
You're not a hustler. You're a bull-shitter - joeyclover
https://medium.com/@joey.clover/youre-not-a-hustler-you-re-a-bull-shitter-727d149967a1
======
dumbfounder
The story he cites makes no sense to me. The pheasant achieved its goal with
the help of bullshit, it wasn't the bullshit that caused its downfall. The
goal was the problem, not the bullshit.

~~~
abiox
> it wasn't the bullshit that caused its downfall

this wasn't stated, so i don't understand your complaint. the post even says "
_Bullshit might get you to the top, but it won’t keep you there._ "

~~~
candiodari
Many tops don't require staying there. In the age of golden parachutes for
executes, why would anyone want to stay at the top ?

Besides, staying at the top of a company or even country requires things very
different from what you'd want to. The game changes, but it doesn't change
from being a good bullshitter to being good at the job ... it requires
changing from being good at self-promotion to being good at the opposite: not
letting others successfully self-promote.

Besides, all of western industry runs on favors and counter-favors. Take the
career of Stephen Elop, and explain to me how this person gets any job more
important that toilet cleaner ...

His career:

1) Lotus Development Corporation -> victim of hostile takeover by IBM

2) CIO for Boston Chicken -> chapter 11 bankruptcy

3) Macromedia -> Dissolved after takeover, his resignation was demanded by by
Adobe a few months later

4) COO of Juniper Networks -> he was legendary at this company for his
incompetence

5) Head of Microsoft office -> where he "successfully" "held off" competitors
to office like Google Docs (well done !)

6) CEO of Nokia -> google "burning platform". Half the company was sold off
because it was the only way to avoid bankruptcy

7) Rehired at Microsoft as Executive Vice President (along with the devices
unit of Nokia, which has since been fully disbanded). His job ended ... when
Microsoft terminated

    
    
      a) Stephen Elop
    
      b) 7800 people, mostly those working for Stephen Elop
    
      c) another 1600 people (later)
    

Note: Microsoft paid 7.6 BILLION dollars for the privilege of not having
Stephen Elop in the company, and even that absurd number doesn't include
several extra charges he caused: 1 billion the year after he left for
eliminating the last of his department, the 7.3 billion for the Nokia
acquisition he talked them into and the $300 million that Stephen Elop his
Nokia position in the first place.

8) Telstra -> he is "Group Executive Technology, Innovation and Strategy",
stock price has dropped by a little over 33% since his joining

And let me tell you one thing is for sure. There has been ZERO Technology
innovation or strategy in Telstra. Zero. In fact Telstra is systematically
losing marketshare because of enormous gaps exactly there. (Not that that's
particularly strange for a telco incumbent, but still).

In case you wonder, yes, I have encountered "guidance" from Mr. Elop twice in
my career, and I have a central policy to my current and future employment: if
my employer so much as makes a deal with Mr. Elop, I immediately look for
employment elsewhere.

Every single one of his jobs turned into a complete disaster for anyone
working for him, and only his first and third positions did not turn into
disasters for shareholders of the companies he worked for. Whether all of it
is his fault ? Of course not. But at his pay grade, he needs to be able to
turn things around and ... to put things VERY mildly, he's not up to that (or
even up for that. His behavior has always been to systematically eliminate any
political threat to his position, including of course anyone showing even
slight traces of rational thought. Ironically, this has often helped him avoid
blame. For instance, he claims that his decisions at Nokia were supported by
the entire management staff under him, and they were ... after he replaced
most of them. There was collective action by company directors, who went to
the board of Nokia directly to point out just how bad his decision was. But
Elop had cemented his position in the board, not by rational thought, but by
money)

And allow me to add, as a commentary on this guy, just listen to his own
words:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owvtKGlYFVA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owvtKGlYFVA)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOxCtZSi_Jw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOxCtZSi_Jw)
(he is explaining, yes really, "how to create longevity for your company")

So I think this conclusively illustrates that you can be incredibly successful
while being, not just incompetent, but literally be a shit version of king
Midas. Everything this guy has ever touched turned to shit in record short
time. Everything.

He is known for immediately surrounding himself with yes-men, for constantly
delivering ridiculously bad motivational speeches (and I mean ridiculously
bad, as in 1960 B horror movie bad, as in people laughing when they know it
can get them fired), for immediately biting off the head of anyone doing the
slightest bit to criticize him (including firing people 5 levels below him for
this).

As an executive to one of the most important companies providing vital
services to 30+ million people, he cannot get a room for 30 people to fill up
... What is there to say about just how incompetent this guy is ?

------
api
I really love this rant. When I was younger I had lots of run-ins with
"hustler" bullshitter types in business. Some of them were extremely negative.
Eventually I learned how to identify and categorically dismiss not only these
types of people but this entire philosophy of business. It's all bullshit.

~~~
charlesism
The funny thing is that most business schools drill "customer focus" into
their students' heads. But I suppose it's one thing to gain knowledge second-
hand, and another to gain it through life experience :(

~~~
api
Customer focus is pretty easy to misinterpret as "snow over the customer to
sell them in the short term so you can flip it to dumb investors."

