I would never work for Jason Calacanis - There, I said it
marcgayle.com
marcgayle.com
Says Calacanis: "... the majority of Gen Y seem to operating under the bizarre rallying cry of: More money! Less responsibility! Shorter hours! No stress! More freedom! It’s all about me!"
Yeah, shame on the employees for wanting better job conditions and admitting they actually care about own interest.
That thread put people into hysterics.
You had people rallying behind the opposing flags of "work like damn dirty apes and love us for it!" and "we want our paternity leave and paid vacation!".
Blood was spilt. :(
I bet we should totally buy your book too.
Speak for yourself here or submit the link. That's how this place works. This isn't a blogroll subscribe-fest between a bunch of aspiring "SEOs".
I don't require that people subscribe to my [blog/newsletter/cult newsgroup] in order to hear my opinion on the subject at hand and you don't merit special treatment either.
Do you read what you write?
a) We have amazing job conditions: organic food cooked all day by our chefs, laundry service, car washing, personal trainers, unlimited monitors, killer espresso machine, developer-driven product design, etc.
b) My point is it is fine to care about your own interests--but not more than the mission and success of the company. There is no 'i' in team, and you either succeed as a team or you fail as a team.
That's the reality of startups, so the players who are concerned with their stat line are not the players you want on your team.
About 2/3rds of the Gen Y folks I meet at thinking of themselves first and the company 2nd or 3rd--if at all in some cases.The other 1/3rd are hard working, dedicated and have a sense of Giri.
Based on the system that we live in, everybody tends to benefit, when (in aggregate) everybody looks out for their self-interest. If they are not allowed to, there are distortions which actually impairs the benefits to both parties.
For instance, if employees look out for their own self-interest, they will do everything to get the best benefits. Likewise, if the company looks out for its own self-interest, it will aggressively try to attract the best talent. By doing that, they force existing employees to look out for their own self-interest by being the best they can be (i.e. as good as, or better than, incoming employees). Also, when companies aggressively try to attract the best talent, they tend to do things like listen to what the talents want and employ those things (more paid sick time, cafeterias, the best development machines, reasonable working hours, etc.).
When employees are the best they can be, and their employer is not doing everything they can to retain them, they can leave. That forces the employer to become better at retaining employees - which forces other employers to do the same and creates a perpetuating cycle.
So when a company undermines that, by for instance cancelling sick leave, or forcing 80-hour work weeks into perpetuity, the short term effects are that employees will leave (if they are the best they can be at what they do, which we can assume they are otherwise they wouldn't be at the company) to greener pastures and if the company self corrects, they will once again attract and retain the best talent. If they don't self-correct, they will die. Perhaps a slow, long, death. Or just exist in limbo with lots of D class employees providing mediocre service.
We see this phenomena playing itself out in the Valley now between Google and Facebook. But it's not new. Before it was Yahoo and Google, Google and Microsoft, Microsoft and IBM, Apple and Microsoft, etc.
That's one of the reasons that I think that unions are a bad idea - because they distort this mechanism and allow employees to get lazy and not make sure they are the best at what they do (or add significant value in some other way).
Based on my theory, I think you are missing the idea. Forcing your employees to live through hell, but spraying their face with mist every now and then (with chefs, and laundry service - which were, quite ironically, forced on you by your other successful competitors) and telling them they are cool, doesn't make hell any cooler. At the end of the day, it's still hell. And they know it.
I don't believe that you would have a chef, laundry service, car washing, etc. if Google, Facebook, et al. didn't have similar services and you weren't competing with them. That, however, is just based on what I have deduced from public statements that you have made - so that could be wrong.
Isn't that the basic premise of Game Theory? and more specifically the Nash Equilibrium? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium)
For instance, based on that Wikipedia article:
>Stated simply, Amy and Bill are in Nash equilibrium if Amy is making the best decision she can, taking into account Bill's decision, and Bill is making the best decision he can, taking into account Amy's decision. Likewise, a group of players is in Nash equilibrium if each one is making the best decision that he or she can, taking into account the decisions of the others. However, Nash equilibrium does not necessarily mean the best cumulative payoff for all the players involved; in many cases all the players might improve their payoffs if they could somehow agree on strategies different from the Nash equilibrium (e.g., competing businesses forming a cartel in order to increase their profits).
