Dissent Is Dead At Facebook, Employees Complain(businessinsider.com)
businessinsider.com
Dissent Is Dead At Facebook, Employees Complain
http://www.businessinsider.com/dissent-is-dead-at-faceboook-employees-complain-2009-4
7 comments
To me, this seems like the start of the decline of facebook. Gideon Yu's work has been stellar with Youtube and getting that $15B valuation. The reason may be the board and not Mark. That being said he doesn't have the it factor I see in a lot of successful CEOs.
The "It" factor? Have you read anything about his past? Or read what he's written? He started a company in high school that Microsoft offered to buy just to land him as an employee. That's pretty impressive.
It doesn't matter, because we'll criticize anybody who isn't Steve Jobs for thinking they're Steve Jobs, but Zuckerberg is largely responsible for Facebook's formation, from what I've read, and for all his criticism he's managed to get a hell of a lot done for his company. So I'm willing to give him a chance and see if he's as good as he thinks he is - and failing that, if he falls I'll hope he pulls an SJ and comes back in 10 years with something even better.
It doesn't matter, because we'll criticize anybody who isn't Steve Jobs for thinking they're Steve Jobs, but Zuckerberg is largely responsible for Facebook's formation, from what I've read, and for all his criticism he's managed to get a hell of a lot done for his company. So I'm willing to give him a chance and see if he's as good as he thinks he is - and failing that, if he falls I'll hope he pulls an SJ and comes back in 10 years with something even better.
Most of his writings are him trying to assuage his users after making them very upset (redesigns, terms, newsfeed). He just doesn't impress me on a personal level. And he still hasn't effectively monetized.
Having just heard about Sam Altman a few days ago I am already much more impressed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m43t44WL8-w
Having just heard about Sam Altman a few days ago I am already much more impressed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m43t44WL8-w
You can't judge Zuckerberg by his Facebook blog. The guy is a complete recluse. Yeah, all he writes is apologies, because he can delegate everything else. But try to find some of the leaked letters he wrote people that he tries to suppress for privacy. Reading them you get the image of an extraordinarily focused mind. He's arrogant, but if you can judge people on the confidence of their writing alone the guy is pretty brilliant.
I saw Altman's speech and was pretty impressed. He doesn't dick around. He's also a more confident speaker than Zuckerberg. But with respect to him, Facebook is better designed (Loopt is horrendously generic), and it's done more to change the web than most web sites. The Facebook Platform changed a lot. Making money isn't the only part of design.
I saw Altman's speech and was pretty impressed. He doesn't dick around. He's also a more confident speaker than Zuckerberg. But with respect to him, Facebook is better designed (Loopt is horrendously generic), and it's done more to change the web than most web sites. The Facebook Platform changed a lot. Making money isn't the only part of design.
The guy is a complete recluse.
Part of being a great CEO is being a cheerleader. You can't do that being hidden.
There are many different types of leadership, some of which Zuckerberg has. Making Facebook into the culture mainstay it is has been a huge accomplishment. I am sure a lot of this is due to him. But he needs to be an effective communicator both internally and externally in order to succeed. He can have awesome ideas that are technically groundbreaking, but he needs to make others believe.
Part of being a great CEO is being a cheerleader. You can't do that being hidden.
There are many different types of leadership, some of which Zuckerberg has. Making Facebook into the culture mainstay it is has been a huge accomplishment. I am sure a lot of this is due to him. But he needs to be an effective communicator both internally and externally in order to succeed. He can have awesome ideas that are technically groundbreaking, but he needs to make others believe.
He's the best cheerleader Facebook could have. He gives speeches, but hides personal information. If you're a spokesperson for a company whose number-one selling point is privacy, the best marketing move you can make is to stay hidden. When I was younger I wrote him a friend request and a little message, which he promptly ignored, and my respect for him swelled for that. In a Silicon Valley that's becoming infamous for celebrity and over-the-top drama, he's a breath of fresh air.
