Comment by mft_ | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mft_ | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Yeah, fair point - perhaps I miswrote, as 'cultural excellence' is too broad a term. For sure, a high-performing company producing a great product needs a great culture to support it.

My points are:

a) it seems that Meetup tried to optimise their culture for aspects that were not directly related to --and controversially, maybe even opposed to-- product excellence. i.e. their initial version of 'cultural excellence' was more about creating a pleasant inclusive place to work, rather than a productive or high-performing place to work.

b) further, if (as a result) your hiring decisions are more guided by prioritising people that will fit into and perpetuate that cultural vision, you're implicitly choosing to not prioritise hiring high-performers.

(As said before, it's not mutually exclusive - there may be some high-performers that do fit into your cultural vision... but on a macro scale, if you follow that particular cultural vision, the trend will be away from excellence and performance.)

I feel like I read a different article than you. You seem to be tying Meetup's woe's to an over emphasis on their part in creating a diverse workplace. The article doesn't present any evidence that the leadership's focus on creating an inclusive culture was hurting their product. Rather, the problem is that Meetup didn't innovate would not be able to compete against Facebook.

You could argue that the reason why Meetup didn't have a culture of innovation was because leadership was too busy optimizing for an inclusive culture. But again, an innovative culture and an inclusive one are not mutually exclusive, and the article doesn't support the conclusion that Meetup's culture was getting in the way of innovation.

In fact, the employee you quote and most of the article goes against your second point. It seems that their previous culture was the only advantage Meetup had going for it when it came to recruiting. They were able to hire people of much higher caliber than the product warranted or deserved because of that culture. And once they changed that culture they began to lose talent.

Put this way, I agree. There is always a risk to lose sight of your final objective and become myopic focusing on more immediately perceived issues.

I think I read Paul Graham (or someone from YC) stating that you want diversity of background on your team, but not diversity of objectives. I wholeheartedly agree with this. The more diversity on your team (regarding every dimension: gender, race, nationality, personality traits, education, etc), the more chance you have at building a great product; as long as all of them have unity of vision and goals.

I think you hit the nail on the head here.

As an anecdotal example, I was hired as a software developer on a team of mostly electrical engineers, and our group develops software/supports the energy management system at a major utility company. Now when I was interviewing, what the team seemed to like the most was my background in actual electric utility operations (I was in the electrical trades for a long time before I figured out that I wanted to study CS). I was the only person on the team with actual operations experience.

My boss love it because I could go and talk with the operators, and speak "operator" with them. It made translating their requests into features/upgrades/updates a lot easier for our team, and our customer service improved as a result. By having that background in operations, which was different from the rest of my team, I was able to bring a different perspective, and most importantly, the perspective of our customers to our day to day work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com