The reality for many other people, myself included, is quite different.
And that's all I'm going to say about that.
That is the first terrible read I had on svtble, the first so excessively positive view of Mark Pincus that it reads like a PR stunt, and the first time I wonder what the hell happened.
I mean, seriously? WHY? What is the point? Why write a bordering absurd praise of a guy that is so infamous for his own admitted horrible things in the book?
If it was more realistic, I mean, praising the good and the calling out the bad is one thing, but I don't see this sort of treatment even with Steve Jobs (even very positive texts on Steve Jobs mention how he had bad temper and people feared to get fired by just being near him, or how he sometimes got stubborn with ideas that were not necessarily good ones).
On the other hand, it's refreshing to read something positive on Pincus, who has been crowned as the arch villain of the industry (does that make the OP the arch henchman of the industry?)
I don't foresee this working out though...
Well, considering Pictionary was first published in 1985..
This was clearly a valuable mentorship with an influential, connected and widely known industry leader. I can envision many scenarios in which the OP would not want to risk damaging it.
Note I am speaking generally, as I don't know the OP.
They mention almost dying and Pincus being their first visitor days later when they emerged from a coma...which is very strange.
I do not know about most of you guys calling this piece "puff" because it is not bashing Pincus, but i do like balance while learning about people and things.
It is possible to infer from this that Pincus goes out of his way to be kind to talented workaholics and is not an all round devil. Therefore, if you are naturally a workaholic, you would enjoy working for him. If not, you should really consider.
This post brings a balance to the otherwise one-sided narrative about Mr Pincus/Zynga.
The piece would have a lot more credibility if he acknowledged the issues. He could have denied them, or, better, could have explained that they were legitimate but that there was another side to Pincus.
But as it is, all I can feel about the piece is WTF. Is the guy clueless? Is this denial? Is he kissing ass? Did he just see the hero he was looking to see? Is he right but only seeing a narrow slice? Do we all just have Pincus wrong?
No idea, but the piece gives me no reason to find out.
I read this as a deeply grateful person writing about his positive experience with a mentor of his. It might have been written because the author wants to balance the solely negative stories we hear of him.
Because this is Svbtle does not mean we should forget that this is a personal blog.
So when an article like this pops up without addressing the several elephants in the room it's a bit like somebody writing "What it's like to work with Adolf Hitler" without a single mention of the second world war.
If you are trying to challenge somebodies assumptions about something it is often best to address them head on.
> It might have been written because the author wants to balance the solely negative stories we hear of him.
My opinion of the company was not based on what other employees have said; their business practices before all of this alone made them look bad. The employee accounts and admissions Pincus made regarding doing anything to make money just added insult to injury. Additionally, I don't think there's anything worth balancing regarding a CEO who tells his employees to steal rather than innovate because they're not as smart as their competitors.
The OP used the term "groomed" to speak to how many young employees were quickly shot up the ranks without any experience and how this was intentional. I would be grateful to someone that irresponsibly gave me a fancy title and put me in charge of something too, despite the reality that he was using my youthful ambitions to his advantage, working me to the bone under the guise that I was capable of the work I was doing, despite failing in doing so. I also don't know anything about the author's health before the incident where he collapsed, but it wouldn't surprise me if the stress of working in such a way played a role in it. It all seems a little too Stockholm Syndrome to me, but I'm not Sash so I really can't say.
> Because this is Svbtle does not mean we should forget that this is a personal blog.
So then what is the point of Svbtle as an exclusionist platform if at the end of the day it's no different from any other?
".. an invite-only publishing network that brings some of the best things from newspapers and magazines to a network of great people. We focus on the people, the writing, and the ideas. Everything else is secondary."
His first post on the platform was a quote from Pincus from an article written last year about how well the company was doing, and a single sentence agreement with it. The second entry was a few sentences about how ideas are useless (when actually dreamers are just as important as doers, but I guess when you can make money profiting off of other people's ideas, you would hold this sentiment). Outside of the linked entry, the rest were just a few sentences to a paragraph or two on nothing all that earth-shattering.