You respect him because he ignored you?
Not the ideal reason to respect a person, imho.
You don't have to be great to be an asshole.
He's not great because he ignored me, he's great because he made Facebook. So even if he was a complete socialite, he'd have my respect. But I like that instance because it made me think that he wasn't primarily making Facebook for money, he was making it for his own privacy.
There are good reasons to be social to people. I'm a social person. That said, I respect immensely the people who don't feel pressured to talk to every person that writes to him.
There are good reasons to be social to people. I'm a social person. That said, I respect immensely the people who don't feel pressured to talk to every person that writes to him.
I would strongly disagree with this. I used to feel this way about Mark Zuckerberg, but not anymore. Just consider these observations about facebook:
1) When it started, there were already many social networks
2) Because it positioned itself as a social network for college students, it got the early growth and adoption any "social" website needs to survive
3) They've grown REALLY fast since then, and have started to really lock in the users
4) It's not unthinkable for them to have a billion users. Once they have all the users they want, they can pick and choose their business model.
5) Mark Zuckerberg can't be removed from the CEO position, and probably holds more than 20% of the company
6) Facebook is hiring top talent, on par with Google and probably better than Microsoft.
These things don't just happen out of the blue. For someone who has consolidated power in a company that could rival Google, I don't think Zuckerberg gets enough credit. If I were pg, I would have put him in my top 5.
1) When it started, there were already many social networks
2) Because it positioned itself as a social network for college students, it got the early growth and adoption any "social" website needs to survive
3) They've grown REALLY fast since then, and have started to really lock in the users
4) It's not unthinkable for them to have a billion users. Once they have all the users they want, they can pick and choose their business model.
5) Mark Zuckerberg can't be removed from the CEO position, and probably holds more than 20% of the company
6) Facebook is hiring top talent, on par with Google and probably better than Microsoft.
These things don't just happen out of the blue. For someone who has consolidated power in a company that could rival Google, I don't think Zuckerberg gets enough credit. If I were pg, I would have put him in my top 5.
> For someone who has consolidated power in a company that could rival Google
I think you may be getting ahead of yourself on that one.
I think you may be getting ahead of yourself on that one.
Facebook/Google comparisons always strike me as way off base. It's like comparing a Central Park (busy, no money) with Disneyland (busy, big money).
Central park isn't a business. If it were a for-profit venture, it would be fairly easy to monetize, purely because it's so popular.
> it would be fairly easy to monetize, purely because it's so popular.
Why? Popularity as a free service doesn't necessarily imply that said popularity will be retained upon introduction of a monetary fee.
Why? Popularity as a free service doesn't necessarily imply that said popularity will be retained upon introduction of a monetary fee.
The monetization need not be direct (i.e. charging people to use the site). It could be better ad placement, a search engine that knows more about you than google does, monetary transactions (auctions, payments), as well as other stuff...
Like it or not, facebook has real utility (just like central park), and people are willing to pay for real utility in one way or another.
Like it or not, facebook has real utility (just like central park), and people are willing to pay for real utility in one way or another.
What I'm surprised they haven't done already is extend their event planning mechanism to partner with ticket agents, train companies/airlines, cinema chains, restaurant booking systems, pizza delivery, etc etc.
"Central park isn't a business."
A lot of people don't think Facebook is a business either.
A lot of people don't think Facebook is a business either.
[deleted]
It's still trivially easy and often very enticing to bail out of Facebook entirely. I still don't see anything that Facebook is doing that successfully locks in customers, not even in the way that Amazon locks in book-buyers and certainly not in the way that Google becomes most people's default approach to Web search.
Moreover, if every user loses money for Facebook, what's the financial model of the company? Even if I like Facebook, if I'm not providing it with cash flow, when it does it have to bail out of its business?
Moreover, if every user loses money for Facebook, what's the financial model of the company? Even if I like Facebook, if I'm not providing it with cash flow, when it does it have to bail out of its business?
