The Dark Side of Resilience(hbr.org)
hbr.org
The Dark Side of Resilience
https://hbr.org/2017/08/the-dark-side-of-resilience
52 comments
In my experience (30+ years in all kinds and sizes of companies), the quality of management is the absolute worst in startups.
The secret sauce of startups is that in the very early phase there is no management. But once management becomes a necessity (a conclusion that is usually drawn at least two years too late), the shit show most startups turn into makes corporate life look attractive. Usually a mix between founders trying to manage (most entrepreneurs make bad managers) or early employees falling upward.
One of the main issues is that people who are thrive in the early stages of a startup tend to lack the #1 quality of a good manager: the drive to make other people succeed.
If you want to work for a good manager, startups are the last place to look.
The secret sauce of startups is that in the very early phase there is no management. But once management becomes a necessity (a conclusion that is usually drawn at least two years too late), the shit show most startups turn into makes corporate life look attractive. Usually a mix between founders trying to manage (most entrepreneurs make bad managers) or early employees falling upward.
One of the main issues is that people who are thrive in the early stages of a startup tend to lack the #1 quality of a good manager: the drive to make other people succeed.
If you want to work for a good manager, startups are the last place to look.
> early employees falling upward.
This is what I've seen at places that just got to the 50+ dev mark. It can result in poorly planned junk systems being built and ill-prepared managers making simple mistakes (e.g. being "too nice" to properly manage poor performers or bad hires, or being so adverse to having to deal with that that the hiring process becomes overly selective so you're perpetually understaffed, or an unawareness of what to do around things like security and personal user data that it's not properly protected...).
This is what I've seen at places that just got to the 50+ dev mark. It can result in poorly planned junk systems being built and ill-prepared managers making simple mistakes (e.g. being "too nice" to properly manage poor performers or bad hires, or being so adverse to having to deal with that that the hiring process becomes overly selective so you're perpetually understaffed, or an unawareness of what to do around things like security and personal user data that it's not properly protected...).
50+ dev mark? Holy cow. That's like 5mil a year in dev salarys alone. That's a massive operation at that point.
The worst (haven't seen it everywhere) in the first two years are where the owner thinks he/she a developer and tries to be buddy/buddy with the dev team while breaking the codebase with late night commits and no testing.
"In my experience (30+ years in all kinds and sizes of companies), the quality of management is the absolute worst in startups."
Another datapoint: my own managers at startups were better by far than those at larger companies. Generally, the smaller the company, the better.
The absolute best was when it was just me and the company's owner working together. No corporate bullshit. In that instance, my manager didn't have to appease any executives above him. He just decided what had to get done and we did it. Very often I'd have meaningful contributions to make to the decision making process, and we'd decide what needed to get done together.
Try doing that in a large company where there are N levels of middle management above you, bullshit corporate policy and compliance to adhere to, people in different offices and time zones who haven't a clue about who you are or what you think making your decisions for you, and so on.
I can't even count the number of times when managers in larger companies that I've worked at have told me that they really want to do the right thing, but their hands are tied... so we do the wrong, broken thing because we don't have any choice. At startups there tends to be a lot more freedom, if we make mistakes, at least they're our mistakes, not ones forced on us by clueless/insulated upper management.
Another datapoint: my own managers at startups were better by far than those at larger companies. Generally, the smaller the company, the better.
The absolute best was when it was just me and the company's owner working together. No corporate bullshit. In that instance, my manager didn't have to appease any executives above him. He just decided what had to get done and we did it. Very often I'd have meaningful contributions to make to the decision making process, and we'd decide what needed to get done together.
Try doing that in a large company where there are N levels of middle management above you, bullshit corporate policy and compliance to adhere to, people in different offices and time zones who haven't a clue about who you are or what you think making your decisions for you, and so on.
I can't even count the number of times when managers in larger companies that I've worked at have told me that they really want to do the right thing, but their hands are tied... so we do the wrong, broken thing because we don't have any choice. At startups there tends to be a lot more freedom, if we make mistakes, at least they're our mistakes, not ones forced on us by clueless/insulated upper management.
>The absolute best was when it was just me and the company's owner working together.
You're just reinforcing the parent's point that "[t]he secret sauce of startups is that in the very early phase there is no management."
You're just reinforcing the parent's point that "[t]he secret sauce of startups is that in the very early phase there is no management."
Yeah, I'm living this now. It sucks.
The older I get, the more I realize that in most cases it's best to be in the middle of the bell curve.
That's not to say there's anything wrong with having the single-minded focus required to be one of the best in the world at something. But you have to accept that you'll miss out on other enjoyable aspects of life while you pursue your goal, and know if and when you should move on from it, or you'll wind up very unhappy.
That's not to say there's anything wrong with having the single-minded focus required to be one of the best in the world at something. But you have to accept that you'll miss out on other enjoyable aspects of life while you pursue your goal, and know if and when you should move on from it, or you'll wind up very unhappy.
Each standard deviation of excellence earned along any dimension extracts a greater toll on all others. It's good to have a specialty along one or two axes, especially given that you may not care much to be good at the grand lot of the other available skills you could attain. But to truly excell (3 or more sigma, let's say) is time-expensive.
