> You’re forgetting that companies need both Visionary AND Execution focused leaders at the very top.
I'm not forgetting. And I'm not claiming that this promotion was a mistake. I am raising questions about the narrative that the author is telling/selling. Consider how you'll likely not see such a long-winded post from company founders explaining in detail why they chose themselves for their own jobs. They founded a company because they wanted to, and they didn't care whether they had exactly the right experience and qualifications.
The narrative is about slowly making your way up the corporate ranks, gaining experience, working hard, achieving qualifications, and deserving your promotion. The author feels that this kind of story is encouraging, uplifting, that is shows you too can make it to the top, but I actually think it's kind of a disservice, an attitude that can hold people back. The company founders suddenly made it to the top at the very beginning without any of that, without "deserving" anything. If you think you have to "earn" your position, you've already bought into the myth of the hierarchy. The best reason to be ambitious is the realization that the people above you are just as flawed as you are.
If anything, competence is often overlooked in promotions. For example, from the article: "I didn’t get promoted right then (it wasn’t the right time) but we also stopped looking for an external hire." Why wasn't it the right time?
> The best reason to be ambitious is the realization that the people above you are just as flawed as you are.
Can I steal this? It's so on-point and I've seen it many, many times throughout the course of my career. There's been a few truly brilliant managers and principal engineers I've had the good fortune to work under, but for the vast majority of upper level leadership this tracks.
I’m not sure what you’re taking issue with, as that’s his point: If the founder did not require someone else’s “approval” to take the position of CEO, why should, say, a developer believe that they need “approval” from their organization to think that they’re senior-level? It’s giving the hierarchy above way too much control of your career.
You don't need anyone's approval to decide to call yourself a "senior" developer (even if nobody else agrees).
Just like with founders: the market is the ultimate arbiter. If you call yourself a senior developer, but can't perform as one, the market will correct your misconception—just like it knocks down incorrect founders.
OP is the one obsesses with hierarchy.
The part that's ridiculous is to claim that the founders of successful companies haven't earned their position. Charity has absolutely demonstrated a lot of merit to get Honeycomb to where it is.
> Just like with founders: the market is the ultimate arbiter.
> The part that's ridiculous is to claim that the founders of successful companies haven't earned their position.
"The market is the ultimate arbiter" is the exact opposite of the idea that you need the perfect résumé and experience to get and do the job.
That's what you seem to be misinterpreting about my comments. A retroactive assessment of someone's tenure in a leadership position is fundamentally different from a promotion to a leadership position, where the assessment necessarily comes before the tenure.
> Building a company from scratch is way more work than climbing a corporate hierarchy.
There's no reason to believe that this is true, other than the meritocratic article of faith that the most money and power always go to the people who work the "hardest", whatever that means. (I think that scrubbing toilets is hard work.)
> There's no reason to believe that this is true, other than the meritocratic article of faith that the most money and power always go to the people who work the "hardest", whatever that means.
And the observations of ~everyone who has done both. I've done both and starting a company is way harder.
Again, I've started a company, contrary to your previous assumption, and I know other people who have started companies. You don't speak for everyone or even most people.
If climbing the corporate hierarchy is so much easier, then how high up the ladder did you get exactly?
> I explicitly asked if you had—the opposite of assuming.
It felt like a rhetorical question, because without waiting for my answer, you presumed to explain to me, "Building a company from scratch is way more work than climbing a corporate hierarchy", and then you doubled down, presuming to know "the observations of ~everyone".
What exactly was the purpose of your question, and what is your response to the answer "Yes"?
"I automatically become CEO, CTO, etc., by starting my own company" is phrased like a hypothetical, not as a past tense action. I'd expect a founder to say they became CEO.
Not sure what point you're trying to make here. You can go and start your company any time, sure, but I would much rather be a VP in a medium sized startup than a founder. And to get to VP, even in a small organisation, you certainly need competence.
> And to get to VP, even in a small organisation, you certainly need competence.
