I would never work for Jason Calacanis - There, I said it

> Absolutely true. And if Calacanis meant people who are passionate enough about what they are working on to pull some late nighters when necessary, vs someone who punches the clock every day at 5pm and says "that's not in my job description", then he would find a lot more people in agreement.

Absolutely true: as a software engineer, I'm extremely lucky to work on something I'm passionate about. I am not sure if other professions get the same luxury. I'm more than willing to stay until up wee hours in the morning, debugging non-blocking socket code (like I did this Wednesday) whether in a startup or not, because I actually enjoy this (both the intrinsically satisfying work like designing and implementing a new algorithm and less "glorious" work like this: a sign of a healthy organization is one that rewards both).

The impression Jason gives off is he wants clock punchers who punch the clock out at midnight and give the appearance of being busy.

Having read the post and comments, the entire argument seems to be "Some don't want to work for a narcissistic, work-obsessed outspoken boss" and "narcissistic, work-obsessed outspoken people make it".

You know the single thing that every single successful entrepreneur, in any field, has in common? They're work-obsessed. They bust their balls. I'd rather work for someone like JC than a work-shy narcissist.

Jason, I have a theory, based on what I view as the most optimal way that labor markets work.

Based on the system that we live in, everybody tends to benefit, when (in aggregate) everybody looks out for their self-interest. If they are not allowed to, there are distortions which actually impairs the benefits to both parties.

For instance, if employees look out for their own self-interest, they will do everything to get the best benefits. Likewise, if the company looks out for its own self-interest, it will aggressively try to attract the best talent. By doing that, they force existing employees to look out for their own self-interest by being the best they can be (i.e. as good as, or better than, incoming employees). Also, when companies aggressively try to attract the best talent, they tend to do things like listen to what the talents want and employ those things (more paid sick time, cafeterias, the best development machines, reasonable working hours, etc.).

When employees are the best they can be, and their employer is not doing everything they can to retain them, they can leave. That forces the employer to become better at retaining employees - which forces other employers to do the same and creates a perpetuating cycle.

So when a company undermines that, by for instance cancelling sick leave, or forcing 80-hour work weeks into perpetuity, the short term effects are that employees will leave (if they are the best they can be at what they do, which we can assume they are otherwise they wouldn't be at the company) to greener pastures and if the company self corrects, they will once again attract and retain the best talent. If they don't self-correct, they will die. Perhaps a slow, long, death. Or just exist in limbo with lots of D class employees providing mediocre service.

We see this phenomena playing itself out in the Valley now between Google and Facebook. But it's not new. Before it was Yahoo and Google, Google and Microsoft, Microsoft and IBM, Apple and Microsoft, etc.

That's one of the reasons that I think that unions are a bad idea - because they distort this mechanism and allow employees to get lazy and not make sure they are the best at what they do (or add significant value in some other way).

Based on my theory, I think you are missing the idea. Forcing your employees to live through hell, but spraying their face with mist every now and then (with chefs, and laundry service - which were, quite ironically, forced on you by your other successful competitors) and telling them they are cool, doesn't make hell any cooler. At the end of the day, it's still hell. And they know it.

I don't believe that you would have a chef, laundry service, car washing, etc. if Google, Facebook, et al. didn't have similar services and you weren't competing with them. That, however, is just based on what I have deduced from public statements that you have made - so that could be wrong.

Randall...well said. I don't doubt that Jason has a 'heart of gold'. I tend to find that people that are extremely passionate about things, do/say incendiary things that tend to attract attention (both good and bad).

I respect him for having the balls to say what he really thinks. Not many people do. However, I don't believe that he really believes everything he says. I think he has reached the point where he realizes the pay off (lots of attention), that it becomes naturally for everything he says to come out like that.

I am sure that many people would be pushed, but you can push people (and get the most out of them) without being a tyrant.

For instance, I played the violin for many years (save the 'he is a pussy for playing the violin' comments...kthnxbi) and had several teachers. I had a mix...some that were clearly doing it for just a paycheck (not pushing me enough), others that pushed me tyranically (a la Calacanis style) that I rebelled against and didn't perform like I knew I could, and my last one that was absolutely amazing at pushing me to leaps and bounds in a much shorter time than I had ever thought I could reach. So much so, that even though I spent an aggregate of 6 or 7 years with the first 2 or 3 and only progressed let's say '2 or 3' levels, with the last, in the space of 2 years, I progressed 6 or 7 levels and actually became a teacher myself - learning those same techniques of learning how people learn and how to get the best out of each individual and pushing them to achieve their best using a mechanism that will work with them.

So I say that to say, that every manager/leader wants the best out of their people. Some take a blanket approach (like Jason seems to have done) that, in my opinion, don't work in the long-run and in aggregate...and more importantly would never work for me. Hence the reason for my blog post.

How many non-voluntary in the past 2 years?