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

51–58 of 58 posts

Re: Revolutionaries at the Workplace

#51

Post by exBarrelSpoiler »

AlbertCory wrote: post #50
exBarrelSpoiler wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to read the entrails into another poster's personality in response to a not very inflammatory comment is just plain gross. A pity, I was interested in reading Inventing the Future , but this sort of classless rude behavior has changed my mind.

Yeah, I bet you were in the very process of buying it. Maybe you can still cancel your order. Let's review: the original article was a bit of pop psychology, like almost all "management science." I replied with some of my own. None of this is a double-blind, peer-reviewed study, and even if it were, it probably wouldn't be replicable, as others have pointed out. groby_b then replied with some high-sounding condescens…

It's been on my list of reads on Silicon Valley history. Good job explaining your position, but since you responded to me with sarcasm I think I'll just read Fire in the Valley by Swaine and Freiberger instead.

Re: Revolutionaries at the Workplace

#52

Post by drewcoo »

Hokusai wrote: post #8

This is just pseudoscience. No studies, no test, just a guy opinion. Stop clarifying people this way. It's not useful, it's not insightfully. I have seen coworkers fighting for one thing but not another. One fights against bad work ethics, another for good tech and another one for their own right too be with his family. People is complex, everything comes in gradients and that changes as people grows and they learn a…

My problem with the piece was that people were limited to two types: "revolutionary" and "evolutionary." I think you just played "skeptic" for us. So whether you intended it that way or not, thank you!

Re: Revolutionaries at the Workplace

#53

Post by quickthrower2 »

n8cpdx wrote: post #6

It’s an interesting framing overall, but I’m not really convinced that the R/E distinction is as clear in real life. The key attribute that both R and E types here seem to share is _caring_ and a commitment to a larger team goal/outcome. The care/don’t care distinction seems clearer to me and much more recognizable. Within _cares_ people, there may be a further divide in styles, between progressive idealist and tacti…

I find it hard to care too much at work.

The mission is normally the same: to make the founders very rich. Everything feeds into that with a layer of “we better be reasonably good to staff because its hard to attract and retain talent”.

When there isn’t supply/demand on your side then as a worker you end up like the factory workers who have to work through a tornado.

My caring comes from pride in my work and intrinsic motivation mostly, not from the mission of the company. The mission after all is to make people rich.

Thats why i find bonuses weird. A bonus is based on a metric, and that metric is probably gameable. Share of revenue is probably best if you want to pay a bonus. Or just increase salaries.

Re: Revolutionaries at the Workplace

#54

Post by [deleted] »

Hokusai wrote: post #8

This is just pseudoscience. No studies, no test, just a guy opinion. Stop clarifying people this way. It's not useful, it's not insightfully. I have seen coworkers fighting for one thing but not another. One fights against bad work ethics, another for good tech and another one for their own right too be with his family. People is complex, everything comes in gradients and that changes as people grows and they learn a…

[deleted]

Re: Revolutionaries at the Workplace

#55

Post by dang »

Hokusai wrote: post #8

This is just pseudoscience. No studies, no test, just a guy opinion. Stop clarifying people this way. It's not useful, it's not insightfully. I have seen coworkers fighting for one thing but not another. One fights against bad work ethics, another for good tech and another one for their own right too be with his family. People is complex, everything comes in gradients and that changes as people grows and they learn a…

The middle part of your comment is fine but the rest breaks this site guideline:

"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Blog posts etc. obviously don't need to be scientific studies and there's nothing wrong with people posting them here if they're interesting. HN is an internet watercooler, not an academic journal or conference.

Re: Revolutionaries at the Workplace

#56

Post by dang »

wrnr wrote: post #19
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,…

You like putting people in boxes and therefor others must, just like you, put people in boxes. It must be hard to be autistic.

Attacking other users like this will get you banned here. Please don't do that again.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting, we'd appreciate it.

Re: Revolutionaries at the Workplace

#57

Post by wrnr »

dang wrote: post #56
wrnr wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You like putting people in boxes and therefor others must, just like you, put people in boxes. It must be hard to be autistic.

Attacking other users like this will get you banned here. Please don't do that again. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting, we'd appreciate it.

Substitute the variables A and B with jew and gentile, or black and white, and even white and black, and maybe you understand how hateful and retarded the original comment is.

Re: Revolutionaries at the Workplace

#58

Post by dang »

wrnr wrote: post #57
dang wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Attacking other users like this will get you banned here. Please don't do that again. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting, we'd appreciate it.

Substitute the variables A and B with jew and gentile, or black and white, and even white and black, and maybe you understand how hateful and retarded the original comment is.

We need you (i.e. everyone here) to follow the rules regardless of how bad another comment is or you feel it is.

Everyone always feels like the other person started it and did worse—this is more or less a hardwired perception, or at least difficult to extricate from. If people use that as a basis for how they respond to others, we're guaranteed a downward spiral. That's what we're trying to avoid in this forum, that's why we have the site guidelines, and that's why the guidelines don't depend on how other commenters are behaving.

https://hn.algolia.com/?query=downward%20spiral%20by:dang&da...

Post reply on HN