It is not as easy as it seems. I use facebook because it easily allows me to see what is going on in a lot of people's lives. There are no huge technical or design hurdles to beating Facebook. The problems are social.
Only sites with a lot of users, like Myspace, could quickly become a threat to Myspace. Facebook has surpassed a critical mass of users, so they probably would have time to respond to any technical challenges.And Myspace seems to have a different and less successful focus than Facebook that would need to be changed. I don't really care about telling everyone who my top friends are, designing my page, or using Myspace as a blog. Basically, I just want to quickly and easily find out the major events in my friend's lives. It does not matter how brilliantly designed a site is, I cannot adequately meet my needs with a site until it has a good portion of my friends as users.
So to go against Facebook successfully, a company would need to start in an extremely small niche and grow, or provide value unrelated to social networking. It is a lot easier to reach critical mass in a very small niche. And if you aren't solely in social networking, people are going to be using your network before it provides decent social value.
Only sites with a lot of users, like Myspace, could quickly become a threat to Myspace. Facebook has surpassed a critical mass of users, so they probably would have time to respond to any technical challenges.And Myspace seems to have a different and less successful focus than Facebook that would need to be changed. I don't really care about telling everyone who my top friends are, designing my page, or using Myspace as a blog. Basically, I just want to quickly and easily find out the major events in my friend's lives. It does not matter how brilliantly designed a site is, I cannot adequately meet my needs with a site until it has a good portion of my friends as users.
So to go against Facebook successfully, a company would need to start in an extremely small niche and grow, or provide value unrelated to social networking. It is a lot easier to reach critical mass in a very small niche. And if you aren't solely in social networking, people are going to be using your network before it provides decent social value.
> For someone who has consolidated power in a company that could rival Google
You're out of your mind.
You're out of your mind.
I'd have said the same about Google and Microsoft when Google was Microsoft's age. Google didn't get their business model (ads) until they were a year older than Facebook.
Looking at things now I wouldn't say that Facebook would rival Google, but it's definitely not out of their mind to imagine that they could.
Looking at things now I wouldn't say that Facebook would rival Google, but it's definitely not out of their mind to imagine that they could.
> 5) Mark Zuckerberg can't be removed from the CEO position, and probably holds more than 20% of the company
Really? I've never heard this. Is there a condition in the companies charter that forbids it?
Usually all you need is a majority of the board to vote the CEO out and since he only has one vote and there are more than 2 people on the facebook board it seems like he could be voted out.
Really? I've never heard this. Is there a condition in the companies charter that forbids it?
Usually all you need is a majority of the board to vote the CEO out and since he only has one vote and there are more than 2 people on the facebook board it seems like he could be voted out.
What's the point of #6 if you don't do anything with that talent?
Acting as devil's advocate here, there isn't much evidence behind these 'explanations'. It's quite possible that Zuckerberg is loosing his edge, but this article paints him in a way that's damn close to slander.
Sounds plausible given Zuck's talk at startup school.
Is there a video/notes of that talk? What did he talk about?
Alex may be referring to Zuck's talk two years ago where he spent 99% of his time on stage telling people in the audience how young people are better hires than 'old' people. It was bizarre to say the least.
To be fair, I would imagine the average quality in the pool of 30+ year olds willing to work for Mark Zuckerberg is probably not representative of the age group as a whole, unless they're paid really well.
His 2007 talk was awful. He basically said: hire young people only.
It was a little more nuanced than that. The point was that young people were willing to take risks because they had little to lose and no responsibilities. He mentioned that (at the time) he slept on a mattress on the floor, so he wouldn't be trapped by possessions and paralyzed by fear of losing everything. People with mortgages and retirement plans are (rationally) conservative, and they won't take big gambles with the company. You have to admire his commitment.
I was there for Zuck's talk in 2006. It was pretty terrible. He came off sounding like an arrogant jerk.
