[vonholstein]

The example argument is very weak, the fictional organization has a goal of "increasing revenues and profitability", isn't that a tautology? I mean are there any firms where that would not be the goal. Any reasonably competent leadership will go atleast a few levels deeper and have goals that have demonstrable product outcomes, which translate to increased profit or sales. At least that has been my experience. I'd like to understand if there are any orgs out there with such simplistic goals as stated in the article.

[rhaway84773]

Those could definitely be non goals.

Eg. A company looking to divest certain products or divisions would not be looking to increase revenue. A company looking to improve margins by eliminating low margin or even money losing products may not seek to improve revenue for a certain year.

And the increasing profitability part should be pretty obvious. The vast majority of startups that make it to the HN pages don’t even attempt to make a profit, never mind increasing it.

[rubyfan]

You’re joking right? I honestly can’t tell if you’re trying to be ironic or if your working experience is limited to some sort of management nirvana.

In case it’s worth stating, yes there are firms where these sort of simplistic impact statements make it into OKRs and leave much to the imagination about what real desirable outcomes are.

[brigandish]

Your comment would read so much better without the opening paragraph.

[rubyfan]

I don’t mean it negatively. My own experience is limited to firms with no commitment to stated goals, vague goals (grow and profit), and leadership that want to dictate outputs vs outcomes. So unfortunately through my eyes the parent read like satire.

[brigandish]

I appreciate that you didn't mean it like that but it does read quite disrespectfully. That can happen sometimes though, unfortunately I know that all too well! I'm also a bit touchy of late as so many comments on HN lack basic respect, it's not people getting into an argument and getting too heated, it's the very first comment people reply with, so perhaps I'm overreacting.

[krageon]

I think it makes reading the chain easier, I had the exact same thought reading the message that was responded to. Knowing that the chain recognises this thought and tries to addresss it helps me absorb the rest of the discourse.

[brigandish]

I think that’s fair enough too. I’m not saying it can’t be said, just that it looked more like a dismissive swipe to me but I acknowledge that mistakes can happen in both the writing and the reading of any comment. I’m happy being wrong about my first impression.

[rubyfan]

thanks, I appreciate the feedback on it and commitment to keeping HN and awesome place for discourse.

[vonholstein]

Wasn't joking. Perhaps my worldview is more limited than it should be.

[rubyfan]

I don’t mean it negatively, consider yourself lucky.

[lazyasciiart]

I will pay you $10 to give me $5.

I just increased my revenue by $10 but decreased my profitability by $5. Now pretend that $10 was spent on ineffective advertising and sales, so I actually gave it to Google and my sales guy Bob, and $5 is the price I charged you.

[WJW]

That's not how revenue works.

[lazyasciiart]

Doh, it should say revenue increased by $5.

[nprateem]

Startups prioritise growth over profitability

[JumpCrisscross]

> Startups prioritise growth over profitability

Which usually falls under increasing revenues. Though I suppose there are user/eyeball driven cultures.

[nprateem]

Not if growth requires heavy capital investments. Build then sell.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Not if growth requires heavy capital investments. Build then sell

Revenue is, accounting-wise, orthogonal to capital investment. Hell, many definitions of profit are, too.

[nprateem]

I don't see your point. OP suggested all orgs prioritise revenues & profit which isn't always true.