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

What are your company's anti-values?

willsewell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 274 posts

Re: What are your company's anti-values?

#221

Post by LadyCoconut »

econnors wrote: post #191
munificent wrote: post #189

Back when I worked at EA there were obviously many horrible aspects to its culture. But one thing I always thought was cool was that they had a notion of a "razor". This was a principle or guideline that was worded specifically enough to clearly slice up a set of options into whether they fit it or not. When designing a game, "The game is fun," is a shitty razor because it doesn't tell you how to prioritize or make t…

> When designing a game, "The game is fun," is a shitty razor because it doesn't tell you how to prioritize or make trade-offs coming from countless hours of playing games and near zero hours making them, I'm curious why "this game is fun" doesn't help you make tradeoffs. I feel like concentrating on the game being fun would help avoid repetitive mechanics that would be tiresome or tedious (inventory management), fre…

Because "this game is fun" is too vague. To find good answers, you need good questions that are well-worded.

Think of it as setting achievable goals for yourself. "I want to improve my life!" is a useless objective; while "my appartment is dirty and I want it to be clean" is a useful one.

"Improving one's life" is so vague it's useless (are we talking about love? Health? Work? Family? Housing? Would you even know what to suggest to someone asking you for advice about this?) while "my apartment is dirty" is a clear objective with clearer solutions: "I'll clean it more often/hire a housekeeper".

"The game isn't fun" is just as vague, especially when you have to make choices regarding resources/money, and especially when "fun" is so different depending on people. If we're talking the Sims, for instance, some people will find more fun in creating sims; some, in creating houses; some, in actually playing with their sims. In this context, trying to make the game "more fun" would be meaningless. "These three sides of the game should feel equally developed" is already a bit better, though still very subjective.

Re: What are your company's anti-values?

#222

Post by tshaddox »

econnors wrote: post #191
munificent wrote: post #189

Back when I worked at EA there were obviously many horrible aspects to its culture. But one thing I always thought was cool was that they had a notion of a "razor". This was a principle or guideline that was worded specifically enough to clearly slice up a set of options into whether they fit it or not. When designing a game, "The game is fun," is a shitty razor because it doesn't tell you how to prioritize or make t…

> When designing a game, "The game is fun," is a shitty razor because it doesn't tell you how to prioritize or make trade-offs coming from countless hours of playing games and near zero hours making them, I'm curious why "this game is fun" doesn't help you make tradeoffs. I feel like concentrating on the game being fun would help avoid repetitive mechanics that would be tiresome or tedious (inventory management), fre…

I think it's because pretty much any conceivable game design decision will only be a difficult decision to make if there is disagreement on what is fun. In other words, you'll never have two game designers trying to make a difficult decision where one designer says "the thing I want to do is less fun" and the other designer says "the thing I want to do is more fun." They'll both think that the thing they want to do is more fun, because in the context of game design "fun" is essentially synonymous with "good."

Re: What are your company's anti-values?

#223

Post by tshaddox »

dusted wrote: post #197
arrow7000 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly and toxicity are orthogonal. They're not opposite sides of the same spectrum. Seems to me that they are both honest and toxic.

Agreed, it's much better to be upfront about it, to avoid wasting time and money on employees that don't fit in (and, as a side effect, avoid hurting those people). The reason I believe they're showing a work environment that would be toxic to me, is that the line "> adequate performance gets a generous severance package" does not stand alone, it's only part of it, they're giving me the general vibe that I should be…

It might be better to be upfront about being toxic than to be secretly toxic, but I'd say it would be even better still to not be toxic.

Re: What are your company's anti-values?

#224

Post by pm24601 »

logifail wrote: post #208
dusted wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, it's much better to be upfront about it, to avoid wasting time and money on employees that don't fit in (and, as a side effect, avoid hurting those people). The reason I believe they're showing a work environment that would be toxic to me, is that the line "> adequate performance gets a generous severance package" does not stand alone, it's only part of it, they're giving me the general vibe that I should be…

> I like to do more than is expected, but if what is expected is by definition more than what is needed [..] Do (m)any companies attempt to drive sales by describing a product as "adequate"? If your child sits a school test and the teacher describes the result as "adequate" would you be content? In the workplace why wouldn't one want to always aim to do "good" work (which is very definitely one step above "adequate")…

There are a lot of things that I am o.k. with being "adequate" at. I am just fine with being "adequate" at driving for example.

