I think his point is one that seems obvious, but isn't always. First, you should believe in your product, then your job is to get others to do so. Treating people badly, not paying them, lying, etc. are all terrible and we should not ever praise those parts, but that doesn't mean his overall point is wrong at all. There are a few things going on there:
1) If you as the creator don't believe in it, you're probably going to have more trouble convincing others that it's worth using, unless you have some kind of interesting personality quirk.
2) The value of something - and it may be very valuable - might not immediately be obvious. AirBnB, for example, sounded insane to many people before it caught on. The founders had to believe in it, and they had to convince others to do so.
3) For things which are purely subjective (and I know some do find this distasteful, for sometimes good reasons), convincing others of its value is the entire point. Think about things like fashion, music styles, toys / novelties of various kinds - even certain kinds of technologies which only shuffle the deck in terms of functionality / UX may need to have users convinced. The effects of this one can be net positive (something starts out looking like a fad, turns into incredibly useful thing [Twitter]), net negative (unhealthy fad diets), or neutral (Webkinz? Furbies?), but even if you hate these things, you can't wish them away or deny they exist.
That the founders and the investors have to believe in a product is undeniable. If we agree that "believe in" means "believe that it's gonna catch on and make a shitload of money", not necessarily "make the world better".
But why should you care as a founder if your employees believe in your product? Your employees are professionals, pay them to get shit done and that's it, why do they have to believe in your idea of "Uber for strippers", or "twitter for baby sitters"?
The only ones who have to believe are the ones who put their ass on the line for a potential big reward. And startup employees are not in this category.
But why should you care as a founder if your employees believe in your product? Your employees are professionals, pay them to get shit done and that's it, why do they have to believe in your idea of "Uber for strippers", or "twitter for baby sitters"?
So what's the difference between and "employee" and a "mercenary"? If you believe there's any appreciable difference, then I'd argue you already have the answer to your question. If you think there is no difference, then I don't really have much else to say, other than to ask if you can recognize the difference in the way you felt about working on something you really cared about, versus something where you only got money for your work.
Ultimately, it's down to intrinsic motivation[1] versus extrinsic motivation[2].
In a capitalist society with "at will" employment now that the average tenure is around 2 to 3 years, I do not believe that there is much difference between an employee and a mercenary. I believe that we're now in an era where "employee" doesn't mean anything anymore - at least in tech or for highly skilled workers. When you are an "employee" you are actually a contractor with one client, they pay you for your expertise to solve their problem, once they don't need you they'll let you go.
I also believe that you don't need to be excited about the industry you work in to be excited and stimulated by the technical challenges. A lawyer can be excited about using the law to win a difficult case without caring for his client.
Just to be very clear, I don't blame people who believe in what they do. That's great, but I don't recognize that deeply caring is a requirement to be a good, productive employee.
That's great, but I don't recognize that deeply caring is a requirement to be a good, productive employee.
And I'm not saying that "deeply caring is a requirement to be a good, productive employee" either. However, I will contend that - all other things being equal - a person will be happier, more content, and derive more enjoyment from their occupation, if they "deeply care". How much so is, obviously hard to quantify and this probably matters more to some people than others. I'd also posit that, in general the employees who "deeply care" (or however you want to phrase it) are likely to do better work to at least some small degree, just due to the whole "intrinsic motivation" thing.
I know for myself, I have professional pride in any circumstance, but there's no question I do better work when I actually care about the work, as opposed to when I'm just collecting a paycheck. OTOH, I recognize that I am not a representative sample. :-)
A company full of mercenaries is fine when things are going well, but if things go bad you will have problems. Zynga's culture was notorious for this and it had big problems with retention after its bad IPO. Conversely, Facebook's culture was the exact opposite of Zynga's and it had very little turnover after its bad IPO.
> A company full of mercenaries is fine when things are going well, but if things go bad you will have problems.
