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

Want to be a leader? Wash the Dishes When Nobody Else Will.

thesash.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 152 posts

Re: Want to be a leader? Wash the Dishes When Nobody Else Will.

#141

Post by jarek »

jasonlotito wrote: post #137
rimantas wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strategy is sound in what? In hiring people willing to clean bathrooms?

Zappos employs the same strategy by offering up money for someone to leave. People who take the money aren't the type of person they want at Zappos. They won't fit in. The military does this as well. Basic training is more than just training. If you can't get through basic training, you aren't the type of person that will work out in the military. As for cleaning the bathroom: It's not cleaning the bathroom. It's sha…

> What about committing code the first day you're on the job?

Wow, talk about another test that would be super successful. I'm not sure I want to work at any place where any first-dayer is made to break the build in the name of shared ownership by checking in code to a codebase he couldn't have possibly had enough time to understand to a necessary level. I suppose he will be fixing it later that evening, in the name of shared upkeep.

Responsibility and desire to belong will naturally drive the new guy (it's not like it'd be a woman, is it?) to commit something small, simple, and in the big picture totally irrelevant. As with all of these tests, what you actually get is a token activity that will tell you nothing useful and that will fail to screen out anyone who doesn't want to be screened out, company fit or otherwise.

The military is the only setting in which these tests will be useful, because there being masculine and doing whatever the boss says the company needs doing with no questions asked is the entirety of the job description.

Re: Want to be a leader? Wash the Dishes When Nobody Else Will.

#142

Post by PakG1 »

Deestan wrote: post #99
edw519 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you understand the grandparent? This had nothing to do with relevance, busywork, hazing, saving money, or evaluating talent. It had a single purpose: to determine willingness to do an undesirable job. That's it. Which, interestingly, is just as important in a software start-up as it was in my father's business so many years ago.

In this case the cleaning is clearly an initiation ritual/test. The psychological traits needed to submit to arbitrary unnecessary labour (brownnosers good, independent thinkers bad) are entirely different from the psychological traits needed to spot problem areas and deviate from assigned tasks to fix them (independent thinkers good, bronnosers bad). I hate litmus tests with a passion.

I think the purpose of these kinds of litmus tests (to find people who are willing to get the job done, even if it looks stupid, boring, or detestable) is more important than filtering for independent thinkers.

Quite frankly, a good manager would be able to determine whether someone's a brownnoser or an independent thinker through other means. Heck, just talking with people will be sufficient for managers who are experienced and talented. But a litmus test like this reveals a lot about the nature of a person that can't come out in a conversation. You see them talk the talk, now see them walk the walk; not in terms of their professional skills, but in terms of their human nature/personality/potential for leadership.

Because the thing is, this kind of litmus test has one other very positive goal. See how someone responds to stupid orders. It's a huge sign for how well they'd be able to handle conflict and politics, which exist in any organization, even startups. It's the unfortunate nature of the beast, but good conflict management also does much to foster amazing outcomes, productivity, and creativity.

You want that kind of independent thinker over a guy who's a prima donna, even if he is an undisputed talent. To think that litmus tests cause organizations to hire only brownnosers would say more about the quality of the managers than litmus tests themselves.

Don't hate the litmus test, hate the managers who don't have higher purposes. We shouldn't be petty about that kind of stuff, it says a lot about our ability (or lack thereof) to handle human interaction well.

Re: Want to be a leader? Wash the Dishes When Nobody Else Will.

#143

Post by zbyszek »

presidentender wrote: post #67
sudont wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You couldn't tell it was plastic? Must have been really good quality. I've known quite a few people who worked in gas stations and other places where they had to clean the rest rooms. If there was shit, it was generally either sprayed everywhere or rubbed on the walls. I'm pretty sure they'd appreciate the politeness of a single fecal clump. As this was after the advent of cell phone cameras, I've seen the evidence.…

One treats shit rather gingerly when one holds it through paper towels, I daresay. Its appearance was in line with my expectations of that category of objects. I do not debate the nastiness of a shit-encrusted public bathroom stall.

No smell, though? I once lived in a tenement block where somebody emptied their bowels in the stairwell and I didn't have to go near it to know that it was the genuine article.