That's not what my theory says.
The main thrust of my theory is that the players actually improve their payoffs if they make the best decisions (for themselves) that he or she can - without taking into account the decisions of the others. Because I believe, and this has to be tested of course, that if both parties do that, it will result in the best cumulative payoff for all the players involved. As opposed to the Nash equilibrium that 'encourages' players to do things like forming a cartel to improve profits - because in my theory, doing that will only lead to their eventual downfall because at some point another firm will do what is in it's own self-interest and expose the cartel. So everybody in the cartel would be worst off, but the one firm that sheds light on it, would be better off. It's an extreme version of virtuosity through extreme selfishness (if that makes any sense).
It could be that I got my theory from somewhere and just don't know the actual name, and if I did I would love to find that name. But I have not stumbled across it yet, and I guess in the back of my mind I am hoping that it is original thought.
"players actually improve their payoffs if they make the best decisions (for themselves) that he or she can "
-- the problem is that statistically, folks make bad decisions/ - often because, the motivation for that decision isnt clear.
motivations play a key role as well as the individuals understanding of fairness.
Jason is totally demanding and pushes everyone around him to their limits. Yes. True.
But, underneath all the bulldog, seriously the guy has a heart of gold. Sometimes he doesn't show it, and even he'd admit some level of narcissism, but from personal experience, I can fully say that working with Jason changed my career for the better in every way.
I originally worked with Jason at Weblogs, Inc., and as we were acquired by AOL, worked with him on the relaunch of Netscape. I went through a personal tragedy during the launch of the site, and Jason / the team were instrumental in me coming out of that with my wits about me.
To be clear: Jason is hard to work with. He does joust publicly, which I would attribute to his form of marketing.
I have absolutely no inside knowledge of his actual tactics, but my guess is he takes on someone who he knows people don't like, then points out their flaws over time, figuring eventually he'll come out on top since his side of the story looks so rosy by comparison. Oh, and he does this by being fairly hyperbolic. (Mainstream media, junkets in journalism, Gawker, Pay-to-play angels, SEOs, off the top of my head.)
That all aside, I think working with Jason set me up to have a wide-eyed view of startups. I treasured the experience, and while I think everyone should evaluate their personal limits carefully before embarking on a career with someone who will literally push all of them, I don't think anyone who's worked with him has regret the time they spent with Jason. That doesn't mean all of them want to work with him again... but I heartily encourage anyone who wants to be pushed to work with him. It will be a hugely rewarding experience professionally. It was for me, anyway.
I respect him for having the balls to say what he really thinks. Not many people do. However, I don't believe that he really believes everything he says. I think he has reached the point where he realizes the pay off (lots of attention), that it becomes naturally for everything he says to come out like that.
I am sure that many people would be pushed, but you can push people (and get the most out of them) without being a tyrant.
For instance, I played the violin for many years (save the 'he is a pussy for playing the violin' comments...kthnxbi) and had several teachers. I had a mix...some that were clearly doing it for just a paycheck (not pushing me enough), others that pushed me tyranically (a la Calacanis style) that I rebelled against and didn't perform like I knew I could, and my last one that was absolutely amazing at pushing me to leaps and bounds in a much shorter time than I had ever thought I could reach. So much so, that even though I spent an aggregate of 6 or 7 years with the first 2 or 3 and only progressed let's say '2 or 3' levels, with the last, in the space of 2 years, I progressed 6 or 7 levels and actually became a teacher myself - learning those same techniques of learning how people learn and how to get the best out of each individual and pushing them to achieve their best using a mechanism that will work with them.
So I say that to say, that every manager/leader wants the best out of their people. Some take a blanket approach (like Jason seems to have done) that, in my opinion, don't work in the long-run and in aggregate...and more importantly would never work for me. Hence the reason for my blog post.
Say what you will about him or his style but my experience was was a net positive and if you turn the clock back and I'd do it again.
On a minor side note: Am I the only one to notice that he seems to move quite a lot with his body during the interview?
Just wanted to set the record straight.
I don't roll like that ;)
I say clearly that you can start with a good domain that might cost only $10 to $2,000 and THEN use your VC/angel money to upgrade the domain later (like delicious did, for example).
