"We take afternoons off to play at the beach, play ultimate Frisbee in the park, go to the movies as a company, have Starcraft 2 nights, etc…"
Spoken like a true "jr engineer" the poster claims to be :) At some point in your life, that stuff just isn't very enticing.
Can people just go home and chill with their family while the rest of you go play frisbee, or will they be ostracized as 'not a team player' if they 'opt out' of afternoon movies/starcraft? A danger in that sort of activity is anyone who doesn't join in may (or will) eventually be left out of key business information.
Glad you found somewhere you enjoy working - keep it up!
I doubt Calacanis take parts in the above activities, and likely, they segment by group, as you say.
If something universally appealing, like going to a nice restaurant or seeing a popular movie like The Social Network, you decided to opt-out of, I would be pretty put-off as an employee, or manager, if you chose not to attend.
Few things happen for individuals - if you declared that you didn't want to spend time with your company, socially, that says you don't really love your job - because the people, and the committed, single vision that comes with it is what makes that adoration arise. If you don't love your job, I question what great things you can truly do, given that non-commitment.
So, sure, you can be OK and opt-out. But if you do, I'm pretty certain that's exactly all you can be.
I'm not saying you should do these things daily, but to not do them as a one-off occasionally would be ridiculous, to me. Even if you love your family more - which you should.
Seeing "the social network" is not universally appealing - sorry.
Restaurant, yeah, I get that. And now and then group activities - sure. But weekly frisbee outings at the beach, etc - too much.
I'm a bit wary of people who love the idea of working for someone else, period. If you love a job, I question what great things you can do.
Of course, many people from all walks of life do accomplish great things in all capacities, so perhaps judging someone based on your own view of what they should and shouldn't love is a tad short-sighted.
BTW, if JC isn't participating in all those group outings, what message is that sending to everyone else? They're socially pressured in to company rah-rah BS while he's above it?
EDIT - just saw a JC reply re: activities. Cool enough - no t everyone can make everything. Got it.
Depends on the restaurant. If I don't like, for example, italian food, and the company goes to an italian restaurant, I may want to opt out. What if everyone else loved italian food and always wanted to go there? I would argue that there really isn't very much that is universally appealing.
Agreed, even that. I was trying to be charitable. Similar situation - had a group that loved seafood. I hate seafood. I'd go now and then, but angled for non-seafood places to balance things out (and it worked). Had they insisted on seafood all the time, I'd have bowed out of those gatherings (as politely as possible).
Actually, I teach tae kwon do with members of the team, participate in fit club and host movie night. We do movie night at Gold Pass Cinema... which is the most amazing movie theater on the planet... we take over the entire room and they serve dinner in our seats in these huge amazing seats. There are number of folks other than me who have kids, and we sometimes can't make it to everything.... but we make it some of the fun/cult-like things. :-)
I think its ironic that you defend all these perks and team strengthening outings yet you scoff many times at the idea that people looking for balance are not right for your teams, and you insinuate they are weak.
What these outings and perks provide is a certain level of balance.
Additionally, I think that one can find so much inspiration for innovation in areas that are totally unrelated to the tech magic they may focus on at work.
I find inspiration and ideas in the most amazing places, almost all of which come from talking to non-technical people about what it is they do and seeing amazing opportunity to change the way they work, fill a void in an industry or create something based on a need.
limiting your feedback loop to your small, albeit talented pool of resources, is still a limited feedback loop.
Jason, I have a challenge for you: Have some team, or staff of at least five people take a vacation off-grid: NO (Smart)phone, NO email, NO Internet at all - get them all a moleskin notebook and 5 days of staying out of the office, but out of their homes with no access to the online world and challenge them to come back with some ideas that were formulated from their talking to, interacting with and observing the world around them. (They can use voice-phone only for family)
They need journal the week by hand - and none can interact with eachother.
Have them return with the goal of a list of goals/ideas/opportunities.
I think this would reveal a lot about the team and your work ethos.
Some places take that attitude to the extreme, and for people who just want/need to put in a standard 9-5 and get their work done, feeling forced to participate in extraneous stuff in the name of 'bonding with the team' is awkward.
edit: can't reply to jpwagner again(?):
re: "forced" not appearing in the original text. Have you never felt social pressure to do something, even (especially) when someone indicated something was 'totally optional'?
Travis the author of the post here. To clarify there are required hours, and sometimes we get to use some of those hours to "play" rather than work. I can't say that's always going to work but it seems to work pretty awesomely at Mahalo. Maybe it's because we are a really young team.
