On Nov 2, 2007, at 5:53 PM, Vitaliy wrote: >>> > Interesting. What do you think caused that to happen? Do you think > there's a > relationship b/w the two, and if so -- what caused what? Did the > increasing > Dilbert-like atmosphere caused loss of profitability, or where they > trying > to boost productivity by implementing Dilbertesque policies? It was related to the dot-bomb boom of the late 90's. A huge influx of capital and resulting loss of control of the company to the major "angel" investors, along with a drive to become bigger bigger bigger to somehow get that capital investment back. The basically lost control of their own company. I think the owners knew it was spiraling out of control, but when they became the tie-breaker votes on the Board instead of the major shareholders... well... there are lots of stories of good startups being ruined by venture capitalists if the VC's aren't managed/handled correctly. The owners eventually walked away after selling for 8 million. In the meantime the company when I started was 42 people, peaked at over 500 during mass construction and growth period and within a year of peak had laid off all but about 125. Other factors were 9/11... the last round of layoffs was in November of 2001. They then ran with the reduced staff for about two more years and then found a buyer. It ended up being a "success" on paper, since they made money -- but the unstable and volatile environment for anyone caught in the life- changing events that happened for about 375 people was painful. The owners came away looking like good managers of their business, the people who found themselves jobless weren't too impressed by their "success" though. Especially after the 70 hour work-weeks and all the "we're all one big family" lies, fueled by delusions of grandeur, piles of worthless stock options for all, and IPO plans that literally made it all the way to the Red Herring being printed and distributed, and then it was cancelled. It was just all too volatile, which both made it insanely fun at times, and also insanely bad when the bottom fell out. In all, they were perfect little capitalists, and I don't begrudge them the cards they were dealt, but they literally rode the wave to millions on the hardships of their employees. I wouldn't work for them again. They're on to project #3... the first made them both single-millionaires, the second made them almost 10 millionaires, so maybe they'll make the 100 million mark this next time. (I doubt it, but you never know...) They do know how to make money, I just wonder how many people they've walked on to get there. Yes, I was caught in the last layoff round... the systems I had deployed worked well enough that they didn't need to pay a sysadmin to take care of all 108 servers anymore (sure makes me wish I'd given in to their desires to use Microsoft crap instead...haha) ... they just pressed a developer into doing that role. (A friend of mine who really is a great jack of all trades.) When you take the risk to be employee #42 and then watch people you trained to do their jobs getting to stay when things get bad... well, it leaves a pretty bad taste in your mouth when it comes to startups. The nicest part for me to watch were the low-level operations guys who got regularly screwed during this process. A number of them had a plan, and they stuck to it. They pooled their money, and a few of them formed a partnership, bought a very nice bar, and got out of this crazy tech biz. It's a nice place to go have a beer, shoot some pool, and laugh at how stupid tech businesses are, and I know I respect them a heck of a lot more than I respect the guys running the startup! -- Nate Duehr nate@natetech.com -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist