Up until not too long ago I used to work at a company where more than half of all 5000 employees had the title "manager", "head" or "lead" in their title. To put it extremely mildly it was a bureaucratic hell. I'm really tempted to call them and suggest yet another "head" title.
I applied for a job at a small company. On of the "perks" is there was no strong hierarchy- you got to give yourself a title.
I'll bet the Lead Senior World bla bla bla worked at a company like this
Happened to me at my last job. Everyone was manager of something . We had chief tech happiness officer.
His job was to make python script to make devs happy. I’ve never heard of that before.
The company went bankrupt after wasting 200M in venture money and generating 10K in revenue.
Was fascinating to be part of that experience. Nothing was being done , just a bunch of people making brainstorms all day long while 10 devs were doing everything and being told to change idea every other day.
Was a relief when I quit after few months, when I look back at it no doubt it was a who’s the "coolest of the club" culture. No actual talent was there.
Worked somewhere similar and saw similar outcomes. I think having too much money removes the feedback loop that lets a team know if they are on the right course, so like you say, it comes down to a popularity based culturr
> His job was to make python script to make devs happy. I've never heard of that before.
That's kind of nice.
Once a project grows a certain size if you have the budget for it it's cool to have a dedicated small team that takes care of the dev environment (maintaining the build and test pipeline, adding static analysis and making sure there's some working default config for at least one IDE). Also take care of the commit hooks and helps out when migrating language and tool versions.
How do you raise $200M with only $10k in revenue? That is, if your A round was $10M, your B round was $60M, and your C round was $130M (I'm just making up numbers here), how was it that none of the investors ever needed to see any material revenues?
Not the GP but maybe s/revenue/profit? I can see that easily, but I'm not sure how anyone could raise nearly a quarter billion dollars with less total revenue than a mid-level makes in a month at their job.
I realize that the situation is different because they were not a true startup, but Waymo was comfortably into the billions of total spending before getting even a single dollar in outside revenue (and they still have almost zero revenue). You only need to convince one or two people of an idea if they have enough cash.
Once a startup starts making money, it gets judged by its conversion rates, revenue/cost per customer, and so on. As long as it isn't making money yet, wide eyed/naive/FOMOcondriac investors will imagine whatever numbers will make them feel good about the investment in the place of real sales. Colour got over $40 million series A on nothing but a pitchdeck and that was almost a decade ago. $200 million isn't that surprising ten years on.
Has to do partly with how this kind of investing is done. There are often penalties if they don't "invest" money they are given. As long as they can prove some sort of remotely competent due diligence it is better to spend the money on a long-shot than give it back saying you didn't find a decent investment and pay some sort of interest/fee/whatever.
Well I ended up working there for 8 and a half years believe it or not. But it wasn't like that when I started. That happened around a year ago(management was entirely replaced). I'm not known for being tolerant when it comes to bs so the moment those policies started getting pushed onto my team, me along with several others decided to bail(basically the oldest dogs, and as I understand a few others are one foot out already). Frankly I don't see anything but the company going bankrupt within the next year or two. Ever since the management swap took place, the company has been in the dark red zone in terms of revenue.
In my experience business titles don't mean much. They don't actually indicate seniority, managerial/leadership ability, expertise, knowledge, understanding, and a multitude of other valuable and praiseworthy attributes.
Ever speak with someone with a <blink>Fancy Ass Title</blink> only to discover the person severely lacks the experience and thoughtfulness you'd expect from the title? Depends on the company, of course, but it happens at startups and corporations alike.
However, there is some utility in recognizing when someone flaunts a lofty title aggressively, they are most certainly not the person you should be dealing with to get something done properly.
Is this like the "tool smith" from the surgical team?
While I've enjoyed remote work a lot, I don't think it's here to stay. For places that will allow employees to start going remote 100%, if even a minority of the team returns to the office and has daily facetime with management, those other remote employees will return IMO.
In other words, post COVID, if your company isn't 100% remote then I don't think anyone will be full remote there, it's a disadvantage.
Infra-office (ie in person) for the high bandwidth interfaces, usually the whole team is in the same office.
Inter-office for lower bandwidth interfaces, ie between teams and functions.
You definitely have some interactions that are effectively remote, say if your project involves working closely with $remote_team, but in general the highest-order terms in the equation should be in office, if you are doing a traditional WFO org.
We'll have to see how fast the transition back is. You're right that if remote work stays it has to work with conference rooms and larger groups at the office. I think if the transition back is fairly gradual then the office infrastructure and culture will grow and WFH has a chance.
Did you have hotel cubes/offices? If every employee doing blended still has to have their own space in the office, the company loses one of the big advantages of having people work from home. Obviously there are other advantages for WFH that can make it worthwhile for both sides, but reducing real estate costs is one most companies will want to reap.
It's not something I've run into yet, but the moment a company starts hotdesking I'll start looking for the door. I have to customize my workspace and know that its integrity is maintained in my absence in order to be fully productive.
I agree with this. Even if a four people of our 22-member team resume WFO, the rest are screwed. Soon we all need to WFO.
Sadly, there's definitely 4-8 ppl who _ hate _ being at home. So they're waiting for the office gates to open so they can go back. :(
Working from home as a parent is awesome actually ... if there’s another parent or nanny also at home who takes primary responsibility for the kid. That is how it should be, at least for young kids. Obviously with COVID, it’s not safe or affordable for some families to do this, but if you can afford daycare for another arrangement for your kid while you are in the office, you can afford daycare for your kid while you work from home.
The problem is ... We didn't have any remote workers in BC era. So, everything would be discussed & finalized over impromptu whiteboard sessions as-and-when-needed. The team is super-lazy on email communications too.
One of our first hires as a startup was a BizOps hire. She's awesome. We've been distributed pre covid and felt like we needed someone to help oversee processes, culture, etc... All the things that are important for ANY company but crucial if you're distributed. So she's basically our Head of Remote.
Sounds like bullshit akin to "Chief of Staff" but hey, if companies are going to spend time focusing on how to make their employees' remote lives better, more power to them.
