[logicallee]

It sounds like you think that values should be a description of which of two reasonable choices a company wants its employees to choose...

For example, a company's value as stated might be "Education and experience don't matter and the most junior employee can argue with architectural choices as long as they are willing to argue cogently and with evidence." Then if you "invert" it you get "Education and experience matter; give weight to other people's expertise, education and experience in a field."

So both of them are "still something good", I guess. But a startup might choose the former.

If I've understood your suggestion correctly, then the problem with your suggestion is that some cultural values are about things that tech startups get wrong, and the inversion is not any good at all.

How do you invert something like "don't bully other employees or pick on them due to their belonging to some protected class - to overcome subconscious biases, if you do not belong to that class then stop for a moment and consciously treat them the same as if they belonged to the same class as yourself"?

What is the "inversion" of this obvious cultural choice which is obviously good?

Do you think that it is "bland and generic" just because it is obvious that it is right and its inversion is wrong?

I don't think it's obvious at all, and I think a lot of companies get these cultural values completely wrong, and, for example, do foster an atmosphere of harassment.

I want to get this comment away from the political so I'll make another, purely technical example: if a rule is, "make sure something actually builds before you check it in" then the inversion is "don't worry about making sure it builds before you check it in"? That's not "still something good" as you've stated, so...does it make the specific technical suggestion I listed "bland and generic"?

So I'm not sure how helpful your rule is.

[jsjohnst]

I think you are over analyzing it and trying to find faults. At least two of the things you mentioned should be company policies, not values.

Values are things you push for, but might not attain (think aspirational goals), but policies are "set in stone" and if you don't follow them you're punished.

Using the examples you mentioned that are clearly policies, "don't bully other employees or pick on them due to their belonging to some protected class" is a perfect example of a policy vs value. That's clearly a policy and one that if didn't exist at a job, I'd never join said company. Bullying isn't something we strive not to do, it's something we must not do, or else be fired. Checking in broken code may get you a slap on the wrist the first time, but repeatedly do that and again you'll likely be punished.

[logicallee]

I've reviewed your comment. Firstly, it sounds like you think "don't murder other employees" is a policy at 100% of companies, but I don't think I've ever worked at a company with such a policy and neither have you. Your definition of policy is weird - you think policies exist regardless of whether they do. I base this on your comment that you'd never work at a company without such a policy.

Secondly, I'm afraid I disagree with the essence of your comment, even given your weird definition of the meaning of policy.

It seems that your view is that the second a value is phrased in an actionable and effective way you call it a policy: I read your definition of a value as something that cannot be parsed or disagreed with such as "awesome is better than great and great is better than good; but good is better is than bad." That sounds like a value, but if I made it meaningful, actionable, and effective, then it would become a policy. (according to you.)

We are just too far apart to have a meaningful conversation I'm afraid. I read your comment carefully several times before coming to this conclusion.

[nicky0]

Think about it from a less absolutist logical angle, and you may eventually appreciate it. Currently, you are looking for counterexamples for the sake of argument, instead of considering the cases where the principle is useful. You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[logicallee]

I don't find the principle of inversion as a test for values/policies to be a useful tool, sorry. Yes, I'm throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[barrkel]

Values != policies; the way you put them in a stroke relationship makes me think that you think they're related. They're not.

The point of an inversion test for values is to see if they have any information content (i.e. can act as a discriminator between companies). If the inversion of a value is something that you'd obviously not do, then it's not actually a value; it's just something that normal people should do. Policies are like this. If a policy is inverted and it sounds absurd or criminal, that's ok - policies are hard rules that define normal behaviour. But if a value is inverted and it sounds absurd, it's not actually a value.

Policies are a dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.

Values suggest an inclination or bias between two acceptable behaviours.

The reason it's important to distinguish between them is that high-level policies, whether stated explicitly or not, are by and large the same at every company (precisely because their inverse is abnormal or ridiculous); values, on the other hand, make companies distinct. Reading about a company's policies won't tell you whether it's a good place to work or not, although reading between the lines of what they assert their policies to be, may give you a clue as to their values.

[logicallee]

I completely disagree with every single sentence you've just written. Since I disagree with every single thing you've just written we are not going to be able to talk effectively.

I will just quote one line. You write:

>Reading about a company's policies won't tell you whether it's a good place to work or not.

which is one of the most absurd things I've ever read. I don't see how we can engage in meaningful conversation, sorry. We can just drop it.

