Live data from Hacker News

The Mess at Meetup

gizmodo.com

21–30 of 99 posts

Re: The Mess at Meetup

#21
post #2

Am I crazy or does the slide deck embedded in the article look totally normal? I would applaud if my senior management presented this.

I wouldn't say it's abnormal, but I also wouldn't say it's positive. It's clearly a move to less autonomy and more decisions-from-above. Stuff like "constantly push ourselves out of our comfort zone" literally means "we want to make this an uncomfortable place to work". This type of culture is fine, there's nothing wrong with it, but we need to acknowledge that for people who joined in the previous setup, this is sim…

I wouldn't say this is a bait and switch, but it is a betrayal. It sounds like a lot of people joined the company because of the work environment. An environment that placed importance of the people in it, and making it somewhere that they wanted to be and where they felt comfortable being who they were. To now turn around and imply that those same values are bad is a betrayal.

The slide deck is not surprising or positive to me either. For me, it is an example of the corporate neofeudalism that currently dominates the US workplace. Not only are you are cog in the machine, but you have to be passionate and optimistic cog too! It is not ok to simply do your job, you have to be outside your comfort zone!

From my perspective, it is dehumanizing. People have value beyond their economic potential.

Re: The Mess at Meetup

#22
I'm really conflicted by this article.

On the one hand, it's always a shame to read of cases where a company with a great culture which people clearly enjoyed and valued is changed for 'bad' reasons - takeover, or profit, or similar.

...but...

> “I really don’t think they would have been able to attract the talent they did without it because the product wasn’t there. They didn’t innovate. Meetup is not attractive except for their culture, except for their values”

If the product sucks, then a) you've got to ask why, and b) that probably needs to change, for the sake of the company (which actually offers a valuable product, IMO) and its employees.

And here's what seems to have been judged to be the issue: if your priority is to hire a diverse workforce that enables a gentle, happy, collaborative culture, then your priority isn't to hire the best possible workforce, to create the best possible product.

I don't want to come over as James Damore here (and I'm sure there are plenty of cases of a diverse workforce creating a great product) but this isn't fundamentally unreasonable. If your priority is cultural excellence, you're going to get cultural excellence, possibly to the exclusion of other factors: if your priority isn't product excellence, you're not going to get product excellence.

Re: The Mess at Meetup

#23
This article is vague because something is being papered over.

My interpretation: “We focused our culture on creating a corporate safe space and hired a bunch of people more interested in safe spaces than actually growing the organization and competing, then we began to lose ground and had to reverse course and became so scared of our own employees we had to enact measures to prevent them from revolting on us when we asked them to work harder.”

I think the entire social justice tidal wave that hit tech is going to destroy many companies, these attitudes and building corporate cultures focused on entertaining then lead to profoundly uncompetitive behaviors. Imagine how hyper alert these people are to even the lightest pressure.

It works great when finance is plenty and times are good. Once the market turns, every company that chose diversity and inclusion for their culture is going to implode violently and face employee revolts.

Google is especially prone to this. Of the major tech companies, google have gone out of their way to hire as many blue haired safe spacers as humanly possible. These efforts are going to backfire when they need to get mean and lean.

Re: The Mess at Meetup

#24
post #22

I'm really conflicted by this article. On the one hand, it's always a shame to read of cases where a company with a great culture which people clearly enjoyed and valued is changed for 'bad' reasons - takeover, or profit, or similar. ...but... > “I really don’t think they would have been able to attract the talent they did without it because the product wasn’t there. They didn’t innovate. Meetup is not attractive exc…

The greatest reason I believe a company should prioritize for cultural excellence is for its causation effect on product excellence. I firmly believe this causation exists and this mutually exclusive scenario you mention doesn't exist.

