Get Out of My Building | Hacker News Reader

Get Out of My Building

steveblank.com

137 pointsbhousel43 comments

This is a great article, but episode 1 of the Ardent story is a bit scary. How does a startup team go from making a hypertext like software application to supercomputers which require:

"We had to write our parallelizing and vectorizing compilers and build our own high-end graphics boards, and write our own 3d graphics subroutine language – and put in all in a box that could fit in an office. Oh, and since it was not code compatible with anything, we were going to have to port all the key scientific applications our customers needed (as soon as we figured out who they were.)"

Apparently they did ship (some product(s)) based on their wikipedia article, which is impressive given the odds stacked against them.

damm! Now that's an intense experience. I'm often impressed with leaders that have a level of control over their emotions and intensity with the ability to use them to their advantage, with the right emotion tailored for the right situation.

Wait, are you talking about the CEO shrieking "get out of my building and get out of my company"?

That's not leadership, that's insanity and unmitigated disdain for his employees.

I agree. The first time an employer screams at me will also be the last. It is unprofessional and abusive.

I don't care if it's "unprofessional" or not and I only think it's abusive if there's a rule that I can't yell back.

I have no problem with having heated discussions on occasion. I think it can be a great way to get people saying what they really mean. Mutual alcohol consumption surely is a gentler method though...

Valid point - but from the way the article was written this was a life changing event.

Read it again.

While I agree 'yelling' is not the most professional method of getting your point across, the CEO felt the need to impress a point on everyone that he wasn't going to stand for something. And that he was going to put resources (travel with VP of sales to talk to customers) into the person he was yelling at to make sure he does things differently.

This was not a casual emotional rant about something he said. This was a thought out attack on a way of thinking that was unacceptable to the CEO, followed up with a strategy to fix it.

I'll bet the author would agree that was one of the more pivotal moments of his professional life. A lot of CEO's might hear a comment like that, file it away, and then just not promote you, or put you first in line to be laid off. It takes effort and guts to stand up and pronounce what you, the leader of the company, believe in.

And that's something that's often missing today with CEO's.

Right. You can also look at it as a type of hack ... an emotional hack, if you will. It tends to work well with men. It is similar to the cliche teachers use: "you will never amount to anything". The idea is you will get so angry, you will self-motivate just to prove them wrong. The army also uses these tricks in boot camp.

A good leader will figure out a priori which techniques work with which people and apply them appropriately.

I'm sure nobody cares, but there's a huge body of psychological research that goes to show that such "negative motivations" do. not. work.

They are especially horrible when the person is in a real position of authority, like an adult over a child (parent, teacher), or an employer. It not only de-motivates over the long term, it causes a lot of damage to the relationship.

The military situation is a bit different, because of the pseudo-brainwashing ("break em down and build em up" approach -- downvote me if you like, but we all know that's an explicit goal to create team cohesion), not to mention huge legal obligations, and maybe because of the type of people who go into it to start with.

I'm reminded of the story told by Randy Pausch where the assistant coach said to him (regarding being yelled at by the coach): “That’s a good thing. When you’re screwing up and nobody’s saying anything to you any more, that means they gave up.”

Fuck professional. What I want to know in my CEO is that he knows what he's doing. Beyond that, I don't give a shit if he's nice or the most terrifying man alive. Similarly, if a CEO is professional as all hell but knows nothing, I want nothing to do with him.

As much as I love etiquette, it's a nice little side deal, not the primary concern. What matters above all else is competence.

This is why I get completely pissed off when I see some schmuck in a suit flattering their would-be employers during an interview, or some overcompensating upper-level worker playing territory / power games. It gets in the way of business. I don't think it's quite as black and white as you put it, but I agree nonetheless.

I'd rather get yelled at in a meeting and sent out with the VP of sales to improve my knowledge/skills/value than sit around all year waiting for the 30 minute yearly 'performance review' where my managers tell me nothing.

Presumably there are things in between the two extremes.

Personally I think yelling and screaming is awfully unprofessional. He still would have been humiliated and embarrassed if the guy had called BS on him in other ways, I think, which is probably what made the lesson stick. He got cut down to size, and he knew he was wrong.

