Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Au Revoir

blog.docker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 305 posts

Re: Au Revoir

#191

Post by Pyxl101 »

mbesto wrote: post #172
maerF0x0 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Running a company of 10 people is VERY different from running a company of 100, which is VERY VERY different from running a company of 1000 IMO thats a classist lie that keeps people in their place. Any reasonably smart CEO can learn his way from 10 - 10000. Yes, (s)he may not be capable of 10k on day one, but they can grow along the way.

> Any reasonably smart CEO Sorry but this is extremely naive and I'm sorry that your naïveté has caused you conclude things which are simply not true. This is a very strong assumption, and a lie that is peddled by the media (Zuck is the greatest example of this) to create a novel story. I'm not saying it's impossible, it's just a dangerous assumption. For the record, I've interviewed over 75 software founders (CEO/CT…

What do you think are they key deficiencies in most founders that prevents them from being able to scale their businesses? I'd be very curious to hear.

(Are they unwilling to delegate and trust others to make decisions? Overly focused on trying to be involved in and influence everything?)

Re: Au Revoir

#192

Post by goatherders »

zupreme wrote: post #129
hartator wrote: post #23

It always amazes me how you can convince a founder/CEO is not right man for the job, and slowly push him away. Companies that succeed are driven by burning vision, not by day-to-day operation people. It might make feel the companies run smoother for some time, but day-to-day executives are harmful to a company core vision leading to boring companies if they manage to sustain profitability in the long run at all.

I disagree. This is EXACTLY why roles such as "Chief Operating Officer" and "Director of Operations" exist. You don't make your company succeed by giving up control. You hire people you do control who have the skills you lack.

>> you dont make your company succeed by giving up control.

Of course you do. Every time a new hire is made the founder gives up some control. The secretary now chooses the paper for the copy machine. The sales guy now enunciates the detail of the offering to the prospect. The engineer codes in her specific way. Growing a company is ALL about giving up control in exchange for accelerated growth of the business.

Re: Au Revoir

#193

Post by monocasa »

mbesto wrote: post #172
maerF0x0 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Running a company of 10 people is VERY different from running a company of 100, which is VERY VERY different from running a company of 1000 IMO thats a classist lie that keeps people in their place. Any reasonably smart CEO can learn his way from 10 - 10000. Yes, (s)he may not be capable of 10k on day one, but they can grow along the way.

> Any reasonably smart CEO Sorry but this is extremely naive and I'm sorry that your naïveté has caused you conclude things which are simply not true. This is a very strong assumption, and a lie that is peddled by the media (Zuck is the greatest example of this) to create a novel story. I'm not saying it's impossible, it's just a dangerous assumption. For the record, I've interviewed over 75 software founders (CEO/CT…

And likewise, I can tell you from experience that nowhere near even 50% of the people brought in that supposedly have the ability to scale a company don't really know anything other than just enough pattern matching to cosplay as Jack Welch in front of investors, and how to minimize their blame when shit hits the fan.

Re: Au Revoir

#194

Post by parrellel »

meddlepal wrote: post #157
mariushop wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh my God, the company's growth? Then we MUST axe the CEO. He's just a human, after all. Don't want humans to hurt company's growth. Company's growth. Growth.

If you're not growing you're dying.

...but, if you're growing too much, you might be cancer.

Re: Au Revoir

#195

Post by goatherders »

reeeprgenx wrote: post #138
hartator wrote: post #23

It always amazes me how you can convince a founder/CEO is not right man for the job, and slowly push him away. Companies that succeed are driven by burning vision, not by day-to-day operation people. It might make feel the companies run smoother for some time, but day-to-day executives are harmful to a company core vision leading to boring companies if they manage to sustain profitability in the long run at all.

"Companies that succeed are driven by burning vision" lol. /not even close.

Not sure why this was downvoted. It's a good (and correct) point.

Re: Au Revoir

#196

Post by watwut »

AcerbicZero wrote: post #117
romanhn wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a reason why most startups don't go big - burning vision is not even close to being the right formula for success. Running a company of 10 people is VERY different from running a company of 100, which is VERY VERY different from running a company of 1000. Just like precious few individual contributors are comfortable with and able to contribute meaningfully in this wide range of environments, it doesn't make…

I disagree with the number of employees making things drastically different. 1, 10, or 10,000, it doesn't matter as long as the leader has the fundamental organization skills need to control groups of people. It's easier to hide the lack of organization in smaller groups, but the end state will be the same regardless. "Management of many is the same as management of few. It is a matter of organization."

With 1 to 10 people you know what exactly who does, his weak and strong points etc. They also know you personally and possibly trust you. You also manage by talking to people personally and you have direct control over pretty much everything you decide to. You see impact of your decisions pretty fast and directly. It is easy to make exceptions and situational decisions.

With 1000-10000 you never seen most employees faces. You have no idea what they do whole day. They don't know you either and likely don't trust you. You manage by making general rules and by talking to few people directly under you. You dont see impact of your decisions directly, you have to guess from hints and long time.

Re: Au Revoir

#197

Post by avip »

chrisvalleybay wrote: post #24

I love the art made for the post. It's so emotional and powerful. The letter told the story, but the image made me feel the story. So simple, but yet so powerful. Also, @solomonstre has changed his Twitter profile picture. This is brilliant communication. He lets everyone know that he has moved on to other things, just from his profile picture. I think this is very interesting and clever.

Honestly, I was not aware you could convey so much emotion in a simple cartoon. This is just outstanding work.

Re: Au Revoir

#198

Post by dcole2929 »

ghaff wrote: post #181
zupreme wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. This is EXACTLY why roles such as "Chief Operating Officer" and "Director of Operations" exist. You don't make your company succeed by giving up control. You hire people you do control who have the skills you lack.

And those skills may include taking the company in directions that you may not agree with. What then?

You have to be smart enough, and humble enough to recognize when someone else's vision is what your company needs at the moment. I'd imagine that a good CEO would be able to both simultaneously provide the direction of a company while also accepting input, on how to actually get there. Navigation, and steering are two different things

Re: Au Revoir

#199

Post by nu-world-odor »

segmondy wrote: post #135
dwc wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been mumbling under my breath about this since the 90s. The basic issue as I see it is that nobody wants to do the up front work of separating out static, client side dynamic, and server side dynamic. If that work were done then nominal load would be much less to begin with, and scaling up would be much more straightforward.

Mumbling since 90s? Well, if you stopped mumbling and showed the world how it ought to be done, perhaps we would be doing it your way. Show us how.

show us wordpressers and drupalers how to separate shit? good luck with that.

Re: Au Revoir

#200

Post by alexnewman »

mbesto wrote: post #172
maerF0x0 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Running a company of 10 people is VERY different from running a company of 100, which is VERY VERY different from running a company of 1000 IMO thats a classist lie that keeps people in their place. Any reasonably smart CEO can learn his way from 10 - 10000. Yes, (s)he may not be capable of 10k on day one, but they can grow along the way.

> Any reasonably smart CEO Sorry but this is extremely naive and I'm sorry that your naïveté has caused you conclude things which are simply not true. This is a very strong assumption, and a lie that is peddled by the media (Zuck is the greatest example of this) to create a novel story. I'm not saying it's impossible, it's just a dangerous assumption. For the record, I've interviewed over 75 software founders (CEO/CT…

I don't believe you unless you can give me a real statistic
Post reply on HN