[csa]

> stepping into conversations in which you have no context and no skin in the game is a real fast way to get yourself shunned because you have shared NONE of the downside but you walk in the door like you have all the answers. quite frankly, that's bullshit. and quite frankly, even if it isn't, you don't have any influence in that situation so it's irrelevant.

If you have any good investors, and at this point I somehow doubt it, this comment just made them shit in their pants and/or write off their investment in you.

I strongly encourage you to learn to listen to the folks around you carefully, especially the experienced ones. Sometimes the folks with no skin in the game are the only people who will give you an accurate picture of what’s going on.

If you are “shunning” any of your employees for any reason, then you’ve got major problems.

If you don’t think experienced (older) people don’t have at least some of the answers and treat them accordingly, then you’ve got major problems. This is true even if they don’t come in with a perfect attitude — note that attitude can usually be fixed with gentle prodding from a skilled leader.

If you think that one has to have (significant?) exposure to downsides to have any of the answers, then you’ve got major problems.

If you haven’t given your employees enough information and enough autonomy to help move your company in the right direction, then you’ve got major problems.

Best of luck... I’m afraid to say that I think you will need a healthy dose of it.

[Spooky23]

So you think it’s a good idea for employees to go to the board with a position out of sync with management and bypass the management chain?

I’ve never seen any place in business, non-profit or government where that was a scenario that would benefit the employee unless the employee was very politically savvy, was in a very senior position and had special circumstances (past relationships, etc)

[csa]

> So you think it’s a good idea for employees to go to the board with a position out of sync with management and bypass the management chain?

The article says very specifically:

"The team underneath the founders should feel like they have the right, and the responsibility, to talk to the Board and investor group when founder dysfunction gets really bad. In general the idea of the team going around the leaders to the Board is a big “no no” in startup land, but there are a few places where that needs to happen, like outing illegal or dishonest actions, or harassment. Likewise, if the co-founder relationship is so bad that the company is being seriously harmed, the team should feel a responsibility to come to the Board with that information."

I stand by this.

[notyourday]

The article is written by a VC trying to protect his turf. Lying is rampant in startup world, up and down the chain of management. It is also routine in the world built around startups. VCs lie to execs. Execs lie to leadership. Leadership lies to management. Management lies to rank and file. In our politically correct culture it is just not called "lying" - it may be called "accelerating" or "explaining" or "moving the needle". This, in turn, creates a situation where everyone with an ounce of brain and common sense needs to figure out not just a real picture but a real picture as seen by every layer of organization or players.

I especially take issue with this:

"The team underneath the founders should feel like they have the right, and the responsibility, to talk to the Board and investor group when founder dysfunction gets really bad. In general the idea of the team going around the leaders to the Board is a big “no no” in startup land, but there are a few places where that needs to happen, like outing illegal or dishonest actions, or harassment. "

Had this been the case we would not have had scandals at Zenefits and Uber. The big no-no in a startup land is no stop looking like a cash cows for VCs.

[Spooky23]

I think that’s different, and the response to that sort of company, especially for a senior employee is to resign.

If the founders are behaving unethically or illegally, the board has already failed to fulfill its duty. “Don’t kill the messenger” is rarely reality.

[wolco]

If you are going to the board as an employee the company better be falling apart.

[20180201]

> So you think it’s a good idea for employees to go to the board with a position out of sync with management and bypass the management chain?

he just didn't like the language i used (it's blunt, and describes a social dynamic he's probably upset about). he forgot all about what's actually being discussed here, which is an IC-level employee vocalizing to the co-founders/executives and board about the direction/strategy/highlevel leadership of the company.

[warent]

It's ironic that you're championing blunt language and disregard for social dynamic under a throwaway account.

Your comment about tone, even if its regarding your own--or other's perception of it--brings no value to this discussion. Arguably it brings negative value.

Did you create this account to vent a fantasy personality that you're restraining in real life?

[20180201]

i don't have a real account, haven't had one for years, because eventually i say something the mods don't like.

cheers.

[ABCLAW]

This was the impression I got from reading the post as well.

Organizations are distributed human reasoning systems. If your culture, personalities or incentives prevent people from sharing key insights, you are hampering your ability to execute.

[20180201]

i think it's telling that you assume i have 'investors' to please, and that they will somehow punish me for my unjust mean words and actions that hurt someone's imaginary feelings. like 'investors' are somehow the arbiter of moral virtue in the world. maybe they are in your world, and that's why you are so shocked at my simple telling of the truth of how people operate in a company hierarchy.

i think what that just means you worship venture capitalists and fluffy language they espouse (in a cynically false way, i might add) over real world descriptors.

i started my business specifically to dramatically mitigate the possibility that small concentrations of people will have any financial leverage over me.

[csa]

s/investors/board... it doesn't really matter. It still doesn't make your approach any more valid.

Note that the original post is from a VC, and the context of this thread is a discussion of someone talking to a board member without the knowledge of the founders. Also note that the article itself mentioned specific contexts in which this should be done:

"The team underneath the founders should feel like they have the right, and the responsibility, to talk to the Board and investor group when founder dysfunction gets really bad. In general the idea of the team going around the leaders to the Board is a big “no no” in startup land, but there are a few places where that needs to happen, like outing illegal or dishonest actions, or harassment. Likewise, if the co-founder relationship is so bad that the company is being seriously harmed, the team should feel a responsibility to come to the Board with that information."

This all seems valid to me. It also seems like situations in which it is reasonable to step "into conversations in which you have no context and no skin in the game".

FWIW, I don't drink the VC kool-aid, and I discourage others from doing so unless they have a very specific business context that is appropriate for VCs (most folks don't). That said, I am a fan of people in a wide range of fields to develop their fundamental skills in leadership and management, and I get the sense based on your comments that your fundamentals are lacking.

If you think otherwise, please step out from behind your throwaway and let us know about you and your company. I am sure that your posts here will reap huge benefits in recruiting and retention.