Hey I'm Travis the author of the post. Thanks for the feedback. You are right that there are people who probably wouldn't choose to spend that time "playing" with the company. A lot of the activities are optional. However, we do our best to make it fun for those people and it really does seem to have a positive effect on the company culture as a whole. I seriously think if you can't enjoy playing with the people you work with, something is wrong with your team.
Thanks for replying. I agree that in general, you need to enjoy the people you work with, and occasional 'outside activities' are fine. I've typically done those with colleagues I've worked with at previous companies. If the company was footing the bill, so much the better. There's a fine line that can get crossed when it starts to feel mandatory, or you're made to feel 'not part of the team' if you choose to opt out (had it happen to me, and seen it happen to others).
I seriously think if you can't enjoy playing with the people you work with, something is wrong with your team.
Personally, I'm an intorvert and just working together with people makes me tired enough to not want to participate in extracurriculum activities with the team, even if it is entertainment.
If it means something is wrong with my team, then something was wrong with my team at every place where I worked.
I do some activities with the team just not to seem too weird - it's not a huge effort and not a big discomfort, but usually I would rather prefer to be elsewhere.
I'm a developer at Mahalo, and still have time to sing in operas, organize an a cappella group, blog, read, date, play ultimate frisbee, workout 4-5 times/week, code on some personal programming projects, and generally enjoy life. Most of the talk of 80 weeks is way over-hyped. Some times are certainly trying during a push, but it's by no means absurd.
Personally, I love all of the opportunities to hang out with other team members. We spend our working hours together, getting to know each other outside of work means that I get to work with my friends all day. It's awesome. You make a good point about that sort of thing become less enticing as you get older. We have a young team though, so it works out for the most part.
That said though, we have people on the team who never come to any of the outside events, and I wouldn't say that they are treated any differently. Everyone's free to make their own choices in this matter. At the end of the day, if they enjoy the work and we all get along, no one cares what you do when you go home.
It's difficult to not be "biased" when I am working for a company that I love working at. I'm not trying to give any kind of assessment of Jason Calacanis as a person over the course of his life. I'm not qualified to do that.
What I am qualified to do is share that I honestly love working at Mahalo under Jason Calacanis. I knew I would take greif for that but I wasn't going to let that stop me from just being honest about the fact that I love my job.
Even if he absolutely hates working for Calacanis, this is a pretty brilliant kiss-ass on his part. I would've liked it better from someone who worked previously for the company - those working for it are a pretty biased view of what might be a blackened company culture.
Surely, having Calacanis on their side is worth this kind of post/long term commitment even if many other factors are absolutely torrid - and that kind of node-network-connection occurs in many other places, too - where the sole connection to a very influential person is pretty much the only factor holding a person at the job.
Was a little worried people would see this as me trying to win over Jason's favor. Trust me, a blog post isn't going to do that. He sees my work all day every day and if I'm not delivering, a blog post isn't going to help my relationship with him. He has a pretty good sense of "sucking up" and from what I've seen it doesn't get you far with him. :)
The purpose of the post was 1. to have a discussion about the level of commitment founders should expect from employees and 2. brag about the fact that I love my job and Mahalo it is actually a really cool company.
While I agree that hearing from previous employees would be less "biased", Mahalo has never been healthier than right now. The only people who know what Mahalo is like are those that are currently working there.
That being said, there are obviously a ton of people who have worked with Jason over the years who each have their own experiences. I can't and don't want to speak for them. Just sharing my own personal experience.
Some people are very good at recognizing talent and using it. It is a common attribute of many top CEO's in any industry.
As an outsider looking in, I perceive Jason's value to a company may be found both in his skill to identify valuable people and to market the company he is involved with through his personal exploits. Sometimes, companies work well in spite of the leadership they have as staff comes together to form and execute ideas.
At Weblogs, Brian Alvey and a slew of talented people pushed both the platform and the content to form a successful company. At Mahalo, iteration after iteration drives the product while a revolving door of staff comes and goes. Jason's latest projects including his video podcast network and independent startup conference are further examples of time and trial. On the surface, Jason's value has been to identify the right people and use each company as a platform to market himself and then his role within the company.
This history is somewhat unusual and confusing when compared with traditional employers. Especially for those that Jason prefers to hire. Young, fresh out of school, energetic and bright, Jason leverages his abilities to identify talent in order to "scoop" people who can trade their time for the chance to work for a true online legend. In many cases, it's a fair trade. However, when looked at from afar, Weblogs, Mahalo, This Week In and TechCrunch tell an interesting story that may make those with more experience, knowledge or connections think twice. "To each his own" is a valuable sentiment conveyed well by Travis in the original post.
