Comment by davi | Hacker News Reader

Comment by davi | Hacker News Reader

Thanks. A few things caught my attention which haven't been discussed yet in this thread:

that was some of the nicest work I ever did -- it's interesting how destructive processes can also produce great work. (This is not to say that the results are worth the destruction.)

Take the feedback you receive and use it to improve the product but unless something is really trivial it is better to sell what you have than to make some promise you can not keep -- another general lesson I would take away is, "be very wary when the salesperson is allowed to write the spec". I bet this is true across all business domains.

Fred never did hire a replacement, and hoped that I would stay on because I would not let my buddies down. -- I think this dynamic is built into the business models of some companies, especially consultancies. You feel guilty if you go home to sleep while your friends are coding 'til their eyes bleed, even when the overwork is brought about by extrinsic factors (see above).

>> You feel guilty if you go home to sleep while your friends are coding 'til their eyes bleed, even when the overwork is brought about by extrinsic factors (see above).

Been through that at the early stage of my career. It was a startup too. Right now if anybody trying to pull that out with me, its not going to happen again. If they should hire more people but not hiring, then its their problem. I'm not staying more than I should, and if I put on extra time (funny that I still do this a lot, I guess I just love what I do), its on my terms. Not happy, then let me know when to quit.

I also found out that when you go through the extra mile a lot, without proper compensation, they will treat you cheap. In a way, its sort of true, since if we put more effort that we are paid for, then we are cheap in that sense. Its easier to get respect when you just stick to your guns and politely declined those request for extra effort unless its paid up for. You may not get what you demanded, but its easier for them to treat you with respect (oddly!).

The lesson that I learned from my version of failed startup is that you should have the funder/entrepreneur to know the trade. Warren Buffet says never invest on anything that you do not understand. If the funder/investor/entrepreneur does not know the trade, then there is no way they could tell that you are telling the truth, other than pushing your buttons. And they will push your buttons, as much as they can get away with.

Its a good lesson learned, and I'm glad I'm through. But there is no way I am going through that again.

>I think this dynamic is built into the business models of some companies, especially consultancies. You feel guilty if you go home to sleep while your friends are coding 'til their eyes bleed, even when the overwork is brought about by extrinsic factors (see above).

why do programmers allow this tactic to work?

This is the problem; if you give me better work when I pressure you and treat you like shit than when I treat you respectfully and let you set your own hours, what do you think the result will be?

I think that tactic only works on the inexperienced (with people), as I was.

If you tried such a trick on me today I'd catch on in 5 seconds flat.

Part of it lies in that programmers are fascinated by technology, which means that if you give us shiny toys to play with and the occasional interesting puzzle to solve we'll take a good bit of abuse before throwing in the towel. We're also much too eager to show that we can do stuff.

Another part is that you have - as an inexperienced froggie - too little feeling to sense that the temperature in the pot is rising and that if you don't jump out now you may lose your ability to jump at all.

Finally, and perhaps crucially, the more you have invested in a project like this the harder it becomes to walk away.

If you work harder when I put a gun to your head, why shouldn't I do that all the time?

We aren't nice to people because it makes them work better, instead we "aren't nasty" to people because it's nasty.

If people can maintain a sustainable advantage through being nasty, those that are willing to be nasty will rise to the top.

I think that relying on feelings of "don't be nasty" to keep businesspeople in check in the face of nastiness that confers sustainable advantages is... not so sustainable. Some people /enjoy/ being nasty. So yeah, we have to build the world we want, and social mores are strong things.

One thought, from a market efficiency perspective, is that when I see an apparent sustainable advantage to being nasty, when there are successful people not being nasty in that way, is that maybe it's not as much of a sustainable advantage as it seems?

In this case, I think that jacquesm nailed it when he pointed out that this can happen, at most, one time for each programmer, and relying on only fresh programmers is difficult, just because without past experience, it's very difficult to judge the quality of a programmer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com