[mjolk]

edit: Wow, I've gotten some negative responses and I'm not sure why. This isn't a "how can I exploit people" question, it's about making sure my interview process doesn't accidentally result in people that will be unhappy. It takes a lot to compete with incumbents and agreeing to work for a startup is the algebra of pros/cons.

> I have had startups expect more then the typical 40 hours a week, and yep, I burned out pretty fast.

I'm the head of an early stage startup and have a favor to ask: can you give me advice on how to detect someone with your 40-hours-or-I'll-be-unhappy mindset? I've never heard a candidate employee express anything close to "I'm in at 9AM and expect to be out by 5:30", even if shortly down the road, it becomes clear that they feel their work/life balance is being infringed upon.

I don't mean this in any negative way and I envy people that aren't boolean in or out, but people that would feel burned out on 5x10h days (+ sometimes a quick Sunday Slack session) aren't good fits _right now_ for my team. Reliable "I do my 40, put in good work, and I'll be here for years" people are _great_ for much later stage (post-IPO, for instance), but it would deeply bother me if I found out one of my workers was feeling burned out/demotivated.

[alkonaut]

Seriously just hire 5 people instead of 4. You have 125% right there and the fact that you aren't burning out people means you'll have less employee turnover. THAT's what costing you. Not people working 40h. You'll get better people for your money by being clear that even though it's a young, growing startup, work/life balance is valued. A single key person burnt out or unhappy will cost you more productivty than those extra nights and evenings ever could.

> It it would deeply bother me if I found out one of my workers was feeling burned out/demotivated.

Then make sure people don't overwork. If something happens with a deploy that means people had to work late on thursday, then make sure they are compensated with time off.

> how to detect someone with your 40-hours-or-I'll-be-unhappy mindset

Yes. Here is how: if they aren't unhappy about working a lot then they are inexperienced. Another tell is if they have a family. In your situation, don't hire anyone with kids. Their kids will thank you. and those people don't want to work for you anyway.

The problem is you can't afford to make your company an evening pizza 27 year old bromance company because you likely can't cut out that much of the talent pool without it costing you.

Also: I don't mind people working a lot if compensated well. I could certainly have worked a ton of hours for a period of my life (before kids etc) but I would have been pretty annoyed had I accepted an offer at a company and later found out that the offer was for an expected 50h and not 40h. Don't have people come and waste time at your interview without knowing what the situation is.

[logfromblammo]

There was a time in my life when I was willing to go through the entire interview process only to reject the offer demanding 45h work weeks. There was even a time when I would ask about hours per week up front and walk away from answers I didn't like.

Now, I'll say point blank that if you're telling your salaried employees to work more than an average of 40 hours a week, you're just an asshole. Even more so than if you're just saying those who would otherwise be skilled wage laborers are salaried exempt as a dodge around relevant labor laws.

The only people who should be living at the office are those with an actual, significant equity stake in the success of the company.

Here's how you detect 40h-or-unhappy. First, check to see if the person has a normal, cocaine-free, methamphetamine-free pulse rate. Then, pat them down and check their pockets for fully vested stock in your company. If you find the first, and not the second, that person will be unhappy working extra-long hours for your benefit.

Parent is absolutely correct. Paying fewer people to work longer hours will absolutely cost you more in the long run. Just hire another person.

[mjolk]

> Seriously just hire 5 people instead of 4.

That's actually a lot easier said then done at an early stage startup for reasons of talent and compensation.

> The problem is you can't afford to make your company an evening pizza 27 year old bromance company because you likely can't cut out that much of the talent pool without it costing you.

Wow, wait? We're not a "bromance company" and I'm not even sure how to respond to this and I think it's vaguely insulting.

> Also: I don't mind people working a lot if compensated well.

We're very clear with compensation and living wage and actual equity is something we make sure is on the table.

> I could certainly have worked a ton of hours for a period of my life (before kids etc) but I would have been pretty annoyed had I accepted an offer at a company and later found out that the offer was for an expected 50h and not 40h. Don't have people come and waste time at your interview without knowing what the situation is.

This is really important to me and I make sure the candidate actually knows what he/she is getting into.

This is exactly why I wrote:

"I've never heard a candidate employee express anything close to "I'm in at 9AM and expect to be out by 5:30", even if shortly down the road, it becomes clear that they feel their work/life balance is being infringed upon."

The problem isn't that I'm trying to hustle people, it's that people tend to agree to situations they don't actually want when interviewing.

[ThrowawayR2]

> I'm the head of an early stage startup and have a favor to ask: can you give me advice on how to detect someone with your 40-hours-or-I'll-be-unhappy mindset?

