[johnfn]

Haha, wow, I remember reading this when it was written. I do think it's probably a bit too cynical though, probably colored by the author's own world-view and personal experience. I do think that some companies are just filled with BS; don't get me wrong. But I think that there are also a subset of companies who are filled with people trying their best, but who are making mistakes and/or being incompetent in a way that looks like the active sabotage that OP is describing. I think when there's a power imbalance it's easy to ascribe every non-perfect action by people above you to be some act of self-interest, when in reality it isn't always true that everyone has a secret ulterior motive.

> From the founders's perspective the org is basically an overactive genie. It will do what you say, but not what you mean. Want to increase sales in two quarters? No problem, sales increased. Oh, and we also subtly destroyed our customers's trust. Once the stakes are high, founders basically have to treat their org as an adversarial agent. You might think -- but a good founder will notice! Doesn't matter how good you are -- you've selected world class politicians that are good at getting past your exact psychological makeup.

This is a particularly good quote!

[akkartik]

Ha, this is actually a really good case in favor of not hiring the best people. Any metric you have for estimating "best" will be gameable.

Now I'm reminded of https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2019/04/15/mediocratopia-4.

[dilyevsky]

> I do think it's probably a bit too cynical though, probably colored by the author's own world-view and personal experience.

That’s the sad part. Once you personally encounter this, as i also have, though not as a founder, you cant help but notice it everywhere and question everything. Like the irl The Thing

[caminante]

Overly cynical indeed and incomplete. It's profound for someone 5 years out of college.

I know the intent, but I found this typo funny

> Once the steaks are high

There are much better "this is how things ACTUALLY work" takes like Ribbonfarm's "Gervais Principal" [0] to feast on.

[0] https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...

[caminante]

/This is a reply to a reply (which I thought was thought-provoking) but commenter deleted it. I'm posting regardless to flesh out my thoughts.

>...that still doesn't mean they will do what you want them to do.

I get the generalization/perspective, but I reject the premise that you can't influence or manage subordinates to "do what you want." While you can't avoid your subordinate (a) daytrading their job or (b) empirebuilding for the sake of empirebuilding, you can for sure mitigate with monitoring, prioritization, and termination.

> <anecdote about Larry Page getting frustrated about PMs not doing what he wants in early Google>

I don't know the context of the Larry Page story, but the qualifier of "early Google" makes my point that they were still figuring out their leadership presence as rising managers/leaders. Jobs was also a known micro-manager. The answer, I assume, is that they began to realize how to manage results and I bet they could get a random employee to "do what they wanted," but prefer a different approach.

> learning to be hyper-aware of how your employees' agendas/motives can subvert your goals

I don't disagree, but there are checks and balances you can incorporate as a principal. The Gervais Principle takes it one step further by incorporating how these "subverters" can be useful to take risks that if things work out (and nobody gets caught), you get a pat on the back and the bonus. But, if you get caught (for doing something illegal but highly profitable), well we have to fire you. Either way, the principal is getting subverted, but it's not always against the principal's wishes.