You bet you will. I chose not so long ago to refuse to be exploited by whoever's paying me at the moment, and that makes it really hard for an employer to make me hurt myself for a company's "mission". Or for the paycheck.
It's a much, much better life for a worker, and I can understand why founders would hate it.
I'm not exactly sure why you as a founder should care (nor do I care what exactly you as a founder actually do care about), but many would rather work to make the world better than just "get shit done" that potentially gives the "ones who put their ass on the line" (which doesn't include them? [not following your logic here]) a big reward.
More generally, this is known as alienation of labor. Many humans, when they are reduced to pure commodities, don't feel too great about it and may begin to suffer mentally and physically as a result.
> the "ones who put their ass on the line" (which doesn't include them? [not following your logic here]) a big reward.
The big reward is a big chunk of money. Employees very rarely make a lot of money after an acquisition.
> More generally, this is known as alienation of labor. Many humans, when they are reduced to pure commodities, don't feel too great about it and may begin to suffer mentally and physically as a result.
I never said that. People may not care about your big dream of saving the world and still be experts in their domain and be excited about the technical challenges that come with your idea. I've worked in many industries without caring at all for them (think finance, gambling, advertising) but I was still very stimulated by the technical problems to solve.
There is a big line between not drinking the kool-aid of "we're making the world a better place. Through constructing elegant hierarchies for maximum code reuse and extensibility." and alienation of labor.
>The big reward is a big chunk of money. Employees very rarely make a lot of money after an acquisition.
Yes, I believe that is what you claimed previously. You also seemed to suggest that it was deservedly so (that employees not share in the "big chunk of money")?
> People may not care about your big dream of saving the world
You're changing the parameters. I'm assuming you only care that your product is going to "catch on and make a shitload of money".
The employees are manifesting the product and are the ones who have invested their life in the company. I believe you claimed that employees do not "put their ass on the line" and therefore don't get to share in the "big reward"? What qualifies as putting your ass on the line?
>I never said that.
I didn't say that you said that. I'm saying that what you are describing fits into the more general framework of alienated labor. Feelings of alienation occur when there is little to no connection between the one doing the work and the work itself, which sounds pretty much exactly like what you described. If the game is reduced to "shut up and do what you're told because I write the check" and the employee requires that check to survive, the employee is at high risk of losing autonomy over their work as they may become ever more dependent on their founders and investors (founders and investors may openly exploit this fact). At the same time, the founders and investors may be extracting ever more value from from the company (by which I mean, the employees).
I don't think alienation of labor is a single binary condition. Some work is more alienating than others for various reasons, including founders, investors, managers, colleagues, product, workplace conditions, tasks assigned, etc.
Many people find it alienating to hear founders and investors talk about how they are going to make a shit-ton of money all while claiming that the people doing the actual work haven't put their ass on the line and won't share in the big reward that they are all working to realize.
It's certainly not required by a any means - if people are good and do their jobs well, then you don't need that. It might be harder to recruit people in some cases if they don't care about your product or service at all, though. There are some industries / technologies I don't have any interest in, and wouldn't work for companies involved in them. So there is some value in having employees care.
1) If you as the creator don't believe in it, you're probably going to have more trouble convincing others that it's worth using, unless you have some kind of interesting personality quirk.
2) The value of something - and it may be very valuable - might not immediately be obvious. AirBnB, for example, sounded insane to many people before it caught on. The founders had to believe in it, and they had to convince others to do so.
3) For things which are purely subjective (and I know some do find this distasteful, for sometimes good reasons), convincing others of its value is the entire point. Think about things like fashion, music styles, toys / novelties of various kinds - even certain kinds of technologies which only shuffle the deck in terms of functionality / UX may need to have users convinced. The effects of this one can be net positive (something starts out looking like a fad, turns into incredibly useful thing [Twitter]), net negative (unhealthy fad diets), or neutral (Webkinz? Furbies?), but even if you hate these things, you can't wish them away or deny they exist.