Live data from Hacker News

How a startup loses its spark

blog.johnqian.com

231–240 of 287 posts

Re: How a startup loses its spark

#231

Whenever I read something like this I roll my eyes and assume the person writing it is either pretty junior or the specific founder type who has weirdly dysfunctional expectations about why their employees work for them. I think a lot of this stems from the bizarre culture of the SF tech world, but outside that bubble people do not really think about their jobs in this way. I emphasize _job_ here. The best devs I've…

Everyone's not the same. They don't have the same motivations. For the first decade of my job, I worked a steady, stable job that paid decently. It wasn't bad, but I was bored. Bored as in counting down the hours until the end of the work day each day, booking out all my vacation months in advance to the day.

I switched over to startups and have not looked back. Yeah, I work more, but I enjoy it a lot more. I can't do it forever, but the financial rewards have been better too, so I probably won't need to work to 65 like when I had the more stable, boring job.

Re: How a startup loses its spark

#232
post #120
post #54

I'll raise your spark for complete destruction. Here's an incomplete list that I keep around of the mechanisms that I've observed so far that have played a big part in the decline/destruction of an engineering team (and product thereof): 1. Too-technical leaders: As startup scales, there can sometimes be a mad dash to fill new leadership roles (e.g. VP of Eng, Arch, CTO, etc.). Super-star engineers present at startup…

One thing I'll add - or maybe it expands on too technical of a leader - is when a brilliant outside hire is brought in to fill the arch/principal/whatever role. Then they start looking at the app and questioning every decision calling everything they don't have context on "technical debt" I've seen it a few times. I told a new VP of Eng he was being asinine because he wasn't there for the original problem, decision,…

It could go the other way though, to be along the the ride and hope for the 'brilliant outside hire' to come along and point out the problems.

Re: How a startup loses its spark

#233
Yikes, scaling up certainly sucks, but the article is rather over the top and defeatist about their experiences. Many companies and teams don't dovetail into the pandemonium described, but doesn't mean that the general sentiment is wrong. Scaling a company is a non-zero operational cost, and and it's largely impossible to be relevant and involved in all aspects of the business (unless you're bill gates in the 90's), but for those that can compartmentalize their aspect of the larger picture, good times can be had in large companies.

Re: How a startup loses its spark

#234
post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Terrible advice (from a broadly terrible book, I hasten to add). The reason that this is terrible advice: if you "fire quickly", it is because something is either grievously wrong (a mishire) or you are firing based on limited evidence. If the former, you have a hiring problem, not a firing problem; if the latter, you will generate a fear-based culture. Now, if you're running a prison, a fear-based culture may be exa…

Not only that but you run into the very expensive reason why literally every large company has a lengthy documented process for firing (outside of layoffs of course, lol): Lawsuits

Honestly, european common approach of "trial period" is better for this.

Details vary, but for example in Poland you can (simplified case):

1. Hire for fixed-length term of a year 2. First 3 months of that are "trial period" - you have minimal paperwork for firing during that time, effectively no chance of lawsuit (if someone brings a lawsuit that gets far enough for any paperwork to reach you, you have much worse things to take care of internally) 3. After the fixed-length period, if you're happy with the employee and want him to continue you switch to "permanent" contract. If not, the term lapses and that's it.

Re: How a startup loses its spark

#235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Importantly, this requires mature engineers and managers. Nothing worse (from personal experience) than working at a place that hires experienced engineering talent and then has a bunch of junior "leadership" telling them what to do. That's how you end up inundated with meetings and frameworks and blablabla. Obviously you need experienced developers to get stuff done without handholding, but you need managers that ca…

Absolutely. To start with, leaders must not be afraid of their teams making mistakes. Copying from another comment: "Netflix's culture demands very strong leadership and probably works only when the company is small enough. From CEO and down, leaders in every level need to know how to set context for their teams, give enough freedom to their teams, while making sure failures are manageable and success rate are maximi…

This just kinda sounds like the common trope of software engineers ignoring everything that isn't involved in software engineering, and then proclaiming that they are so much more productive for it.

I mean like yea, technically they get more "done", but only because they steam roll all their other legal responsibilities

Re: How a startup loses its spark

#236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I left Netflix years ago, so I don't know their current culture. Netflix's culture demands very strong leadership and probably works only when the company is small enough. From CEO and down, leaders in every level need to know how to set context for their teams, give enough freedom to their teams, while making sure failures are manageable and success rate are maximized. That is, Netflix assumed that people would make…

Sounds very cool. Were failures punished by low ratings, bonus? How did they incentivize taking risks? Did the focus on being a leader make you stronger? Were Netflix employees from then valued very highly?

Netflix was known for being very fast to fire if you stopped producing. Netflix didn't even value Netflix employees beyond what they could produce in the moment. They leaned into the zero loyalty to employees model that US corporations rely on.

Read this article which is pushing this as a positive. Grep for "Tell the Truth About Performance" to see where they talk about changing what an employees job needed. An employee they recognize had done a good job for 5 years, but wasn't what they wanted going forward so they weren't even going to try and help get her the skills to do the new job, but just lay her off immediately.

Re: How a startup loses its spark

#237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. The most exciting work I’ve done that has literally changed our world was done at systemically important multinational megacorps, where we created environments of unfettered innovation and an assembled teams of amazing individuals working as a coherent team. I had some really great leaders early in my career that showed it’s not only possible it’s the only way to enjoy any role at any company no matter th…

> I had some really great leaders early in my career that showed it’s not only possible it’s the only way to enjoy any role at any company no matter the size. I'm not persuaded anyone is in a position to know that there's only one way for people to enjoy work, and to know what that one way is.