> Phase 3: Harvest
> Competition intensifies as New Title attracts more and more interest. Momentum from the high status of the earlier phases begins to be overwhelmed by declining exclusivity. Hiring managers and recruiters have caught on and start repainting old job descriptions.
I always viewed it as people wanted their secretary to have more cachet akin to the WH COS. The go-to behind-the-scenes, "assistant POTUS" type roll.
Realistically though, that type of job exists in politics but it simply doesn't exist in business. The WH COS-type duties should be handled by a COO, Managing Director, EVP, etc. Any time I've seen COS used in a Silicon Valley context it's a glorified secretary/scheduler.
Culture is over-rated. Covid is an opportunity to question why businesses are structured how they are, in particular whether process and conformity oriented central functions like talent, culture, and most management can be done away with, in favour of individual accountability and a focus on results. I say this because work from home leads to rethinking work as a place you go to put in time, as it has been at least since the industrial revolution. And reimagining work as a series of outcomes someone wants to pay you for, because they see value in outsourcing them to you. But instead, companies will just make online versions of the same corporate BS that goes on in the office.
This is surely going to happen. It's going to take decades but sure it will. And when this will be the norm current structure will not make any sense to that generation.
> whether process and conformity oriented central functions like talent, culture, and most management can be done away with, in favour of individual accountability and a focus on results
Absolutely agreed. Look at how effective Valve has been with a non-hierarchical culture!
Well despite anecdotes of workplace drama, they’ve definitely been effective at continuing to manage Steam, which is likely orders of magnitude more lucrative than developing single player videogames. Everyone points to Valve failing to deliver a Half-Life sequel as a failure but it’s more a symptom of changing organizational priorities.
Also, when they did deliver a Half Life game, it was incredibly well executed and novel in a way that could simply not happen at a different company with a different culture. Normally I'd dismiss claims like that as puffery, but here it's concrete: no other big studios have invested in a VR game at that scale. And, veering into less quantitative observations, I haven't seen any VR game—and not many "normal" games either—with the level of attention to detail that Alyx got.
I've listened to some of the design commentaries for the game, and I was really impressed at how much time, effort and user testing Valve was willing to put in to every detail. VR is a new medium, and it's impressive to see an organization learn how to take advantage of it so thoroughly. It takes a special culture to make space for people to try things and indulge in perfectionism—takes a lot of money too, of course, but other AAA studios have just as much but don't hew to the same standard.
I know Valve's approach is controversial and I'm sure it's not perfect, but it's clearly doing something right that very few other companies are. I've seen small teams work in ways like that, but never at scale. One of these days I'd love to work at a company trying something like that. (Probably not in video game development though :P.)
Not sure if you've seen their handbook? Search for "valve handbook" - it's an internal thing, but someone leaked it a few years ago and now it can be easily found, it explains their culture very well.
The Valve handbook doesn’t reflect the reality at Valve. Not all employees have the power to fire other employees or decide the salary of other employees. The employees that do have all the power and the rest compete with each other to build beneficial buddy relationships with them.
Actually, this isn’t true. In The Final Hours of Half-Life Alyx, Valve talked about how their 10 year dead period where no single player games were released was caused by their nonhierarchial structure. Half-Life 3 alone was started three times since HL2:E2 and people got bored and stopped touching it. They did work on several original titles and ended up cancelling them due to tech issues or boredom.
Alyx, once it gained steam, ended up turning into a hierarchical project and the largest in the company history, and was the only way Source 2 ever got finished (since they now had people waiting on it to get the game working). And it worked, as we finally now have proof that VR is a great way to tell stories. The book is excellent, and goes on sale often on Steam.
Hierarchical or not, keep in mind Valve was making an enormous amount of money the whole time. Steam is, by far, their most profitable business.
They are also extremely selective when it comes to hiring (they are fairly small but get applicants from literally all over). So that some approach worked for Valve won't necessary work for RandomCo Inc where software is viewed as a cost center, simply because they can't attract the same caliber of talent.
I was being ironic, but decided to write the comment in an ambiguous way as was honestly curious which tack HN would take.
The Alyx story you link is probably a great example of the greatest strength being diversity: where diversity often means breaking your own rules when appropriate.
Even the Roman Republic's Senate reserved the power to appoint an omnipotent dictator in times of need.
Are there any more examples like that? I think that possibly Valve is an exception rather than a prediction for the future - they're obviously an incredibly successful company, but I haven't heard about other large companies with similar model.
I know Github had kind of similar culture in the beginning, with flat hierarchy, but that changed at some point.
Then there's Zappos which is famous for their holacratic approach, but earlier this year I've read some articles saying that internally they move away from that model.
Valve has a strong hierarchical structure, where informal relationships makes the decisions that would (in other companies) be made by people in formal positions. All groups of people have implicit hierarchies. Some have explicit hierarchies as well.
Culture is like macro economics - it's an illusion made up from micro economics. Likewise it's individuals' behaviour and interactions that will form a culture, and though you can put policies in place - like with macro economics - to try to influence maximize certain qualities - however that kills off nuances, flexibility, and variance of individual that's necessary for sovereignty to maximize the individual's contributions. A person will either blend in, integrate successfully into a culture - evolving it hopefully for the better - or their behaviour will lead them to being exiled unless they can learn, grow; my worry has always been if toxic, manipulative individuals capture the review and management positions - which is why I'm interested in non-hierarchical structures, however some still needs necessary; the never-ending tension between liberal and conservation, more hands on vs. more hands off approaches.
I don't understand how this can be the top comment. This is just a string of generalizations without any references, not even anecdotes, or explanations. Someone venting steam, essentially.
Do away with most management? And then what? 30,000 employees all steer the ship in the right direction by sheer "individual accountability and focus on results"? Well that gave me a good laugh.
Culture is overrated? That's literally the only thing that prevents work from becoming a sterile factory.