Lots of software I write just has to be "adequate" because the consequence of failure is minimal.

Re: What are your company's anti-values?

#225

Post by yebyen »

sakarisson wrote: post #31
krageon wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is there to give arguments for? Either you've worked in a few companies and you have friends that have also done so (in which case it'd seem obvious), or you're part of a class that doesn't work (or you are a C-level employee yourself). In the latter cases, nothing I say will convince you. In the former case, we have enough shared environmental background that you understand what I'm saying already. Given those…

Your point states that all C-level employees are sociopaths. Logically, if I can provide you with a single example of a non-sociopath C-level employee, your point would be invalid. Of course I don't believe that you are literally saying that every single C-level employee in the entire world is a sociopath, but merely that the majority or a significant portion are. > My point would not land with more people regardless…

I think it's somewhere in here, this novella or whatever it is called The Gervais Principle, Or The Office According to “The Office”

Of course that isn't actual data, but the analysis explores the idea that only sociopaths make it to the top in a great deal more depth, if what you're looking for is depth of background and understanding of where this idea comes from, rather than why this specific person who you responded to believes it to be true.

https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...

Re: What are your company's anti-values?

#226

Post by mytailorisrich »

blurker wrote: post #131
mytailorisrich wrote: post #33

I don't see any clear meaning to the term "anti-value" in this article. It seems to imply that a "value" means "more". It does not. "Frugality" is a value of that is a behaviour deemed important to follow, it's not an "anti-value" (whatever that might mean). Similarly, "move fast, break things" means you value action and risk-taking. I was expecting "anti-value" to mean a behaviour deemed negative and to be avoided.

How is "break things" not a negative? That seems really clear to me and I think is an excellent example!

If you advise people to "move fast, break things" then obviously you consider that this is a positive.

"Break things" is also obviously not to be understood in isolation. Of course breaking things for no reason is not positive. It means that you will break things if you move fast and take risk and that it is unavoidable and worth it.

Re: What are your company's anti-values?

#228

Post by cvlasdkv »

ivan_gammel wrote: post #71
rightbyte wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a platitude, not toxic. Being a "pro sportsteam" on the other hand could be considered toxic. I know of no more cut throat legal business than sports. They are aggressivly signaling that they push KPI missers out.

Systematic KPI missers must leave in any company: it is hard to understand why it could be otherwise, if you are not living in North Korea or Cuba. People who make one honest mistake or have a bad quarter due to family issues but otherwise are great performers fit in their culture, they explicitly mention that in slides.

No post body was provided.

Re: What are your company's anti-values?

#229

Post by closeparen »

david_allison wrote: post #7

This mirrors Netflix's old culture slide deck[0] > adequate performance gets a generous severance package > We’re a team, not a family; We’re like a pro sports team, not a kid’s recreational team [0] https://www.slideshare.net/reed2001/culture-1798664/

I really like the culture deck, but surprisingly I find myself disagreeing most strongly with the expenses part, "travel as you would if it were your own money." When I travel with my own money, I'm going to fly basic economy and stay in a Holiday Inn Express. But I would be pretty outraged if a billion-dollar tech company wanted me to do either of those things while traveling on its behalf.

My current employer's approved hotel list is pretty ritzy, much nicer places than I would stay in on leisure travel... and that's kind of the least they can do to offset the general imposition of work travel.

Re: What are your company's anti-values?

#230

Post by blurker »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #226
blurker wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is "break things" not a negative? That seems really clear to me and I think is an excellent example!

If you advise people to "move fast, break things" then obviously you consider that this is a positive. "Break things" is also obviously not to be understood in isolation. Of course breaking things for no reason is not positive. It means that you will break things if you move fast and take risk and that it is unavoidable and worth it.

I see it being like this:

Value: move fast (positive)

Anti-value: break things (negative)

Breaking things is not positive normally, but it's the compromise for moving fast.

Post reply on HN