Re: Want to be a leader? Wash the Dishes When Nobody Else Will.

#144

Post by chopsueyar »

alnayyir wrote: post #117
jarek wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm paid salary and I'm under the impression that's the norm. Nevertheless there is a fairly standard work week and more than one way of compensation for exceeding that.

>there is a fairly standard work week and more than one way of compensation for exceeding that. I call it a raise or a promotion. Or keeping your job for doing it. You're salaried at a particular rate under the assumption that step up to the plate in case of emergency/deadline, otherwise they'd pay you less or pay you hourly. Which kind goes back to edw's anecdote about his dad. Rising to the occasion.

Respectfully, you are kind of acting like a dick.

If one weekend, the toilets back up and he has to clean up the mess and deliver a milestone, he deserves a raise or rises to sr. dev?

So he gets a raise, and now he has no reason to complain if the toilet backs up once a month while he is working that weekend?

Re: Want to be a leader? Wash the Dishes When Nobody Else Will.

#145

Post by mcantor »

I feel like leadership is a balance between two things:

1. Protecting your subordinates from ugly work (like doing dishes, emptying the garbage, or doing laborious maintenance coding) so they can focus on fulfilling their responsibilities

2. Delegating ugly work so you can focus on fulfilling your responsibilities

Re: Want to be a leader? Wash the Dishes When Nobody Else Will.

#146

Post by maxwell »

neworbit wrote: post #111
maxwell wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had literally the same experience a few years ago. I was working at a fine dining restaurant, the dishwasher called out, so the chef happily did both dish and grill. Turned out he was the best dishwasher there. Since then, I've noticed that one invariably cooks as well as they clean.

That is a very odd assertion... if you're a good chef, and have "come up through the ranks", you've probably had to clean up after yourself... but I don't think that means that you can take the dishwasher and make him the head chef. Unless you're watching Ratatouille.

I meant that one can only cook as well as they can clean.

Re: Want to be a leader? Wash the Dishes When Nobody Else Will.

#147

Post by jasonlotito »

jarek wrote: post #141
jasonlotito wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zappos employs the same strategy by offering up money for someone to leave. People who take the money aren't the type of person they want at Zappos. They won't fit in. The military does this as well. Basic training is more than just training. If you can't get through basic training, you aren't the type of person that will work out in the military. As for cleaning the bathroom: It's not cleaning the bathroom. It's sha…

> What about committing code the first day you're on the job? Wow, talk about another test that would be super successful. I'm not sure I want to work at any place where any first-dayer is made to break the build in the name of shared ownership by checking in code to a codebase he couldn't have possibly had enough time to understand to a necessary level. I suppose he will be fixing it later that evening, in the name…

> Wow, talk about another test that would be super successful. I'm not sure I want to work at any place where any first-dayer is made to break the build in the name of shared ownership by checking in code to a codebase he couldn't have possibly had enough time to understand to a necessary level. I suppose he will be fixing it later that evening, in the name of shared upkeep.

You make an awful lot of wrong assumptions here. Who said anything about breaking a build? And while they may not be major projects, bug fixes go a long way.

I can only say that if those things are the first things that came to your mind, I'd hate to work at the places you've worked out.

> As with all of these tests, what you actually get is a token activity that will tell you nothing useful and that will fail to screen out anyone who doesn't want to be screened out, company fit or otherwise.

We'll have to disagree then. Granted, with the vast number of successful companies employing these strategies, I feel I'm in good company.

Re: Want to be a leader? Wash the Dishes When Nobody Else Will.

#148

Post by jarek »

jasonlotito wrote: post #147
jarek wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What about committing code the first day you're on the job? Wow, talk about another test that would be super successful. I'm not sure I want to work at any place where any first-dayer is made to break the build in the name of shared ownership by checking in code to a codebase he couldn't have possibly had enough time to understand to a necessary level. I suppose he will be fixing it later that evening, in the name…

> Wow, talk about another test that would be super successful. I'm not sure I want to work at any place where any first-dayer is made to break the build in the name of shared ownership by checking in code to a codebase he couldn't have possibly had enough time to understand to a necessary level. I suppose he will be fixing it later that evening, in the name of shared upkeep. You make an awful lot of wrong assumptions…

Unless you have a ten-line† program or one hell of a suite of unit tests documenting every single interaction with the world your system ever performs‡, you can never be sure that a first-day employee 'fixing' a bug hasn't introduced a new obscure one somewhere.

