Live data from Hacker News

Congratulations You’ve Been Fired

mobile.nytimes.com

281–290 of 445 posts

Re: Congratulations You’ve Been Fired

#281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked in tech for a while and nothing he says sounds implausible or strange. Most jobs in tech are bad, all the perks are there just to confuse young suckers about who's taking advantage of who, and the libertarian streak of tech worker is carefully cultivated to make us weaker as a category. The only glimmer of hope is that personally I'm noticing my peers and friends working all over the Bay Area are starting to…

> the libertarian streak of tech worker is carefully cultivated to make us weaker as a category Wow, that must take a whole lot of careful coordination.

You have no idea. The people that pull the strings in the tech industry all know each other, and meet regularly coordinate 'business'

See this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocking_directorate

Also play with this http://www.theyrule.net/

Re: Congratulations You’ve Been Fired

#282
post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Dan Lyons idealises a world in which people worked their whole career for one company, had a slow progression of minor promotions and pay rises & retired to a gold watch they took to Florida. That reality makes me personally want to buy a chair, some rope and to Google how to tie a noose, but my view is certainly NOT universal, and I need to accept and recognise that. I think the angle you're missing on this sort of…

I don't think this is about passion, I think it's about a culture mis-match. Lyons is looking for a place with stability, and that was not HubSpot. In this case it was probably HubSpot's error in hiring him in the first, as they have a very clear opinion of their culture. I think Lyons would not have been happy at any tech company, the fact that he considers a company that was a year away from IPO, and almost 10 year…

Your last statement is incorrect - they care about their job, but are not passionate about it.

Your statement inadvertently highlights the point on language which is being made in the article and in this thread.

Lack of Passion != disinterest.

Re: Congratulations You’ve Been Fired

#283
post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Dan Lyons misrepresents your ideas, but rather I think more fundamentally he doesn't share your vocabulary, worldview nor expectations. The reverse is also true, and your arguments in return don't use worldview or definitions he would understand nor recognise. The modern world seems to be a constant case of vocabulary misunderstanding, where we all say "widget", and I mean thing and you mean "an element…

Do you have a cite for being the 70's paradigm: "the business will employ you no matter what you do or how bad you are" - the classic 1970s Union paradigm No Union protects employees no matter how bad they are.

The very often do and did! Read about the history of the Telsa Fremont factory when it was GM, or teacher's unions for cases like Mark Berndt, etc.

Re: Congratulations You’ve Been Fired

#284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is pure speculation. You seem to be upset that Lyons has mischaracterised your work, yet you also seem to be happy to do the same to him. Lyons worked for a company that has an abusive culture. They recently had two top people in management leave because of unethical behaviour - and you observed and promoted aspects of such a culture in your book. I think that you are getting just criticism, and you are taking i…

I didn't criticize Dan's book, or say that his statements about HubSpot were inaccurate. (Note that I'm not saying they're accurate either; I haven't worked there!) What I did do was to point out that his op ed does not accurately reflect what I wrote on my book. I don't believe this constitutes mischaracterization on my part. HubSpot fired two senior managers because they tried (foolishly) to use deception to obtain…

Dan Lyons didn't mention expensing lunches in that article. You are speculating why your book was mentioned. The issue you seem to have is the bit about your "tour of duty" concept, which it looks like was indeed mischaracterised (I have to read your book to know for sure). But apart from that I'm not sure what can really be stated as anything else than fair criticism in that article - and by which I mean he disagrees with your ideas and critiques them.

Re: Congratulations You’ve Been Fired

#285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here, I read "start-up" as "company with a culture typically attributed to start-ups." And in that reading, the author is not necessarily incorrect.

That's a circular definition.

It's not, because it's being applied outside of its defining group. It's a circular definition if the term is only applied to "start-ups", because of course those have "start-up culture" by definition. But one can apply the term to companies that are not "start-ups" -- even if they once were -- but yet carry the same "start-up culture".

There's also the idea at this point of a stereotypical "start-up culture" that lives beyond the idea of whatever a "start-up" is. This also breaks the circular definition, because from that perspective "start-ups" no longer define "start-up culture".

