[dvt]

This post seems like a half-truth in itself (with a tinge of sour grapes). Furthermore, there seems to be a lot of self-contradiction. E.g.:

"The leadership was struggling with the vision of the company. It was pulled in many directions - sometimes ad-hoc based on customer feedback or angel advice."

and

"I wanted to have a significant impact so I was constantly asking the founders to work on the long-term vision and culture for the company. I also told them that VCs invested in talent and not the idea."

Being pulled in many directions at once is characteristic of new companies. Furthermore, you yourself were pulling it in one direction (it would appear). So, then, were you also guilty of this ad-hoc influence? I'm not sure what to take from this apart from "my pulling was good, their pulling was bad."

Also,

"The culture was bad. Engineers were constantly told what to do."

I think that this is pretty status-quo (you're an engineer, not an idea guy/founder after all). Not only that, but someone needs to hold the reigns. I couldn't imagine being a founder and not telling engineers what to do. Like the other HN'er, I need some clarification here. Were you being micromanaged? (And even that may not be a bad thing..)

Let me make a small aside about culture while I'm at it. I don't really buy into this "company culture" bullshit. It seems (to me at least) that it's mostly self-gratifying mental masturbation. Instead of being so obsessed with "culture" -- it's mentioned two or three times in the essay -- why not bring up more substantial issues up? After all, maybe it just wasn't a good fit (but that has nothing to do with culture). That would be like a girlfriend breaking up with me because of my "person culture." It's a meaningless platitude that's thrown around far too much in startup circles.

[dylangs1030]

You're missing the forest for the trees in this post, and being overly-literal. The author is actually being very clear in his side of the story.

>Being pulled in many directions at once is characteristic of new companies. Furthermore, you yourself were pulling it in one direction (it would appear).

The author was being pulled in many directions, then he wanted to help the founders and the company's direction as a result of being somewhat misinformed. He was trying to solve the lack of direction by pointing them in the direction of their vision. Saying they were being pulled in many directions is kind of like saying they had no direction, so your analysis is baseless.

>I think that this is pretty status-quo (you're an engineer, not an idea guy/founder after all). Not only that, but someone needs to hold the reigns. I couldn't imagine being a founder and not telling engineers what to do.

Secondly, it's not the status-quo, or at least, it doesn't have to be. You're being too literal - I think it's clear he means micromanagement and arbitrary instruction without needing to say that, not that he thinks engineers should exist in a utopian state of telepathic productivity where nothing needs to be said to them for them to accomplish their goals.

[dvt]

If I'm being too literal then you're being too presumptive. I'm not sure what one can take from "Engineers were constantly told what to do." -- I gave my theory and asked for clarification (as the other HN'er did). I don't think I'm in the minority here. It seems like a pretty bold claim, after all.

[techiedudeblog]

Engineers were not encouraged to think independently.

[hpagey]

Were any of the founders, technical?

[spudlyo]

"When I hear the word culture, that's when I reach for my revolver." --Hanns Johst

I'm often struggle with the whole notion of "company culture" as well, and I can't help but agree that much of it is bullshit.

I can think of things that are perhaps "software engineering culture" like the public shaming of folks who have broken the build. At one company I worked at you had to wear a stinky old Viking helmet if you were a build breaker, at another you had to buy doughnuts for everyone on the team. There are probably more examples out there.

[krapp]

At one company I worked at you had to wear a stinky old Viking helmet if you were a build breaker

I guess 'shame' is relative... that would only encourage me to break stuff so I could keep wearing the helmet.

[ziel]

I think the intended definition of culture in the context of a company is this:

"the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization <a corporate culture focused on the bottom line>" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/culture

I've talked to several folks who shrink back from the term... but I can't really imagine a better one for it. In my experience, various shared values and practices emerge in any team.

I've found cultural fit to be one of the biggest factors in determining whether I'll be happy at any particular company. After all, It's very hard to do good work if you can't agree on what good is.

Edit: fixed a typo

[Draiken]

Everytime I hear the word I just think of this comic: http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2013-05-22/

[9999]

Hanns Johst - Nazi Poet Laureate if anyone was wondering.

[greghinch]

> I think that this is pretty status-quo (you're an engineer, not an idea guy/founder after all).

Er, no. A good leadership knows how to frame questions and let the engineers find the solutions. You don't come the engineering team with a solution already decided down to every last detail. It's what they're good at, after all, solving problems. Ideally you have someone who's leading the tech side who can call shots on the product AND work on the technical stuff.

Too many biz-dev types starting companies treat their engineers like code-monkey servants, to the detriment of the product and the company.

[badclient]

You don't come the engineering team with a solution already decided down to every last detail.

And you've already concluded that that is indeed what was going on at this start-up. Just from the mere use of the word "micromanaging"?

Too many biz-dev types starting companies treat their engineers like code-monkey servants, to the detriment of the product and the company.

Sorry, that might have been true a decade ago but today, everyone knows that engineering and coders rule the world at most start-ups. If anything, we may have gone too far to the other extreme where coders don't value a good business guy as much as they should.

[greghinch]

> And you've already concluded that that is indeed what was going on at this start-up. Just from the mere use of the word "micromanaging"?

Nope, I was responding directly to the parent of my comment, to the line I quoted, which was phrased to state that engineers have no business making product decisions.

> Sorry, that might have been true a decade ago but today, everyone knows that engineering and coders rule the world at most start-ups. If anything, we may have gone too far to the other extreme where coders don't value a good business guy as much as they should.

That may definitely be the case in a few firms in SV, but outside that little bubble, the rest of the world still often falls into the "old view", something akin to "management" and "labor"

[hef19898]

Both extremes are bad. What I'm really tired of, and I'm as far away from software and SV right now as you can probaly be, are people believing themselves being experts in X only because the work in company that's in the market of X, wether that's their job or not.

I for myself prefer to listen to people hat do the job while I expect people to listen to me when my job is concerned. If not, it's easy to interpret it as distrust.

So I agree with both points here.

[spamizbad]

Eh I'd say its a mixed bag today. I've run into startups that still grind their programmers into pulp trying to crank out product. And I've seen the opposite - where the engineering culture will veto genuinely good business opportunities because they're not up to the engineering challenge.

[greghinch]

And, you know, the ones in the middle that are actually successful because they have people who know how to balance both.

[oblique63]

> Furthermore, you yourself were pulling it in one direction (it would appear). So, then, were you also guilty of this ad-hoc influence?

Not the OP, but I would like to note that influence in this context has a couple of different flavors. One flavor is that of adding on directions/ideas/possibilities, and another flavor as that of focusing on directions/ideas/possibilities (i.e. remove clutter and narrow down your scope). It seemed to me that the OP was addressing the former with his complaint, and trying to steer them towards the latter. Which makes sense given that he/she was hired on as a 'business' person.

> Were you being micromanaged?

Again not OP, but that's kind of orthogonal to his point given that he was addressing 'micromanagement' of engineers, whereas he was hired as a 'business' person. Personally, I think that sort of quasi-outsider perspective to the whole situation gives the observation a bit more merit.

We could argue about what 'micromanagement' actually means, but usually nobody uses that word without a negative connotation, and a negative connotation in a management relationship context usually means butting heads -- which, unsurprisingly, the author claimed to have experienced himself. And there is a difference between having respectable disagreements, and the concept that the phrase 'butting heads' implies. Hence, the negative tone of the post.

[dvt]

I meant that as a general "you" -- talking about the engineers (which the claim was about). Confusing, I agree. My apologies.