You're so deep in the BS yourself you can't even see it anymore? Office politics BS is commonplace and it's part of human nature in a place where humans interact socially, but that becomes a lot harder when you're working remotely (no references to give you about this statement, but I believe a lot of people have been saying this in the past few months). Can you really not believe that people can do work without a manager telling them to? I think that if that's all you know, yeah, can be difficult to adjust... but I am fairly certain most people would adjust just fine to a situation where they are their own manager: they have a job to do, a target to achieve, and they have to figure out how to get there. Some level of administration is always needed, but that doesn't require a manager as we normally have them. Just another worker whose focus is on metrics/people.
I manage a team of 20. A few people are good at and enjoy being independent and don’t need much management, but most people fall apart and actually end up with a lower job satisfaction. I’m not saying they all desire micromanagement (though I have one high needs but high output developer that enjoys work more with weekly meetings and daily checking, as a stress reliever), but they all appreciate good management as it reduces unnecessary work, wasted effort, and results in a higher quality product.
I started a company and was always a “leave me alone to do it my way” individual contributed, and it took a huge amount of effort on my part to remove that bias of how I like to work, so I could effectively manage people who don’t work best that way.
Culture by the way, is just a common ground tying people together to make everything a little less transactional. I have some transactional people and I tend to be that way myself, but most of our team enjoys shared memories, values, etc. they are the ice breaker between most people that otherwise wouldn’t have the desire or reason to hang out, but are forced to by work. Most people actually recognize this as a tool and happily play the game.
You nailed it. A good manager will adapt his/her approach to the individuals he/she manages. A bad manager will try and force all individuals to become identical clones.
Yea, the top comments on this thread read like a bunch of ICs who don’t understand what management does.
Yes, you have more time to be productive from home but since you aren’t sitting with your team all day, your manager has to work harder making sure everyone knows what everyone else is doing and they’re all pushing in the same direction. Culture is the norms of how that happens, so it makes sense to hire people who know how to do that well.
A good manager is worth his/her weight in gold. The problem is that 90% of managers I have worked with are not good managers. I was a manager (and ran my own business with employees as well) for 10+ years, have worked 25+ years in the industry, and have more than once helped not-very-good managers get their projects back on track. The #1 problem I have seen is managers not understanding what their job really is. The result is a manager who has a negative productivity impact on the team he/she is managing. Add a few layers of bad managers on top of that, and you have a dysfunctional company.
The flip side is forced culture. Watch some videos of corporations making workers sing and essentially peer pressure everyone in participating was cringeworthy.
Some people just want to go to work and do their job.
>I don't understand how this can be the top comment.
Know the audience. Think of the most unnecessarily difficult people to work with in a given tech workplace - they make up about 75% of the users here. The other 25% are broken into aspiring entrepreneurs, reasonable ICs and Reddit migrants who are still trying to find their feet.
>Do away with most management? And then what? 30,000 employees all steer the ship in the right direction by sheer "individual accountability and focus on results"? Well that gave me a good laugh.
Same crowd will balk at any suggestion around deriving accountability quantitatively. These rugged individualist coder wolves just need to be unleashed to let their genius flow, man.
>Culture is overrated? That's literally the only thing that prevents work from becoming a sterile factory.
See above. Why would the most unnecessarily difficult people to work with want a workplace that promotes working with others?
Putting aside whether there’s a correlation, forums develop their own unique cultures—a product of the moderation system, unspoken norms, and the specific individuals who comment there. A different forum might be discussing the exact same articles in a very different way.
According to your model, you are part of the audience too. So I assume (using your logic) that you are difficult to work with too or is still trying to find your feet? I (for one) doesn’t fit in your model. And I am also pretty sure I am not the only one. So I recommend perhaps adjusting your model to fit reality better?
>That's literally the only thing that prevents work from becoming a sterile factory.
There is a difference between everyone being cold and taking it to such an extreme, everyone has to essentially be, ironically, the same robot in the rainbows and sunshine "work family".
>Well that gave me a good laugh.
Pulling out random numbers (goes for grandparent and your comment) doesn't help. Many people work in 1:5 manager:dev overhead, often more, due to multiple management layers all applying pressure on the bottom level. Not everyone is mentally a child that still needs to be babysat while an adult. Heck, college, university and all that are exactly there to ensure one is self-sufficient to an extend you don't need to manually moderate their every move.
It is fairly ironic you're devolving into the same behavior you accuse GP of, when a much more intellectual discussion can be held.
Corporations always give you a false image that they "care about their employees", "saving them world/environment", "mission", etc. Just stop the marketing BS, they don't care about anything else than just making money at any cost, it is all an upfront.
Even improving morale has an ulterior motive- to boost productivity for profit. It is fine as corporations' sole purpose is to give shareholders value, but don't color it around HR bs to fool people. As least most companies are this way, the exceptions are few. People are not dumb once they realize they are disposable and start smelling the bs.
I think why most people complain about management is due to their false sense of leadership and character, pretending to be virtuous, while stabbing workers in the back (i.e. hypocrisy). There are not many good managers or employers- most lack real leadership or morals
If by "culture" you mean, a group of people with the same attitudes and goals- there is no denying that humans work better in groups. Just keep the "do-good" BS out please...unless you really meant it by embodying those ideals- living as example.
The moment a company tells the world how “caring it is” or how much it “cares about it’s employees”, run (don’t walk) away from it as fast as possible. The companies I have worked for that actually cared about its employees never told anyone about it because it was an unspoken rock solid part of the culture. As in “of course you need to make sure employees are happy to stay. Anything else would be stupid!”.
I'm curious how you define culture that you call if over-rated.
To me, culture is the individual accountability and focus on results that you describe, plus humility, freedom to take initiative, mentorship, empathy, perseverance, personal growth, conflict resolution... and this absolutely is defined by the people you choose to work with and behavior of the leadership.
I used to be in your camp and think culture was a ridiculous thing to focus on, now I'm in the camp where I believe it's the most important part of successful teams.