$133k on domain names is insignificant. Don't be impressed by it... CNET owns $20M in domains, AOL owns $50m in domain names and there are many individuals who own millions.
My point in listing the domains I've gotten and how much I've spent for them is that it is a) not that expensive compared to the value they provide and b) that I've got some experience in this space and you might want to listen and read what I'm saying.
Please go back and a) re-read the piece and b) don't be so obsessed with big number.
jcal
http://launch.is/blog/2010/12/3/how-to-name-your-startup-and...
Despite his personality flaws, which we all have, the guy gives incredible advice that is actionable. And he does it consistently.
Most popular speakers that we admire give far less valuable advice. The usefulness of "Be passionate, do less" pales in comparison to "Be consistent, plan out segments, publish on the same day at the same time".
But he goes off on so many topics and said such crap some times, that it fully discounts all the great stuff he has said.
This is one of those things.
Besides, he doesn't just have 'personality' flaws. He seems to be such a genuine dick. Not the good type that produces insane quality stuff (a la Steve Jobs). The type that have gotten lucky, and think they are God's gift to everybody else, and are yet to keep producing. The fiasco surrounding him berating a now ex-exmployee and his falling out with Arrington and TechCrunch do nothing but confirm the prick that I think he is.
Time will tell how he fares.
If I were looking for Angel money, I would never take money from him either.
Can you imagine someone like that having leverage over you in any shape or form? Either a boss or an investor? Hell no!
But I wouldn't excuse Jobs, or anyone else, of having that kind of personality because it does trickle down into the business. Apple makes incredible products, but their customer support is miserable. I think it's so bad because the culture has become "We know better". That comes from the top.
You might not want to work for him, but you should at least respect his shtick is genius and very effective at getting coverage and links, which works nicely since his company is an SEO play.
Just ask Mike Tyson.
As it is, this is an attack based on a video interview. You have never even met the person and have zero first-hand knowledge.
Show me the engineers fighting to go work for him.
I give Mahalo 3 - 5 years before shutting their doors.
Hopefully that will humble him a bit.
I guess that depends on your motivation. Being your own boss is one reason to launch a startup.
But, being a boss doesn't give you the right to impose your value system on your employees.
Its sorta like paying disney employees with disney-bux for their bonuses.
Well, I think you missed Jason's point frankly. He said people who work for him end up going on to achieve great things, and that is true. Sean Percival, for instance, worked at Mahalo two years ago, and now he's the VP of Online Marketing at MySpace. A huge jump in two years (Percival was not a well-known figure when he started at Mahalo). It seems that many people can use Jason as a springboard. He is a great connection to have, and if you own stock, you can probably make a lot of money. (Mahalo will be sold to Demand Media in 2011, so yes, the product is "great," as in, it will have a solid exit, which is the point).
Different people respond better to different leadership styles. Some people could not stand playing for Bobby Knight. Others liked his "I'm going to challenge you until you break" style. It's really a matter of personal preference.
But all this has a good side for the entrepreneur... If Arrington and Jason keep fighting each other the entrepreneur benefits coz no single superpower rules tech media. They will both need to treat the entrepreneur with more respect than if they could "collude with each other" ;-).
Jason is notorious enough in the HN circles that if you choose to work for him after hearing all you have heard, you are either an idiot or a genius. Do the math of creating ur startup v/s joining him as an employee and if the math doesn't work out, don't bother to apply :-).
I remember reading a pg essay that each successive employee brings in less and less value... something like 1:1/4:1/9:...1/n^2
that is not hours of work but value. As the nth employee if you do not get what u deserve, for creating 1/n^2 of the value, just move on, else stay back.
I hope someone creates a startup that computes a desirability of working with various startups, angel investors and the like. Something like seatgeek with parameters like how handsomely the employees are rewarded, how tolerable the workplace is and so on. I guess there is a smooth curve from being the first employee to being the millionth. Each person can choose his own sweet spot.
So he thinks he is creating the next Google.
God help us if he is not wrong.
It's true that employees in a startup should be flexible: being willing to work late some days, work from home in an emergency, travel with a laptop (in return, startups are also more flexible: no one cares that you're not in your desk at 0930 or if you're working from home or a cafe).
