-- Steve Jobs
I worked for a VP and CTO who embraced this advice literally: They wanted to hire smart people and have them decide what would be done. They took it to so much of an extreme that they washed their hands of the responsibility for deciding and executing anything. Their job, they thought, was to call us to meetings and then ask a lot of questions about what we were going to do.
The problems became immediately apparent when we lacked the organizational authority to actually get important things done. We could write the software, but we needed the VP and CTO to actually use their positions in meetings to get agreement from other departments about the important cross-organizational factors of getting software implemented and adopted.
Instead, it was never-ending circles of Socratic method questions: What do you need to succeed? How will your team accomplish that? Who can you talk to make that happen? Whenever we tried to make it clear that we needed them to do some work in the organization, we got a lecture about learning how to be self sufficient and get things done ourselves.
Not surprisingly, little got done. We wrote the software fine, but any time we encountered issues that required VP or C-level collaboration we hit a wall. You can only defer to IC employees to tell you what to do for so long. Beyond that point it’s just laziness.
This is also a stark contrast to how Steve Jobs actually operated, which by all accounts was extremely demanding, dismissive, and command-and-control with him at the center.
> The problems became immediately apparent when we lacked the organizational authority to actually get important things done. We could write the software, but we needed the VP and CTO to actually use their positions in meetings to get agreement from other departments about the important cross-organizational factors of getting software implemented and adopted.
Would it be fair to diagnose this as an issue where the tech side of the business ran in an open, proactive way but other departments had a top-down mentality that required interfacing with the head of your department?
In other words - do you think it is a necessary/desirable feature that ICs need organizational authority from the CTO to push major changes? I get that given how the rest of the org functioned, it would have been much better to have more top-down mentality from the CTO. But is there a better equilibrium where this is not required?
If tech is trying to make changes that impact another major business area, and chaos needs to be avoided, then if you want to avoid executives being involved then members of that org need to be empowered to agree on those changes. However if you do that without structure it’s easy to just end up with organizational chaos as you wind up massively multiplying the communication channels that need to be pushed lower in the org. Someone needs to limit and direct the people responsible for those decisions if they’re not going to make them themselves.
But in researching this, it’s all pretty ambiguous but a decently relevant HBR article came out of it:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150209203853/https://hbr.org/2...
The quote does say "I" so there is an inherent assumption there. The problem with taking any quote and "best practice" at face value that can be applied anywhere is always incorrect.
> There's a few Steve Jobs quotes which have tanked the tech industry.
So hence it's like the hype trains an social media driven development. People need to think. Don't blame Jobs for it.
That doesn't stop people trying.
Realistically tell yourself that 10x developers are a silly myth and the people you were able to hire for pennies from the local demographic are the superstars, and try not to hang your business model on them actually being the best in their field. As long as you don't fact check that against reality it'll be OK.
Thankfully almost no one is the best in their field :) You probably can't afford the best, you probably don't need the best, you probably can't keep the best happy, you definitely don't have problems that need the best.
That being said if you pay dollars instead of pennies you can find some decent folks and maybe save some money in the long run :)
You don't need the single best, you just should aspire as high a concentration of n * x for n>1 (2x, 10x, ...) as your talent to raiase funding permits.
But don't forget it's not all about "best coding"; you want people best in different things (PM, UX, architecture, security, databases, algorithms, compilers, documentation, networking etc. - also depending on what the product is about) - a diverse team of rock stars.
As for how you attract them - same way you attract anyone else. Give them something they want. For these people it’s agency, freedom and high level guideposts. For a productive big corp employee it’s clear guidance, timelines and a hierarchy to adhere to.
You have to become a superstar first.
I had the good luck of living down the street from the AirBedAndBreakfast founders in San Francisco in 2008 and we'd commute together to our Tuesday night YC dinners in Mountainview.
I picked up early that Nate was already a superstar coder, Joe was a superstar designer, and Brian was a superstar designer and salesman.
I knew I was not, and had to double down and practice, practice, practice.
Craftsmanship comes first. It took those guys decades of practice at their crafts before they founded AirBedAndBreakfast.
Think of Paul Graham. Before he created HackerNews and YC, he had already written and published a book on Lisp! A master craftsman.
Craftsmanship comes first.
If you are not a master at your craft, don't even waste your time trying to recruit superstars. Instead, spend your time on practice.
I’m starting to think paying attention to what is happening is undervalued.
AFAIK Florence Foster Jenkins spent her whole life taking singing lessons, and this was the result:
many superstars aren't even good at doing the expected when it would be a good idea, often because of drug addictions
this happens for two reasons. one is that if you're selecting people along two axes, the more harshly you select on one axis, the less candidates remain to select along the other, unless the axes are perfectly correlated. the other is that, whether you're a candidate selecting strategies or a judge selecting candidates, two axes along which you can select are mean and variance. in any event where you take the best of multiple trials, the top performers will almost always have high variance, not just a high mean
The ability to pay attention is where the unexpected comes from in my judgement. The whole world looks at something and tunes out early because they think they understand. An individual that is truly paying attention notices all the subtleties that that can be used for a fresh solution.
My point is that an inconsistent superstar is not as good as an individual with a consistently fresh solution.
Going out one more layer I thought the topic was how to have a stable organization with consistently fresh thinking. I responded to a topic discussing how to attract superstars. I believe anyone has the capability of being a superstar in the right environment.
whether 'an inconsistent superstar is not as good as an individual with a consistently fresh solution' depends on the situation. if you're in a situation where that's true, you're not looking for superstars, and you shouldn't try to intrude your decision criteria into discussions about people who are
> I believe anyone has the capability of being a superstar in the right environment
that's, i'm sorry, just bullshit. the wrong environment can prevent you from being a superstar—imagine if madonna had been born before recorded music, or in taliban-governed afghanistan—but the reverse is obviously false. no environment could have converted me, this body, into madonna or messi or jimi hendrix or bruce lee or meryl streep or jeff dean. that's pure wishful thinking
i don't think the discussion is about how to have a stable organization of any kind. it's about how a startup can kick ass. to what extent stability promotes that is a point under debate, not a premise we have stipulated. i can tell you that there is some degree of chaos that makes kicking ass impossible, but from experience, it can be remarkably high, and stability inevitably trades off against chasing superstars. that's because superstars are unpredictable by nature—not just when they fail but also when they succeed! a new product line that obsoletes everything your startup has done so far is a lot of instability, and it's what you are hoping for if you are trying to hire superstars in a startup
ignoring that is just self-deception, and trying to impose obviously ridiculous redefinitions on the conversation in order to cover it up doesn't do the discussion any service. if you want to argue that chasing superstars is a dumb idea, which is a reasonable point of view and correct in many situations, then make that argument—don't try to redefine common terms to conceal the disagreement
Heavily agree. But paying attention to what is happening _in nature_.
Pay little attention to what is happening in symbolia.
I got rid of my cell phone 2.5 years ago after my daughter kept saying "no phone dadda". Forces me to pay attention to nature and real world every moment I'm not at my computer. Huge life improvement in every way.
And it's also easy to speculate in a forum about super stars and "10x coders" and what team you should have.
But in reality, you have to play with the cards you have been dealt with. You can search for better folks, but until you find them, the show must go on.
In many card games, being dealt 8 Aces means losing the game, and the same is true for startup teams with all-alpha animal "leaders" who are all super smart but cannot agree on anything.
/s
But companies should be honest with themselves about what they need. Everyone still seems obsessed with being able to pretend they somehow got the absolute best deal on the employment market instead of interviewing for the position itself.