Gambler's fallacy.
Far more likely to just be regression to the mean.
Far more likely to just be regression to the mean.
"You should quit your lofty goals and revert to those more practical in nature.", said no-one who ever accomplished something great
Consequently, "You should quit your lofty goals and revert to those more practical in nature." should've been said to a lot of people who didn't accomplish anything.
That's how selection bias works.
I think the nature of this debate is such that we'll always settle on the idea that "one ideology fits all" has never worked and will never work.
A few people doing great is important for the world, and so is a lot of people doing okay-to-good. Which one is more important can be your personal POV, but it's easy to see that neither is worth discarding.
That's how selection bias works.
I think the nature of this debate is such that we'll always settle on the idea that "one ideology fits all" has never worked and will never work.
A few people doing great is important for the world, and so is a lot of people doing okay-to-good. Which one is more important can be your personal POV, but it's easy to see that neither is worth discarding.
Exactly. Which is why I really can't stand life advice from very successful people.
Advices from very unsuccesful people don't help either.
Maybe all advice in general is not very useful?
Examples, data points are useful, advice a lot less in my mind.
"This is my situation and what I've done about it, what worked and did not work for me."
Then it is up to the listener to learn something from it, possibly transpose, or not.
"This is my situation and what I've done about it, what worked and did not work for me."
Then it is up to the listener to learn something from it, possibly transpose, or not.
Advice from people about their own failures and people who acknowledge their luck usually works.
[deleted]
A few years ago I wrote a very detailed response to arguments like that: http://lesswrong.com/lw/ksy/follow_your_dreams_as_a_case_stu...
>"You should quit your lofty goals and revert to those more practical in nature.", said no-one who ever accomplished something great
"Never quit on your dreams," said most people who never achieve anything.
"Never quit on your dreams," said most people who never achieve anything.
I'm going to dig the biggest hole ever. Is a lofty goal, or at least a deep one.
You might sit and plan and talk to people and make a buisness plan involving dump trucks and stay at your day job planning for ever.
You might make viable plans for digging a large hole, but they don't quite fill the great pit of your vision.
Or you might pick digging as big a hole as possible as a direction, and do the next thing.
Dig with a space until you get tired then hire a digger and learn to drive it. End up with a big pile of mud to get rid of and find out you could sell it. Who knew selling mud could pay for more diggers. Hire good diggers and drivers because you've done it yourself and know how it's done. Do the next thing, do the next thing.
Until one day out have a really big hole. Not the biggest, but pretty big.
You might sit and plan and talk to people and make a buisness plan involving dump trucks and stay at your day job planning for ever.
You might make viable plans for digging a large hole, but they don't quite fill the great pit of your vision.
Or you might pick digging as big a hole as possible as a direction, and do the next thing.
Dig with a space until you get tired then hire a digger and learn to drive it. End up with a big pile of mud to get rid of and find out you could sell it. Who knew selling mud could pay for more diggers. Hire good diggers and drivers because you've done it yourself and know how it's done. Do the next thing, do the next thing.
Until one day out have a really big hole. Not the biggest, but pretty big.
Indeed. The most difficult part of creating stuff is derailing and track-changing. Goals and dreams outside the context of reality and the world, are often pretty dumb and shallow compared to what you can do when you fail and re-evaluate.
Or are we suddenly supposed to not ever fail, and attempt only things that work the first time?
Or are we suddenly supposed to not ever fail, and attempt only things that work the first time?
[deleted]
No tragic failure ever said that either.
I suppose Hitler did accomplish a...thing. Not the thing he wanted but, a thing.
Odd place for a Godwin.
Systems > goals
"In America, 75% of employees consider their direct line manager the worst part of their job, and 65% would take a pay cut if they could replace their boss with someone else."
It is happening because every company is super exploiting the workers to increase the profits, because we have a capitalist crisis
It is happening because every company is super exploiting the workers to increase the profits, because we have a capitalist crisis
>"It is happening because every company is super exploiting the workers to increase the profits, because we have a capitalist crisis"
Eh, the statistics are better explained by the fact that most people (adults especially) don't like being told what to do. They'll be bitter about anyone handing them orders on a daily basis, especially if their manager isn't gentle or subtle in their managing. If a manager has enough emotional intelligence and empathy then they should be able to set direction and delegate without being disliked, but that ability is reserved for an elite few. Hence the statistics.
Eh, the statistics are better explained by the fact that most people (adults especially) don't like being told what to do. They'll be bitter about anyone handing them orders on a daily basis, especially if their manager isn't gentle or subtle in their managing. If a manager has enough emotional intelligence and empathy then they should be able to set direction and delegate without being disliked, but that ability is reserved for an elite few. Hence the statistics.
The problem is that, in most cases, managers are people who were good workers (and good at office politics) and who then got promoted into supervisory roles with little, if any, additional training.