Culture is (per definition) the underlying unspoken rules that makes a group of people behave the way it does. So what you are describing isn’t culture. They are actually examples of rules you could have in a culture.
Many years ago I experienced a company lose an authentically good culture, and turn into an average shitty one in less than a year. I have to disagree.
Just because the average shitty ones still talk about culture and pretend they have it, doesn't mean a good culture isn't important.
Culture is an overused and overrated term that means nothing without detailed context.
When people say “culture” they usually mean...
- My company treats developers like rockstars; everyone else minus executives is treated like shit. “Ninjas & unicorns!”
- My company doesn’t have HR or need it. “Who needs HR? It’s only for women, losers and SJWs.”
- My company doesn’t have security and risk processes for handling user data or anything else. “Everybody’s root!!!”
- My company has cool perks like a game room, free beer, no vacation limits and a chef on staff; but everyone is underpaid compared to market. “I know they pay me 85k to be a senior dev but at least I got beer!”
It was a place where people were made to feel welcome, got listened to, were trusted, cared about and helped each other, were free to be themselves, could freely and honestly express their opinions to execs without repercussions etc.
People were given chances to grow into new roles, and their knowledge from the previous ones was valued (no roles were looked down on). It had the right amount of management (not too much, not too little), and they took good management seriously as something to empower people rather than control them.
A lot of it was built from the ground up rather than imposed from above, and there was not a lot of money thrown at it.
All that can be destroyed much faster than it can be built.
Culture is (per definition) the unspoken rules that is behind everything people in the culture believes in and do without controversy. You can’t not have a culture.
I've worked a number of companies where a culture formed spontaneously, and it was both productive and motivating with a real sense of camaraderie.
I've also worked at companies where the company created a culture with artificial team building tricks, and without exception it led to a shitty environment where HR and political schemers screwed over both the company and their fellow employees for petty gain.
Would I add a beer keg-refrigerator aka "kegerator" to keep some 25 year olds from considering other companies for 3 months longer than they would anyway? sure
Would I allow the work place to be used as a surrogate for their social causes? no - actually maybe if it needed to court advertisers all the time, but otherwise no because that was not the point of the business entity.
Would I hire an operations person to plan social things for employees to look forward to because I don't care about that at all? maaaaaaaaaybe
I never needed that stuff, clock in, clock out, nobody is really on the clock just meet your goals
For me, location is more important. What can you do in walking distance after work? I tend to keep my social circles separate, I don't want my colleagues or employees around.
The jobs I loathed the most had car-only commutes to office parks.
The jobs I enjoyed the most were in trendy parts of towns.
I think the people that attracts are heavily correlated and makes the culture on its own.
> Would I add a beer keg-refrigerator aka "kegerator" to keep some 25 year olds from considering other companies for 3 months longer than they would anyway? sure
This has extra benefits too. You don't want to turn the office into a bar for quite obvious reasons, but having it in the office makes it convenient. A lot of senior will skip off-site events because they have a family to go back to. But one beer and leave? Sure.
I do think "culture" is overused in the MBA buzzword sense sometimes, but even I know having a kegerator or [dis]allowing political activism on campus has absolutely nothing to do with culture.
Are you sure? The only thing I see is that the word culture is not conveying a shared message and is therefore failing at language. Another person in this thread said something similar to you "Culture is an overused and overrated term" while defining it similarly to me.
Why speak in absolutes when it absolutely is not conveying a shared message.
I think it sounds like you have built a great culture there, adding a beer tap would not be your culture so don't do it, but it sounds like you have worked hard to create and nurture a culture I bet your staff love.
> The jobs I enjoyed the most were in trendy parts of towns.
Same here. In a way, location can be thought of to be one of the most concrete parts of office culture. In NYC, where I've spent a lot of my work life, it's amazing how much of a proxy office location was for founder style. For some founders, a chic location wasn't prioritized or seen as ROI positive. For others, it was the exact opposite.
All I can say is that for the former category, the value-add generally far outweighed the outlay for a very crucial and formative period of its life. At a certain size, logistical concerns like price per square foot and available commercial inventory become a lot more pressing concerns.
You can’t not have a culture. All you can do is to hire people who’s values match the culture you want, and organise the reward/incentive structures to match.
> Just because the average shitty ones still talk about culture and pretend they have it, doesn't mean a good culture isn't important.
Exactly. Companies that have terrible culture project the need for a good one to get out in front of the accusation that their leadership failed in actually establishing a good one.
> favour of individual accountability and a focus on results
What results? Sure, making money is the final result we want to measure, but how do you determine how much each person contributes to the bottom line?
So we need to set objectives so we can measure results, then we need some way to measure results, some way to compare results across different objectives, some way to evaluate if our objectives and measures are working....
And suddenly you have management and 'culture'
I don't understand people who say we just need to 'focus on results'.... that is even more useless as saying "we just need to focus on making money"
We all know the end result we want (making money), but the hard part is figuring out how.
Take the example of a basketball team, where at least the objectives and measurement technique is well known... you have to score more points than the opponent. Even then, putting together a team is not simple. Which combination of players will produce the best outcome? Which players are good but on bad teams? What strategy should the team employ?
Your concept of work being a series of contractual outsourcing arrangements already IS how our economy works. The issue is that most things we create can't be made by one person, so the contract to make something is subcontracted out to many people who sign contracts with the one main contractor... and suddenly you have a company.
There is a difference between the management many people endure, and the management that both you and the GP strive for, which doesn't become apparent if you only look from the angle of "no management to start with".
The management GP refers to is the one that tends to develop from people attempting to keep their jobs. Bureaucrats, like most people, are primarily about self-preservation, not about making themselves obsolete.
When one finds a method that allows half the management layer to do all the work, do you really think most of those managers are willing to just give up their cushy jobs? Of course not. Allen Hobub commented on this in "The Death of Agile": if all of us truly were agile, and managers would find themselves in this position, they would shift their job to deliver value in a different form (read: less management activities). Instead, we encourage Scrum, which largely rebrands managers and keeps them around, just with a different name. The real danger is that of cargo-culting, which is just stuff being there for the sake of it, or for self-preservation.
