operations is really important in a mature company but honestly the hypothetical hostess role probably creates way more value in an early startup
-
-
Replying to @alicemazzy @sonyasupposedly
operations breaks down into "tending to the org" and "doing annoying errand bullshit" and if there's no org to tend to yet the fact that the founders would bring on someone to spare them annoyance is a bad sign
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @alicemazzy @sonyasupposedly
more to the point I agree with the view the most important division is roles that create value (programming/sales/design/marketing) and those that protect value (legal/hr/facilities/finance) and early you need *everyone* predominantly creating
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @alicemazzy
in practice the COO role at early startups encompasses all the value-protecting roles (although it's somewhat variable IME), ideally the minimum you can get away with?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sonyasupposedly
hiring a coo/chief of staff early strikes me as irresponsible tbh. signals you think getting big means a big org rather than big marketshare/revenue
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @alicemazzy
depends IMO. at 100 it's a no-brainer to have someone in that role, at 10 it's okay if they also spend a substantial amount of time making deals or w/e
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @sonyasupposedly
yea I think distinction is what does "early" signify
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @alicemazzy @sonyasupposedly
the way I look at it with sylph is like, I am chiefly responsible for sales and marketing and errand bullshit (tho until we launch I'm also the third technical)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @alicemazzy @sonyasupposedly
and as I get good at sales and marketing and my time becomes more in demand I could see hiring someone to run one of those (as at that point I will presumably be at least good enough at them to judge what "good" is)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @alicemazzy @sonyasupposedly
but hiring someone for errand bullshit seems nuts to me
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
isn't this what secretaries are? like, if an hour of your time is worth >$100, and you have a big pile of stupid errands, hiring someone for $20/hr to deal with them seems fine? obviously this is not most people and you need to actually make $100+ during the hour saved, but...?
-
-
Replying to @imhinesmi @alicemazzy
depends on a number of other variables. What proportion is the shit work, cash flow, that kinda thing
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @sonyasupposedly @imhinesmi
personally I think secretaries are one of those categories where technology kills the middle
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes - 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.