What you are saying is true. But it is unrelated to what is being said. What we're saying is, Zuck needs to drink less of his own kool-aid and start caring about people other than himself. I admire his commitment, but it's a shame that he doesn't recognize, or isn't thankful for, the large amount of luck that played a role in Facebook's success. If he had attacked the problem of "MySpace, but better" at a different school, or in a different way, or any number of things, then Facebook wouldn't be what it is today.
If he's acting like Jobs, he's premature. At least Jobs' company was very profitable in the early days. Also, I just left a company run by a Jobs/Zuckerberg type; good sense of design, but very controlling, and needlessly so. I don't envy Facebook employees. There is more to life than working for the arrogant.
What you are saying is true. But it is unrelated to what is being said. What we're saying is, Zuck needs to drink less of his own kool-aid and start caring about people other than himself. I admire his commitment, but it's a shame that he doesn't recognize, or isn't thankful for, the large amount of luck that played a role in Facebook's success. If he had attacked the problem of "MySpace, but better" at a different school, or in a different way, or any number of things, then Facebook wouldn't be what it is today.
If he's acting like Jobs, he's premature. At least Jobs' company was very profitable in the early days. Also, I just left a company run by a Jobs/Zuckerberg type; good sense of design, but very controlling, and needlessly so. I don't envy Facebook employees. There is more to life than working for the arrogant.
At least Jobs' company was very profitable in the early days.
Brush up on your Apple history. Jobs was fired because he was running his company into a financial mire thanks to his over-the-top idealism.
I don't envy Facebook employees. There is more to life than working for the arrogant.
They chose where to work. Just like Apple employees chose. If you're not the sort of person who works well under a very brilliant, very arrogant man, you're allowed to find other places to work.
Brush up on your Apple history. Jobs was fired because he was running his company into a financial mire thanks to his over-the-top idealism.
I don't envy Facebook employees. There is more to life than working for the arrogant.
They chose where to work. Just like Apple employees chose. If you're not the sort of person who works well under a very brilliant, very arrogant man, you're allowed to find other places to work.
But Apple had already made heaps of money from the Apple II by that stage, no?
Zuckerberg is neither very briliant nor very arrogant, just plain arrogant and lucky.
+ annoying
Who will mentor them?
Contention brings integrity to the design process.
It's not the positive or critical things that are said in meetings that will harm a company. It's the things that aren't said that will eat away the core of a company.
When things that should be said aren't; there are typically a few reasons. 1.) the person isn't capable of leading 2.) the person is passive aggressive and will use there dissenting opinion in a private and undermine way. 3.) they already said the same thing many times and have had no luck in getting their opinion across.
It's not the positive or critical things that are said in meetings that will harm a company. It's the things that aren't said that will eat away the core of a company.
When things that should be said aren't; there are typically a few reasons. 1.) the person isn't capable of leading 2.) the person is passive aggressive and will use there dissenting opinion in a private and undermine way. 3.) they already said the same thing many times and have had no luck in getting their opinion across.
I saw a Zuckerberg video from Dec 2007, and contrasted that with his recent Oprah interview.
He's gone from cool tech head to some kind of semi-comedian (to whom owning a credit card is big news) in just over a year.
He's gone from cool tech head to some kind of semi-comedian (to whom owning a credit card is big news) in just over a year.
I'm not an avid reader of businessinsider.com. Anyone have any insight into whether that title is meant to be a joke?
No. The story is about how Mark Zuckerberg suppresses dissent.
This, uhh, has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but does anyone know if there's a way (synthetically, perhaps) to short an IPO?
I repeat this has, umm, nothing to do with any particular company. Yeah. Just so you don't try to copy my trading strategy. I repeat: nothing to do with, um, any particular stock. I'm just asking a technical question about shorting IPOs, now or in the future. Yeah...