Having someone who controls for results is good. Having 10 people do the work of 1 person is horribly inefficient, and in case of technically-deficient managers, often to the detriment of the executing layer: they can't help you do your task, only act like a secretary (and often they just relay the message to you anyway. So much for that.)
Bell Laboratories had a pretty cool culture from the interviews I've listened to.
It is also interesting how culture changes from 6 people startup to 600 people mid-sized company. Culture is best when its pull rather than push; when a large company imposes culture on you, it is natural to feel that its foreign and you're forced to adopt it. Compare this with a small group of people that you truly enjoy being with, solving problems, expressing frustrations and listening to their woes - you can create a microculture of your own which I only see as a positive thing. I do think that its better in a physically close setting like an office-space than being completely remote.
Culture is overrated ? I have worked at Oracle and Google and I strongly believe the culture and values define the giant difference between how these companies operate
More than that, once you have more than 2 people in a room, a culture will develop.
You can either let it grow organically or try to guide it at least a bit. And there is a reason we study for intellectual endeavors and train for physical ones.
Culture is all important. Not only for companies. Religious wars are culture wars. Left/right politics are culture conflicts. Discrimination are culture clashes. Culture is the underlying, unspoken rules that guide everything a company/country/group of people do. You can’t not have a culture. So make sure you have a good one.
It's pretty cringeworthy to think you can bring someone in, externally, to cultivate your culture. It's like all of the pretentious devops leadership that comes in, or the tool-bags that advocate for tools as if they were culture. I don't care what you say, using slack / zoom / github doesn't really say anything about your culture, nor is it in and of itself indicative of a "good engineering culture".
We never learn our lessons, you can't just hire someone into a role and have them change your company. It's just slightly more naive then hiring a digital change management consultant. As far as I'm concerned, hiring a head of remote for a remote company or a head of culture or a head of digital or a head of innovation is a sign that your leadership doesn't know what to do or doesn't think the thing is important enough to spend their time listening to their employees, diving into themselves and cultivating the "head of" _____ . It's pretty tone deaf.
Per corollary to Sturgeon's Law, there's a handful of talented, effective product and project managers.
So it's possible that Darren “oracle of remote work” Murph is useful. He's certainly mastered the self-promotion consultant schtick.
Slapping a "scrum master" sticker onto someone doesn't make them useful. And if I was pondering delegating some much needed remotefulness stuff, I'd probably eschew a lifestyle media celebrity.
I skimmed through the article but the idea of someone just focusing on the people, while they work remotely is a definite must.
Personally, I have worked, and managed remote teams for the last 15+ years. The one thing I realized was that if this scales beyond the typical 5+ close-knit team, there should be one person whose only job is make sure the remote teams are "working."
I would treat this akin to a Project Manager but knows how to tweak things for remote. I have wrote few Job Descriptions with the designation in the lines of "Remote Team Liaison", which is more of syntactic sugar for "Head", "Lead".
However, I'd love that this is one of the characteristics of almost every Project Manager, HR, etc. instead of a separate person.
People often argue that remote working flexibility is the future, but I think it will be detrimental to both younger employees (losing out on mentorship) and those that do go into an office.
An office is at its most effective when everyone is there to collaborate; it loses most of its benefits when only some people are in person. Because of this I think there will be many companies advertising themselves as office-only as a benefit.
I think it can be, but only of your business is monolithic. My work affects and spans offices in 3 time zones, and very disparate ones at that. I have a few local colleagues, but I can’t think of a situation where talking over the wall or desk has been more effective than a slack message or a call.
Fair enough. My main work experience is at a smaller startup that has a heavy focus on collaboration so my opinion is biased towards that. In my experience trivial things can be solved with a slack message/call but I greatly prefer in-person interaction for more in-depth debugging, etc. But I understand how that’s not necessarily applicable to all situations.
My main concern, and the reason I posted the above comment, is I think companies may over -correct with hybrid work models. For those that prefer office work a hybrid work model is barely better than a remote-only culture; the office loses its benefits when everyone isn’t there. I’m not arguing these remote-only/remote-first cultures shouldn’t exist - in many cases they provide large advantages - but think there will be a significant desire for office-only environments for those that prefer office work.
I’m not arguing you should. But there are undoubtedly some people who would. And a hybrid work environment is detrimental to those who want that in-person experience. There should be opportunities for remote-only/remote-first cultures and in-person only jobs going forward. My argument is that a hybrid model misses the point - you lose almost all the benefits of in-person work in the process.
EDIT: I’m a new employee as well, just so it doesn’t seem like I’m projecting what new employees would want without at least some personal experience
- Companies go back to the office, but with more of an onsite/remote split and better support for it
- Companies that reject remote and return to the office fully
- A whole host of companies that go fully remote, or start as a fully remote
Given the experience we've all had during COVID, employees will thus be now better able to self-select to work for companies within the above scenarios.
Therefore, this position feels pretty transient to me intuitively, although given Gitlab spearheaded its creation maybe my intuition is completely off?
Regardless, I personally loathe the expansion of HR in the modern org in terms of their jurisdiction, visibility and power and this position seems to be just another tentacle on the beast. As with everything HR related, it also feels like once it exists it won't not exist.
I'm really hoping for the first. Pre-COVID I was pretty happy with WFH 2 or 3 days a week (sometimes Monday/Friday to bookend the week if possible). But this way I also still get to work with people in person at least a couple days a week. I'm definitely not the type to want to be working by myself at home all week.
I think it's quite likely as a long term trend for a big enough number of companies.
Face to face meetings are much higher bandwidth than anything tech can offer us so it will remain a competitive advantage for at least a while. Also most people are sociable and yes, work counts, too.
I'd bet on a split something like this 10 years from now: 60-80% split, 10-20% no remote, 10-20% fully remote.
I'm inclined to think the first two groups will be split more evenly (with <= 10% WFH being counted in the second group). There are plenty of people who will drift back towards "it's just easier when everyone's in the office..."
