If you have any good investors, and at this point I somehow doubt it, this comment just made them shit in their pants and/or write off their investment in you.
I strongly encourage you to learn to listen to the folks around you carefully, especially the experienced ones. Sometimes the folks with no skin in the game are the only people who will give you an accurate picture of what’s going on.
If you are “shunning” any of your employees for any reason, then you’ve got major problems.
If you don’t think experienced (older) people don’t have at least some of the answers and treat them accordingly, then you’ve got major problems. This is true even if they don’t come in with a perfect attitude — note that attitude can usually be fixed with gentle prodding from a skilled leader.
If you think that one has to have (significant?) exposure to downsides to have any of the answers, then you’ve got major problems.
If you haven’t given your employees enough information and enough autonomy to help move your company in the right direction, then you’ve got major problems.
Best of luck... I’m afraid to say that I think you will need a healthy dose of it.
I’ve never seen any place in business, non-profit or government where that was a scenario that would benefit the employee unless the employee was very politically savvy, was in a very senior position and had special circumstances (past relationships, etc)
The article says very specifically:
"The team underneath the founders should feel like they have the right, and the responsibility, to talk to the Board and investor group when founder dysfunction gets really bad. In general the idea of the team going around the leaders to the Board is a big “no no” in startup land, but there are a few places where that needs to happen, like outing illegal or dishonest actions, or harassment. Likewise, if the co-founder relationship is so bad that the company is being seriously harmed, the team should feel a responsibility to come to the Board with that information."
I stand by this.
I especially take issue with this:
"The team underneath the founders should feel like they have the right, and the responsibility, to talk to the Board and investor group when founder dysfunction gets really bad. In general the idea of the team going around the leaders to the Board is a big “no no” in startup land, but there are a few places where that needs to happen, like outing illegal or dishonest actions, or harassment. "
Had this been the case we would not have had scandals at Zenefits and Uber. The big no-no in a startup land is no stop looking like a cash cows for VCs.
If the founders are behaving unethically or illegally, the board has already failed to fulfill its duty. “Don’t kill the messenger” is rarely reality.
he just didn't like the language i used (it's blunt, and describes a social dynamic he's probably upset about). he forgot all about what's actually being discussed here, which is an IC-level employee vocalizing to the co-founders/executives and board about the direction/strategy/highlevel leadership of the company.
Your comment about tone, even if its regarding your own--or other's perception of it--brings no value to this discussion. Arguably it brings negative value.
Did you create this account to vent a fantasy personality that you're restraining in real life?
cheers.
Organizations are distributed human reasoning systems. If your culture, personalities or incentives prevent people from sharing key insights, you are hampering your ability to execute.
i think what that just means you worship venture capitalists and fluffy language they espouse (in a cynically false way, i might add) over real world descriptors.
i started my business specifically to dramatically mitigate the possibility that small concentrations of people will have any financial leverage over me.
Note that the original post is from a VC, and the context of this thread is a discussion of someone talking to a board member without the knowledge of the founders. Also note that the article itself mentioned specific contexts in which this should be done:
"The team underneath the founders should feel like they have the right, and the responsibility, to talk to the Board and investor group when founder dysfunction gets really bad. In general the idea of the team going around the leaders to the Board is a big “no no” in startup land, but there are a few places where that needs to happen, like outing illegal or dishonest actions, or harassment. Likewise, if the co-founder relationship is so bad that the company is being seriously harmed, the team should feel a responsibility to come to the Board with that information."
This all seems valid to me. It also seems like situations in which it is reasonable to step "into conversations in which you have no context and no skin in the game".
FWIW, I don't drink the VC kool-aid, and I discourage others from doing so unless they have a very specific business context that is appropriate for VCs (most folks don't). That said, I am a fan of people in a wide range of fields to develop their fundamental skills in leadership and management, and I get the sense based on your comments that your fundamentals are lacking.
If you think otherwise, please step out from behind your throwaway and let us know about you and your company. I am sure that your posts here will reap huge benefits in recruiting and retention.
> if you want to be involved at the upper levels, nothing is stopping you. you just need to either find that job, or create one for yourself.
I'd imagine many engineers are coming at it from a slightly different perspective. They're used to being able to self-teach. They're used to REPLs, where getting instant feedback is easy. They're used to having the luxury of rapidly iterating on failure before they get it right. They're used to a world of technical decisions where being smart and right is often enough to win.
Trying the same process with management bites them in the ass, and disillusions them.
It sounds like you envy their freedom to put their head down as much as they envy your freedom to _matter_.
Ultimately, you're not totally wrong, but complaining about the symptoms without treating the cause isn't productive.
I couldn't disagree more. Not only is this is an excellent way to create a top-heavy echo chamber in your company--which is counterproductive to problem-solving--but also lower tier employees will end up feeling like tools rather than contributors. Frankly put, this mindset comes across as very arrogant.
Having a business puts you in a good position to get funding or customers for a new venture. The same labor market for your employees benefits you if you yourself have any technical skills worth mentioning.
And your employees might care if they actually had a profit share in how the company did, or saw some direct upside when they did their job better or worse--which is usually not the case. Why break their back for an entitled owner resents them for knowing the value of their labor?
You sound like somebody with the typical founder hubris.
which is sort of what i was alluding to in my last comment.
Your last paragraph of "no context, no skin in game" is the same projection you accuse me of. How many workers have to deal with the fallout of arrogant founder decisions? They've got skin in the game too, just no agency. They probably have even more context than you, if they've been paying attention to numbers or if they have their own experience as founders.
If you think I paint an unfair or incorrect picture, by all means try to make a case.
well, so far, zero.
i think this thread is just you venting at me for having an opinion, because there's this image in your head of a mustache twirling asshole.
It should've been obvious that I was talking about workers in the general sense, not at your company.
If, on the other hand, you were being serious, I genuinely hope that you grow up and learn to lead before you flush anymore investor money down the toilet.
i'm a co-founder/executive of a small technology company. i have employees that used to be in my position when they were younger, but now they want to just do their jobs and go home.
in other words, they don't have intense, heated discussions about strategy, make firing and hiring decisions, make large spending decisions, discuss the financial bookkeeping side of the business, try to raise money from or sell to really unpleasant people, soothe angry customers and employees, because they don't want to. they don't want their work day interrupted by a bunch of anxiety-ridden executive half-conversations and rants with no real conclusions or answers.
almost none of their personal money is on the line, and very little of their potential income is on the line. they can go and find another 100k job tomorrow, they could possibly even make MORE money at their next job just by the dumb luck of losing their current one. did you ever think about that?
but... now here's the part you won't like: the reason you hold your opinion is because you want something more than what you have now. and that fundamental mis-alignment is going to cause you some level of frustration, because you think of yourself as a shot caller, when you aren't (or, more specifically, don't have to be). and when you're told what to do you get resentful, because you think you know better. well, maybe you do, maybe you don't. but you don't write the checks, and that's what a business is.
if you want to be involved at the upper levels, nothing is stopping you. you just need to either find that job, or create one for yourself.
stepping into conversations in which you have no context and no skin in the game is a real fast way to get yourself shunned because you have shared NONE of the downside but you walk in the door like you have all the answers. quite frankly, that's bullshit. and quite frankly, even if it isn't, you don't have any influence in that situation so it's irrelevant.