I think screaming can backfire, too. I had a guy yelling and pounding his fists in a meeting the other week, and it reduced my opinion of him further. (He wasn't angry with me nor the 10 or so other people present, who were looking at him like 'what a jerk').

If I want to spend time with someone who has temper tantrums, I'd much prefer the company of my daughter, who I don't see enough as it is.

I didn't get that from the article.

The CEO was trying to prove a point and used drama to get it across. I doubt Steve would have taken it as seriously if the CEO did not do what he did.

In addition, I'm sure that experienced contributed to Steve's development and he's thankful for it.

What if he'd thrown a chair, destroyed a phone, or punched a wall? Where do you paint the line between what is and is not an acceptable amount of 'drama' to make a point?

I, personally, would have taken a calm statement of the facts far more seriously than screaming; dramatic means to an end or not. And if the guys screaming at me was doing it just to make a point, I'd find that far more offensive than if he was a short-fused rage-aholic.

How confident in the merit of your position can you possibly be, if you need to resort to pushing emotional buttons?

Very valid point.

I suppose as the boss you need to know how to act and when. Some people will react in different ways and you need to be aware of that. Based on my reading I interpreted that Steve thought the CEO's tactic was useful.

Perhaps he understands that humans are not purely rational beings, that to make a point stick you need more than just facts.

This is why I always hit my wife when I don't think she will understand something.

Reductio ad absurdum and you know it.

Emotions have no bearing on correctness, but they do have tremendous bearing on actions. Mastery of the former begets knowledge, whilst mastery of the latter begets results.

Well yes, I am being silly of course and deliberately taking things to the extreme. I suppose what I am trying to establish is a data point we can all agree is wrong so that those supporting the actions of the CEO have to separate themselves from this point somehow. The clear similarities are that the CEO is in a position of power over his employee and there is no attempt at rational engagement before the verbal attack.

The CEO has in effect told his managers that they should use threats as a normal management technique and that reasoned discourse is an inferior business tool. For a high-tech business this seems unlikely to be correct. I can't imagine this approach being routine at say Google.

>What if he'd thrown a chair, destroyed a phone, or punched a wall? Where do you paint the line between what is and is not an acceptable amount of 'drama' to make a point?

All of those have associated economic costs which screaming does not. What exactly is the disadvantage of screaming?

I'm sure its just the way it was written but it sounded a lot like the CEO was totally inappropriate, chucked a maddie and then backtracked - there's certainly a bit of ambiguity that the author might not have noticed, knowing the man personally as he does.

And I bet that you would call a Zen master hitting a novice over the head with his staff [and provoking him into an enlightened state] assault and battery. It's obviously a method which can be overused and abused, but used wisely on appropriate subjects, can produce incredible learning, as it did in this case.

and provoking him into an enlightened state

I'm unconvinced that this actually happens, so I, at least, would expect that it's very, very rare to use verbal or physical abuse in a way that produces enlightenment of any sort. Discipline, I would understand. Enlightenment or understanding? Doubtful.

Speaking as student in kung fu of 10 years and a teacher for 5, I can say this does happen, and it does work. When sparring, I had several instructors find a weakness in me, and exploit that weakness until it went way.

They never abused me, but as a hotshot 17 year old, was humbling to have my ass handed to me by an overweight, half blind 50 year old man.

I would say that's a result of practice, rather than enlightenment.

Depends on the situation. Often, you aren't aware of the flaws until the teacher points them out, and sometimes insight comes very quickly.

Difficulty and adversity are frequently conduits to enlightenment if the recipient will forgo bitterness and seek to be taught by his experiences.

That's complete, and you'll have to pardon my language, bullshit. If you want to find deep meaning in a guy's lost temper, that's fine and your prerogative.

If I sat at the foot of some exalted spiritual man for long enough seeking meaning, I too would probably start finding meaning in his every act. It's a completely self-fulfilling prophecy.

That's great that the author learned a life lesson by being summarily embarrassed in a room of his peers. But realize that is totally a function of how he chose to process it, and not of some great teaching technique of the CEO.

A great teacher understands what will trigger progress in one person and what will trigger progress in another. Some people need a soft touch, some people need a kick in the ass.