However, eighty hour weeks usually happen for very specific reasons and are followed by less intense periods: it's not a generally applicable way of doing more with less. If you want to do more with less, hire better people (who frequently have other options available to them and won't work on a team that demands eight hour weeks as a matter of routine).
Absolutely true: as a software engineer, I'm extremely lucky to work on something I'm passionate about. I am not sure if other professions get the same luxury. I'm more than willing to stay until up wee hours in the morning, debugging non-blocking socket code (like I did this Wednesday) whether in a startup or not, because I actually enjoy this (both the intrinsically satisfying work like designing and implementing a new algorithm and less "glorious" work like this: a sign of a healthy organization is one that rewards both).
The impression Jason gives off is he wants clock punchers who punch the clock out at midnight and give the appearance of being busy.
For the most part, working with him has been a pleasant experience. He can flip out from time to time, often there's a good reason, sometimes not. He's not much more crazy than any other boss I've ever had, and his contributions to Mahalo far outweigh any of this.
On the plus side, we get sweet perks, our internal culture is awesome (because we don't get slackers on the team), and we're doing some very cool stuff on the technical side of things. (Expect to see more of that in the future, and if you're ever in LA, stop by the ScaleLA or LA Django meetups we host.)
That said, I'm a little dismayed that hacker news spends so much time gossiping about Jason. Get over it guys. If you don't want to work for him, don't. If you do, send over a resume.
Darren works 6 or 7 days a week because he loves what he is doing, and is learning a ton from Jason. Yes, he is tough and has high expectations. But, Jason is the best mentor and teacher around.
Jason isn't for everyone, but if you want to rise to the top really fast...a ride with Jason will get you there.
It's the attitude that he has - which we could excuse if his accomplishments were as big as he makes them seem like they are.
I am not diminishing the fact that he built a company from scratch and sold it to AOL for $30M. That's not a small feat, so don't get me wrong.
But, that happens almost every day in many industries. There are countless stories like that, and we don't see all of those CEOs acting like they are God's gift to technology. Jason acts like that, and quite frankly, when you compare him to his peers (the YouTube guys, Andreesen, Joshua Schacter, Max Levchin, etc.) - he comes up short.
As has been said so many times, the only people that I think has the right to act like that are Jobs, Gates, Bezos, etc. And they don't.
I wouldn't work for him. I wouldn't want him investing in my company. I would never partner with him.
There is no business relationship, that I can think of, that I would do with him.
But that's just my preference :)
Some of the words he uses like 'lame' and 'weak' kind of is dickish, but I don't think it's that crazy.
In a startup, which his companies are, there really is no room for people want normal jobs and want to work normal hours. Startup life is a very fast paced constant swim upstream. You're trying to cram years worth of work into months to create enormous value as quickly as possible. ALL startups want "rockstar" employees as they help this process exponentially. What he's stating is not really anything different than any other start up founder would say he/she wants, its just he says it in a very inflammatory way.
I actually have worked for one startup before and am doing my own right now.
I know about long nights, tight deadlines, and no money.
I know about creativity due to constraints and responding quickly.
I also know about abusive bosses and unproductive labor practices.
I would be hard pressed to find ANY software developer that agrees that they perform best under a boss like Jason.
Pros: you know how to get attention for yourself by using the classic Calacanis-HN link-baiting technique; you're not afraid to mix it up in the comments.
Cons: you seem like a whinny, entitled kid--I'm guessing you complain about a bunch of tiny things and you'll probably be a rice picker and not a samurai due to this; your writing is weak, and doesn't show much logical.
Of course, these are superficial judgements.... come to Mahalo for launch next time you're in Santa Monica, meet the team, see what we're doing and then write another blog post....
or maybe that would take actual effort as opposed to just firing off a blog post slamming someone you don't know
Naturally, I am not surprised that you think that someone that disagrees with you (and actually voices an opinion), is a 'whinny, entitled kid'. Further descending into personal attacks about the likelihood of whether or not I complain about a bunch of tiny things, is also not surprising and I will not take them personally.
The unfortunate reality is that when you are a public figure, like yourself, and you spew consistently 'controversial' comments, you are likely to get these types of responses.
