We're hiring an operations person(hackerschool.com)
hackerschool.com
We're hiring an operations person
https://www.hackerschool.com/blog/35-were-hiring-an-operations-person
11 comments
I'm curious about what you find scary. Scary for someone considering applying for the job or scary because it says something about us?
We put it in the job description because we think it's true[^1], but the last thing we want to do is scare people away.
[^1] If we get really big and you're in charge of operations, you'll be COO by definition. If we stay the size we are now, it seems unnecessary to call anyone a COO (or any of the other C*O roles).
We put it in the job description because we think it's true[^1], but the last thing we want to do is scare people away.
[^1] If we get really big and you're in charge of operations, you'll be COO by definition. If we stay the size we are now, it seems unnecessary to call anyone a COO (or any of the other C*O roles).
it's scary for a number of reasons, you outlined the biggest ones. You are basically saying you will be the COO if you do a good job, but then when exactly does their title change? What if you attract someone that is on another level in terms of qualifications and relative experience? If they don't become the COO in a given time frame as your company grows, there will likely be problems stemming at the core of your operations, which scares me. I would always let someone know there is room for upward mobility but this might be a little specific.
To me, it means the person will run operations for the firm, that the person will be the operational leadership for the company.
That could be scary for someone who doesn't want that kind of responsibility, but then those are the very people you don't want to talk to anyway.
That could be scary for someone who doesn't want that kind of responsibility, but then those are the very people you don't want to talk to anyway.
I agree 100%.
I believe that line does more harm than any potential good.
IMO it would create this false sense of urgency and only sets up that person for failure. Within every company you should always feel the implication that if you do well enough, you could be the boss.
The person you hire will have this constant reminder of "why am I not COO yet". Which I assume would only create more tension.
If your goal with this line is to be more attractive to candidates who are maybe over-qualifed, or serious go-getters, I think you can show that more appropriately by upping salary and setting the bar higher for job experience/requirements.
I believe that line does more harm than any potential good.
IMO it would create this false sense of urgency and only sets up that person for failure. Within every company you should always feel the implication that if you do well enough, you could be the boss.
The person you hire will have this constant reminder of "why am I not COO yet". Which I assume would only create more tension.
If your goal with this line is to be more attractive to candidates who are maybe over-qualifed, or serious go-getters, I think you can show that more appropriately by upping salary and setting the bar higher for job experience/requirements.
was about to say the same thing..
I hope you get more than $50,000 a year + 0.25% equity if you are the COO.
So "operations person" is the new hn speak for "manager"?
Agreed, I guess these guys have a different definition of operations. This sounds more like management/compliance or maybe they should have stated Business Operations. That might might carry a more accurate description in the tech community.
I think they are looking for more of a Office Manager, someone to handle the day to day operations, than someone to manage people.
The job description sounds more like "administrative assistant", not manager.
that's a scary line to put in a job description