It's not like being told to put together your computer or your desk, where the only environment you'd be changing is your own.

> We'll have to disagree then.

About which part? Do you deny that this test is trivial to game for those who want to game it? Or do you claim that just passing this test, at whatever motivation, is a useful signal? If so, what does it signal, other than not being philosophically opposed to meaningless tests?

† hyperbole; ‡ most real world brownfield projects don't

Re: Want to be a leader? Wash the Dishes When Nobody Else Will.

#149

Post by jasonlotito »

jarek wrote: post #148
jasonlotito wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wow, talk about another test that would be super successful. I'm not sure I want to work at any place where any first-dayer is made to break the build in the name of shared ownership by checking in code to a codebase he couldn't have possibly had enough time to understand to a necessary level. I suppose he will be fixing it later that evening, in the name of shared upkeep. You make an awful lot of wrong assumptions…

Unless you have a ten-line† program or one hell of a suite of unit tests documenting every single interaction with the world your system ever performs‡, you can never be sure that a first-day employee 'fixing' a bug hasn't introduced a new obscure one somewhere. It's not like being told to put together your computer or your desk, where the only environment you'd be changing is your own. > We'll have to disagree then.…

> Unless you have a ten-line† program or one hell of a suite of unit tests documenting every single interaction with the world your system ever performs‡, you can never be sure that a first-day employee 'fixing' a bug hasn't introduced a new obscure one somewhere.

New employee creates test to cover bug. Fixes bug. Runs test suite. Test suite passes. Commits code. All under the watchful eye of another developer.

You keep pushing specific work environments into different situations. Not all tests work for all cases. Stop assuming this. Your entire argument against this strategy is that X doesn't work in Y. You ignore that X works with X.

> Do you deny that this test is trivial to game for those who want to game it?

Yes, if you want to work for a company that does something you don't like, it's easy to game.

> Or do you claim that just passing this test, at whatever motivation, is a useful signal?

If you choose to do the task rather than just game it, it helps in several specific ways. Taking the code committing part, it ensures you have everything set up correct, from development environment, testing suite, VM, connections to dev, intergrated, staging and live, etc. You have your editor setup, connections to source control, understand the ticketing system.

Their is a lot of value knowing that everything is setup. There is also a lot of value with the person knowing they just deployed code.

> other than not being philosophically opposed to meaningless tests?

Just because you assume something is meaningless doesn't mean it is.

> About which part?

About the strategy being useful or not. You think the strategy is useless. I believe it's not, and has proven it's value.

That being said, the only thing you've done is construct hypothetical worst case scenarios and question how it's good, which is next to worthless.

If you have honest questions about the strategy, go ahead and ask. If you just want to play more games with hypothetical situations, let's just end the discussion here.

Re: Want to be a leader? Wash the Dishes When Nobody Else Will.

#150

Post by jarek »

jasonlotito wrote: post #149
jarek wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you have a ten-line† program or one hell of a suite of unit tests documenting every single interaction with the world your system ever performs‡, you can never be sure that a first-day employee 'fixing' a bug hasn't introduced a new obscure one somewhere. It's not like being told to put together your computer or your desk, where the only environment you'd be changing is your own. > We'll have to disagree then.…

> Unless you have a ten-line† program or one hell of a suite of unit tests documenting every single interaction with the world your system ever performs‡, you can never be sure that a first-day employee 'fixing' a bug hasn't introduced a new obscure one somewhere. New employee creates test to cover bug. Fixes bug. Runs test suite. Test suite passes. Commits code. All under the watchful eye of another developer. You k…

>> other than not being philosophically opposed to meaningless tests?

> Just because you assume something is meaningless doesn't mean it is.

For the record, I meant philosophically opposed to tests the tested believes to be meaningless - which is the only useful definition.

Your explanations push the hypothetical case far, far away from the test presented initially. It sounds less like the equivalent of cleaning bathrooms and more like actual work. I will end the discussion now.

Post reply on HN