I work for a remote-first company that had both remote and onsite employees pre-pandemic. I could see value in such a role for making sure T's are crossed and I's are dotted to ensure the transition happens smoothly. Not only do you need technology for it, but culturally you need to be sure onsite employees make every meeting open to dialing in. So, now you have someone accountable in ensuring the entire organization is making changes (not just legal, or marketing, or engineering, etc).
I imagine companies that choose to do a split or go back to the office are doing so to justify an existing capital investment they've already made. At my 2k-person company there is overwhelming support to keep the office open as a place to socialize than for real productivity. Seems to me it might be cheaper to just give employees a small budget for recreation than to invest in facilities, security, food, and A/V so people can escape their kids every now and then.
126 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 194 ms ] thread> Lead Senior World Director of Marketing and Monetization, Research and Development.
His job was to make python script to make devs happy. I’ve never heard of that before.
The company went bankrupt after wasting 200M in venture money and generating 10K in revenue.
Was fascinating to be part of that experience. Nothing was being done , just a bunch of people making brainstorms all day long while 10 devs were doing everything and being told to change idea every other day.
Was a relief when I quit after few months, when I look back at it no doubt it was a who’s the "coolest of the club" culture. No actual talent was there.
That's kind of nice.
Once a project grows a certain size if you have the budget for it it's cool to have a dedicated small team that takes care of the dev environment (maintaining the build and test pipeline, adding static analysis and making sure there's some working default config for at least one IDE). Also take care of the commit hooks and helps out when migrating language and tool versions.
Ever speak with someone with a <blink>Fancy Ass Title</blink> only to discover the person severely lacks the experience and thoughtfulness you'd expect from the title? Depends on the company, of course, but it happens at startups and corporations alike.
However, there is some utility in recognizing when someone flaunts a lofty title aggressively, they are most certainly not the person you should be dealing with to get something done properly.
While I've enjoyed remote work a lot, I don't think it's here to stay. For places that will allow employees to start going remote 100%, if even a minority of the team returns to the office and has daily facetime with management, those other remote employees will return IMO.
In other words, post COVID, if your company isn't 100% remote then I don't think anyone will be full remote there, it's a disadvantage.
Infra-office (ie in person) for the high bandwidth interfaces, usually the whole team is in the same office.
Inter-office for lower bandwidth interfaces, ie between teams and functions.
You definitely have some interactions that are effectively remote, say if your project involves working closely with $remote_team, but in general the highest-order terms in the equation should be in office, if you are doing a traditional WFO org.
For me, I preferred blend. (Caveat: office ~25 minutes away, some on-site campus amenities including dining, and WFH included scheduling flexibility)
I could slot annoying business-hours-only chores into my WFH days, or shift work earlier and later if I needed to be there for a kid thing.
And 2 days of that a week felt about right. I got the facetime and meeting stuff done my other 3, and had quieter, individual progress time those 2.
Good point, as I imagine my satisfaction in both scenarios would have decreased with a mandatory shared space.
Although, for a while we were "homeless", leading to ~30 minutes a day trying to find an office / conference room to squat in.
And if there isn’t you can’t work from an office anyway.
Pre-COVID I was one of 3 remote people on my team, rest worked from the office. This arrangement didn’t cause any obvious problems.
:(
Related reading: The Job Status Cycle https://chiefofstuff.substack.com/p/the-job-status-cycle
> Phase 3: Harvest > Competition intensifies as New Title attracts more and more interest. Momentum from the high status of the earlier phases begins to be overwhelmed by declining exclusivity. Hiring managers and recruiters have caught on and start repainting old job descriptions.
Realistically though, that type of job exists in politics but it simply doesn't exist in business. The WH COS-type duties should be handled by a COO, Managing Director, EVP, etc. Any time I've seen COS used in a Silicon Valley context it's a glorified secretary/scheduler.
Absolutely agreed. Look at how effective Valve has been with a non-hierarchical culture!
I've listened to some of the design commentaries for the game, and I was really impressed at how much time, effort and user testing Valve was willing to put in to every detail. VR is a new medium, and it's impressive to see an organization learn how to take advantage of it so thoroughly. It takes a special culture to make space for people to try things and indulge in perfectionism—takes a lot of money too, of course, but other AAA studios have just as much but don't hew to the same standard.
I know Valve's approach is controversial and I'm sure it's not perfect, but it's clearly doing something right that very few other companies are. I've seen small teams work in ways like that, but never at scale. One of these days I'd love to work at a company trying something like that. (Probably not in video game development though :P.)
Alyx, once it gained steam, ended up turning into a hierarchical project and the largest in the company history, and was the only way Source 2 ever got finished (since they now had people waiting on it to get the game working). And it worked, as we finally now have proof that VR is a great way to tell stories. The book is excellent, and goes on sale often on Steam.
(A decent summary of the book is here: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/07/valve-secrets-spill-o...)
They are also extremely selective when it comes to hiring (they are fairly small but get applicants from literally all over). So that some approach worked for Valve won't necessary work for RandomCo Inc where software is viewed as a cost center, simply because they can't attract the same caliber of talent.
The Alyx story you link is probably a great example of the greatest strength being diversity: where diversity often means breaking your own rules when appropriate.
Even the Roman Republic's Senate reserved the power to appoint an omnipotent dictator in times of need.
I know Github had kind of similar culture in the beginning, with flat hierarchy, but that changed at some point. Then there's Zappos which is famous for their holacratic approach, but earlier this year I've read some articles saying that internally they move away from that model.
To the SV startups I have interacted with (both myself and through friends) culture can be used as the excuse to hire “people like us”.
Do away with most management? And then what? 30,000 employees all steer the ship in the right direction by sheer "individual accountability and focus on results"? Well that gave me a good laugh.
Culture is overrated? That's literally the only thing that prevents work from becoming a sterile factory.
What corporate BS?
But to them I say, at least we can vote where we want to whittle our lives away, right? Choose the people and products we work with and on.
