Hacker News Reader

I need a shower after reading this comment. This is HN cynicism at its worst. This article is pretty pro-worker; I’d have to do somersaults to twist it as being secretly in favor of negative boss behaviors like micromanagement.

This is the software/IT industry where everyone talks about how you can be self made and degrees don't matter as much as skill and experience, right? Yet here you are dismissing this guy for whatever he studied in school.

Other than that I completely agree with you

> This is the software/IT industry where everyone talks about how you can be self made and degrees don't matter as much as skill and experience, right? Yet here you are dismissing this guy for whatever he studied in school.

I'd pay for a reputation mapping service with a specific point of view. I'd pay for several of them if they were different enough.

Aren't you just describing your average industry-specific recruiting agency?

Oh that's an interesting thought. I've been asking the recruiters I interface with a lot of questions but hadn't thought about how I'm metered.

> This was nice until you get to the bottom of the actual report and find out that Josh has an undergraduate degree in Biology and an MBA. I'm not sure how that shows any expertise in what is being written about but please go on nor how that could possibly qualify you as Chief of Staff at Google Research but there it is.

I was with you until this comment. Unnecessary ad-hominem, as well as a misguided premise. It looks like Josh has worked specifically in the "startup success" space for several years now. A lack of formal education does not preclude someone from being an expert. Not even sure what a formal education in this context would entail.

> Not even sure what a formal education in this context would entail.

An MBA. This is exactly the sort of material MBAs study and there really isn't any other formal educational credential that qualifies someone to evaluate strategies for making a business succeed. Making this particular ad hominem criticism especially ridiculous.

> An MBA.

The person OP was talking about does have an MBA, since you mentioned it.

Either way, I am hard pressed to believe that an MBA makes someone an expert on this subject, or that someone can't become an expert in 'business' without a degree.

But you're right, not an ad hominem, just a very angry, mis-guided rant.

>I think what's more interesting about stuff like this is not what they're saying but what they're selling. I can only guess that the real research Google did was that they needed more startups to get started using their products and that they would continue to use and expand their use of Google services as they grow.

Could have said that and left out the rest. Most tech blogs I come across are thinly veiled sales pitches, and the trope is to take some more or less obvious subject and put a TEDx style spin on it.

I was with you until you started with the credentialism stuff.

I agree. Google shouldn’t staff their positions based on who has the most PhDs.

> [...] ie. "I don't really care what you have to say other than how it hits my bottom line but go on talking. I'll let you know if I think you say something worthwhile"

The article is about "effective founders", not about "nice persons". If being an insensitive cunt made you a better founder, then that would be an important datapoint worth knowing about. So I don't know why you're criticizing this part of the article.

What would you propose as an alternative?

In an alternative universe, ZCW101 is complaining that they said "eliminate micromanagement" and that person is arguing that sometimes you simply have to micromanage and eliminating it is unrealistic but they should have said something about minimizing it. And then someone complains that some is necessary and you should only minimize the unnecessary parts.

Anyway, my real point is that the summary necessarily only captures the data in an inexact manner and if you are interested you can dive in. The real point is that some % of people feel micromanaged and it is a large point.

By the way, even that point is a summary. https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/startup.google.co...

When you need to project into an alternate universe you know you've got a weak argument. Micromanagement is a negative thing regardless of if you think the person needs and deserves it. You're not going to find anyone out there that says, "They really let me down. I mean I didn't want a lot of it but I didn't even get a little micromanagement. I'm really looking for this goldilocks micromanagement. Not too much, not too little, but just the right amount".

Well, I think this is what they call a semantic argument.

All of us want the right "resolution" of management. Some people might say the right level of micromanagement (in your example, the goldilocks micromanagement). You may say anything that is "too detailed" is "micromanagement" by definition.

I am not saying you are wrong, but I am saying that as long as we agree on the underlying reality, I don't much care what you call it.