CTO day 2: downsizing the team • Hacker News Board

Re: CTO day 2: downsizing the team

#71

Post by jacquesm » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 1:34 PM UTC

m463 wrote: post #30

crispyambulance wrote: post #19

There's a common consequence to staff cuts that OP did not seem to consider: when cuts occur, OTHERS take that as a signal to leave. He just blindsided his staff on "day 2", it could easily happen that another 2,3,4, or more people are now planning to GTFO before they're next. All that careful planning will then be for shit because he just cut to the bone, and then the bones will start leaving. There's no easy way to…

He was told to downsize, which means there's someone above him not owning it.

Yes, that was the bigger failure here. The CEO is clearly incapable as well, but that was more or less a given taking the context communicated in the article into account. No CEO would farm out their responsibility like this. At best he would have asked the new CTO for some input.

Re: CTO day 2: downsizing the team

#72

Post by jacquesm » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 1:35 PM UTC

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #68

> There are broadly 3 experience levels: > Senior: creates the plan. > Mid-level: follows the plan. > Junior: needs to be taught to follow the plan. This person is a horrible leader and failure if they think this way. This tells you all you need to know about the rest of the article. And indeed: > “The ideal team would be one that has all disciplines covered at a senior level with multidisciplinary people working in…

It's a programmer that approaches people management with the same level of empathy that he would normally apply to lines of code or database records.

Re: CTO day 2: downsizing the team

#73

Post by phonon » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 1:36 PM UTC

WJW wrote: post #53

phonon wrote: post #31

Or he could have asked the team if they preferred to take a pay cut. Oops.

What do you do when half the people don't?

You tell people you'll only do it if at least 85% ok the pay cut.

Re: CTO day 2: downsizing the team

#74

Post by user5994461 » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 1:41 PM UTC

Folcon wrote: post #60

SMFloris wrote: post #18

In the beginning, you are on an island, you have an idea to go on an adventure, so you start building a raft with the other guy on the island. The other guy has no building skills, but he procures food, water and wood. The resources on that island are dwindling but you manage to finish the raft just in time. You begin to sail the raft, you start fishing while out in the open seas. You reach another island and sell th…

This makes me wonder, considering the cost of acquisition of talented staff why I don't hear about more large companies with lots of capital on hand requiring that people instead of being fired, just asking them to take a period of paid leave. It would have to be for a while to shake out issues, but if you suddenly discover you need the person, then they're not gone. You also get to experiment with different team com…

The bar to be fired in large bureaucratic companies is usually pretty high. Like you'd have to physically assault your coworkers or steal money from the company account.

It makes zero sense to keep people who are being fired, they are being fired for a reason.

If you're talking about normal employees. They can take holidays anytime (what's the holiday allowance in the US?). Large companies usually have a concept of sabbatical, you can take a large break (let's say 3 months) after some years of service.

Re: CTO day 2: downsizing the team

#75

Post by mech422 » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 1:50 PM UTC

foepys wrote: post #20

emerongi wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He needed to evaluate the team based on some criteria one way or another. He chose certain criteria and used the computer to assist him in the evaluation. Another option would be to choose the team on who you just "like the most". Maybe this would have been more to your liking? It's more human, I guess. However, notice that there is still a criteria and still an evaluation phase, you can't avoid it (unless you pick b…

Liking each other is a pretty huge part of a positive team dynamic. The line to unfair favoritism is thin but a team of high-skilled engineers that don't like each other will most likely perform worse than a team that likes each other but has a bit worse average skill level. Sometimes a person that is regarded as low skill can motivate other team members to hugely increase their productivity by building a positive at…

>>Sometimes a person that is regarded as low skill can motivate other team members to hugely increase their productivity by building a positive atmosphere.

Umm - Isn't that just part of the job? Most workers are expected to at least not _negatively_ impact the working environment, while being at least as competent as their co-workers.

This actually sounds more like someone trying to get co-workers to cover their short-comings for them...