Peter's principle and whatnot, but I think there is something deeper. The manager positions are designed, by definition of the word, to manage, and the top goal is to extract values from workers. Managers (and product managers in tech companies) are encouraged to create a `healthy` tension with line workers (software engineers included) in work estimation and commitments. This is supposed to make the work challenging enough, but not so demanding that burn out the workers. The best managers can do that by providing the intellectual challenges and motivational goals. Most resort to processes and plain OKRs though (reflected in the worst ever software tool, JIRA. Also any line manager who's got any clue, meaning who can provide technical/business directions, would be quickly promoted to directors (where they are supposed to direct :-).
Protip for frontline managers: The percentage of time you spend on JIRA is negatively correlated to the chance of being promoted to the director level.
Protip for frontline managers: The percentage of time you spend on JIRA is negatively correlated to the chance of being promoted to the director level.
Worse if the manager is incompetent; quibbles over minor details in code review, yet railroads through massive PRs with endless methods just haphazardly strewn into monster classes with no modularity or sense.
I would also add that most corporations are dysfunctional - basically, they develop a cash cow that brings in profit, become secure, then allow incompetent management to spread, since there's little to no impact to the revenue.
This creates corporations with terrible management for individual employees and yet no reason for the corporation to care.
This creates corporations with terrible management for individual employees and yet no reason for the corporation to care.
That "capitalist crisis" raised billions of people out of poverty. :] https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/global-povertys...
You might like how living standards are higher than they have ever been in human history?
>capitalist crisis
If not liking your boss is a capitalist crisis I much prefer it to the current socialist crisis going on in Venezuela.
If not liking your boss is a capitalist crisis I much prefer it to the current socialist crisis going on in Venezuela.
> If you think something's supposed to hurt, you're less likely to notice if you're doing it wrong. That about sums up my experience of graduate school.
http://www.paulgraham.com/love.html
http://www.paulgraham.com/love.html
This article is impressively thinly-argued for the usual standards of the Harvard Business Review.
Think of physical endurance. Focusing on physical endurance could lead you to pointless ultramarathons, or even trying to fly off buildings, but this is as a defficiency in goal selection. A man with the same physical endurance may choose to do something entirely different with it.
(My physical endurance right now is so much lower than it was two years ago that I take buses for city stretches across which I used to walk briskly. It takes more time, more money and is vaguely humiliating, at least to my own eyes.)
Think of physical endurance. Focusing on physical endurance could lead you to pointless ultramarathons, or even trying to fly off buildings, but this is as a defficiency in goal selection. A man with the same physical endurance may choose to do something entirely different with it.
(My physical endurance right now is so much lower than it was two years ago that I take buses for city stretches across which I used to walk briskly. It takes more time, more money and is vaguely humiliating, at least to my own eyes.)
The situations described involve other character defects that can do more damage because of how resilient the person. You could say the same thing about flexibility or a good work ethic or conscientiousness. Anything can have a dark side if you package it with something bad.
The other character defects are the problem. You can be very resilient and empathetic and a good leader.
And we don't call a salad covered with sugary dressing "the dark side of lettuce."
The other character defects are the problem. You can be very resilient and empathetic and a good leader.
And we don't call a salad covered with sugary dressing "the dark side of lettuce."
> "Yet there is no indication that people actually act on these attitudes, with job tenure remaining stable over the years despite ubiquitous access to career opportunities and the rise of passive recruitment introduced by the digital revolution. "
I have never seen a more grandiose, idealized view used to describe the modern job market than this blurb. Even in our very hirable field in tech we see a market rife with inefficiency.
I almost spit out my coffee reading "ubiquitous access" and then had to stifle a laugh at "passive recruitment".
I have never seen a more grandiose, idealized view used to describe the modern job market than this blurb. Even in our very hirable field in tech we see a market rife with inefficiency.
I almost spit out my coffee reading "ubiquitous access" and then had to stifle a laugh at "passive recruitment".
A bumper sticker I'd like, made from a Lily Tomlin quote:
"I used to say that when I grew up, I was going to be somebody; now I realize I should've been more specific."
this article's conflation of "resilience" with "well fit with corporate values even when those values become disfiguringly distorted" is a bit disturbing
There is no such thing as "too much resilience". What a ridiculous article. Stopped reading it when they mentioned that people staying in their jobs despite hating it are "resilient". That's not the word I would use for it.
I agree with that, I think resilient is not the correct term for what is described in the article, but rather accommodation or possibly rationalization.
People will adapt to their circumstances in both directions: if things become worse, people can adapt to rationalize it as normal, whereas if things become better, people will become eventually complacent and want things to improve, even though things have already improved.
People will adapt to their circumstances in both directions: if things become worse, people can adapt to rationalize it as normal, whereas if things become better, people will become eventually complacent and want things to improve, even though things have already improved.
The article isn't great, but they do link to an interesting paper on the subject: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
Agreed. I'd use something like "learned helplessness".
"Silly Americans (who are attached at the hip to rent-seeking slumlords), why don't you just leave that job that is causing you mental harm?!"
logall(1)
And this is one of the secret sauces of startups. Excel at valuing your staff in the midst of a crap-show and they will stick with you even though you can't match the compensation packages of large corporations.
Corollary: good management is imperative within a startup, or you'll loose an important value-prop as an employer.