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

You weren't meant to have a boss

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 312 posts

Re: You weren't meant to have a boss

#161

Post by cnu »

fendale wrote: post #31
ambition wrote: post #13

Everything written in the article rings true. One effect he didn't mention is that the poisonous confidence-destruction and the lack of learning are self-reinforcing. It creates a cycle which discourages quitting. I think, though, that the effect only hits ambitious, independent people. Those with less ambition or less independence seem to enjoy themselves, and do well. (There are also a few ambitious, independent fo…

Woo, you sound just like me. I recall a conversation in the canteen with a colleague recently where I said something along the lines of "... this place is so mediocre ... there has to be something better ..." and she replied with "well its just a job, you have to work somewhere, there are plenty of places worse". She has clearly decided to settle! I also agree with the less ambitious people doing well - I liken it to…

Most people I know of from college don't even care to look elsewhere for a job. All they wish is to get into some big company and switch jobs every 2 years to another big company. Also for those people, getting into anything small is not good enough to be told among friends.

Re: You weren't meant to have a boss

#162

Post by scottgnet »

astine wrote: post #144
neilk wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? Egypt and Sumeria were organized like North Korea today, worship of the head of state. And Napoleon was a tyrant trying to impose his will on an entire continent. If freedom is incompatible with Napoleonic dreams, that is not a bug. Freedom fighters have often chosen the guerilla way. A better example for your point would be the Americans in WWII. But even then, soldiers are not robots and the best commander…

You're thoroughly missing my point. PG's argument is that man was designed, via evolution, to live relatively autonomously. My point is that even a casual glance at history disproves that. The German and Swiss states, for all their autonomy, couldn't stand up to Napoleon's hierarchical tyranny. In fact, it took a far more tyrannical society, Russia, to put Napoleon in his place. Hierarchy is sometimes necessary for s…

Because German and Swiss states couldn't stand up to a larger force organized hierarchically is not proof that humans have _not_ evolved to work in small groups, it is only very poor empirical evidence that a larger force with better weapons can defeat a smaller, disorganized force.

As for why people seek freedom, I doubt most consciously think about it in those terms. You seem to think that individuals ponder about the pros and cons of going it alone or being part of a collective, but it just doesn't happen that way. When you're brought up in a culture that is already one way or the other, and that is all you know, you rarely choose because it's not even a question that enters your mind.

I'd suggest reading Beyond Civilization by Daniel Quinn.

Re: You weren't meant to have a boss

#163

Post by ww »

BrandonM wrote: post #123
ww wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theres a view in economics that you 'can not play market' within the boundaries of the firm. That is to say if there is an overseeing committee that can end a project prematurely then you are not really having market forces operate 'within' the firm and are doomed to failure. There have been a couple of companies that have tried to do this. It is documented in the following book by Nicolai Foss: http://www.amazon.com…

Isn't it ironic that you say Amazon's strategy is "doomed to failure" at the same time that you link to a book for sale on Amazon?

The company(s) mentioned in the book still exist, but they no longer try to 'play market'. The more incentive you give people/subgroups to compete with one another, the more incentive they have to not share information(best practices) with one another. Managers see this and reallocate resources. Groups feel alienated that their resources are taken away from their idea to fund someone else's idea and then they go back to keeping their real ideas to themselves and/or starting a separate business outside of the parent firm. Innovation in the mentioned companies increased dramatically when the 'play market' strategy was initially adopted though.

Re: You weren't meant to have a boss

#164

Post by icky »

BrandonM wrote: post #123
ww wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theres a view in economics that you 'can not play market' within the boundaries of the firm. That is to say if there is an overseeing committee that can end a project prematurely then you are not really having market forces operate 'within' the firm and are doomed to failure. There have been a couple of companies that have tried to do this. It is documented in the following book by Nicolai Foss: http://www.amazon.com…

Isn't it ironic that you say Amazon's strategy is "doomed to failure" at the same time that you link to a book for sale on Amazon?

Amazon has multiple paradox resolution teams competing to negate each other's efforts.