Re: CTO day 2: downsizing the team

#76

Post by barthvr » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 1:56 PM UTC

user5994461 wrote: post #74

Folcon wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes me wonder, considering the cost of acquisition of talented staff why I don't hear about more large companies with lots of capital on hand requiring that people instead of being fired, just asking them to take a period of paid leave. It would have to be for a while to shake out issues, but if you suddenly discover you need the person, then they're not gone. You also get to experiment with different team com…

The bar to be fired in large bureaucratic companies is usually pretty high. Like you'd have to physically assault your coworkers or steal money from the company account. It makes zero sense to keep people who are being fired, they are being fired for a reason. If you're talking about normal employees. They can take holidays anytime (what's the holiday allowance in the US?). Large companies usually have a concept of s…

> It makes zero sense to keep people who are being fired, they are being fired for a reason.

The problem addressed here was "is my reason valid". If you fire someone for the wrong reason, and then everything crumbles, having them on paid leave for 1 month or 2 won't hurt the company financially, and allow to test "how are we doing when X is not there anymore".

Re: CTO day 2: downsizing the team

#77

Post by Jon_Lowtek » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 1:58 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #64

Jon_Lowtek wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author was promoted to CTO, he worked for the company before. Given that the company has less then two dozend people, he likely knows it in and out, including everyone working for it. Also "Day2" is likely a metaphor for "story series entry number 2" and probably does not literally mean 2nd day at work.

The story does not give that background, I'm assuming he is an outsider because of his choice of words in the beginning and the fact that he seems to treat his apparently former buddies suddenly as cogs in a machine. Maybe that's just another way for him to fortify his own mind about doing callous things to other people. Regardless, the second day on a job you are not ready to make decisions like this until you have…

> the story does not give that background

well i have no insider knowledge of any kind, i just looked left and right beyond the blog post instead of making assumptions.

Re: CTO day 2: downsizing the team

#78

Post by mytailorisrich » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 2:00 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #66

mytailorisrich wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the CTO he was in charge. It's absolutely fine to face à situation that is new and that you feel you lack knowledge and experience on. But as a leader and the guy in charge you should not refuse to deal with it, you need to find a way and people to advise you. Don't think that CEOs, Generals, Heads of States, etc know everything, no they know how to seek information and advice but the final decision and responsibi…

Such refusal is a sign of maturity in an MT member. Taking a stand to protect your department from unrealistic requests is part and parcel of being a responsible person to begin with, at the management level it starts to make the difference between a company that will continue to function and one that will be dysfunctional soon - if it isn't already. The complete lack of empathy on display here is proof positive for…

You're making a different point.

If you don't agree with a course of action then by all means do make your point in a constructive way.

But once the decision is made then you cannot shun your responsibility and refuse to implement it. Either "disagree and commit" to the best of you ability or quit.

Re: CTO day 2: downsizing the team

#79

Post by barthvr » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 2:00 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #70

vntok wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the article? He specifically says: "Most important, the application gave me a few starting points. Of those, I still had to consider the team dynamics, existing teams, personalities, seniority, potential, personal situation, future needs, …"

And totally missed on the friendship angle. So, here is my prediction: the people that got fired will find new places to work at where the management is a bit more mature, and will then pull their capable buddies left behind at their old company with them. That's how it usually goes when a new junior manager goes to town with an axe.

Isn't the friendship angle precisely addressed by "team dynamics", "personalities", and "personal situation" ?

Re: CTO day 2: downsizing the team

#80

Post by Noumenon72 » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 2:01 PM UTC

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #68

> There are broadly 3 experience levels: > Senior: creates the plan. > Mid-level: follows the plan. > Junior: needs to be taught to follow the plan. This person is a horrible leader and failure if they think this way. This tells you all you need to know about the rest of the article. And indeed: > “The ideal team would be one that has all disciplines covered at a senior level with multidisciplinary people working in…

Is your complaint that instead of looking to see "who are my mid-levels who can create a plan", he just assumes by their level that they cannot create a plan? Without detailed knowledge, I think most places hire senior/mid/junior based on exactly the criteria he describes.

Every team is fungible in the long run. If you have someone who is specialized labor, either they handoff to someone who is non-specialized now, or they do it later when they leave the company.

Edit: I think your response to dmak covers this, thanks.