I repeat this has, umm, nothing to do with any particular company. Yeah. Just so you don't try to copy my trading strategy. I repeat: nothing to do with, um, any particular stock. I'm just asking a technical question about shorting IPOs, now or in the future. Yeah...
short an IPO
Buy put options on the underlying stock. This gives you the right, but not the obligation, to force a sale of stock at the strike price.
Say you have a hot Internet IPO which debuts at $10. People assume it will follow the Google trajectory and be worth hundreds within a few years. You can buy puts at $10 for a year from now -- this would entitle you to sell any shares you held at $10, regardless of what the price is. If a hypothetical counterparty believes that the price is going to increase, writing this option (promising to buy X shares from you at the price of $10 from you a year from now if you ask for it, in return for cash money today) is like printing free money: you'll probably let the option expire without acting on it, and otherwise they get the stock they want anyhow.
Now examine what happens if the stock tanks to, say, $2 over the year: your options entitled you to sell X shares at $10 apiece, regardless of the market price of the stock. You can thus buy the stock on the open market ($2 per share) and exercise the option (selling at $10 per share), netting $8 a share minus commissions minus the premium you paid for the option in the first place. (In actual practice, since you can SELL the put option and it has high "intrinsic value" near expiration in that scenario, you don't actually have to ever become an owner of the underlying stock.)
But what if the price balloons to $20? Clearly, you don't want to buy at $20 and then sell the same day at $10. That's the beauty of puts, though: you don't have to. You just walk away from your options, which expire worthless. You are never at risk, in this strategy, of losing more money than you spent on acquiring the puts in the first place. This contrasts favorably to the standard short sale, which has unlimited downside risk.
Buy put options on the underlying stock. This gives you the right, but not the obligation, to force a sale of stock at the strike price.
Say you have a hot Internet IPO which debuts at $10. People assume it will follow the Google trajectory and be worth hundreds within a few years. You can buy puts at $10 for a year from now -- this would entitle you to sell any shares you held at $10, regardless of what the price is. If a hypothetical counterparty believes that the price is going to increase, writing this option (promising to buy X shares from you at the price of $10 from you a year from now if you ask for it, in return for cash money today) is like printing free money: you'll probably let the option expire without acting on it, and otherwise they get the stock they want anyhow.
Now examine what happens if the stock tanks to, say, $2 over the year: your options entitled you to sell X shares at $10 apiece, regardless of the market price of the stock. You can thus buy the stock on the open market ($2 per share) and exercise the option (selling at $10 per share), netting $8 a share minus commissions minus the premium you paid for the option in the first place. (In actual practice, since you can SELL the put option and it has high "intrinsic value" near expiration in that scenario, you don't actually have to ever become an owner of the underlying stock.)
But what if the price balloons to $20? Clearly, you don't want to buy at $20 and then sell the same day at $10. That's the beauty of puts, though: you don't have to. You just walk away from your options, which expire worthless. You are never at risk, in this strategy, of losing more money than you spent on acquiring the puts in the first place. This contrasts favorably to the standard short sale, which has unlimited downside risk.
Incidentally, and this goes for all investing: know what you're doing before you take any advice from the Internet. For example, if you don't know whether I was talking about American or European options (and what the difference is), you should probably not touch options trading.
On considered reflection I'm 75% invested in index funds, after reading Bogle et al and figuring that no matter how smart you are its impossible to reliably beat the market. The other 25% is mentally accounted for as "World of Warcraft except with a higher monthly fee and the slim possibility of better loot". (I bought a nice chunk of BAC back in the fifties, among other brilliant ideas, and am very, very glad I mentally waved adieu to all money invested prior to actually waving adieu to it.)
On considered reflection I'm 75% invested in index funds, after reading Bogle et al and figuring that no matter how smart you are its impossible to reliably beat the market. The other 25% is mentally accounted for as "World of Warcraft except with a higher monthly fee and the slim possibility of better loot". (I bought a nice chunk of BAC back in the fifties, among other brilliant ideas, and am very, very glad I mentally waved adieu to all money invested prior to actually waving adieu to it.)