Beyond history, I have learned to judge powerful people with a simple measure of good vs. evil. When given the opportunity, some people unknowingly make decisions that have a positive impact on the people and processes around them. Others feel more comfortable operating somewhat negatively while justifying their path by saying things such as, "I make the hard decisions" and "I'll fight until the last breath". There is no right or wrong way to make decisions but the impact of those decisions on the people and processes around them uncover what type of person they are.
With my definition of good vs. evil above in mind, and using Mahalo as a specific example, Jason can be viewed as evil. It's not always easy to do, but I strongly believe that working with people who are fundamentally good produces happy, healthy, engaged employees who truly care about the success of their company, it's culture and their leadership. Working for people who are evil produces a turnstile of employees who typically last less then 3 years at their desk and require regular additional extra curricular motivation in order to offset their frustrations.
One correction: Mahalo has had close to zero turnover in the past year. It is far from a revolving door... more like a line of folks out the door who want to get it!
Now, you are correct that my skill is in finding talent....... and developing it.... and finding markets....... and attacking them.... and raising capital...... and then more capital... and in marketing products....... and in branding/naming.... ... and motivating folks... and creating company culture.
I've basically gotten lucky like six times in a row... the streak will be over shortly.
To correct Jason, I think our near zero turnover has been closer to 8-9 months long. But it's certainly improved significantly over when I started at Mahalo about a year and a half ago. I would attribute that to Jason's hiring of smart people, recognizing those with skills in areas he may be weak in, and putting them in positions where they can do something about it.
Just to be sure that I haven't misspoken: I'm not using the word evil to say that Jason is in some way similar to the devil. He's a smart guy who I'm sure has done some really nice things. I'm using evil in the context described above.
As for the turnstile of staff at Mahalo... I don't necessarily think that this is a bad thing either. I bet that without planning, groups of staff have naturally come and gone as the product has iterated. If you're in a long iteration right now, that's great news! Maybe this is the one that will "hit". The problem with turnover like this is that eventually, products start to evolve in circles. I think that Mahalo itself is a good example of this.
33 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 72.9 ms ] threadIn non SV cities its even worse in finding a 'JC' boss to work for as far as prospects..
Spoken like a true "jr engineer" the poster claims to be :) At some point in your life, that stuff just isn't very enticing.
Can people just go home and chill with their family while the rest of you go play frisbee, or will they be ostracized as 'not a team player' if they 'opt out' of afternoon movies/starcraft? A danger in that sort of activity is anyone who doesn't join in may (or will) eventually be left out of key business information.
Glad you found somewhere you enjoy working - keep it up!
If something universally appealing, like going to a nice restaurant or seeing a popular movie like The Social Network, you decided to opt-out of, I would be pretty put-off as an employee, or manager, if you chose not to attend.
Few things happen for individuals - if you declared that you didn't want to spend time with your company, socially, that says you don't really love your job - because the people, and the committed, single vision that comes with it is what makes that adoration arise. If you don't love your job, I question what great things you can truly do, given that non-commitment.
So, sure, you can be OK and opt-out. But if you do, I'm pretty certain that's exactly all you can be.
Or it just says that you love your family more than you love your job. That's hardly outrageous.
Restaurant, yeah, I get that. And now and then group activities - sure. But weekly frisbee outings at the beach, etc - too much.
I'm a bit wary of people who love the idea of working for someone else, period. If you love a job, I question what great things you can do.
Of course, many people from all walks of life do accomplish great things in all capacities, so perhaps judging someone based on your own view of what they should and shouldn't love is a tad short-sighted.
BTW, if JC isn't participating in all those group outings, what message is that sending to everyone else? They're socially pressured in to company rah-rah BS while he's above it?
EDIT - just saw a JC reply re: activities. Cool enough - no t everyone can make everything. Got it.
Depends on the restaurant. If I don't like, for example, italian food, and the company goes to an italian restaurant, I may want to opt out. What if everyone else loved italian food and always wanted to go there? I would argue that there really isn't very much that is universally appealing.
What these outings and perks provide is a certain level of balance.
Additionally, I think that one can find so much inspiration for innovation in areas that are totally unrelated to the tech magic they may focus on at work.
I find inspiration and ideas in the most amazing places, almost all of which come from talking to non-technical people about what it is they do and seeing amazing opportunity to change the way they work, fill a void in an industry or create something based on a need.
limiting your feedback loop to your small, albeit talented pool of resources, is still a limited feedback loop.
Jason, I have a challenge for you: Have some team, or staff of at least five people take a vacation off-grid: NO (Smart)phone, NO email, NO Internet at all - get them all a moleskin notebook and 5 days of staying out of the office, but out of their homes with no access to the online world and challenge them to come back with some ideas that were formulated from their talking to, interacting with and observing the world around them. (They can use voice-phone only for family)
They need journal the week by hand - and none can interact with eachother.