The next time I am in Santa Monica, although I don't know when that will be, I would love to come to Mahalo and have a look-see. I don't think that will change my opinions based on what you portray, but I will keep an open mind.
Perhaps the next time you are in Jamaica, I can show you around.
Not because I don't like your stances on many things (specifically your opinions on the ways to conduct business), doesn't mean we can't be polite without getting personal. Disagree while being agreeable.
As a general rule, I tend to wish everyone all the success in the world. But, to be quite honest, it seems to have gone to your head - although, I don't know you personally, so that could be a superficial judgement :)
Sounds like he actually is knocking him.
Nevertheless, I do agree with his "I want to surround myself with people who can work at my pace, work 80 hours a week not caring about life balance." Maybe not at a large company, but at an early stage startup I WANT people around me who are working hard and determined to make their product successful because they care about it.
What's so bad about what Calacanis said? 70-80 hour weeks are not unheard of in the startup world...
I don't get the impression that he's offering that much extra value to his employees.
When you say the types of things you say, and behave the way you do, the internet will react in a very predictable fashion.
It's nothing personal. It's a reality that I think you need to accept, and it's clear that you haven't because you still say things like 'keep hating on me...I love it'.
You don't. You are just saying that.
Saying things like that, makes you look like the kid on the playground that bullies everybody and when one day he gets kicked in the balls pretends like it doesn't hurt and goes above and beyond to show that it didn't hurt, but goes behind the locker and cries.
Not cool.
It is this notion that, if you like the way he leads, then you are the best. If you don't, then you are 'normal'. i.e. bad, and you don't what to succeed.
That's a false dichotomy and it's highly annoying to hear him re-iterate many, many times.
If he just said, working for me is hell. But, you will get these benefits (all of which might be very valuable in their own right - I am not degrading the quality of his network, and his ability to convince other angels to invest in your next venture).
It's just this 'I am better than everyone' aura that he espouses - in public anyway.
And as I said in my post, I don't think he has earned the right to be like that.
Steve Jobs has. Bill Gates has. Bezos has. Larry & Sergey have. But I am yet to see any of them acting like that. I am sure that all of those guys demand the most out of their employees and push them to give more than they give.
It's just the abrasive - "I am the best entrepreneur in the Valley" attitude that I am talking about here.
It's about time we call a spade a spade.
But truth be told we are all adults here and have the choice to work with or without Mr. Calacanis. That said, your whole point boils down to "he shouldn't say he, or his way, is the best cause it is making me sick to hear it over and over again". That, my friend is just juvenile. How old are you again?
Again, if you don't like to hear Jason spout then stop watching his network or his shows, simple as that. This kind of Jayting is just juvenile and unproductive. Why does he need to be compared to Bezos et al....what have you done? The best revenge against people like Jason is to do what you do and crush it your way. If you are not doing that then find another place to displace your jealous rage.
All the best.
I swear, sometimes it seems like HN lives in this weird alternate universe where the rules of normal jobs don't apply....
It's fine if people want more money for less hours and less responsibility - but they'll be competing with those who are willing to work more hours and take on more responsibility for more money. If you were the employer, who would you hire?
However, I think it speaks more volumes about me and who I want to work with, if I do.
I might not be as rich as Jason Calacanis just yet, but I do have beliefs.
Why should Jason be able to say anything he wants, and not be publicly criticized for them?
If he doesn't want to do business with me, then that's fine by me.
If someone doesn't want to do business with me because I said I would never work for him, or do business with him, then that tells me more about that person - than it does me.
You know the single thing that every single successful entrepreneur, in any field, has in common? They're work-obsessed. They bust their balls. I'd rather work for someone like JC than a work-shy narcissist.
The consequences of hiring the wrong people can be dire, particularly when you need them to perform. I had a director of sales who was instrumental in killing one of my businesses.
When times got tough he did not have the "killer instinct" Jason talks about. Sales were down. Times were tough. I relied on him to go turn over rocks and find sales. Long story short, he just didn't have it in him. I had hired the wrong person. Funny thing is that there was another candidate that was rougher around the edges but definitely had the drive. I chose the more "refined" candidate (in my eyes) and made a huge mistake.