Re: The Mess at Meetup

#26
post #16
post #10

The slide deck looks like a persiflage to me. Something I would expect to see in a movie [1]. Are employees in the US really such ducklings that they swallow such insult and paternalism? If I would be a manager at Meetup and would be shown a bunch of bullshit bingo slides about how my current approach is shit and that I am supposed to become better at my job by 'pushing to achieve more' my reaction would be clear. I…

Honestly, the slide deck to me looks like a positive and important correction from a company that's been too lax and directionless in its management (this is an inference - I don't know anything about Meetup specifically). It's not contemptuous, it's honest and direct. Most companies would not be so honest with everyone about seeking a change in direction like this. > Past: We debate too much without defined decision…

There are degrees of everything of course. I'm not sure the "It's just business" approach of a typical high-performing football team is necessarily the best model for a lot of companies. The default approach to someone going through a rough patch for family reasons or whatever maybe shouldn't be to boot them out the door.

But, yeah, to the degree that their culture was driven by the "Past" descriptions, especially taken to extremes, I don't see anything particularly problematic about that deck.

Re: The Mess at Meetup

#27
post #24
post #22

I'm really conflicted by this article. On the one hand, it's always a shame to read of cases where a company with a great culture which people clearly enjoyed and valued is changed for 'bad' reasons - takeover, or profit, or similar. ...but... > “I really don’t think they would have been able to attract the talent they did without it because the product wasn’t there. They didn’t innovate. Meetup is not attractive exc…

The greatest reason I believe a company should prioritize for cultural excellence is for its causation effect on product excellence. I firmly believe this causation exists and this mutually exclusive scenario you mention doesn't exist.

But what is "cultural excellence" in the general case? I'd argue that "a really fun place to go into work" and "a place where we are relentlessly focused on creating the best product" could both reflect cultural excellence while still optimizing for different outcomes.

[ADDED: I agree with your sibling comment. So long as a business can continue to operate in a manner satisfactory to the owners/management, a variety of different cultures and management styles are perhaps equally valid.]

Re: The Mess at Meetup

#28
“There was a distinct change in culture over the past few months. It seems like things are becoming more top-down."

I've found this is a great time to leave a company. It's the exact point where things start to get shitty.

Re: The Mess at Meetup

#29
post #24
post #22

I'm really conflicted by this article. On the one hand, it's always a shame to read of cases where a company with a great culture which people clearly enjoyed and valued is changed for 'bad' reasons - takeover, or profit, or similar. ...but... > “I really don’t think they would have been able to attract the talent they did without it because the product wasn’t there. They didn’t innovate. Meetup is not attractive exc…

The greatest reason I believe a company should prioritize for cultural excellence is for its causation effect on product excellence. I firmly believe this causation exists and this mutually exclusive scenario you mention doesn't exist.

Yeah, fair point - perhaps I miswrote, as 'cultural excellence' is too broad a term. For sure, a high-performing company producing a great product needs a great culture to support it.

My points are:

a) it seems that Meetup tried to optimise their culture for aspects that were not directly related to --and controversially, maybe even opposed to-- product excellence. i.e. their initial version of 'cultural excellence' was more about creating a pleasant inclusive place to work, rather than a productive or high-performing place to work.

b) further, if (as a result) your hiring decisions are more guided by prioritising people that will fit into and perpetuate that cultural vision, you're implicitly choosing to not prioritise hiring high-performers.

(As said before, it's not mutually exclusive - there may be some high-performers that do fit into your cultural vision... but on a macro scale, if you follow that particular cultural vision, the trend will be away from excellence and performance.)

Re: The Mess at Meetup

#30
post #29
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The greatest reason I believe a company should prioritize for cultural excellence is for its causation effect on product excellence. I firmly believe this causation exists and this mutually exclusive scenario you mention doesn't exist.

Yeah, fair point - perhaps I miswrote, as 'cultural excellence' is too broad a term. For sure, a high-performing company producing a great product needs a great culture to support it. My points are: a) it seems that Meetup tried to optimise their culture for aspects that were not directly related to --and controversially, maybe even opposed to-- product excellence. i.e. their initial version of 'cultural excellence'…

Put this way, I agree. There is always a risk to lose sight of your final objective and become myopic focusing on more immediately perceived issues.

I think I read Paul Graham (or someone from YC) stating that you want diversity of background on your team, but not diversity of objectives. I wholeheartedly agree with this. The more diversity on your team (regarding every dimension: gender, race, nationality, personality traits, education, etc), the more chance you have at building a great product; as long as all of them have unity of vision and goals.

Post reply on HN