Have them return with the goal of a list of goals/ideas/opportunities.
I think this would reveal a lot about the team and your work ethos.
edit: can't reply to jpwagner again(?): re: "forced" not appearing in the original text. Have you never felt social pressure to do something, even (especially) when someone indicated something was 'totally optional'?
Personally, I'm an intorvert and just working together with people makes me tired enough to not want to participate in extracurriculum activities with the team, even if it is entertainment. If it means something is wrong with my team, then something was wrong with my team at every place where I worked. I do some activities with the team just not to seem too weird - it's not a huge effort and not a big discomfort, but usually I would rather prefer to be elsewhere.
Personally, I love all of the opportunities to hang out with other team members. We spend our working hours together, getting to know each other outside of work means that I get to work with my friends all day. It's awesome. You make a good point about that sort of thing become less enticing as you get older. We have a young team though, so it works out for the most part.
That said though, we have people on the team who never come to any of the outside events, and I wouldn't say that they are treated any differently. Everyone's free to make their own choices in this matter. At the end of the day, if they enjoy the work and we all get along, no one cares what you do when you go home.
What I am qualified to do is share that I honestly love working at Mahalo under Jason Calacanis. I knew I would take greif for that but I wasn't going to let that stop me from just being honest about the fact that I love my job.
Thanks for the feedback.
Surely, having Calacanis on their side is worth this kind of post/long term commitment even if many other factors are absolutely torrid - and that kind of node-network-connection occurs in many other places, too - where the sole connection to a very influential person is pretty much the only factor holding a person at the job.
The purpose of the post was 1. to have a discussion about the level of commitment founders should expect from employees and 2. brag about the fact that I love my job and Mahalo it is actually a really cool company.
While I agree that hearing from previous employees would be less "biased", Mahalo has never been healthier than right now. The only people who know what Mahalo is like are those that are currently working there.
That being said, there are obviously a ton of people who have worked with Jason over the years who each have their own experiences. I can't and don't want to speak for them. Just sharing my own personal experience.
As an outsider looking in, I perceive Jason's value to a company may be found both in his skill to identify valuable people and to market the company he is involved with through his personal exploits. Sometimes, companies work well in spite of the leadership they have as staff comes together to form and execute ideas.
At Weblogs, Brian Alvey and a slew of talented people pushed both the platform and the content to form a successful company. At Mahalo, iteration after iteration drives the product while a revolving door of staff comes and goes. Jason's latest projects including his video podcast network and independent startup conference are further examples of time and trial. On the surface, Jason's value has been to identify the right people and use each company as a platform to market himself and then his role within the company.
This history is somewhat unusual and confusing when compared with traditional employers. Especially for those that Jason prefers to hire. Young, fresh out of school, energetic and bright, Jason leverages his abilities to identify talent in order to "scoop" people who can trade their time for the chance to work for a true online legend. In many cases, it's a fair trade. However, when looked at from afar, Weblogs, Mahalo, This Week In and TechCrunch tell an interesting story that may make those with more experience, knowledge or connections think twice. "To each his own" is a valuable sentiment conveyed well by Travis in the original post.
Beyond history, I have learned to judge powerful people with a simple measure of good vs. evil. When given the opportunity, some people unknowingly make decisions that have a positive impact on the people and processes around them. Others feel more comfortable operating somewhat negatively while justifying their path by saying things such as, "I make the hard decisions" and "I'll fight until the last breath". There is no right or wrong way to make decisions but the impact of those decisions on the people and processes around them uncover what type of person they are.
With my definition of good vs. evil above in mind, and using Mahalo as a specific example, Jason can be viewed as evil. It's not always easy to do, but I strongly believe that working with people who are fundamentally good produces happy, healthy, engaged employees who truly care about the success of their company, it's culture and their leadership. Working for people who are evil produces a turnstile of employees who typically last less then 3 years at their desk and require regular additional extra curricular motivation in order to offset their frustrations.
Now, you are correct that my skill is in finding talent....... and developing it.... and finding markets....... and attacking them.... and raising capital...... and then more capital... and in marketing products....... and in branding/naming.... ... and motivating folks... and creating company culture.
I've basically gotten lucky like six times in a row... the streak will be over shortly.
Pure evil.
It would be time well spent for everyone who wants to be successful to take a page out of your book.
I'd say this is far from evil.
As for the turnstile of staff at Mahalo... I don't necessarily think that this is a bad thing either. I bet that without planning, groups of staff have naturally come and gone as the product has iterated. If you're in a long iteration right now, that's great news! Maybe this is the one that will "hit". The problem with turnover like this is that eventually, products start to evolve in circles. I think that Mahalo itself is a good example of this.