-Anyone over the age of 25

-Anyone with a spouse or family or has normal non-work hobbies or interests

-Anyone with pre-existing health or stress issues

-Anyone who thinks that getting burned-out is a bad idea

Hope this helps. /s

[crgt]

I have 3 kids, survived cancer 2x, am almost 40 and work 50 hrs+/week. I enjoy the work..

[mjolk]

I don't know why you're being sarcastic, but I actually wanted to make sure I don't bring someone on to be unhappy.

People over 25 can work more than 40 hours and not get burned out. I feel that you just want to make me out to be a bad guy, so I'm not sure it's worth writing a longer response.

[jressey]

These people who like to work as little as possible are called human beings. Sorry, but you have unreasonable expectations for your team.

Think about it. You are asking human beings to make personal sacrifices for no personal gain, but for the sole purpose of making your dream a reality.

Honestly, I think you need to find people who find emotional shelter at work, so you could ask if there is any personal trauma they are trying to avoid.

You could also consider hiring hourly.

[phil21]

> Honestly, I think you need to find people who find emotional shelter at work, so you could ask if there is any personal trauma they are trying to avoid.

This is actually great insight I've never heard before. When I threw myself into 18 hour days 7 days a week it absolutely was an attempt to avoid personal trauma.

Better than a drug addiction I suppose in that it got me places, but probably damaging in many of the same ways.

[mjolk]

I'm considering what you say, but it doesn't ring true to my interpersonal experiences at all.

> Think about it. You are asking human beings to make personal sacrifices for no personal gain, but for the sole purpose of making your dream a reality.

My team has (real) equity and I like to believe they see the worth of the product. What attracted me to startups when I entered the game was the sense of ownership and agency in projects. That and work can/should come with a sense of reward.

> so you could ask if there is any personal trauma they are trying to avoid.

I think this would be somewhat inappropriate to ask "hey, so do you put in extra hours because you don't feel whole?". Everyone I work with knows they can come to me, even if he/she needs to take his/her house keys and to go to a second location to chat.

> You could also consider hiring hourly.

There's room for hourly consultants, but that hardly makes a team.

[lr4444lr]

Try this - start from the end: assume "40 hours or I'll be unhappy" is everybody, and consider realistically if your company IPO-ed and this person cashed in the options you'll give him, would the rest of his life be materially better, risk adjusted for that IPO ever becoming a reality, for every day of the week you make him unhappy as a fraction of the total days in a year?

[gerbilly]

So to paraphrase, you are asking HN: "How can I detect which workers are easiest to exploit?"

I don't know your exact situation, but extrapolating from experiences at early stage startups I worked at:

1) Hire more people. Instead of asking people to give 110%, hire 1.10⨉ the number of people.

2) Give employees the same stock (in the same class as the founders) not some second class options.

3) Get organized. A lot of crunch time occurs because tasks are not well defined, dependencies not identified etc... And write things down, that way you can read a document instead of bothering someone on vacation to ask a question.

[mr_tristan]

Just let them know early on in clear terms: "This is an early stage startup, and we're very likely going to need everyone to work beyond traditional hours."

It really is that simple.

But you have to understand that some people don't honestly know if they want to work those kinds of hours until they do it. So you will have turnover because of burnout.

FYI, I did have prior experience in a startup. I thought it would be fun to do another one. I guess age just got me turned off to the bullshit. I was not excited to have to respond to silly questions like "what are some alternative ways of using gradle for automating builds" over the weekend. If we're working 60+ hour workweeks taking time off from dating to answer questions related to development process, not the core product direction, is not the sort of shit that's going to keep many people involved.

So, a lot of experienced people will probably be turned off by being asked to work a lot, because, hey, the older you get, the more of a life you probably have. You can probably tell by the amount of down votes you've received, the "we're going to need to work overtime" message is not an easy one to stomach. So, if you need experienced people, be prepared to spend big, and make sure they've got real autonomy. Someone who's been around the block is not going to care as much about your equity, and will lose confidence in you much faster as things don't take off.

[kojeovo]

>This isn't a "how can I exploit people" question, it's about making sure my interview process doesn't accidentally result in people that will be unhappy.

Have you considered that even those people that think they are game to work a lot will end up unhappy because of biology? We aren't made to put in 10 hour days with a Sunday slack session before getting back into it on Monday.

[fwefwwfe]

You mean doing nothing but chatting on Sunday for 30 mins if they don't have any conflicting plans? I bet most people would be fine with that for an otherwise great job. A quick chat that's not so quick and also involves doing work before or after it, not so much. So how honest are you being here?

[VLM]

He's buying those peoples creative juices which only recharge away from work and he wants to cut down production by 50% LOL.

[mjolk]

> So how honest are you being here?

Dead honest. I mean a quick async-okay-if-from-phone "hey, here's what I have lined up for this week, can you tell me if this is unreasonable from your perspective" exchange.