I don't know.

I have seen CEOs and CTOs tearing apart feedback from surveys at all-hands meetings. To the point of mocking answers and saying people are "tripping", or that "in other YC companies people work 80 hours".

And I've seen leads/managers leaving due to micromanagement as well.

As long as the expectation is for managers to hide concerns and fall in line, the information will be hidden from C-levels.

For example:

> A fintech company decided to build their own authentication system rather than use established solutions.

I lived this exact scenario. Fintech wanted custom authentication! It was pushed into my team. I said no and put my foot down, VPE disagreed with me and gave to another team. That team failed to deliver after 6 months, and my team finally ended up being the one implementing a third-party solution in a couple weeks. That third-party solution costed less than $100 per month, because of how little users we had.

On my yearly feedback I still got knocked down a peg due to this incident. It really hurt my career at that company, even though I was in the right. That other team failed to deliver other projects too, and we got the same feedback I did, same salary increase. I got the yelling, I got the negative marks.

Of course people will rationalize this with "you should have been more political".

Well, that's what the people being criticized in TFA are doing: being political.

▲

questionableans 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Just wondering, was there ever any discussion about trying a quick prototype with a 3rd party auth solution before trying to go off and build one?

	▲	whstl an hour ago \| parent [-]
		No, because the VPE was doing it out of ego and because he thought the problem was easy, not out of any practicality. No amount of argument was enough. This was his only job, he was at the company for 10 years, was a schoolfriend of the CTO and suddenly got promoted to VPE when the company grew over 50 devs. So total lack of experience. The funny thing is we didn't even need to prototype: another team had already integrated the same third-party in their own project, so there was ZERO doubts, we had an in-house expert.

▲

Viliam1234 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> tearing apart feedback from surveys

That's amateur behavior. Real pros design the feedback forms in a way that only allows you to give them the answers they want to hear.

"Which three company benefits are most important for you?" Frankly, all of them are meaningless, but there are ten checkboxes, and unless you mark three of them, the form won't allow you to proceed.

"Do you understand how $buzzword can make you more productive? (on a scale from 0 to 10)" Answering "yes" implies that $buzzword is great. Answering "no" also implies that $buzzword is great, but you are too stupid to understand it, so you may be given some mandatory training on $buzzword. (There is no way to indicate that $buzzword actually makes you less productive.)

	▲	whstl an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Well, it was just a simple NPS, people were giving zeroes, so they decided to ask why. People didn't answer so they made it anonymous. In the end they just expected amazing results without putting up the work. That was another YC hellhole, by the way. I'm out of this shit, I still frequent HN but I'm done with Paul Graham affiliated assholes.