Re: Congratulations You’ve Been Fired

#286
post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) We do specifically address the power imbalance between employers and employees. Because managers typically have more power in the relationship, it is critical that managers take the initiative to prove themselves trustworthy. Now that talent mobility has increased so much, employers who continue to treat employees as disposable are going to have a hard time attracting the best talent. This doesn't mean that all co…

Thinking beyond the best or the top ten percent should change some of the perspective. Not all workers will be of "the best". Most will be middlings. It's the middlings who need to worry about power imbalances and who take jobs with lousy bosses and put up with lousy coworkers. True, top talent has less to worry about since any setback in employment is easily reversible. Many (most) don't have that luxury. These are…

Exactly - thank you. You wrote this more succinctly and clearly than I did! That is precisely my concern.

I guess I'll read the book now if it isn't too expensive (or even available in my region!), but I think many of these ideas about mutually beneficial employment only really works where power is relatively well balanced - in other words the employer can't get rid of you or treat you badly because you are irreplaceable it very hard to replace, and the employee has loyalty towards the company.

The instant this changes, then one party will often be largely unfairly affected.

Re: Congratulations You’ve Been Fired

#287
post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Dan Lyons misrepresents your ideas, but rather I think more fundamentally he doesn't share your vocabulary, worldview nor expectations. The reverse is also true, and your arguments in return don't use worldview or definitions he would understand nor recognise. The modern world seems to be a constant case of vocabulary misunderstanding, where we all say "widget", and I mean thing and you mean "an element…

>Dan Lyons idealises a world in which people worked their whole career for one company, had a slow progression of minor promotions and pay rises & retired to a gold watch they took to Florida. That reality makes me personally want to buy a chair, some rope and to Google how to tie a noose, but my view is certainly NOT universal, and I need to accept and recognise that. I think the angle you're missing on this sort of…

On the contrary, it can also be that those who stick to the same job for 10, 20 or 30 years, care for the job rather than jumping ship. They care for serving the public, through government or through the private sector.

Re: Congratulations You’ve Been Fired

#288

Does anyone have more context on Dan Lyons? After reading this article, and the one from Fortune[0], and his post on LinkedIn[1], it feels like he's out there scraping together blatant PR for his new book. And it makes me honestly wonder whether he went to work for HubSpot looking for a story to write in the first place... and being a writer for the "Silicon Valley" TV series doesn't really help his credibility in th…

I'm not informed enough to have an opinion on Dan as a person or on HubSpot, but this is the third article I've seen posted to HN that all pretty much say the same thing, and are all obvious attempts to sell his book. Why do these articles keep getting voted up?

Re: Congratulations You’ve Been Fired

#289

Does anyone have more context on Dan Lyons? After reading this article, and the one from Fortune[0], and his post on LinkedIn[1], it feels like he's out there scraping together blatant PR for his new book. And it makes me honestly wonder whether he went to work for HubSpot looking for a story to write in the first place... and being a writer for the "Silicon Valley" TV series doesn't really help his credibility in th…

A lot of tech offices do look like freaking playschools now. One I went to looked like a cat therapist's waiting room, with cartoons of fishes and cats on the walls.

Re: Congratulations You’ve Been Fired

#290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect the reason that Dan Lyons mentions "The Alliance" is that we cite some of HubSpot's programs in the book. Specifically, we mention HubSpot's "Learning Meals" program, which encourages employees to take smart people outside the company to lunch. HubSpot will pick up the tab as long as you share what you learn with the rest of the company on the intranet.

This is pure speculation. You seem to be upset that Lyons has mischaracterised your work, yet you also seem to be happy to do the same to him. Lyons worked for a company that has an abusive culture. They recently had two top people in management leave because of unethical behaviour - and you observed and promoted aspects of such a culture in your book. I think that you are getting just criticism, and you are taking i…

> You seem to be upset that Lyons has mischaracterised your work, yet you also seem to be happy to do the same to him.

Not even close. Speculation is fine as long as it is labeled as speculation ("I suspect..."). It's nothing like what Lyons did, which is to misleadlingly paraphrase the contents of a book.

> I think that you are getting just criticism, and you are taking it quite badly.

I think his complaint is totally understandable, and I find the personal nature of your criticism bizarre.

Post reply on HN