You Weren't Meant to Have a Boss, But It Helps... | Hacker News Reader

You Weren't Meant to Have a Boss, But It Helps...

noop.nl

11 pointsblackswan10 comments

PG overstated the case IMO. Having good bosses helps many people, and being independent helps a (I believe a smaller number of) other people.

One of the problem with managers today is the MBA and the management ideology that it has spread. The average MBA makes a lousy manager, in my observation.

This is certainly interesting. I think the more tailored view is that there are many people who have the necessary risk threshold, creativity, and ambition to undergo the challenge of working at or running a start-up. However, for everyone else, including brilliant people seeking greater financial security working at a large company can have many benefits.

Also, large companies like Google can give their employees freedom of action (20% of their time in fact), as well as the resources to actually see their ideas put in action.

This is even worse than the "pseudo science based on anecdotes". This is pseudo science based on the shoddiest "statistics" (if it's worth calling it that) possible - pseudo science based on pseudo scientific data.

"Here's a very small sample of data. Let's draw totally arbitrary conclusions from the data and then extrapolate wildly about extremely complex systems and patterns of behaviour. Tada! I can haz argument!"

How much lower can we go?

and yet, I can't seem to recall a single fact or statistic with supporting information from Paul Graham's essay.

I'm not siding with the author, I agree in part with Graham's theory, but you're attacking someone for taking a contrary point of view supported with (what may be a best effort in self-conducted) research.

Two wrongs don't make a right... And I still maintain that this is even worse.

Paul Graham's article was certainly one of his weakest (though not quite as bad as http://paulgraham.com/prcmc.html imho), but at least he doesn't claim to be scientific while thumbing his nose at any sort of scientific rigour. Claiming to be scientific while being the opposite is worse than just being non-scientific.

His statistics are double bad because he confused correlation and causality. He just assumes that people are motivated by their bosses and good bosses equals good motivation. I find that assumption extremely suspect. My suspicion is most of the time it works the other way around, people are motivated by a large variety of issues and their current passion for their job colors their opinions of everyone working there.

A problem with the central analogy: he's not really talking about bosses in particular. He's talking about environments. Poachers are a problem for current-day Africa, hence active management is needed. They weren't a problem before, however, and they were not needed. A good boss makes a healthy environment for innovators. Other healthy environments exist.

"Unfortunately, Paul's analogy is as far away removed from being accurate, as my mother is from being Yahoo's next CEO."

I wonder if his mother is insulted.

You know you don't _have_ to make an comparison - you can just say "Paul's analogy is inaccurate". I don't know anything about your mother (except that you think she's incapable of running yahoo), so putting that in does not help anything.

  good managers have only motivated people working with them.
  Bad managers have both motivated and unmotivated people. 
  It turns out that good managers really make a difference!

Well, either that or bad managers can really demotivate otherwise normal people, while good bosses just stay out of the way. Ta-da! I drew opposite conclusion form his data.

How are these two ideas even in conflict? The first thing Jeremy and I did when we started our company was to hire Dave as our boss. Easily our best decision.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com