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

Revolutionaries at the Workplace

damnoptimist.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 58 posts

Re: Revolutionaries at the Workplace

#21

Post by willob33 »

AlbertCory wrote: post #18

I like this article, but there's another way of classifying that I also like: letter grades (remember those from school?) which uses hiring psychology a little more. In a successful startup, whom you hire makes or breaks you. 'A' players hire 'A' players. 'B' players hire 'C' players. Independent of Revolutionary vs. Evolutionary, we have pure intelligence, education, and animal cunning. An 'A' player has all those,…

Are you suggesting founders are A players?

They’re the B players who suck up to wealth holders.

Are there A players? Everyone gets a handout at some point. The ultra rich get one in the form of no taxes. An A player would surely just be a billionaire.

Sure is easy being an A player when your handouts from decades ago earned a lot of interest.

How are we still this oblivious? We spent the last decade making building these things this easy on purpose.

Where is the A game in using the machine how it was intended?

Re: Revolutionaries at the Workplace

#22

Post by vorpalhex »

This is too simplified such that it is incorrect.

If we look at any personality type system, the revolutionary/reformers are going to be a quadrant of discrete personalities (and even those can be broken down or treated as a gradient).

As an easy example, I'm one of the types in that quadrant. While I tend to be independent and self confident, I'm not "an inspiring leader". I also have a strong preference for consensus (or at least peaceful agreement), and prefer not being the center of attention.

Please give this piece about as much attention as you would todays horoscope and instead read a few good papers on pubmed.

Re: Revolutionaries at the Workplace

#23

Post by alim459 »

An interesting read that has a lot of face value for me, but I wonder if the "R" and "E" typings are stable through life, and how amenable are they are to change?

The article comes across like "R" and "E" are set characteristics--almost like a personality trait. I'd really like to longitudinal see data on R/E mobility, and how fluidity between R/E types might be related to team cohesion overall.

Re: Revolutionaries at the Workplace

#24

Post by AlbertCory »

groby_b wrote: post #20
AlbertCory wrote: post #18

I like this article, but there's another way of classifying that I also like: letter grades (remember those from school?) which uses hiring psychology a little more. In a successful startup, whom you hire makes or breaks you. 'A' players hire 'A' players. 'B' players hire 'C' players. Independent of Revolutionary vs. Evolutionary, we have pure intelligence, education, and animal cunning. An 'A' player has all those,…

That is, pardon the directness, bad pop psychology. If A players could recognize another one, our industry's hiring wouldn't be so incredibly broken. The idea that there are clear layers of engineering skill is... just plain wrong, and that's obvious to anyone who's worked on more than a few teams. It's a spectrum, and more, it's multidimensional. So is the idea that somehow people not in the top layer automatically…

I don't think you really understand the power of simple metrics. Making an assumption (perhaps invalid) based on your submissions and comments, you seem to be in a line of work whose sales pitch is "Things are complex. You need to hire us to explain it all to you." Or maybe you've worked on games; it's hard to tell.

Since you've alluded to your experiences: I've picked a startup based only on their business description, where I didn't know a single person, and it IPO'ed in about 18 months. Then the 'B' players flooded in, and some other unrelated stuff happened. What have you done?

Re: Revolutionaries at the Workplace

#25

Post by bsedlm »

AlbertCory wrote: post #24
groby_b wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is, pardon the directness, bad pop psychology. If A players could recognize another one, our industry's hiring wouldn't be so incredibly broken. The idea that there are clear layers of engineering skill is... just plain wrong, and that's obvious to anyone who's worked on more than a few teams. It's a spectrum, and more, it's multidimensional. So is the idea that somehow people not in the top layer automatically…

I don't think you really understand the power of simple metrics. Making an assumption (perhaps invalid) based on your submissions and comments, you seem to be in a line of work whose sales pitch is "Things are complex. You need to hire us to explain it all to you." Or maybe you've worked on games; it's hard to tell. Since you've alluded to your experiences: I've picked a startup based only on their business descripti…

I think he's saying you cannot only rely on any particular simple metric (nor just a couple of them).

I'd say you gotta use many metrics, the simpler they are the more metrics you'd need. simple metrics ignore the subtelties which can make or break.

Re: Revolutionaries at the Workplace

#26

Post by AlbertCory »

bsedlm wrote: post #25
AlbertCory wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you really understand the power of simple metrics. Making an assumption (perhaps invalid) based on your submissions and comments, you seem to be in a line of work whose sales pitch is "Things are complex. You need to hire us to explain it all to you." Or maybe you've worked on games; it's hard to tell. Since you've alluded to your experiences: I've picked a startup based only on their business descripti…

I think he's saying you cannot only rely on any particular simple metric (nor just a couple of them). I'd say you gotta use many metrics, the simpler they are the more metrics you'd need. simple metrics ignore the subtelties which can make or break.

Yeah, that's fair. No one's advocating making all decisions on a single factor.

I think when outside "experts" come in and talk to you, they have one Summary slide at the end that gives their own "simple metrics" and that's what everyone remembers anyway.

Re: Revolutionaries at the Workplace

#27

Post by jolux »

AlbertCory wrote: post #24
groby_b wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is, pardon the directness, bad pop psychology. If A players could recognize another one, our industry's hiring wouldn't be so incredibly broken. The idea that there are clear layers of engineering skill is... just plain wrong, and that's obvious to anyone who's worked on more than a few teams. It's a spectrum, and more, it's multidimensional. So is the idea that somehow people not in the top layer automatically…

I don't think you really understand the power of simple metrics. Making an assumption (perhaps invalid) based on your submissions and comments, you seem to be in a line of work whose sales pitch is "Things are complex. You need to hire us to explain it all to you." Or maybe you've worked on games; it's hard to tell. Since you've alluded to your experiences: I've picked a startup based only on their business descripti…

> I've picked a startup based only on their business description, where I didn't know a single person, and it IPO'ed in about 18 months.

Anybody can do that once. If you could do it a hundred times in a row, or develop a science of picking startups, I might be more inclined to believe you.

Re: Revolutionaries at the Workplace

#28

Post by unbanned »

AlbertCory wrote: post #24
groby_b wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is, pardon the directness, bad pop psychology. If A players could recognize another one, our industry's hiring wouldn't be so incredibly broken. The idea that there are clear layers of engineering skill is... just plain wrong, and that's obvious to anyone who's worked on more than a few teams. It's a spectrum, and more, it's multidimensional. So is the idea that somehow people not in the top layer automatically…

I don't think you really understand the power of simple metrics. Making an assumption (perhaps invalid) based on your submissions and comments, you seem to be in a line of work whose sales pitch is "Things are complex. You need to hire us to explain it all to you." Or maybe you've worked on games; it's hard to tell. Since you've alluded to your experiences: I've picked a startup based only on their business descripti…

Very good Albert, yet here you are posting on HN like everybody else.

Re: Revolutionaries at the Workplace

#30

Post by AlbertCory »

jolux wrote: post #27
AlbertCory wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you really understand the power of simple metrics. Making an assumption (perhaps invalid) based on your submissions and comments, you seem to be in a line of work whose sales pitch is "Things are complex. You need to hire us to explain it all to you." Or maybe you've worked on games; it's hard to tell. Since you've alluded to your experiences: I've picked a startup based only on their business descripti…

> I've picked a startup based only on their business description, where I didn't know a single person, and it IPO'ed in about 18 months. Anybody can do that once. If you could do it a hundred times in a row, or develop a science of picking startups, I might be more inclined to believe you.

If anybody could do that once, they'd all have done it already, and most of them wouldn't be posting on HN anymore.
Post reply on HN