Re: You weren't meant to have a boss

#165

Post by nostrademons »

byrneseyeview wrote: post #118
nostrademons wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've got a friend that works for Bridgewater, and it's amazing the extent they go to foster this independent culture. My friend can be kinda abrasive at times - not really arrogant, but more an "I'm right, damnit, and I'm going to be pedantic about it" personality. His first assignment was copy-editing some client reports. He came back with a long list of grammatical mistakes in the report, along with a lesson on pro…

That's excellent! How long has your friend been there (one issue with Bridgewater is that I have met many people who worked there, and very few who worked there for more than a year -- I think it's pretty jarring for most people).

He graduated in 06 and started there soon after, so about a year and a half so far. I think he really likes it...started out in reporting and I believe he's now on the investment associate track, so obviously he's hoping to settle in there. (He's also a foreigner though, and Bridgewater is sponsoring his visa, so I don't think he could jump ship if he wanted to...)

Re: You weren't meant to have a boss

#166

Post by illimiter »

Xichekolas wrote: post #129
fleaflicker wrote: post #63

Has anyone checked out the reddit comments for this same article? It's like night and day. http://reddit.com/info/6cu0t/comments/

Oddly the thing that stood out in those comments was the discussion of living expenses, and specifically health insurance. Everyone is quoting things like $700/mo and $1100/mo. Even the guy with the high deductible plan alluded to paying $116/mo for a $5k deductible. Am I the only one that pays $55/mo for a $1k deductible plan? I must be lucky or something. And that aside, seriously, you buy insurance for catastrophe…

If you live in Washington state, you can apply for Basic Health. It's state subsidized health insurance. I pay only $17 per month right now.

Before I found Basic Health, I was paying $200 per month.

Re: You weren't meant to have a boss

#167

Post by paulrpotts »

I keep reading negative comments about this posting, but I think I'm reading a lot of defensiveness. I think it is important to keep in mind that, as I read it at least, Paul is not trying to slam people who work for others. He's really trying to inspire people, to get them to give themselves permission to work for themselves instead.

If what you hear when you read this essay is a personal criticism of the choices you've made in life, perhaps you should take a moment to evaluate whether those negative thoughts are coming from the essay, or from within?

Re: You weren't meant to have a boss

#168

Post by paidTroll »

reposted from http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3721 --- [-] [new] aangel on March 21, 2008 - 11:07am | Permalink ... Also, personally I am uninterested in eliminating hierarchy. Hierarchies are very efficient ways to organize to produce results. In particular, they allow for accountability, that magical quality of something being "count-able" and thus able to be quantified. Quantification and lines of responsibility for those quantities are what make managing large endeavors possible. There is on the opposite spectrum the "open source" movement or "hive" approach to accomplishing large projects, but even in those systems often you'll find a person or persons at the top who help direct the system as a whole and frequently they have the final call for a proscribed set of decisions.

When done right (and it is done right in many places), individuals perform better when accountability is present. They are clear on their tasks and given the resources (or not, as the case may be) to accomplish them they are able to use their commitment and ingenuity and drive to accomplish them. People who are unclear on their tasks report that they are unsatisfied and frustrated with the system; anyone who has had conflicting directives from an employer will appreciate that.

It's possible to spread accountability across multiple individuals and strictly speaking accountability isn't by definition an individual phenomenon. I can be accountable for the condition of the environment — but so can anyone else and everyone else if they accept by the group the role of being accountable.

But it does take a great deal more effort to manage an endeavor when accountabilities are spread across more people simply because the communication overhead increases to make sure omissions don't occur because each accountable persons thinks that "the other person was handling that." For that reason I will always set up projects (and advise my clients to do the same) where it is quite clear who is accountable for what and for whom — in other words, a hierarchical system.

Re: You weren't meant to have a boss

#169

Post by libertarian »

There are a couple of questions (otherwise great article). One small is right only as long as it is economically viable. Do you believe Google would still be viable as a search engine if they had remained at 50-100 people size (or whatever you think is the optimum size?)

Second, most YC companies don't yet have business models. That is not a knock on them - I am simply making a statement of fact. Given that many (or most!) are hoping for a nice "exit" from a large company, doesn't their success pre-suppose the existence of large companies to take the other side of their exit trade? In effect, does the YC model (mostly) require the continued existence of large inefficient players? What happens when the (software & internet) world were to be full of small, ultra-efficient start-ups? No exits? (the second question is totally hypothetical - large firms do exist, but just asking to clarify the argument myself).

Post reply on HN