I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I'm moved by the rhetoric on the websites of Bridgewater and D.E Shaw, two hedge funds which are known for their all-around excellence and meritocracy. Bridgewater has a culture which encourages openness, fierce quantitative talent, constant improvement, criticism of superiors, and lack of hierarchy. D.E Shaw actively seeks top performers across fields: artists, scientists, scholars, etc. People you wouldn't typically associate with a financial institution. There is an openness in the hiring procedures, a belief that ability transcends category, that true creativity is not at odds with capitalism. Also, there is supposedly not the sort of bias against young people you find at most corporate places ("let the kids do the bitchwork and move up one inch at a time until they're so bitter at the top, it makes them happy to abuse their inferiors"). They probably hire more MFA graduates than publishing houses do (well maybe). I don't want to be anecdotal, but I just don't see that sort of organizational intelligence and flexibility at publishing houses. They seem in contrast hierarchical, old-fashioned, and rigid. I'm surprised they haven't learned to anticipate most of the major stumbling blocks and trends the industry has faced lately. They should have seen it all coming a decade ago. Blogs, self-publishing, Amazon, longtail, e-reader, etc. It must be someone's job to anticipate. I've been thinking a lot about brands--image and brand loyalty lately. Even though I don't work at the funds mentioned above and have little or nothing to do with them, I somehow feel loyal to their visions.
I don't know how possible this is , but I want to run CAVALIER with a little of that spirit. We already have some great unpaid interns from Dartmouth working for us, but my big dream is to employ some college kids and actually pay them decent money. So that there are no compromises, no sacrifices involved in working for my organization. Great paycheck, great company, great product, great values. A place where everything is perfectly aligned. No matter how big we ever get (and believe me, it will grow by the time I'm through), we're never going to have a slush pile we don't read. And we'll never just resort to publishing famous people because we don't have the energy to go through submissions (I will make it a point to discover emerging writers). There simply won't be any laziness. And when I hire these paid interns, it will be very meritocratic. No nepotism. Connections won't sway me. I will actually go through every single resume and pick the smartest, most passionate and hardworking person. And like the above-mentioned firms, I will aggressively seek out the best people to join my team.
And prizes/contests. Need to do something about that. Definitely need to reinvent how that is handled. Just think it's a wasteful enterprise. I hate the winner-take-all mentality (and this is not sour grapes; even when I do win something, it strikes me as arbitrary). So one person gets $2000 and everyone else, nothing. Because some judge decided he liked it (and probably for some very subjective reason). What does this accomplish?
I'm blessed to be working with my current group. I deliberately assembled a board composed of people with diverse interests (but a unifying commitment to literary art) because I knew the jaggedness and fresh insight would be productive. My only criteria was the following: 1) excellence in some chosen field 2) interest in literary fiction or poetry.
No comments:
Post a Comment