It's also sometimes a bit more honest in the sense that a lot of these biz-
school graduates have no idea about anything other than business. Being
customer focused means gathering what the customer wants and then promising to
deliver it _and then_ attempting to do so... and finding out it violates the
laws of physics or costs 1000X what they estimated.

~~~
charlesism
Yep, people just hear what they want to hear.

As an aside, I think a more telling example of "customer focus" would be how a
business handles things _after_ they "find out it violates the laws of
physics" etc. I get the feeling a lot of the "hustle" crowd would deal with
that by bending the truth. Customer focus would be: keeping the clients
informed early as possible, and some sort of gesture to make things up to
them. Basically, "do unto others"

~~~
candiodari
To be fair, customers are as guilty of that as those business types are.

There's plenty of customers who'll hear what they want to hear ... no matter
what the supplier's engineers say (if they're even consulted at all).

------
mb_72
Probably not going to be a popular article here given the number of people
building businesses to flip in a few years time for early-retirement money...

~~~
dang
Au contraire, this kind of rage-fluff is so popular that we have to penalize
it on HN. It's not that it's wrong; it's too right. Nobody's going to
disagree, and if they do the rage will turn on them.

It's sort of interesting how a supermajority view can feel like a minority
view, but that's not the sort of thing a discussion can get going around.

------
sharemywin
I think your interpreting the wrong definition.

Just like hacker doesn't always mean breaking into computer systems.

So, yes your right to not work for people that break into systems and
hustle("con") people for money, but if the definition is:

[http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/hustle](http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/hustle)

verb. work hard make effort

devote apply knuckle down try

dig turn

direct address peg away

give be diligent persevere

give all one's got be industrious plug

give best shot bear down pour it on

give old college try bend pull out all stops

grind buckle down scratch

hammer away commit study

hit the ball concentrate sweat

hustle dedicate throw

~~~
GSimon
It seemed right to me. How many industries do you see people on social media,
usually start-ups, talking big game about their daily grind and how much
involved they are in the work. Many times these individuals are just starting
and while they're hustling now they're probably not going to last 'hustling'
at their current rate. If you're busy talking about the hustle and not
actually hustling you might just be hyping your shit up to people to make your
new business work.

A hustler doesn't necessarily aim to con people but they con themselves into
thinking what they're doing is more groundbreaking than it is.

------
28mm
This article would be much stronger if it referenced a concrete example.

The author argues bs is endemic to "quick-flip startups," but then clarifies
that many of these startups are actually good-- not bs.

but no startups in either category are named, and the distinction is unclear
in the abstract.

Anyway, I don't get it.

------
jaequery
I don't think hustle necessarily translate to BS. Having worked with a team of
hustlers and a team that were not, it was clear to me hustlers get the job
done better with more enthusiasm and energy. The team that were not hustlers
seemed to have dreaded their jobs and complained way too much. You can guess
which team members got the promotions.

~~~
readhn
Don't confuse hustle with enthusiasm!

Enthusiasms is good - it drives people there is no misrepresentation involved.

Hustling is when you cross the line and start bs'ing people for your personal
gains.

------
readhn
Well most start ups are bullshit and as a result most do fail.

------
chasedehan
"Hustle" is a word used often on a sports field to basically mean "work hard."
In business environments, this is what it almost always means - someone who
goes out and works hard to get the job done.

~~~
gr3yh47
Dont confuse 'Hustle' i.e. to run or work energetically with 'Hustler' i.e.
slang term for one who swindles (oversimplified, but this is the definition
used in the article)

with regards to [0] You're using definition 1. the writer is referring to
definition 4

although it does seem like the writer is ascribing uses of definition 3
instead to definition 4.

[0]
[http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hustle](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hustle)

------
readhn
Typical start up operator is a bullshitter. They bullshit investors for money.
It's completely normal and legal.

If you don't bullshit - you don't get funded. Simple.

Theranos for example was a typical bullshit company on steroids.

~~~
readhn
Fake it until you make it is widely accepted norm.

------
himom
It’s all about appearance of intent and managing expectations. If you cannot
deliver, don’t make a promise. Also, individuals tend to have their own range
of fudge factor, think “claimed divided by actual.”

George Carlin on BS:

[http://zenpencils.com/comic/25-george-carlin-on-bullshit-
exp...](http://zenpencils.com/comic/25-george-carlin-on-bullshit-explicit/)

------
jaredklewis
I can’t imagine this article will produce an interesting discussion. The
article is entirely vague, and addresses the issues in only the broadest of
platitudes, without even a single concrete example. The whole article could be
more concisely written as “Some founders act in ways I morally questionable,
and I don’t like it.” Not exactly fertile ground for debate.

------
RickJWag
I'm from South Dakota, where pheasants are plentiful. I have seen zillions of
them in cornfields, not a single one in a tree.

Then again, we didn't have many trees....

------
colorincorrect
this article is bullshit, but i can see the hustle, no?

------
jaequery
OP should post this on the /r/politics