Jason is right.
If you don't understand it's because you lack the context. My favorite Mark Twain saying applies here:
"A man holding a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way".
Hold THAT cat by the tail first. Then you'll have an opinion worth considering.
[edit working link]: http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT7wjPbXig0o_I76bh4g...
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRw83HRP_QZgcqkBkSLU...
or this one:
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT7wjPbXig0o_I76bh4g...
Jason Calacanis: "Yeah, I would say I like people to be able to keep up with me. Uuuhm. And I don't get tired - I have only experienced being tired a couple of times in my life, it's typically from running the marathon and so I need people who are indefatigable, people who have pretty high stamina. I need people who are intense. I need people who can perform at a high level on a pretty regular basis. And I need people who are able to engage in debate. And so I need pretty strong people. I decided I am not going to work for people who are weak and who are maybe looking for balance in their lives. I do view doing a startup company like an Olympic sport. You have to qualify for it. If you don't qualify for it, then you can't be on the team. And if all of a sudden you get slower, and can't keep up, then you have to leave the team, and be replaced by somebody who can. And if you have a team of people who are all Olympic caliber, and who all are running very fast, it doesn't feel like everybody is running fast, it's just how we run, we are fast runners, or hard runners. And you just have to hire the right people. So I think I'm intolerant of average people. I am infuriated by people who make excuses. And so depending on who comes to work for me, and if you interview 100 people who have worked for me, if the person was ambitious and hard-working, they would tell you that it's the best experience of their lives, and that they learned more working for me, got more opportunity, tripled their salary. I have had people literally come in, work for me, 30 or 40 thousand dollars out of school, and then two or three years later would be making 100 thousand dollars. That's my value proposition. If you come work for me, you are going to work very hard, not harder than I do, maybe equal, but no harder than I expect of myself. But you will learn everything, and I will teach you everything I know. Calacanis MBA in 3 or 4 years. And if you do, then I will get you a job anywhere you want to work. If you have done 3 or 4 years for me, I will invest in your company if you come up with a good idea. I will come on your board, if you come up with a good idea. I will introduce you to anybody I know, give you recommendation and support you in any way I can. Take the other half of people, who maybe I've fought with, or fired. or they quit, they tended to be people who were lame, not hard-working, looking for balance, not intense, not winners, not looking to succeed, and they would say "Well, I'm just a normal person". I would say: "Correct, you are a normal person. I am an abnormal person. You normal person came to work for an abnormal person. I have abnormal expectations, that are high. You have normal expectations." It's nothing wrong with that, but that person should have gone to work at the post office, or Starbucks, or IBM, or whatever place where average people can exist without having some insane maniac like me say: "Why didn't you figure this out? Why didn't you work harder? Why did you make all these mistakes?" At a big company, no one would ever confront them. They would just hide under their desk, and maybe 9 months later somebody would say: "What do you do here? Oh cool." And for people who just want to duck down and disappear, there are plenty of jobs out there. I don't want those. I want samurai. People who come in and fight, and cut arms off and crash through stuff. If there is a barrier and a problem, I want people who can just hack their way through it, and not stop until they are dead or they have killed whatever is in front of them. And that is a different philosophy than maybe most people have about business."
Anyway, now I understand. He's a jerk. Not some kind of unique and interesting jerk, fascinating in his jerkiness, but just a regular garden-variety jerk. I know those guys. They exist all over academia.
btw,
"Not some kind of unique and interesting jerk, fascinating in his jerkiness, but just a regular garden-variety jerk. I know those guys. "
I think that deserves to be on a tshirt or something
It's the self-obsession inherent in the way he keeps referring to his own (self-perceived) good qualities as the ideals to which others should try to live up to.
It's the pointless bragging. "Oh, I've only been tired a few times in my life, usually after a marathon". Cool story, bro!
It's the way he gives the impression that the only thing he seems to value in his employees is how much they're willing to kill themselves for the sake of the company.
