On 30/Oct/2006, at 11:49 PM, Kragen Sitaker wrote:

> Found this article from last year, by Kevin Barnes, pretty
> interesting. It sounds pretty similar to some experiences other
> people on this list have shared, but has some more details. Vipul in
> particular I remember talking about how hard it was to find other
> hackers in Delhi. Is it an accurate summary overall? I've left the
> author's idiosyncratic lack of punctuation intact.
>
> http://codecraft.info/index.php/archives/36/

Not to take a contrarian standpoint, but, in my experience, companies
are no less at fault.

Sure, demand outstrips supply, and there's a vast pool of unqualified
people trying their best to get their foot in the door, but surely
this doesn't mean there are no qualified people?

If you're a company seeking to hire and retain talent, you've got to
know how to hire and retain talent. You can't blame the supply for
your shortcomings. You can't just turn up in a new place, setup camp,
and expect the best to gather in your tent, because, after all,
you're cool and they want jobs. In my experience, well qualified
people are not hard to find if the job *deserves* a well qualified
person. The myth of talent shortage needs reversal.

First, the startups.

Sturgeon's law applies here. 95% of all startups will fail. There's
no escaping it. If you're seeking to work with a startup because
you've heard the stories, of valiant struggle before success, of
glorious riches, of the freedom and responsibility and growth such a
job affords... you're likely totally unqualified to tell if the
company you're associating with will be one of those stories.

In other words, your company *will* fail. Cut and run before it takes
you down.

Before you join, demand to be explained the business plan. If it
doesn't make sense, leave. They don't know what they're doing.

If the company declares it confidential, leave. They don't have a plan.

If you tell them it doesn't make sense and they tell you that you
don't understand and they know what they're doing, leave. They're
pompous assholes.

If they try to impress you by making you feel small and promising
great heights if you associate with them, leave. They're
condescending assholes.

If they tell you that your expected take is more than you deserve,
leave. They have no respect for your abilities.

If they offer you stock without giving you decision making
responsibility, leave. The stock is worthless and you'll be signing
away the rights to your career.

If they're offering a decision making responsibility but no stock,
leave. They're control freaks and you'll get shafted when they
realise how dependent they are on you.

If you send them a referral and they pitch to that person singing
peans to the wonderful things they've heard about them, raise the
alarm. They're desperate and think nothing of lying in their pitch.

If they say anything about how they're in your part of the world
because the costs work out better here, run like hell. They only want
you because you're cheap. There are few things worse than a job where
your most attractive feature is your price tag. Do not ever work for
a company that is in your area while the market is elsewhere because
it's cheaper here. Globalisation wasn't meant to be to your
advantage. You'll get walloped by the glass ceiling before you know
it, and then they'll toss your burnt out body on the road.

In summary, working for a startup is generally a very bad idea. It's
no wonder most startups only find the most desperate candidates, or
the brilliant but naive ones who will inevitably burn out. Stop
whining that people have no risk taking appetite. They're being
sensible, you're not.

I didn't make up any of this list. They're from actual experiences
I've had.

For a far simpler but 100% effective test, ask to see the founder's
working space (if the founder has a fancy title like "CEO" or "CTO",
laugh at them before you run, for a fancy title invariably means they
have no key staff.). If it bears any sign of being superior to the
spaces of ordinary employees, any sign at all, whether glass cabin,
better furniture, even view from the window, say thanks and walk
away. You won't regret it. The only admissible difference is that
they have vacant space around them to accommodate people for
meetings. Startups are expected to be disorganised, but not to have
visible hierarchies. (The successful startups I've worked with
invariably had egalitarian working spaces even after having grown
several hundred strong.)

Not that established companies are generally any better. When you
treat your employees as replaceable unit labour, what better can you
expect but to fill your vacancies with replaceable unit labour?

Look at the HR policies most companies have. The big shops all treat
their "fresher" recruits as bonded labour. (The contracts are worded
to pass the bond off as training fees.) These aren't mere
formalities. I once had a person come running out of a BigCo, three
months into the training period, to work with me at a startup. About
the most brilliant person I've had the pleasure of working with, and
a good friend since. He couldn't stand the place for the way it
treated folks, by policy. He told his HR manager as such before
leaving. She said she would have to file him as absconding, because
otherwise it would be a hassle for her to explain. BigCo sent a
lawyergram, threatening a civil suit for violating the bond unless he
paid up. (They didn't follow up, suggesting it made no economic
sense.) In the same period, that same company was all over the press
as among the best performing companies and one of the best places to
work. The press detailed what was most repulsive about the place
("deskilling labour", aka "leave your brain at the door") and
celebrated it as its unique strength, the engine of its growth. It
was disgusting.

As for the startup? The team did some brilliant work that's caused
lasting ripples around the world (as measured by a Google Alert on
the name of the product, which continues to turn up new results every
few weeks), but the place didn't escape Sturgeon's law. Their HR
policies were so insane, the best ran for cover at first opportunity,
while the brave fought until they burnt out. How bad could it be?
Consider this: they had a single phone in the premises, which the
"director" personally answered to screen all calls. He'd refuse to
pass the call if he thought someone was getting too much phone time.
When he left for the day, he locked the instrument in his drawer.
This was at a time before cell phones were ubiquitous. The startup
had this very expensive, large, open space for an office, one whole
side of which was a glass wall with a glorious view. Two thirds of
the floor was unoccupied, reserved for future expansion, while
everyone got packed into the other third with approximately two and a
half feet of personal space, without even cubicle walls. The only
place to keep a backpack was to hang it off the back of the chair, or
on a designated shelf at the other end of the floor. All this,
despite that they paid excellent salaries. Management didn't think
better conditions were needed given the kind of work they did.