You're free to work at "do your work" Coinbase if you want. Or "everyone is now a vegan" WeWork.
You can choose to build spy tech, ad pipes, weapons systems. It's all up to you.
People complaining about culture (or defending it) might be making different choices than you.
I started a company and was always a “leave me alone to do it my way” individual contributed, and it took a huge amount of effort on my part to remove that bias of how I like to work, so I could effectively manage people who don’t work best that way.
Culture by the way, is just a common ground tying people together to make everything a little less transactional. I have some transactional people and I tend to be that way myself, but most of our team enjoys shared memories, values, etc. they are the ice breaker between most people that otherwise wouldn’t have the desire or reason to hang out, but are forced to by work. Most people actually recognize this as a tool and happily play the game.
Yes, you have more time to be productive from home but since you aren’t sitting with your team all day, your manager has to work harder making sure everyone knows what everyone else is doing and they’re all pushing in the same direction. Culture is the norms of how that happens, so it makes sense to hire people who know how to do that well.
Some people just want to go to work and do their job.
Know the audience. Think of the most unnecessarily difficult people to work with in a given tech workplace - they make up about 75% of the users here. The other 25% are broken into aspiring entrepreneurs, reasonable ICs and Reddit migrants who are still trying to find their feet.
>Do away with most management? And then what? 30,000 employees all steer the ship in the right direction by sheer "individual accountability and focus on results"? Well that gave me a good laugh.
Same crowd will balk at any suggestion around deriving accountability quantitatively. These rugged individualist coder wolves just need to be unleashed to let their genius flow, man.
>Culture is overrated? That's literally the only thing that prevents work from becoming a sterile factory.
See above. Why would the most unnecessarily difficult people to work with want a workplace that promotes working with others?
Curious, why do you think so? Its hard for me to see any correlation with social/tech news consumption and being difficult to work with.
There is a difference between everyone being cold and taking it to such an extreme, everyone has to essentially be, ironically, the same robot in the rainbows and sunshine "work family".
>Well that gave me a good laugh.
Pulling out random numbers (goes for grandparent and your comment) doesn't help. Many people work in 1:5 manager:dev overhead, often more, due to multiple management layers all applying pressure on the bottom level. Not everyone is mentally a child that still needs to be babysat while an adult. Heck, college, university and all that are exactly there to ensure one is self-sufficient to an extend you don't need to manually moderate their every move.
It is fairly ironic you're devolving into the same behavior you accuse GP of, when a much more intellectual discussion can be held.
Even improving morale has an ulterior motive- to boost productivity for profit. It is fine as corporations' sole purpose is to give shareholders value, but don't color it around HR bs to fool people. As least most companies are this way, the exceptions are few. People are not dumb once they realize they are disposable and start smelling the bs.
I think why most people complain about management is due to their false sense of leadership and character, pretending to be virtuous, while stabbing workers in the back (i.e. hypocrisy). There are not many good managers or employers- most lack real leadership or morals
If by "culture" you mean, a group of people with the same attitudes and goals- there is no denying that humans work better in groups. Just keep the "do-good" BS out please...unless you really meant it by embodying those ideals- living as example.
To me, culture is the individual accountability and focus on results that you describe, plus humility, freedom to take initiative, mentorship, empathy, perseverance, personal growth, conflict resolution... and this absolutely is defined by the people you choose to work with and behavior of the leadership.
I used to be in your camp and think culture was a ridiculous thing to focus on, now I'm in the camp where I believe it's the most important part of successful teams.
Many years ago I experienced a company lose an authentically good culture, and turn into an average shitty one in less than a year. I have to disagree.
Just because the average shitty ones still talk about culture and pretend they have it, doesn't mean a good culture isn't important.
When people say “culture” they usually mean...
- My company treats developers like rockstars; everyone else minus executives is treated like shit. “Ninjas & unicorns!”
- My company doesn’t have HR or need it. “Who needs HR? It’s only for women, losers and SJWs.”
- My company doesn’t have security and risk processes for handling user data or anything else. “Everybody’s root!!!”
- My company has cool perks like a game room, free beer, no vacation limits and a chef on staff; but everyone is underpaid compared to market. “I know they pay me 85k to be a senior dev but at least I got beer!”
It was a place where people were made to feel welcome, got listened to, were trusted, cared about and helped each other, were free to be themselves, could freely and honestly express their opinions to execs without repercussions etc.
People were given chances to grow into new roles, and their knowledge from the previous ones was valued (no roles were looked down on). It had the right amount of management (not too much, not too little), and they took good management seriously as something to empower people rather than control them.
A lot of it was built from the ground up rather than imposed from above, and there was not a lot of money thrown at it.
All that can be destroyed much faster than it can be built.
- People are comfortable giving and receiving feedback
- Expectations and priorities are open and honest
- Work/life balance is seriously respected
- Managers serve their reports, not the other way around
I've also worked at companies where the company created a culture with artificial team building tricks, and without exception it led to a shitty environment where HR and political schemers screwed over both the company and their fellow employees for petty gain.
I run process oriented companies
Would I add a beer keg-refrigerator aka "kegerator" to keep some 25 year olds from considering other companies for 3 months longer than they would anyway? sure
Would I allow the work place to be used as a surrogate for their social causes? no - actually maybe if it needed to court advertisers all the time, but otherwise no because that was not the point of the business entity.
Would I hire an operations person to plan social things for employees to look forward to because I don't care about that at all? maaaaaaaaaybe
I never needed that stuff, clock in, clock out, nobody is really on the clock just meet your goals
For me, location is more important. What can you do in walking distance after work? I tend to keep my social circles separate, I don't want my colleagues or employees around.
The jobs I loathed the most had car-only commutes to office parks.
The jobs I enjoyed the most were in trendy parts of towns.
I think the people that attracts are heavily correlated and makes the culture on its own.
This has extra benefits too. You don't want to turn the office into a bar for quite obvious reasons, but having it in the office makes it convenient. A lot of senior will skip off-site events because they have a family to go back to. But one beer and leave? Sure.
