Item — HN Reader

So, I find this article vapid. It basically says -Tell the truth, but assign your own meaning to it-. However, it's been my experience in tech that this is exact behavior a major, major problem at the companies I've worked for.

Most startups I worked at insisted they were saving the world in one way or another. The C level probably patted themselves on the back pretty hard for coming up with such an inspiring interpretation. But within a year, it always rung false (based on their actions being entirely inconsistent). This made me trust them less than if they had simply said "We're in this to make money. We're a company, that's what we do," which, in my opinion, is totally okay to admit.

For example:

- Do not call yourself a family if you have ever let somebody go within 3 months of hiring them. Would your literal family kick you out because they weren't seeing an ROI in 3 months or because you were difficult?

- Do not say your mission is to empower one group or another if your actions are not truly in that group's best interest. E.g. giving them credit cards when they're already in debt.

- Do not imply that your "door is always open" unless you have the willingness and time to hear some of the ways your company is actually fucked up and act on them.

- Do not suggest employees will get rich when you damn well how unlikely it is.

- Do not use bullshit euphemisms all the time, such as a massively failing manager being "promoted" to a position with no authority. What your actions are doing is saying "We work in a class system where you can't be fired once you're at a certain level"

- Do not imply you're a meritocracy. Your company isn't, it's a handful of narcissistic wealthy people at the top surrounded by sycophantic top-level-managers with actual laborers 3 or more levels down. The idea that individuals can be rated on traits and promoted to "levels" is a laughable oversimplification to anybody who thinks about it.

- Do not imply most of your employees will ever be promoted if you know most won't.

5 comments

> Do not call yourself a family...

"Whenever executives talk about how their company is really like a big ol’ family, beware. They’re usually not referring to how the company is going to protect you no matter what or love you unconditionally. You know, like healthy families would. The motive is rather more likely to be a unidirectional form of sacrifice: Yours." https://m.signalvnoise.com/the-company-isnt-a-family-d24f26c...

> Do not imply you're a meritocracy. Your company isn't, it's a handful of narcissistic wealthy people at the top surrounded by sycophantic top-level-managers with actual laborers 3 or more levels down. The idea that individuals can be rated on traits and promoted to "levels" is a laughable oversimplification to anybody who thinks about it.

Agree with you in principle, but I disagree about this interpretation. These "levels" are not about traits or ratings or performance; that's as much a lie as anything else you mentioned. They are entirely about trust: How much does the company trust you to be able to act in its best interest and derive ROI from your org? And from that perspective, the narcissistic and sycophantic traits are natural fallout.

>> They are entirely about trust: How much does the company trust you to be able to act in its best interest and derive ROI from your org?

No, not really. Here are some example counterpoints:

- There is a commitment to hierarchy. This is incompatible with meritocracy. The fact is, there won't always be one "smartest" person at each company. Yet companies always find a way to make a pretty reporting tree.

- It's not about trust, mid-level-managers care more about their promotions not reflecting poorly on them politically than the best interest of the company in the long-term.

- Most companies will codify a standard "promotion process" with peer reviews and 2 "cycles" a year. If this is about ROI then Joe the freshman can be CTO if he's that good (and heck, he may be, if he's the next Larry Page), no matter what he rates on the 4 dimensions of reviews.

- Most companies adamantly follow standard norms. For example they do not demote people (i.e. with pay cut). A meritocracy (or a truly ROI based system) would demote people.

- Most companies base their pay on previous compensation, rather than expected worth.

> There is a commitment to hierarchy. This is incompatible with meritocracy...

This is the part where we are in complete agreement.

> ... The fact is, there won't always be one "smartest" person at each company. Yet companies always find a way to make a pretty reporting tree.

I don't think anyone is under the illusion that a company hierarchy is stacked based on "smartness". If they are, they need to read the Gervais Principle [0]. I personally remap these roles as losers -> producers, clueless -> regulators, and psychopaths -> harvesters. I'll use these remappings throughout this response. So do I expect harvesters to be the "smartest"? No, but I do expect them to be good at driving value.