That’s the secret. Most management is about the one way people work. The right way is to realize everyone is an individual and everyone has a different way of working, and what they enjoy about work. This forms a complex optimization problem for the manager, whose job, IMO, is to figure out the puzzle of how to maximize everyone’s individual value in the team. The way you do that is match their style of work and strengths with the teams needs and find other team mates to backfill their weaknesses. Then giving people the space to do things the way they prefer it while keeping a strong common collaboration medium within the team.

Return to office is a current example. My strategy here is that people know how they work best and that’s up to them. We have ways of getting together and collaborating, asynchronously and synchronously, and don’t enforce a mandatory hybrid approach. I encourage the team to intentionally meet up in person regularly, and the team self organizes synchronous in person time on a regular basis. I set up a drop in zoom room that’s always signed in on a conference room and people drop in for adhoc stuff all the time. Some people stay signed in all day on the conference room. I make sure ticketing systems, chats, and other mediums are well used. I regularly talk to people about their well being to be sure folks remote are OK, as sometimes fully remote can mean fully depressed.

Compare this to a “standard” managers approach. “We will be in the office three days a week, with a mandatory day on Wednesday. This is necessary because people work best in person but we want to give people flexibility because we know employees value that. Failure to comply will result in performance review impact. Our company’s culture is built on in person interactions. We do this for the children.”

Typical management is about treating people as butts in seat filling a role with a define set of measurable performance metrics - aka conforming cogs in a machine. that is the method that assumes there is one way for people to enjoy work, and knowing what that one way is.

My way is acknowledging I don’t know any one way that’s best, and specifically, there is no one way for people to enjoy work. It’s my job as a manger to figure out what each and every person on my teams way is, and to do my damnedest to create that environment for each individual. I work hard to hire managers that will also do this, and I meet randomly with people at all levels of my org to be sure they’re being treated like this by the people on my direct team.

The down side for me is I stick out like a sore thumb in the great cog machine of other managers. They don’t understand what I’m doing, it bothers them, and they feel like I’m getting some sort of preferential treatment. And maybe I am, because my organizations are almost always considerably more effective and successful than the rest of the org, so we get enormous latitude. But shielding my people from the game of thrones is exhausting - more exhausting than the rest of my job.

All this said, I’m not the only one who does this. I have encountered a lot of leaders that do this. They’re the ones people want to work for. That’s why I paid attention to what my early leaders were doing and emulated it - the one way is there is no one way ;-)

Re: How a startup loses its spark

#238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it doesn’t exist. For any task the number of contact points is almost always fairly small. Just because the possible N might be large most are occluded by lack of relevance to any specific task. I would note that the author categorically says it’s not possible for a startup like environment to exist in a large company. That’s what I disagree with.

Organizations are structured as trees as a strategy to combat N^2 complexity. You talk up, or down. The tradeoff is of course N^2 relationships still exist in reality , so you duplicate effort, and sometimes collide, but it's a good tradeoff.

I think it’s more like an adhoc graph that’s more dependent on the task than the organization. Tree based management is only useful for reporting and dictates. The actual work is more like “I need to get X done, I need to work with I,j,k to do it.” Often the real issue is NOT that it’s N^2 interactions, but the space for identifying who I,j,k actually are is quadratic and there’s no index. This is often the immense value of “lore masters” in a team - they have an unnatural ability to know who to talk to about what. If you don’t have one in your team, get one.

Re: How a startup loses its spark

#239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That coordinating is a quadratic mess, because no task requires bidirectional communicating with everyone else. I also disagree with all the other points they make about large companies. Not that there exists teams in large companies that suffer these issues, but that there exists no teams in large companies that don’t have these issues. I further extended it to say startups also aren’t without issue, and many are to…

Let's set aside value judgements. After all, I don't know that small startups are optimal any more than you know that they aren't. Hopefully, what we can agree on is that small startups are different from large companies, even those with teams. Given that, someone who LIKES their small startup for whatever reason may feel it's lost its lustre when it evolves into a large company. For those people, this article offers…

Or, it gives a guide for the problems to avoid and figure out strategies to solve for to avoid that path. But, yes, if the article were written that way, I would have agreed with it more. But it wasn’t :-)

Re: How a startup loses its spark

#240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Importantly, this requires mature engineers and managers. Nothing worse (from personal experience) than working at a place that hires experienced engineering talent and then has a bunch of junior "leadership" telling them what to do. That's how you end up inundated with meetings and frameworks and blablabla. Obviously you need experienced developers to get stuff done without handholding, but you need managers that ca…

One of the strangest experiences in my career involves working for a very well known startup, which had lucked out into an extremely high talent pool, thanks to some key early hires. The problem is that while they had top engineers, their engineering management was no good, all taken from companies way bigger than them. The end result is that, as the layers of self-entrenching management grew, basically every enginee…

Hiring managers from a bigger org into a startup is the easiest trap I've seen companies fall into. And the more experienced the manager and the more successful the big-co, the worse it gets - but also, the more seductive it gets especially if the founder feels like they personally are a bit out of their own engineering management depth.

Everything needed to keep a giant super-successful post-product-market-fit company running smoothly and reliably as, say, a VP at Google, is completely the opposite of what you need to move fast when you're trying to figure out how to thrive (or even just survive).

I haven't worked in one of those "this is like a startup inside a big-co" places that you often hear about, but I imagine it's why those struggle to compete with actual startups. It's hard to act like you are facing existential risk when you just plain aren't.

Post reply on HN