(I won't bother to describe the power politics, aka mutual
backstabbing, that characterised the place. This startup wasn't even
the worst disaster I've seen.)

I've been expelled from an organisation for incompetence on more than
one occasion. In moments of self examination, I've wondered: was I
really that incompetent, or was there something about the place that
was so inhibiting? It's been painful acknowledging one over the
other, but with the passing years, I'm increasingly convinced that
most companies are really lousy places to work at. They make glorious
statements about what their people mean to them, but they usually
don't know what those statements mean.

In the last half decade, not one company has managed to convince me
to become a full time employee. I've remained a consultant even when
heading their tech departments, choosing to work with no job
security, no perks, all-work-related-expenses-are-my-own,-please-just-
pay-me-this-lump-sum,-thank-you-very-much, because, guess what? It
actually works out better than to be an employee, given their
policies. Have you seen the employee contracts most companies have?

What's that? You have an entrepreneurial streak and would like to
make the most of it? Well, screw you. You're the company's property
and you do what you're told. Don't you dare be good at anything else.
(Don't believe me? Read the fine print on your contract.)

What's that? You've some errands this morning and will be in late?
But you said the same thing yesterday. Well, yes, we have flexitime,
but we'd like it if you were in office 9.30 to 6 each day. Please
don't compel us to review our policies.

Heck, most companies don't even know how to make a consultant's
contract. I've worked with companies for years without one and it
doesn't bother me anymore. There's a standard pattern to how this
plays out that is comforting. The working relationship survives
without a contract on the basis of trust. Or more accurately, on the
basis that if I quit, they're in deep shit, so the pay cheques had
better keep flowing. The contract invariably comes out in a hurry
when one shows signs of disillusionment.

Last year, a startup tried to convince me to sign one that said if
they had a successful sale of their product, I'd refrain from
indulging in that line of work for the next two years, in addition to
the 18 months I was going to stay off such work should I dare quit.
They saw nothing wrong with it. Just protecting their interests. A
non-compete clause, you see. Would they agree to a clause specifying
that they pay me a stipend for the period I was mandatorily off work?
Hell, no. Not in their interests.

A few months later, that startup folded.

As for those who accept the muzzle of the contract, look at how
they're treated. "Spec it till there's no room for creativity". Lower
level staff are menial labour. Their ability to think is an
inconvenience. How do you upgrade their responsibilities? That's
easy. Give them a simple task, one they can't possibly fail at, then
make congratulatory noises about how they're so valuable to the
company and taking on such important work. If the employee isn't
insulted and manages to complete it without panicking over how
they've utterly failed to understand the task because surely it can't
be as trivial as this, throw another task at them. If they're failing
to cope, take the task away. The task has to be done on time within
budget. That is most important. Work is worship and customer is king,
you see. Don't waste time on fiddly thoughts like how demoralising
such a demotion can be. On second thoughts, don't even bother telling
them they're no longer in charge. There's no time. They'll figure it
out eventually and understand that it's all good. The explanations
can wait for the performance review. Let HR do it. We'll give the
person some responsibility again when they seem ready for it. Can't
risk them screwing things up.

Performance review? What's that? Not once in all my working life have
I had a performance review, except when being reprimanded for failing
to deliver on responsibilities flung at me. Performance reviews are
these mysterious events that only happen to other people, never
yourself.

Take a person who's been through this cycle enough times, put them in
a decent work environment where they're treated well, give them
responsibilities commensurate with their experience, and ... what?
You don't know how to do this because you never actually got to this
part of the job before? In all these years?

Well, is it any surprise when you find yourself interviewing such a
candidate? That you find yourself strangely lacking what ought to
have been standard experience?

Companies think they're doing employees a favour by giving them work.
They think employees have no business questioning the nature of the
work when they're getting paid for it. They don't understand that
employees have resumes to fill, and if you're making a habit of
giving them bit jobs that are hard to explain, they'll go elsewhere
seeking a better job description.

They think nothing of stuffing people into cramped workplaces with
standard issue computers (ugh!) and really bad ergonomics. I'm yet to
see a workplace anywhere in this country that understands ergonomics.
The table is always too high, hurting your shoulders when you reach
for the keyboard, leaving your feet dangling, and the chair is never
the right size for you. There's always some kind of supporting
structure under the table that smashes into your knee two times a
day. Bad back from the posture? Well, you really ought to take better
care of your health, you know. The company can't oversee your
personal life.

And then they don't understand why you prefer to work from home,
where you're in charge of the environment. Shirking duty. Hanging out
with your girlfriend while claiming to work. If you pull this stunt
again, we're marking it as your day off.

Or force them to fill a timesheet that takes half an hour each day
and demands details that no one can possibly provide, except by
fabrication ("how much time did you spend on each task?"). Cut off
their distractions. Filter their Internet access. Don't let them
visit sites that are unrelated to their work. Send them a list each
week and demand explanations for what they were doing on those sites.
Structure their workplace such that they have no privacy. They
shouldn't be able to tell if someone is staring at their screen from
across the room. That'll keep them focused.

(All real experiences.)

You know what? Enough with this bullshit.

We're in a booming economy now. This is an employee's market. Don't
be held down by companies who can't respect you. There's always
someone else out there who will treat you better. Companies that
actually treat their people well are few and far between. If a
company doesn't go out of its way to prove it to you, don't waste
your time with them. Move on.

For companies that claim people are their most valuable assets, ask
yourselves this: are you willing to treat HR as the most important
function of your company, far more important than the actual line of
business you indulge in? If not, screw you. You deserve the rabble
you whine about. You are the very source of what you despise.


--
Kiran Jonnalagadda
http://jace.seacrow.com/