Hacker News Reader

Comment by 0xbear | Hacker News Reader

Our CEO is strictly a 9 to 5 dude. CTO, too. And this is at a startup, I imagine if this was an established company, they wouldn’t even show up. In general they just push the responsibility onto the people who are willing to take it, and then claim credit for their success. That, in short, is how to be a C*O.

View on HN

Is it bad to be a 9 to 5 executive? That sounds great from the perspective of the people working there, because then there isn't a culture of overwork.

It kind of is if you demand more than that from everyone else. A peon is killing himself for 0.5% equity while you’re sitting pretty on a 40% stake. It’s not like people are dumb or blind.

Hopefully you have a salary you are happy with. If you decided to take .5% instead of money you are are betting on the company, at 40% the CEO is putting a bigger bet. The success of the company is something they are responsible for and if it fails it direct affects them and their career prospects. A failed company doesn't reflect badly on a developer and does not follow them into interviews.

My stake is considerably larger than that. It’s what we’re offering to a great new hire. Guys in their mid 20’s, super talented, but nevertheless don’t have a clue.

And enough with this “making a bet” bullshit. Founders aren’t betting their own money, and they are getting paid considerable salaries for their work. IOW they aren’t risking anything. Not even opportunity cost.

Most founders work very hard (without pay) for a long time before getting funded/profitable--if they ever get funded/profitable. Most of their 'reward' comes down to taking this risk, and it definitely has a high opportunity cost.

I wonder why you are not a founder then if it is such a win-win situation as you paint it?

We’re not long time pals with the CEO, like they are with CTO. The company is basically built on my work, and will die if I leave.

You don't sound like you're happy there. Perhaps you should consider leaving.

Just found your own company if it’s a win/win life/work balance-wise

CxO may not be paid salary at all or even finance the whole thing from their personal resources

It can be different in a very early stage startup but generally a CxO's job isn't to do the grunt work. It's to set direction/vision, create opportunity and ensure there is money in the bank. That's why you have a job. If you don't like it you could always do what they did and go out on your own. If you do that be prepared to live with daily existential dread and possibly a realisation that you don't have the skills to do what they are doing. Desk time is a very bad indicator of performance.

> It's to set direction/vision, create opportunity and ensure there is money in the bank.

Getting funding I understand, but the other 2 are so nebulous and/or trivial sounding it's no wonder people sometimes make fun of those roles.

I take it you've never had that weight of expectation? If it were so trivial everyone would be a billionaire. Deciding what to do and what not to do is no easy task.

That's quite a claim. Maybe it's other things preventing people from being billionaires, like the fact that there are so few CEO positions, for starters.

They don’t even do that. :-)

I don't know about your CEO, but reality is that people of different talent levels can work more/less than others of different talent levels and still succeed. Hard truth!

My general recommendation to those who feel they're working too much is to 'demote' themselves to a position of lower responsibility / talent requirements.

Normally delegation is the answer...

It's unfortunate that you're being downvoted. Your attitude towards work hours may not be popular to hear but I think it's a very common one to bear, especially if your CEO isn't performing as much as they are demanding themselves.

I think the downvoting came from the bit about pushing responsibility on to others. Because that's exactly what great managers are supposed to do. You hire talented people and then you oversee their schedules while trusting them to do their job.

The only time you really need to step in is if something goes wrong. Maybe they are working in a wrong direction, maybe here is a conflict or an obstacle, or maybe they over/underperform.

Great managers do that when they can no longer cope, or feel the person can do a better job, not when they want to work 4 hours a day.

Oh the strawman 4-hour work day executive, I made it almost ten minutes into reading the comments before finding it here. In your original comment your executives are working 8 hours a day, now it's 4?

Good managers push work down as a rule, not when they "can no longer cope."

That’s how long they are at work, not how long they’re actually doing work.

I have a friend who shows up late every day. But when shows, he knows what everybody on his team needs to be doing. He has connections all over his organization, so he knows who to call to get things done. He was replaced by a guy who shows on time every day, but he is totally lost.

I am a strict 9 a 5 guy. I believe in sustainable projects. Wisely choose your priorities, make progress every day, and your projects will be successful in the near term as well as in the long term.

"Push work down" is a pretty fundamental aspect of management in general, not just executive management. The alternative is the CEO trying to do literally everything. Good managers focus on leading their employees, do the "real work" that they're very good at (if they have any time left after managing their employees), and push the rest down to the next level.

This article is great for those who view the parent comment optimistically http://firstround.com/review/give-away-your-legos-and-other-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com