I just realized that in another comment you called me "silly" but we can just agree that we have very different viewpoints. We view these matters completely differently.

[occamrazor]

All companies I know of have "comply with applicable laws" in their policies, which subsumes "do not murder other employees".

[logicallee]

I regret, occamrazor, that your interpretation and proposed facts reduce to an absurd interpretation of this conversation, and are wrong, respectively.

1. You are wrong that all companies you know of have "comply with applicable laws" in their policies.

Before we get to your interpretation, first let's look at the proposed fact that all companies you know of have "comply with applicable laws" in their policies. There are extremely clear examples such as Uber which actively did not have such a policy as well as very actively keep regulators from enforcing laws against them: https://www.google.com/search?q=uber+regulators - read those links. "Uber used an elaborate secret program to hide from government regulators"; "Justice Department begins criminal probe into Uber's use of software to help drivers evade local regulators."

Here are Uber's 14 official cultural values: https://www.quora.com/What-are-Ubers-14-core-cultural-values which include "always be hustling" and "let builders build". One definition of hustle is a fraud or swindle, or obtaining illicitly. At any rate none of those values had anything like "comply with applicable laws." Likewise AirBNB certainly did not have a core policy of complying with hotel and zoning regulations.

Objectively speaking, it is absolutely false that "comply with applicable laws" is an actual policy at all companies you know of. You're simply mistaken about the world.

But let's step away from this and see why your interpretation is also wrong.

2. Your interpretation if you were right about 1 is wrong

So your facts themselves are wrong but let us assume the counterfactual that your facts are true, and that "all companies" have a "comply with applicable laws" in their policies.

Under your interpretation "comply with applicable laws" also subsumes "don't harrass people based on a protected class" since that's illegal.

Continuing with your (wrong) interpretation, when jsjohnst writes about that statement, "if it didn't exist at a job, I'd never join said company" then it's nonsense given that no such company can exist under your proposed interpretation.

So it is like saying "I would never join a company that did not abide by the laws of physics." Under your interpretation, a nonsense statement. (All companies abide by the laws of physics; all companies have a policy of "comply with applicable laws" under your wrong facts, and under your wrong interpretation this implies not harrassing people based on a protected class.)

Your interpretation changes jsjohnst's statement to be as meaningful as declaring he would not work for a company that did not abide by the laws of physics. Clearly he has no reason to express such a sentiment.

Therefore your interpretation must also be rejected from this conversation.

-

I am sorry to be so harsh but as we are talking about values and policies, we cannot introduce wrongness on so many levels, because the results are disastrous.

I hope you do not feel that I have made this personal. I attacked only a 1-line interpretation you have offered and clearly you are free to change your mind. I do respect your contributions to hackernews and believe you are right on many other things, however, not this issue.

[barrkel]

> I am sorry to be so harsh

You're making yourself look silly, not harsh!

[bryanlarsen]

A "no harassment" clause doesn't tell you anything.

It could be there because the company is serious about combating harassment. Or it could be there because the company has a harassment problem and is covering its ass.

The lack of the clause could be because the company actually has a harassment culture or because the company has a great culture and has never seen the need to add the clause.

The point is that every company will say that they're against harassment so the only way you can tell how effective they are about it is through deeds not words.

But clauses that can be inverted positively actually have a chance of telling you something.

[dmlorenzetti]

[I]f a rule is, "make sure something actually builds before you check it in" then the inversion is "don't worry about making sure it builds before you check it in"? ...does it make the specific technical suggestion I listed "bland and generic"?

I think you hit the nail on the head when you called it a generic technical rule -- it's not a value that distinguishes the culture of the company. So while it might be sensible corporate policy, it doesn't really say anything about the company culture (not sure I would call it bland, but that's just wordsmithing).

Taking that a step further, suppose company policy included that and a host of other "bland technical rules" with which most practitioners agree. Then company values might state "We follow industry best practices." You can imagine an inversion, "We feel free to ignore best practices if it helps ship a product early", that would express something meaningful about the culture of working there.

[harryh]

dmlorenzetti & bryanlarsen both make the core point I try to get at in sibling comments to this one but I'll also dd that I think there are some useful things underneath your two specific examples:

1) I think a company that really epitomizes the point you are trying to make here is Slack. They seem to value diversity and inclusion more than any other SV company right now. This has probably helped them be successful, but to me it seems like they care about this value above and beyond the effect on their business. They want to make the world a better place and will expend resources to do so.

