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

The CEO's job

jessicamah.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–39 of 39 posts

Re: The CEO's job

#31

Post by nitrogen »

alnayyir wrote: post #28
strlen wrote: post #18

The bit about hiring contractors, especially for vital functions such as infrastructure and support is bad advice. A high quality contractor charges a very high hourly rate (it also usually isn't feasible to give them a sizable equity grant in its place), so you're left hiring people who would prefer a full time job but can't get one. This creates a poisonous and unpleasant atmosphere, which makes you even less likel…

I don't approve of her leaning on contractors so much, but HN comments have be to the most well written exemplars of armchair quarterbacking I have ever seen.

Surely you've been reading HN long enough to know that some of the quarterbacks here (to abuse the metaphor) have an actual game or two under their belts.

Re: The CEO's job

#33

Post by geebee »

I like reading Jessica Mah's blog, so I'm sorry to jump right into the nitpicking. But something in she wrote doesn't sit quite right with me...

She writes that finding talent in silicon valley is like trying to find water in the sahara, but then a few sentences later says "We had a lot of talented people apply for full-time jobs, but they either lacked culture fit, or cost too much money."

Unfortunately, there's a lot left unsaid here, and it would help to hear something more specific. For example, what was "too much money"? What attributes contributed to a candidate's "lack of culture fit?"

Re: The CEO's job

#35

Post by alnayyir »

nitrogen wrote: post #31
alnayyir wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't approve of her leaning on contractors so much, but HN comments have be to the most well written exemplars of armchair quarterbacking I have ever seen.

Surely you've been reading HN long enough to know that some of the quarterbacks here (to abuse the metaphor) have an actual game or two under their belts.

Yeah, not the OP though. Which is the point I was obliquely getting at.

Conversations are not algorithms, you don't be default consider the most general or pathological case. I'm not saying this to PG.

Re: The CEO's job

#36

Post by strlen »

alnayyir wrote: post #35
nitrogen wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely you've been reading HN long enough to know that some of the quarterbacks here (to abuse the metaphor) have an actual game or two under their belts.

Yeah, not the OP though. Which is the point I was obliquely getting at. Conversations are not algorithms, you don't be default consider the most general or pathological case. I'm not saying this to PG.

For what it's worth, I've worked in multiple start-ups that relied on or made extensive use of contractors (one for the same reason: it was difficult to hire designers and engineers) and have seen this very dynamic. I've also worked at a company that made heavy use of "perma-temps", have contracted myself (when I was a full time student) and have heard (anecdotally, from many contractors) what the different reasons for going into contracting are (tl;dr top ones do it because the hourly pay is higher or to bootstrap their own business, but the majority do it because they can't find anything else).

That's the primary cause for this comment: bringing in unknown quality contractors makes it difficult to retain and hire quality full time employees.

I've also worked at companies that have built a talent brand and a big company that has squandered its (looking at my resume, you can probably guess what they are).

I don't claim to be a quarterback, but the idea the article suggest is just egregious. I would not want to work at that kind of a company. I am not suggesting whether or not that approach will do what the corporation intends to do: generate profit for their shareholders. There are many cases where poor quality engineering teams have created outsize returns on investment: the market, the timing, the business models matter too. I am not making suggestions on any of the other points in the article.

Re: The CEO's job

#37

Post by alnayyir »

strlen wrote: post #36
alnayyir wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, not the OP though. Which is the point I was obliquely getting at. Conversations are not algorithms, you don't be default consider the most general or pathological case. I'm not saying this to PG.

For what it's worth, I've worked in multiple start-ups that relied on or made extensive use of contractors (one for the same reason: it was difficult to hire designers and engineers) and have seen this very dynamic. I've also worked at a company that made heavy use of "perma-temps", have contracted myself (when I was a full time student) and have heard (anecdotally, from many contractors) what the different reasons f…

I don't want to work at that kind of company either. I agreed with you, remember?

The point is that there is excessive armchair quarterbacking here from people who haven't actually headed companies.

You could've just said, "I wouldn't work there for such and such reason" and left it at that.

Re: The CEO's job

#38

Post by strlen »

alnayyir wrote: post #37
strlen wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth, I've worked in multiple start-ups that relied on or made extensive use of contractors (one for the same reason: it was difficult to hire designers and engineers) and have seen this very dynamic. I've also worked at a company that made heavy use of "perma-temps", have contracted myself (when I was a full time student) and have heard (anecdotally, from many contractors) what the different reasons f…

I don't want to work at that kind of company either. I agreed with you, remember? The point is that there is excessive armchair quarterbacking here from people who haven't actually headed companies. You could've just said, "I wouldn't work there for such and such reason" and left it at that.

One doesn't need to have headed a company to understand the impact this has on culture and engineering hiring. The author of the article, I believe, is fresh out of college and hasn't actually _worked_ in an engineering role in many companies herself. That's fine, indeed Facebook (also founded by an inexperienced CEO, this isn't really bad in it of itself) has made the same mistake early on: hiring dubious quality contractors. Their status as an "technology brand" didn't come until mid-2007 or so (despite the culture becoming much better and attracting some strong engineers by 2006/early 2007) due to mistakes like this.

Re: The CEO's job

#39

Post by alnayyir »

strlen wrote: post #38
alnayyir wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to work at that kind of company either. I agreed with you, remember? The point is that there is excessive armchair quarterbacking here from people who haven't actually headed companies. You could've just said, "I wouldn't work there for such and such reason" and left it at that.

One doesn't need to have headed a company to understand the impact this has on culture and engineering hiring. The author of the article, I believe, is fresh out of college and hasn't actually _worked_ in an engineering role in many companies herself. That's fine, indeed Facebook (also founded by an inexperienced CEO, this isn't really bad in it of itself) has made the same mistake early on: hiring dubious quality co…

I know full well how new and young she is, that's why I'm less eager to digitally brow-beat her while she gets her lessons in the real world. There isn't much that is constructive that we can do by doing this in public if we're not part of her advisory board.
Post reply on HN