61–70 of 72 posts
The term "bias" usually implies "unfair bias", like a lower likelihood of hiring some black, all else being equal.
Being an ex-enterpreneur isn't like being a woman, or black; it's a relevant piece of job background.
Would that person rather continue to be an enterpreneur? Are they here because they ran out of money, or got spooked, or burned out or whatever?
Now when it comes to office politics... I have to agree. I and most of us have no patience for incompetence and time burning in meetings and coffee talks...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I just want likable people who will execute on my ideas (or the ideas I’m simply passing on from higher management), or with light discussion, even if the execution isn’t perfect. That sounds horrible. I want people working under/with me that will question the work, that will try to figure out if it's the right work. It is common for decisions "from higher management" to be made without a real in-depth knowledge of…
Startup or not, you're not always being paid to think, even if you're capable of it. It's super annoying to work with people who only want to push back when it's not part of the mandate - just like it's annoying to work with people who don't think for themselves when it's expected. Knowing what the job is is and important skill no matter where you work, if somebody can't do that it's a big problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please never work for me.
I'm sure the feeling is mutual. This is why it's so important to suss out team culture before taking a job.
I remember reading about how McDonald's makes prospective franchise owners take personality tests and actively select against creative types.
That seems extremely plausible. The last thing McDonald's wants is a franchise doing something innovative or different because it wouldn't be the same terrible experience as every other McDonald's.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe that's it but whenever I've been in hiring rounds for dev roles and seen someone operating solo the story I see on their resume tends to look like they are solo because they were fired or otherwise couldn't make it in the corporate world so they tried to go solo, failed again and are trying to go back to the corporate world. That doesn't bode well. If I see someone got a real company going with a real developed…
what would be a better title then ceo for a small company? i’ve generally used owner.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe that's it but whenever I've been in hiring rounds for dev roles and seen someone operating solo the story I see on their resume tends to look like they are solo because they were fired or otherwise couldn't make it in the corporate world so they tried to go solo, failed again and are trying to go back to the corporate world. That doesn't bode well. If I see someone got a real company going with a real developed…
what would be a better title then ceo for a small company? i’ve generally used owner.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what would be a better title then ceo for a small company? i’ve generally used owner.
Founder or owner I think are the best. President is fine if you have a a couple employees, CEO I'd even be totally fine with for a small company, it just approaches cringy in my book when its founders using a corporate title that usually implies a larger organizational structure and it is really just them (a single person/no employee company).
thanks
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I just want likable people who will execute on my ideas (or the ideas I’m simply passing on from higher management), or with light discussion, even if the execution isn’t perfect. That sounds horrible. I want people working under/with me that will question the work, that will try to figure out if it's the right work. It is common for decisions "from higher management" to be made without a real in-depth knowledge of…
I've worked in both sorts of companies. The constant questioning may work well at smaller scale but kills productivity at larger scales. Putting aside that it inevitably becomes a political exercise as much as a technical one (because the different technical solutions almost always reflect competing priorities), it also requires perfect sharing of information across the organization, which does not scale. Especially…
Just because someone is willing to pay for them doesn't mean they're worth doing. It could be that adding a feature makes other features harder to add or support. So sure, it might get you a win today, but it will cost you in the long run. And someone needs to be making sure the question being answered isn't "do we want a win today", it's "do we want the win today at the cost of a larger loss tomorrow" (when that's the case). And the sales team and higher managers don't see that. So it's the developer's job to make sure the questions are asked.
Sure, sometimes the answer is that yes, the feature is needed today, and it's worth the pain later caused by it. But if someone doesn't ask about the pain, it can't be considered into the decision.