Can you buy puts on a pre-IPO stock? I didn't think you could.
Nope. Options don't become available for several weeks after an IPO. There needs to be some historical price data to feed the black-scholes formula in order to price the options.
A real trader would start trading anyway. Volatility? Just a number computed from a mound of stale data. Kurtosis? Sounds like a disease. Too much thinking for a game as simple as "buy" and "sell"!
It depends on volatility. I'd guess Facebook stock would shoot high and take months to come down. Google's hasn't come down.
Your downside is unlimited.
Just a warning!
Your downside is unlimited.
Just a warning!
Shorting an IPO is actually stupid regardless of volatility.
Investment banks tend to underprice IPOs by about 10-15% on average, and intentionally so. This makes allocation a favor, because of the obvious expectancy in being in on one. However, the company ends up being undercapitalized for the amount of equity given up. It's utterly sleazy, but it's business as usual on Wall Street.
This also means that if you're not on a bank's favorite clients list, you don't want to be involved with IPOs, because you're only going to be able to get in on the crappy ones.
The concept of shorting Facebook is somewhat of a joke, because of that. I'm no fan of Mark Zuckerberg, but I wouldn't actually claim to know better than the market what the company's worth. That said, if there were a way to have shorted some share of the company at $15B when Microsoft bought in, that would have been awesome.
Investment banks tend to underprice IPOs by about 10-15% on average, and intentionally so. This makes allocation a favor, because of the obvious expectancy in being in on one. However, the company ends up being undercapitalized for the amount of equity given up. It's utterly sleazy, but it's business as usual on Wall Street.
This also means that if you're not on a bank's favorite clients list, you don't want to be involved with IPOs, because you're only going to be able to get in on the crappy ones.
The concept of shorting Facebook is somewhat of a joke, because of that. I'm no fan of Mark Zuckerberg, but I wouldn't actually claim to know better than the market what the company's worth. That said, if there were a way to have shorted some share of the company at $15B when Microsoft bought in, that would have been awesome.
But, there is one thing I can comment on. The role of any Software Company CEO is to create a system that translates brain waves into dollars.
That's what software companies do. Creating software isn't like creating a car. It's about generating "abstract ideas" that can be understood by a computer and are useful to humans.
You take smart people, give them the environment they need to do great work, and say "ok, now think me up some software".
Discouraging dissent, in general, is equivalent to turning off brain waves.
The thing about smart people is that they have ideas. A lot of them. By definition, thinking is what smart people do best. In a software company those are the kind of people you want, because that's what you are selling: re-packaged thoughts.
When you say "this is the way we are going to do things, because I'm the boss and I know best, so please don't come to me with reasons why this might not be good, instead just shut up and do what I so, or else go away" you are explicitly encouraging people to not think.
Encouraging people in your software company not to think is stupid. It's encouraging them not to produce the one thing you need them to produce in order to make money.
I'm not saying you want a democracy. The CEO, at the end of the day, is responsible for the company's performance. He's the one who makes the decisions. But, being responsible for the company's performance means the "burden of greatness" is on you. If you hear a voice of dissent, it's not the dissenter's responsibility to prove her case. It's your responsibility to listen to what she has to say, and figure out if there's any hidden merit to it.
The goal is to build a profitable business, not to be a powerful executive. Leave your ego at the door. If the person who is suggesting "maybe there is a better way" had a perfect, well crafted message, that seemed obvious and completely brilliant, why on earth would she bring it to you. She could just take her perfectly formed product to the market and wipe the floor with you.
You are the boss precisely for one reason: because you can take other people's brain waves and convert them into money. Because of this, your goal should be to get the people who work with you to generate as much brain wave activity as possible. That means encouraging dissent.
If you aren't doing that, then you are not leading.
So, if this is happening at Facebook, then it's a shame.