Being extremely competent is one way to get into these positions, but it's hardly the only way.
These positions are often given to people who are viewed as the most loyal, most credentialed, most connected, or most polished. Competency is often assumed, or even wished for, but it may not be the driving force behind the decision making.
I've been a at a couple high-growth startups. The number of people who get hired or promoted into VP positions for no reason other than having the right connections and being loyal for empire-building purposes was shocking.
You can get to VP without competence. Staying there requires it. You don't necessarily have to be the most competent person possible but there is a floor.
So from what I've seen and learned, there's definitely a difference between being truly smart/visionary/creative etc vs just being "not dumb". And while I suppose the latter could also be deemed a kind of competence, I think what the others are driving at boils down to this - people with connections or just a knack for politics and schmoozing can get pretty far ahead and many underlings often mistake their rise for some sort of amazing technical or creative ability.
Once attuned to unjust or involuntary hierarchies, one realizes their ubiquity in modern society. Hierarchy and bureaucracy are useful and efficient, but while the imagined ideal is a meritocratic Star Trek bridge crew, they are commonly economically coercive, Kafkaesque, nepotistic, oligarchic power structures that serve those at the top rather than serving the systems’ purported ends.
At least that’s my worldview, which is broadly anarchic. I disagree with the notion of people having to - by force or coercion - submit to another’s power without easy escape. I am happy to follow leaders voluntarily for mutual benefit as long as I am truly free to reclaim my autonomy at any time - the social contract.
But think of the economics snares - particularly tying employment to housing and healthcare, and birth citizenship being involuntary and difficult/expensive to change. I could go further into detail to summarize my beliefs but you probably get my general perspective. I’m fortunate enough that in theory I could escape most of the hierarchies I’m under, but most humans in practice do not have that freedom and that saddens me.
> the imagined ideal is a meritocratic Star Trek bridge crew
Incidentally, this is why The Wrath of Khan was so great, because it showed that Kirk was fallible in a number of ways. He messed up by leaving Khan on Ceti Alpha V, he messed up by ignoring Saavik citing regulations to raise shields, he was embarrassed to appear fallible by putting on glasses to read, he admitted to cheating on the Kobayashi Maru test, and only Spock's sacrifice saved them all from destruction.
Part of me feels that pessimism, but another part of me believes every rational individual has at least one path to a more open mind, whether through music, art, study, self-reflection, dialog, mind-altering substances... all sorts of sources of inspiration. Most will probably never understand, but I won't stop lighting sparks and hoping they kindle in the minds of those with whom I choose to interact. That's what worked for me, at least.
On this specific topic it's not pessimism and it has little to do with rationality. It's largely just spending time in organizations and watching what happens.
My alternative advice was basically this: "The best reason to be ambitious is the realization that the people above you are just as flawed as you are."
In other words, don't buy into the myth that your position in the social hierarchy is a natural reflection of your personal worthiness.
I'm not forgetting. And I'm not claiming that this promotion was a mistake. I am raising questions about the narrative that the author is telling/selling. Consider how you'll likely not see such a long-winded post from company founders explaining in detail why they chose themselves for their own jobs. They founded a company because they wanted to, and they didn't care whether they had exactly the right experience and qualifications.
The narrative is about slowly making your way up the corporate ranks, gaining experience, working hard, achieving qualifications, and deserving your promotion. The author feels that this kind of story is encouraging, uplifting, that is shows you too can make it to the top, but I actually think it's kind of a disservice, an attitude that can hold people back. The company founders suddenly made it to the top at the very beginning without any of that, without "deserving" anything. If you think you have to "earn" your position, you've already bought into the myth of the hierarchy. The best reason to be ambitious is the realization that the people above you are just as flawed as you are.
If anything, competence is often overlooked in promotions. For example, from the article: "I didn’t get promoted right then (it wasn’t the right time) but we also stopped looking for an external hire." Why wasn't it the right time?