How does she go about structuring it to take this into account?
What are things which are inherently a problem and what things creating problems because it is business as usual.
I want to hire creatives who don't need to be delegated to, and can own full cycle of tasks on their own. I have been doing tons of research in the last two months and a lot of soul searching trying to figure out precisely what makes me tick.
The truth is, every startup WANTS to hire entrepreneurial developers, but rarely let them be entrepreneurs.
In going through this process on my own, for the second time, it is clear that if I want to hire people like me, I have to treat them like I treat myself.
Trust them, give them freedom, and be willing to ask for help when necessary.
First: software is nearly always a dicey proposition. There are so many variables that it's just impossible to predict much about it with any regularity. The best approaches that I've seen so far accept this, and say, "Trial and error? So be it: we will do trial and error as best as it can possibly be done." YC and the lean startup model (aim low, accept that most things will fail) are good examples.
The other approach is the "tried, no error" method, which cares intensely about the past. Hiring a web developer? Portfolio first, examples of use of specific technologies, examples of specific features. Find no one who meets your exact qualifications, and proceed to either a)raise salaries a lot, and constantly (banks, hedge funds), or b) complain to Congress about a "talent shortage" (everyone else).
I think YC is the better model, and is a sort of company-less version of michaelochurch's "open allocation." The key insight is: if you want 10x engineers to ride up on their white horses and save you, you can't presume to tell them what to do. They're cars, not faster horses. Beating a car with a whip won't make it go faster---and this is a feature, not a bug.
To get the best out of developers, you have to accept that they bring risk, and manage around that, rather than blindly trying to reduce it. That's why I think Apple is really fucking smart to have a huge cash cushion like they do: with that cushion., it frees you to go for long shots. Apple is nearly riskless in its financials, and so can afford to be very risky in its product development process.
If I were starting a software company, and knew exactly what I wanted to build, I'd hire people with proven track records, pay them a bazillion dollars each, and give them zero autonomy. Or, I'd hire a bunch of college dropouts who've obssessed over some kernel of good ideas (Tufte, Hickey, FRP, ML), pay them nothing, and let them run wild (this is basically YC's business model).
If you're really serious about this---and I think it's worth it to be---I'd read everything on michaelochurch's blog. He exaggerates, has a chip on his shoulder, uses weird analogies, and has a better understanding of these issues than anyone I can think of.
Here is where I arrived to so far on this subject from my own reading, thinking and experience:
Each person changes over time - they want varying degrees of responsibility, working on new things, improving existing skills, who they want to work with etc. People age and with that their personal situations change as well.
Change is inevitable.
A company, group of people executing a process which provides value and receives more money than they spend to provide that value, can only survive if it can adapt to change. Both the change coming from individuals in the company and external change coming from the market.
There seem to be almost no companies ( maybe Valve, Semco and few others but I never worked in any of those ) which try to adapt to both the internal changes of their people and external changes of the market.
The current situation is this:
The rigid hierarchical companies with what Michael Church calls "Closed allocation" fail to adapt to both internal and external changes and then they eventually die. What the guy on the ribonfarm blog called - the clueless take over and the losers and sociopaths just jump ship - then the company dies.
In the startup phase, the people make the company change until market fit is achieved.
After market fit is achieved, it causes the company to resist any personal internal change so that the achieved market fit can be optimized. If there is no external change in the market the company thrives and can simply replace any "failed" individuals who no longer fit with external ones which will fit. The company puts in place new individuals to fill the rigid self perpetuating hierarchy which can still provide the same value from the market fit. The company does not care if a great female employee had a child and needs to work 4 hours a day - she is underperforming and needs to be fired for the good of the company. Bigger offices need to be leased and a small group of people who now live far away can just quit and be replaced etc. Many of the people are not happy but need to pretend they are still the right fit - they just punch in and out - "this is just a job" now.
In case the market fit does not last long but the company has made internal changes impossible - the company will die. If there is still possibility of internal change the company might adapt - but very unlikely if this happens after market fit was once achieved.
Here is my current solution to this.
Recognize that change is inevitable. Embrace it. Create a system which can adapt faster than the change that can cause either personal unhappiness or loss of market fit or profit if you will. The only way to achieve this is to let people inside the company make their own decisions for as much as they are comfortable with.
One way is democracy. People vote and tyranny of majority rules. If you do not show up to vote, whatever is voted gets selected. Every decision is put to a vote or voted to be delegated to people with a finite time limit. The limit passes and a vote needs to happen again. You can even vote for a monarchy in case of crisis - have someone make all the decisions for a period of time. The crucial thing is that any vote has a time limit and another vote is forced - to adapt to change.
Democracy depends on informed participants. No internal company information can be hidden. Salaries are an example of something that needs to be open. Salaries get chosen and budgets get voted for. You select your salary but everyone gets to vote on the budget that salary is in.
Every part of the company should have a time limit - die - and be assembled again. No group should live for more than some time limit without have a vote on who is part of it, what the budget is, what the focus is. Is this done every month, every quarter, every 6 months or a year depends on the situation. But companies need to reinvent themselves.
The time limit on votes forces the answer to "WHY". Is this group needed, did we select the right leader, right people, do we need more, do we need to change the market, product, the janitor ...