Perhaps the CEO recognized that this would work in this case. For another person, perhaps another technique would have been tried. Regarding the story here, this last paragraph is all speculation, of course. We don't know how the CEO would've handled a different person. I'm really just addressing your point about teaching technique.

What does "totally" accomplish in the sentence above? Am I the only one that finds the very frequent abuse of this word annoying?

I suspect the presentation was a reflection of the company culture... from the previous post in the series: "The culture and work ethic of Convergent had earned it the title the Marine Corps of Silicon Valley. (Not until I was older and wiser did I realize that this was not always meant as a compliment.)"

And "My boss, the CEO, had just come from a string of successes at Convergent Technologies..."

edit to link Convergent and Ardent re-edit: can't spell

At least there was a lesson ;)

My first job out of college was with a high-end security company (biometric systems at Langley, DOD, etc.) I was hired by the National Sales Director. They flew me across the country and put me up in a nice hotel for my first meeting with the CEO and for training on their monitoring systems. They had spent at least a few grand on my trip.

I walked into the first meeting, and the CEO looked up and saw me. "Get that motherf*cker out of my sight!!!! I don't want to see him again until he's fixed!!!" He was apoplectic. A bunch of no-neck guys from Philly and NYC (I was later told some of the investors were mobsters) ushered me out of the room. I was shaken up, because it was my first job and I had no idea what I had done wrong. The guy who hired me told me to go back to the hotel and enjoy the pool...and that he would talk to me later. No indication as to whether I was fired or what was going on. My nerves went to hell while I was waiting for him to call me. And my wife wanted to know why my 'important meetings' had only lasted three minutes.

It turns out the CEO has a huge issue with non-white dress shirts. He thought anything other than plain white was unprofessional and offensive. (I was wearing a blue dress shirt that my wife had bought me as a gift.) He decided he would rather waste several thousand dollars and have me come back another time than see a non-white dress shirt. He was successful enough that most people humored his eccentricities. [I had another boss that would go absolutely nuts if you shut any door in the building. He would almost foam at the mouth. He had a phobia of closed doors because of something that had happened to him in foster care. He fired at least one girl because she kept shutting doors out of habit.]

I think if a boss is going to have frequent asylum-quality meltdowns, it's nice when you can at least learn something beyond "This person is crazy. Be careful." It sounds like Steve learned an important lesson, even if the instructor was unpleasant.

Regardless of the end result here, yelling and intimidation are not healthy forms of communication or modes of professional social interaction. If you can't make your point without yelling then you probably don't have a good point.

Yelling and intimidation shuts down communication. It raises adrenalin which, more often than not, shuts down brains (quite literally). When people feel threatened, by the CEO of their company no less, their bodies activate a flight-or-fight response. Part of this response includes shutting down blood flow to the more rational parts of the brain, leaving the primitive parts with control. The result is that people tend to either enter into highly emotional shouting matches devoid of reason or logic (fight) or they shut down, stay quiet and try to ride out the "attack" (flight). Neither of these are healthy or contribute to worthwhile discussion.

The CEO yelling at employees in a business meeting is as sure a way to shut down rational discourse and profitable interchange of ideas as an entry level employee pulling a gun.

Why would anyone want to discard the end result there? It matters. CEO did not make his point by yelling. The point was made by explanation that followed the yelling. So yes, you are right, yelling did shut down the brains of the author for a while, but wasn't that the idea? To get him out of "know-all" attitude? To reboot the brain and feed a new program into it? Not that I like this way of getting the point across, but in this case it did work.

The main problem is, that's not the end result, only the immediate result. The end result was likely that people were scared to express opinions to the CEO, and a culture of disrespect and hostility developed in the company. Ever heard of Ardent before? Me neither.

I am inviting everyone to imagine that he is running a company, would he use such an Armageddon weapon, hmm...

I am curious what was his first sentence when he has to speak to that boss again :)

Just awesome.

The linked blog post is about the learning experience a guy had when he said something pointless without thinking among a group of people who would prefer to be using their time and energy more productively.

The linked blog post is about a lesson a then out-of-touch marketer learned from an insightful but admittedly abusive boss.

The comparison being drawn is that you've been voted down for "saying something pointless without thinking among a group of people who would prefer to be using their time and energy more productively".

Wow, I'm embarrassed I didn't get that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com