Personally, I think they should put the answers the authors write in response to the "Expertise + Authority: Who are you? Why should people listen to you?" and "What do you plan to write [about]?" questions they answer when they apply in the sidebar. That's what I want to know before I sink my teeth into the entry.
Exaxmple: You frame "grooming" as "irresponsibly" giving a "fancy title", when it could just have well been framed by someone with a positive view of Mark as "establishing the best meritocracy," "Mark has a razor eye for the best talent" and other similarly inane and unsubstantiated labels.
Doesn't mean the article isn't accurately conveying this person't individual experience. It was still interesting to read.
Unfortunately it goes beyond just being a positive story of the experience someone had at Zynga to a nearly comical worshipping of its CEO.
I think the author is either in love with Pincus or is hoping Pincus will invest in his next project.
> Sounds like the author was too young/naive/inexperienced to understand the issues. And the mentor meant the world to him. This is like imprinting in ducks and geese.
Not to mention the stock option scandal , and notoriously horrible working conditions . I haven't met the guy, but it seems to me like the ship he runs is pretty fucked.
Concerning (1) -- Yes, "rings true" is subjective. But even if the story's exaggerated emotionally, it still managed to generate empathy in me towards someone I previously would have written off (and maybe unjustly) as, well, scum.
Which leads me to (2) -- Contending with competing notions of persons one hasn't met is a valuable thing. Human subjects should ideally be humanized, which means engaging the idea that people are sometimes very contrary beasts.
Whenever that idea is buried over, wrong thinking. Whenever that idea is illuminated, better thinking.
That said, the write up could be disingenuous, false or true. Even so, I took value from it simply because it humanized someone I previously would have cheered being thrown to the wolves. No longer, even if he is a total dirt-bag, as others contend.
Edit: hmm, I'm not sure what kind of BS you meant to call this but I'm starting to suspect it might be made up. The few Googleable instances of it all go back to a single source that posted it without attribution. Plus, "negative self-definition" sounds suspiciously PoMo... You realize what it means that I posted this, don't you? Must now explode.
Edit edit: Saved. The image is made up and the caption was added later but the substance did come from Graham Lewis. http://books.google.ca/books?ei=YMQvUeffEsKWiALI4YG4Aw&i...
Edit edit edit: since when else will this ever be apropos, here is some of the most uncomfortable television ever: http://dangerousminds.net/comments/truly_post-punk_suzanne_s...
But isn't that Suzanne Somers - Wire interview seriously... whatever it is? Come on, who else am I going to get to watch that? :)
Given Zynga's balance sheet, I'd do the exact opposite of what Mark Pincus does.
On the other hand, who knows to what extent the author's medical condition was related to job stress. There was nothing in this piece about Pincus stopping by while they were all frantically trying to meet his deadline and saying "you guys are working too hard. Go home and tomorrow we'll reevaluate when this project can realistically get done".
The main point of the story that the OP was highly valued by Zynga, but he left anyway. It details his rapid access to key people and that his old boss begged him to stay (multiple hour convo at boss' house).
It's sort of like saying your old girlfriend was super into you, and begged you to stay with her, but you left her anyway. Most people might agree that making a public declaration of this would not be doing her any favors.
A reasonable person could consider this post unprofessional. Zygna (whatever your personal opinion of the company) was singing his paychecks and could be considered to deserve the sort of respect many people give former employers in public.
For one, apparently no one saw "The Devil Wears Prada"
Oh I am sure Pincus is everything (bad) they say of him. Every word.
What we were missing is someone that's capable of adapting to his style and seeing the things beyond that.
Yes, sorry, 'his style' is usually an euphemism for 'making people cry and being awful', but there's more to it than that usually (because of what he did).
"Angry bosses" are a dime a dozen, but only few of them manage what MP has achieved (with a lot of moral issues, I'm sure).
I have to assume that wasn't a typical conference-room chair -- or it was really well engineered.
(Your Millage May Vary)