Above all, it's this apparent feeling of entitlement that he deserves to have the best people in the world working for him. This might be justified if he'd sold his last two companies for ten billion dollars a piece and made all his employees rich. But according to wikipedia he's sold one company for the $30 million range; presumably enough to make the founders rich but only to give a modest payoff to the employees. If the best he can say is that some of his employees make $100K after getting $30K for the first few years (compared to a big company where they'd instead make $100K after getting $75K for the first few years...) then I'm really not sure where this sense of entitlement is coming from.
It's not 80 hours a week every week, but certainly there are those weeks. The truth is it's probably not as hard as I make it seem in this video, but this video is my HR marketing.
The weak people who see a video like this go "oh that guys a jerk I would never work for him," and that's EXACTLY what I want.
Now, the folks who are looking to double or triple their salaries, grow their technical skills 5-10x in a year and learn how to run their own companies, those people see a video like that and say "sign me up! I want to be a Jedi! I want to be a Samurai!"
I then give those folks a lightsaber and teach them how to run a company from raising money, to hiring and to developing a strategy.
If you look at the folks who have joined my teams you will find a long line of folks who have becoming millionaires working for me, and then gone on to raise millions in venture capital for their companies--and in some cases make millions (again)!
The folks who don't know me, and are so weak that they waste their time throwing rocks at me, take the time to attack on a thread like this.... but they've never spent a day with me! They don't know me, but they waste time commenting on what they don't know.
I find that funny and sad, and I appreciate the attention because all it does is send more potential Jedi my way.
Keep hating haters... I love it.
BUT, personally I don't believe this HR ethic will work long-time with the emergence of better angel funding. You're looking for the mentalities of founders to become employees, and when someone can partner with someone in university or down at the local coffee shop and apply for Y Combinator, work the same hours and put the same effort in on their own company, instead of grinding in an already established company, I'm betting the best minds will do the latter.
Correct me if I'm wrong on that, there might be a wealth of super-talented, super-dedicated workers who aren't confident to run their own company yet, but I would imagine that anyone willing to work crazy hours, solving complex online problems, with the low cost of launching a product nowadays, they're going to try that (at least first).
Or you can sharpen your skills working for a killer entrepreneur like myself for 30 to 48 months (my minimum recommend length). All of these are amazing possibilities. Coming to work for me and lasting three years or more means I will: a) Give you a Calacanis MBA in statups! b) Angel invest in your company, join your board and introduce you to other angels--provided it's a quality product. c) mentor you for all time d) get coffee with you any time e) introduce you to anyone i know--for all time. f) give you a recommendation on the phone--for all time g) blog/tweet/etc your latest victory to my legions of follers/the www.JasonNation.com!!! These things, I'm told, provide great value. it's up to the individual to decide their path... I provide but three: Open Angel Forum, angel investing, the launch conference (www.launch.is) and mentoring/hiring. rock on Jcal
That said, the quote above sounds like a Czar in early industrial Russia. I agree that you have high standards for your employees and applaud you for being upfront about expectations: your employees are adults and can make informed choices. But, that you would expect truly talented people to fall in line for that kind of industrial revolution era treatment defy's logic.
Yes, you can deliver 50x in mentorship/support post-hazing, but it is still a hazing. As someone mentioned earlier, why would a talented person want to work for you again? Truthfully, they could get similar support working at Google or Fb or any of the other successful startups in the valley.
I know that you "go for the gusto" approach has served you well in the past and has earned you the success and renown you have today. But, perhaps it is time to rethink that strategy, especially in these times and especially if you intend to stay relevant.
Keep on keepin on.
That's exactly what I was trying to get at.
Well done.
Anyway Jason, I'm afraid I have better things to do today than argue with you on the subject of whether you are as awesome as you think you are. Apparently this is your favourite subject, but it's not one that interests me very much.
I would love to impart my congenitally low blood sugar to him so that he can know what it's like to have to battle chronic fatigue 24/7 with diet and exercise just so you can function and not feel depressed all the time.
Managing that is probably 50-75% of my personal effort in being a productive programmer.
I realize this may result in "I don't get tired" but for my two cents, chemical augmentation isn't really the same thing.
Or maybe that's a more accurate description of Olympic athletes than I'd like to admit.
But the more I thought about him, and wrote the post and started commenting here...the more difficult it is for me to find something positive to say.
We're small and we need to crush it, or die trying. Weak people can go work for a big corporation and be comfy.