Conversely I slick of PayPal back in 2000. Levchin has spoken explicitly about how they valued hiring a team of people with very similar world views and how that helped them avoid wasting time arguing and instead focus on execution. I've also heard stories about how engineers would literally wrestle to solve disputes[1].

These sound like very different companies! I can imagine people that would relish working at the former and hate working at the latter (or vice versa). Both quite successful though.

2) WRT building before you check in that obviously brings me back to FB's "move fast and break things." I dunno about breaking the build as I've never worked there, but I definitely know that for the longest time FB was very very cavalier about breaking their external API. From one perspective that certainly sounds like a bad thing, but on the other hand maybe that "move fast" part really was a big part of the key to FB's success?

Perhaps some of the things that you think are absolutely wrong are just wrong according to your particular values. You should obviously want to work at a business that aligns with those values but perhaps there are other businesses that operate the opposite way and that oppositeness helps them succeed.

1. http://blakemasters.com/post/21437840885/peter-thiels-cs183-...

[logicallee]

You make interesting points. I do think sometimes there really is no trade-off. So why doesn't every company adopt that policy which has no trade-offs? Because they don't know or haven't heard of it, thought of it. Simply writing a sentence could make anyone reading that sentence slap their forehead and say "why didn't I think of that" and instantly adopt it with no resistance - a policy can spread like a meme to everyone who's ever heard of it, resisted by no one. Then if you read it about a potential employer you can say "great! they've already heard of it."

You might think I'm being silly and that real values aren't like that - that I'm just not seeing the alternative viewpoint or trade-off.

But I actually think there are a huge class of values like this.

I guess that's just my opinion.

[harryh]

I think they are a huge class of values like this too. I just don't think it's as useful to state them outright in a corporate values statement. String too many of them together and you get this:

https://www.ibm.com/ibm/values/us/

Just try to read it without your eyes glazing over. Can you even get to the end?

It's not that anything in the list is wrong or bad. It's just boring. It's obvious. Who cares? I bet 90% of IBM employees have never even read the damn thing much less ever actually changed anything about how they do their job because of it.

Great values statements are great because they are shocking, because they get people to pay attention, and because they actually get people to change how they do things. Move fast and BREAK THINGS(1). The god damn CEO telling employees to break things. That's how you differentiate yourself.

1. Sorry to keep using this example. It's just the best. I don't even particularly like Facebook but this is just a fucking great corporate values statement. It's so great that millions of people outside the company know it and have thought about it.

[logicallee]

I'm really glad you decided to link that IBM page because I can use to to show you that your "inversion" metric is one I really do reject.

I've rewritten the top of the document to invert it.

https://pastebin.com/YmKB0uNV

I stopped, but obviously could have continued to go through the rest of the document. So by your proposed standard of "is the inverted version still good" the answer is "absolutely". But that doesn't make these good values!

I agree with you that it is not a great document at all. Even though it can be inverted without any problem or challenge. I simply can't accept the inversion tool you proffered.

[barrkel]

I don't think you inverted the values correctly! For example, starting out with these:

• Dedication to every client’s success

• Innovation that matters-for our company and for the world

• Trust and personal responsibility in all relationships

The obvious inversion (to me) is:

• Dedication to every client’s failure

• Innovation that matters to nobody

• Mistrust and lack of responsibility in all relationships

But actually, the positive values as written are contradictory. What if there's a conflict between innovation that matters to the world vs a client's success - which comes first? Both are positive. But these values don't discriminate.

[logicallee]

I didn't introduce the idea of inversion, and if you look through this thread from the top you will see that I used it as defined by the person who introduced it, who called the above inversions (in a sibling comment to yours) "very good."

You might have missed it beecause there are a couple of conversations going on in this thread. Pay attention to the usernames.

Anyway for the inversions, I am playing by that person's rules and following that person's terminology, not simply negating these statements.

Some statements can't be inverted. (For example it's not possible to invert "don't murder your colleagues.")

[harryh]

You know....that's a really go rewrite you did. You have me pondering the usefulness of my tool. I'm not ready to abandon it but you've convinced me that it needs refining.

Thanks!

[logicallee]

Still, I started off making an entirely different point - (that there are many good values that can't be inverted) on which I think we were agreed. So in the end I really argued most strongly (and took the biggest karma hit on) for things we actually agreed on! So thanks for your discussion, too :).

(meanwhile all my other contri bributors