re: Headcount: Cutting the Fat (Really)>> The routine then starts all over again. In the process, productive people are discouraged, and the liars, cheaters, ass-kissers get fatter.
BTW, I see "ray of hope" in Google model where there are almost no managers. When would industry realize that we need NO managers. Managers exist for the convenience and benefit of other managers -- they actively seek and promote such types.....
Exactly my point...A very well-written and thought-out post.
heads-up
-------------------------------------------------
The greatest players are also team players. It is the B- players who think they are better than the riff raff around them. It is the B- players who from cliques ratehr than teams. The A+ players bring up the play of all of their team mates just as Gretzky did.
re: Headcount: Cutting the Fat (Really)Hi ragho, Speaking of being brutally honest. Outsourcing/offshoring is happening because it is the latest management fashion/hype. If there is any sign of intelligence in management, outsourcing/offshoring will not happen in a wholesale fashion with no regards of each individual situation/circumstances. Some CEOs are leaders, they outsource/offshore whatever lower costs and make more money for the company. The other CEOs just do it because it is the latest fashion/hype.
re: Headcount: Cutting the Fat (Really) Whoa, whoa, wait a dog-gone minute!!
First, it is just plain wrong and downright disrespectful to suggest that a) the outsourcing is a fat cutting measure and b) that A-grade employees are always necessary.
Let me back that up by commenting on why that is wrong:
<ol> <li>The outsourcing (or offshoring) is not about the fat. It is about reducing costs and in no way reflects the quality of workmanship of the average employee. Yes, you knew that.</li> <li>You need a mix of Generals and Troopers in any army. Usually you need more troopers than Generals, so on average you have more average employees (C-grade) than top performers (A-grade).</li> </ol>
Which brings me next to the disrespectful part. Don't put down the average employee for a company's woes or economic strategies. Even a Janitor needs to do his honest, hard-working job to get the wheels moving. Suggesting that offshoring occurs because the average American worker can be replaced by a better Indian worker is wrong--it is more about getting the job done for a lower cost.
re: Headcount: Cutting the Fat (Really)A few opinions about things said in this thread...
I think the key to a good startup is to have hiring managers who insist on hiring people who are better than they are and then empower those people to be successful. The worst thing you can do is hire and empower complete morons.
A second key thing is to ruthlessly check backgrounds on interview candidates. Once a startup reaches critical mass, you can almost always do a back-door reference check on anybody you interview since somebody within the company pretty much always knows a former co-worker who worked with the guy at a previous company. I rarely call the reference given to me by a candidate but I always to a back-door reference check.
Somebody said here that startups hire to a headcount of 125 in the first year. In my opinion, this is a recipe for disaster. Nobody can hire that many people in a year without botching it. If you can put together a core engineering team of 20 to 25 people in the first year, that's enough talent to work out exactly what you're going to build so you can scale the group in the 2nd year. Too often, I see the READY-FIRE-AIM mentality at startups where the VCs feed too much cash in too early in the cycle. You shouldn't hire the army until you have a viable architecture, reasonable process, and tools in place.
Given the huge productivity spread between "A" players and "C" players, most startups tend to deal with the personality conflicts that abound in a team stuffed with "A" players and keep the team small in the first year.
You are clearly one confused, bitter guy. Here is one point for you to process with your vapid intellect: every company was a startup once. As hard as it may be for you to understand, the ancient RBOCS and Power companies did not break forth from the ground like volcanos. These companies were started by innovators, made mistakes and thrived despite their imperfections. The valley success stories: HP, Sun, Intel, etc. share similar traits. Some of these companies had technical founders that became great managers and leaders, while some had to have great managers brought in. But all of them share a combination of technology and management. Technology without management is anarchy, and management without technology is useless (unless you make pet rocks).
From your postings, it seems like you think everyone took advantage of you in the startups you worked for, and that you were blameless for everything that went wrong.
No drop of rain believes it is responsible for the flood either
I might have bought your spiel at one time but I worked at a place where I had one of these B- managers as a boss. One of his favorite sayings was that we were all competing with our counterparts at our competitors on an individual level. The only problem was, I had no control over the fact that my manager did not effectively compete with his counterpart. He was a classic example of the blustering, do-nothing manager like in Dilbert.
I did the only thing I could and left. Fortunately, the senior management got rid of this guy or he left and the company is still doing well. If you ever hear this kind of crap from your manager, it's time to go.
BTW, I see "ray of hope" in Google model where
there are almost no managers. When would industry
realize that we need NO managers. Managers
exist for the convenience and benefit of other
managers -- they actively seek and promote
such types.....
startup_shutup
-------------------------------------------------
True. The same can be said for managers who
are self-promoting - who's IQ are equivalent
to their shoe-size.
heads-up