Why speak in absolutes when it absolutely is not conveying a shared message.
Same here. In a way, location can be thought of to be one of the most concrete parts of office culture. In NYC, where I've spent a lot of my work life, it's amazing how much of a proxy office location was for founder style. For some founders, a chic location wasn't prioritized or seen as ROI positive. For others, it was the exact opposite.
All I can say is that for the former category, the value-add generally far outweighed the outlay for a very crucial and formative period of its life. At a certain size, logistical concerns like price per square foot and available commercial inventory become a lot more pressing concerns.
Exactly. Companies that have terrible culture project the need for a good one to get out in front of the accusation that their leadership failed in actually establishing a good one.
What results? Sure, making money is the final result we want to measure, but how do you determine how much each person contributes to the bottom line?
So we need to set objectives so we can measure results, then we need some way to measure results, some way to compare results across different objectives, some way to evaluate if our objectives and measures are working....
And suddenly you have management and 'culture'
I don't understand people who say we just need to 'focus on results'.... that is even more useless as saying "we just need to focus on making money"
We all know the end result we want (making money), but the hard part is figuring out how.
Take the example of a basketball team, where at least the objectives and measurement technique is well known... you have to score more points than the opponent. Even then, putting together a team is not simple. Which combination of players will produce the best outcome? Which players are good but on bad teams? What strategy should the team employ?
Your concept of work being a series of contractual outsourcing arrangements already IS how our economy works. The issue is that most things we create can't be made by one person, so the contract to make something is subcontracted out to many people who sign contracts with the one main contractor... and suddenly you have a company.
The management GP refers to is the one that tends to develop from people attempting to keep their jobs. Bureaucrats, like most people, are primarily about self-preservation, not about making themselves obsolete.
When one finds a method that allows half the management layer to do all the work, do you really think most of those managers are willing to just give up their cushy jobs? Of course not. Allen Hobub commented on this in "The Death of Agile": if all of us truly were agile, and managers would find themselves in this position, they would shift their job to deliver value in a different form (read: less management activities). Instead, we encourage Scrum, which largely rebrands managers and keeps them around, just with a different name. The real danger is that of cargo-culting, which is just stuff being there for the sake of it, or for self-preservation.
Having someone who controls for results is good. Having 10 people do the work of 1 person is horribly inefficient, and in case of technically-deficient managers, often to the detriment of the executing layer: they can't help you do your task, only act like a secretary (and often they just relay the message to you anyway. So much for that.)
It is also interesting how culture changes from 6 people startup to 600 people mid-sized company. Culture is best when its pull rather than push; when a large company imposes culture on you, it is natural to feel that its foreign and you're forced to adopt it. Compare this with a small group of people that you truly enjoy being with, solving problems, expressing frustrations and listening to their woes - you can create a microculture of your own which I only see as a positive thing. I do think that its better in a physically close setting like an office-space than being completely remote.
You can either let it grow organically or try to guide it at least a bit. And there is a reason we study for intellectual endeavors and train for physical ones.
We never learn our lessons, you can't just hire someone into a role and have them change your company. It's just slightly more naive then hiring a digital change management consultant. As far as I'm concerned, hiring a head of remote for a remote company or a head of culture or a head of digital or a head of innovation is a sign that your leadership doesn't know what to do or doesn't think the thing is important enough to spend their time listening to their employees, diving into themselves and cultivating the "head of" _____ . It's pretty tone deaf.
So it's possible that Darren “oracle of remote work” Murph is useful. He's certainly mastered the self-promotion consultant schtick.
Slapping a "scrum master" sticker onto someone doesn't make them useful. And if I was pondering delegating some much needed remotefulness stuff, I'd probably eschew a lifestyle media celebrity.
Terry Tate disagrees: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzToNo7A-94
Happy holidays! :)
Personally, I have worked, and managed remote teams for the last 15+ years. The one thing I realized was that if this scales beyond the typical 5+ close-knit team, there should be one person whose only job is make sure the remote teams are "working."
I would treat this akin to a Project Manager but knows how to tweak things for remote. I have wrote few Job Descriptions with the designation in the lines of "Remote Team Liaison", which is more of syntactic sugar for "Head", "Lead".
However, I'd love that this is one of the characteristics of almost every Project Manager, HR, etc. instead of a separate person.
An office is at its most effective when everyone is there to collaborate; it loses most of its benefits when only some people are in person. Because of this I think there will be many companies advertising themselves as office-only as a benefit.
My main concern, and the reason I posted the above comment, is I think companies may over -correct with hybrid work models. For those that prefer office work a hybrid work model is barely better than a remote-only culture; the office loses its benefits when everyone isn’t there. I’m not arguing these remote-only/remote-first cultures shouldn’t exist - in many cases they provide large advantages - but think there will be a significant desire for office-only environments for those that prefer office work.
EDIT: I’m a new employee as well, just so it doesn’t seem like I’m projecting what new employees would want without at least some personal experience
- Companies go back to the office, but with more of an onsite/remote split and better support for it
- Companies that reject remote and return to the office fully
- A whole host of companies that go fully remote, or start as a fully remote
Given the experience we've all had during COVID, employees will thus be now better able to self-select to work for companies within the above scenarios.
Therefore, this position feels pretty transient to me intuitively, although given Gitlab spearheaded its creation maybe my intuition is completely off?
Regardless, I personally loathe the expansion of HR in the modern org in terms of their jurisdiction, visibility and power and this position seems to be just another tentacle on the beast. As with everything HR related, it also feels like once it exists it won't not exist.
Face to face meetings are much higher bandwidth than anything tech can offer us so it will remain a competitive advantage for at least a while. Also most people are sociable and yes, work counts, too.
I'd bet on a split something like this 10 years from now: 60-80% split, 10-20% no remote, 10-20% fully remote.
Went back to an office. Was much happier.
Beginning to feel the same way again.
A better role were I actually interacted with people during the day would be a major help. But hard to predict when interviewing