Comment by toomuchcoffee | Hacker News Reader

Comment by toomuchcoffee | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Sadly, the first step is to realize that (1) he really thinks he's doing the right thing -- or at least he is choosing the necessary, lesser of evils when he makes these interventions; and (2) that this impression is formed on the basis of a lot of (lopsided) data, from his PoV.

By "lopsided" I mean, he's probably seen a lot of evidence that his business continues to thrive when he continually takes the reins in every aspect of its execution -- but what he hasn't seen is the extent to which it can really thrive when people feel truly enabled and empowered to contribute creatively to productive outcomes (at least within their subdomains of the operation). Even when it comes at the comparatively low cost of, yes, occasionally making small-scale mistakes.

Unfortunately, I don't know a good way to tell a CEO that, like Bjork teaches us, "there's more to life than this." Last time I tried, the CEO just didn't get it (or he sorta tried to get it, but it just didn't stick), and our relationship unraveled shortly after that.

You and the original poster are completely wrong and misunderstanding the situation.

"The CEO founded the 30 person company, and there are no other investors- it's all his money", if true, means that he's not CEO (in the startup sense) at all - he's the owner.

"Anyone have any advice on how to tell a CEO with no superiors to let everyone do their jobs?"

Their job is to do whatever he wants. If he wants you to hire three people to do interpretive dance in front of a web cam and put it up, go ahead.

As long as he's the whole owner, you should act like you're being paid to paint his house. Whatever he wants, as long as he's paying the checks. If you can't do what he asks or don't want to at that price, quote the price you'll do it for or leave. If you can do what he asks for the price he's paying, do whatever he says.

It's his house.

As long as he's the whole owner, you should act like you're being paid to paint his house.

Bad analogy. It's more like you thought you were hired to paint his house, but the way things ended up he was telling you how to match colors and hold a brush. All the while pointing to the 10 year-old kids sloppily painting a fence across the street saying "See? You're still in the basement mixing paint, and they're almost done already!"

"he was telling you how to match colors and hold a brush"

You have no cause to complain here in this analogy. Either quit or happily let him tell you how to match colors and hold a brush, and if he tells you to paint like the sloppy kids across the street, that's now your job.

You're not painting for the City while having a superior, or for "shareholders" or to "build a good house" or "build a good company" (that this is a metaphor for) - you're painting for him. If you don't want to do it like he says, you would leave (or quote more money for putting up with his childishness.)

...or quote more money for putting up with his childishness.

Basically, yeah, that's usually how I end up handling these situations when quitting seems less than convenient.

in other words: if you hire a personal cook you get to tell him what to cook, and he doesn't get to tell you what you should be eating instead.

Agreed: what to cook, not how.

sorry, both. if your personal cook doesn't want to cook how you tell him to, he can leave. if you're someone's personal cook your only job is to cook like he says. if you can't or don't want to, leave or quote the price that will make you put up with the conditions.

if your personal cook doesn't want to cook how you tell him to, he can leave.

Great retention strategy there, Chief.

Try telling professional, well-established cook how to hold a pairing knife -- when you can barely make scrambled eggs yourself -- and see what happens.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com