lesson from somewhere else and mis-applying it. It could be he doesn't care. Also -- and this is wild -- it could be the best behavior given the circumstances and our OP just isn't aware of all of the extenuating circumstances. Many times teams/orgs in bad situations are filled with intelligent people acting as wisely as possible, within a narrow scope. It's only at the macro level, when you add it all up, that it becomes totally whacked.
  - poof131 11y ago
    Agree with your points. There are plenty of smart people in the org all trying to do the best they can. There is a sink or swim mentality, which can be effective, but as the company grows it’s tougher to reward the swimmers and not have their work obfuscated by politicians. It’s also tough to promote cross team collaboration in this environment. Building something from nothing is tough, and so is turning an elite team into multiple elite teams. It strikes me as the latter gets less focus in SV since it is much less frequent and goes against the entrepreneurial grain. It’s easier to bash large companies than to think about how to actually build one. I recognize that I’m likely missing relevant factors, but some of the key problems seem to be a flat org, no VP of engineering, and no encouragement of cross team work. When managing people, you really need to meet with more than one level below you. In a flat org, with 20 people reporting to the CEO and 40 people reporting to each of them, there is no way for the CEO to meet with all 800 people. The CEO just ends up having to blindly trust his or her direct reports that everything is good. A few bad ones can result in large sections of the company rotting from within. Promoting cross team collaboration is tough. A company needs to emphasize this in how it promotes / rewards people and crafts the org chart. Easier said than done, but no VP of Engineering and directors promoting loyalists with no emphasis on helping other teams doesn’t help. Having multiple directors involved in promotions may help. I like the CEO and think that he does care. He may be able to fix things, but unfortunately I don’t see it happening. I am tired of hearing everyone complain and find myself getting angry at nice people that I like due to bad incentives. My only option is to vote with my feet. He can trust his ‘Generals’ but thankfully this isn’t the military and I can leave. The grass may or may not be greener, but I’d rather take a chance on change than the status quo. Putting in my notice was an amazing relief.

thaumasiotes 11y ago

> it’s also a poisonous environment and no one can change it except the CEO, who blindly trusts his “Generals” No chance of a coup?