> It's not about trust, mid-level-managers care more about their promotions not reflecting poorly on them politically than the best interest of the company in the long-term.

I'm not even sure what you mean by this. How would a promotion reflect poorly on someone? And I don't think anyone is saying that actors needs to be 100% dedicated to the company. But you certainly aren't going to climb any ladders if you can't demonstrate the ability to create value as a producer and drive value as a harvester. But those harvesters are also in a position capable of destroying value, which is where the trust comes in. You also aren't going to be climbing ladders unless those above you trust that you aren't going to Godzilla the existent value that's been built.

> Most companies will codify a standard "promotion process" with peer reviews and 2 "cycles" a year. If this is about ROI then Joe the freshman can be CTO if he's that good (and heck, he may be, if he's the next Larry Page), no matter what he rates on the 4 dimensions of reviews.

To refer back to Gervais Principle, those games are for the produces and regulators. Harvesters are running "tours of duty" that last 3-4 years and are not looking at peer review processes at all. This tour is only meant to line them up for the next tour, which will be bigger if they do well and smaller if they don't. And potentially non-existent if they really muck it up.

> Most companies adamantly follow standard norms. For example they do not demote people (i.e. with pay cut). A meritocracy (or a truly ROI based system) would demote people.

No. They just marginalize and / or lay off those people instead.

> Most companies base their pay on previous compensation, rather than expected worth.

Again, a game for the produces and regulators. Harvesters compensation is negotiated and decided on a different level, usually with large bonuses for performance (aka expected worth) and maybe even a golden parachute if they're particularly juicy.

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

Well, if your model of company behavior is the Gervais principle (imho a great model) aren't you conceding that it's not a meritocracy?

>>> I'm not even sure what you mean by this. How would a promotion reflect poorly on someone?

For a real life example, I have a friend, let's call him Justin, who's an incredibly efficient engineer, and this is known. But he won't get promoted because of a few obnoxious traits (outed as a Trump supporter, got drunk at the office a few times, liked to place bets on video games at the office).

I don't think his manager will promote him, because he worries if he promotes Justin, then Justin gets fallover drunk and has to be fired, then somehow it'll look like a mistake to have promoted him in the first place... Super-political (i.e. concerned with appearance over reality)

Oh, we're in complete agreement about meritocracy. I call it a fairy tale engineers like to comfort themselves with [0,1]. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough about where I agreed with you. And rereading your original post, I might have misread it a bit, and I think we are very much in line.

And thanks for the story. Manager definitely sounds like a clueless / regulator type for worrying about such things. While at the same time, "Justin" hasn't done a very good job of making himself trustworthy.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10978841#10980628

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14169245#14169748

> Do not say your mission is to empower one group or another if your actions are not truly in that group's best interest. E.g. giving them credit cards when they're already in debt.

If you don't believe that line, and it truly bothers you, why do you work there?

> Do not suggest employees will get rich when you damn well how unlikely it is.

It's not like the top execs at startups are compensated any differently. They might have more options than you, but the majority of their upside is still options.

I don't understand what you're saying. It sounds like you're saying the solution to corporate dishonesty is quitting?

I don't mind companies that try to make money, I like to make money myself. What I dislike is dishonesty, it's Orwellian and feels patronizing.

> "We work in a class system where you can't be fired once you're at a certain level"

But isn't that pretty close to the truth?

Heh, well then there are 3 ways to handle it:

1. Call it like it is "John failed, but we live in a class system so instead we're moving him to a less important team because we believe in this class system"

2. Stop perpetuating that class system and fire people who do bad work, even if they went to Yale.

3. Admit to yourself that you're not remotely honest, and don't expect any of your intelligent employees to buy your story either. [i.e. The normal choice]

It is. Might as well just admit it, and earn some trust of your employees this way.

If everywhere you go smells like shit, maybe it's time to check your shoes.