Here's what Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer said that really made me angry(finance.yahoo.com) |
Here's what Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer said that really made me angry(finance.yahoo.com) |
I interview a lot of programmers, and I can tell you with about 95% precision whether they will work out and be great based on the single question 'tell me about the programming projects you work on for fun'. If they have some project they work on for fun, even one, that isn't for a class at school or for their job, then they are very very likely to be a great hire. If they don't they are very very unlikely to be a good hire. Side projects don't magically make you smart and capable and good at problem solving and getting things done, but it sure seems to be fundamentally related.
And from personal experience, I've worked for 2 startups, one where people worked all weekend and one where they didn't, and interestingly they were doing almost the exact same thing. One had an $80MM exit, the other just slowly went away. Small sample size, for sure.
I want to invest in people that invest in themselves.
It may be a side project. It may be challenging themselves with new languages. It may be learning marketing or working on their writing. But they should be hungry. I don't run a large enough company to have to hire people that punch in and punch out [1].
Edit: [1] by punch in punch out - I mean no ongoing personal time invested in their professional skillset. I'm fine investing in people that only want to do 40 hours per week so long as they continue to spend personal time learning something.
I guess people like us will never be good engineering hire. That's fine. Standing on the shoes of a startup founders, I probably wouldn't wanna hire someone who's not committed either.
I see no exit for this. I'm preparing to be fade out by the younger blood and eventually lose my engineering value.
Marissa was paid big $, I understand she needed to work hard for that money but everyone else, what reason did they have 20 hour days?
This dedication and passion will also reflect itself in the product. Many people can make a mediocre product by putting in the minimum amount required, but for something outstanding it usually takes more. Much more. What she has said is nothing outlandish.
Direction is more important than speed. If you are running in the wrong direction it doesn't matter how fast, or if you come in on the weekend. If you are headed in the rigt direction then speed and velocity can be important. It's easy to want to believe that success is repeatable and due to an observable formula...
As for the rest of it, same tired tropes from the author. I already knew what he was gonna say when I realized who it was.
As.for Marissa... She's kinda right. And every current Googler is thankful they can reap the rewards.
She made the extraordinary claim that she didn't even need to know who or what people were working on, just that they were there on weekends. She provided zero data.
It's just as likely that the weekend working startups are the one that will fail. Obviously by burning out, but also by losing sight of the big picture. This seems stereotypical of hackers coding the latest greatest features with zero customers. They could be seriously misusing their available time.
Companies (startups or not) should be able to set their own pace. People should learn to use their time well and save their energy for when they absolutely need to burn the midnight oil. Besides, getting burned out or sick doesn't help anyone.
Startups are not for that mentality, no startup has ever won by playing it safe and making sure people get plenty of sleep.
Could this also mean the editorial team believes this to be true?
But that was a 1 cent comment.
You can probably do a bunch of high-level stuff like she's been doing, but you simply can't program that many hours, do customer service, marketing and more effectively without a sane schedule and no PEDs. Most people will burn out, esp. if they are pre-revenue and/or investors are breathing down their necks.
It's definitely a little arrogant. She says she can predict without knowing what they do. Also, Bill Gross and others with more experience across a wide variety of successful startups believe timing is the most important factor to predict success. [1]
However I do agree that some companies may win due to working excessively if they're in highly competitive spaces and VC funding is required. That extra effort can relate to timing which relates to funding and eventually an exit.
I think too often - these types like Mayer talk about building companies and startups as if VC funding and big exits are the only companies that should exist in our country and that there's only one way to do it.
I agree that they get built based on hard work, but a lot of people are in on weekends and putting in crazy hours because they are overbuilding their product, not talking to users, have no hobbies, etc.
[1] http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gross_the_single_biggest_reaso...
I have had co-workers who practically lived in the office. Every time something urgent came up they would volunteer to work the weekends and late nights. Surprisingly the same guys were also known among the developers as people who got the least amount of work done. And while the management was initially impressed with their hard work and "commitment", every single one of them was let go in the very first rounds of lay offs.
But the opposite does not apply. When management expects you to work long hour you will not become more passionate about your work.
- If you really meant you can get 95% precision in hiring from the answer to one question, I believe you only if you're super-conservative in hiring (i.e. will reject unless you're super-confident). In this case, your recall and false negatives is also going to be really high, so your single-question test isn't really helpful.
- If you actually meant 95% accuracy (i.e. precision in the everyday sense, not the math sense), then I don't believe you, because you probably can't estimate your accuracy, unless you also hire some people who fail the interview process.
There are awesome programmers and technical leads who don't have side projects just because they are so focused on their work and being a good parent.
I'm probably over-analysing your original statement, so I'll stop here.
Who's saying anything about playing it safe? It's all about strategically using your resources, not squandering them. Be it time, money or sleep. It's about engaging your afterburners when you actually need them, not when you are flying in circles.
There are teams where people are having more fun 'kicking ass' and getting things done, and have a great time with the people they are there doing it with, and frankly they would laugh you out of the building (literally) if you even for one second referred to them as 'resources'. I have seen people wander into the office on the weekend just because they were bored (including myself), or were looking to hang out and hack on some stuff. It's not something that burns you out, it's a passion for some people. The good people.
I think you have had a very limited (and limiting) work experience, to be honest.
The notion that everyone has to grind on weekends to build something successful is ridiculous. Mayer is right about hard work. But she's simplistically equating "time logged" with "hard work".
What's success in this conversation? I'd be willing to bet most the startups that go to her husband's co-working space will fail. That's based on data and more accurate of a statement than hers.
"no startup has ever won by playing it safe and making sure people get plenty of sleep"