I used to really enjoy working for startups. You get to work on a completely open-ended project from a clean sheet of paper, with a bunch of fun people and the energy that comes from building something fast.
The "risk" that this article talks about was actually a bonus in my mind. It meant that, more often than not, the whole company would suddenly evaporate out from under you at some point and you'd find yourself out on the job market again. Since this is an industry where Changing Jobs == Big Fat Raise, having a chance to do so with a perfectly valid excuse ("we rode our $4M straight into the ground, so here I am") was a definite upside.
Not to mention that finding yourself on the street after 6 months coding non-stop while living on somebody's couch will invariably leave a fella with a nice stack of cash. The sort of cash that goes a long way if one were to squeeze in a quick nine month trip to SE Asia before hopping back aboard the next startup for another fun, fast trip into the side of the mountain.
If you're young, unburdened, and looking to get exposed to a lot of cool tech in a short time (and still get paid for it), joining somebody else's startup is totally the way to go.
> Start-ups have their pick of motivated young professionals, and they’re certainly not afraid of personnel shake-ups. Showing that you can easily roll with the punches is one way to ensure your success.
This seems to be at odds with the constant complaint of a talent shortage, especially when startups have to compete with the offers made by AmaGooBookSoft. Which is to be believed?
My first-hand experience is that line the blog is mostly wrong. Startups are incredibly afraid of attrition, while at the same time eager to cut loose dead weight.
If the company values you and you hold the keys to some aspect of the company's operation, the team is far too small for them to practice poor retention.
On the other hand, with a finite runway and the need to move quickly, if you can't keep up, there's little reason why the company needs to have you on board.
So I suppose it cuts both ways... but if you're a competent employee, I see startup hiring as advantageous for the employee at this point in time.
Yes, there is indeed a shortage of strong developers (especially in certain niches like infrastructure, mobile, or machine learning). It also impacts big companies and not just startups.
Startups also do experience a higher degree (usually mutually agreed upon or voluntary) personnel turnover, some time well into the later stages. If you don't expect it, it can be unnerving: imagine if the person who recruited you and who you were eager to work with quits (this really shook me up first time it happened!). Nonetheless it is actually healthy: if someone believes that their personal interests and the startup's interests no longer align (either they don't think it will be as successful as they hope, or it has changed direction in a way that their technical skills are now underutilized), it is better for them to depart.
I think the article is mostly right. One place where I will disagree is in regards to "risk": traditional corporate careers (think joining GE or IBM and staying there for 10-15 years, entering management as the only possible promotion) actually offer less job security than working for younger technology companies (whether startups or Google/Facebook).
What one should consider instead are opportunity costs: financial (a startup might match a bigger company in base pay, but they will usually not offer RSUs that you can start selling in a year), but most importantly the non-financial ones (if the startup fails, will I still learn any unique, useful, and broadly applicable skills?)
Shame about the emphasis on long hours here. Not all start-ups expect them as a matter of course and I'm not convinced that they're a healthy part of start-up culture or crucial to success.
People should be prepared to be flexible of course, but I'd hate to see long hours perpetuated as part of this cargo cult start-up success myth and expected by default by founders.
I think you would be surprised at the number of people who apply for jobs at startups without being aware of any of this. Or, just as bad, who hear about this stuff but don't take it seriously.
I think, personally, that "the startup scene" is tapped and that it's time to move on. I'm not saying "join big companies". I think it's time to forget this social media bubble idiocy and move back to Real Technology, in companies big and small. Joining a startup doing Real Tech can be a good move, but joining some mummer's jape because "it's a startup" is not.
The most important thing, when joining a company, is to enter one with a real engineering culture. Are the most qualified people making important decisions? Is it going to stay that way? Will you be able to make decisions that affect you? (Expecting to make decisions that affect others, in your first 12 months, is asking a big much.) Too many of these hot startups (and almost all of the VC darlings) have shitty MBA culture. Sure, they have free pizza (at 8:00 pm) and engineers can wear jeans, but the major decisions are still made by the wrong sorts of people.
Also, I think the social media bubble is going to embarrass itself just like the last one did, and I think it's going to splotch a lot of resumes. I think it's wiser to make for Real Technology now rather than in 2015 when a large number of people are trying to do the same because Google is no longer acq-hiring IUsedThisToilet apps for $487 million.
Finally, becoming a subordinate employee at a startup is usually a shitty deal. The stock option on 0.01073% of the company isn't real ownership. It's a lottery ticket. And if you don't know what preferences the investors have, you're in absolutely no position to evaluate the equity even if things do go well. (By the way, my friend had an offer at a VC darling, for 60% of the salary he was making but about 0.25% of the company. When he asked if there were preferences against that equity, the offer was rescinded. I don't know if this is normal, but it is telling.)
There are 4 reasons to join a startup. 1. For a promotion. This can be dicey because the startup might hire people above you as it grows, defeating the purpose of that move. If you join a startup as the first programmer and end up answering to an MBA-toting VP before your equity is fully vested, you've been fucked. Startups have good reasons not to make their first programmers CTOs, but if you're the first programmer, you should absolutely insist on investor contact and lock in a VP-level title. 2. You know and trust the people running the operation. I would say that this is the big one. Startups can be amazing opportunities if you trust the people running the show, and if they trust you to make important decisions. 3. Literally no one else is doing that kind of work. Since blue-sky R&D (once funded by large companies and governments) has disappeared or is only available to people with PhDs from top departments, this is not an uncommon case. 4. You're a founder.
> By the way, my friend had an offer at a VC darling, for 60% of the salary he was making but about 0.25% of the company. When he asked if there were preferences against that equity, the offer was rescinded. I don't know if this is normal, but it is telling.
This is disturbing, but it does seem like he dodged a bullet there.
I'll corroborate that I had an offer rescinded when I tried to negotiate salary and benefits... but this was not a startup. Do companies that behave like this think that everyone is desperate to work for them?
[+] [-] jasonkester|14 years ago|reply
The "risk" that this article talks about was actually a bonus in my mind. It meant that, more often than not, the whole company would suddenly evaporate out from under you at some point and you'd find yourself out on the job market again. Since this is an industry where Changing Jobs == Big Fat Raise, having a chance to do so with a perfectly valid excuse ("we rode our $4M straight into the ground, so here I am") was a definite upside.
Not to mention that finding yourself on the street after 6 months coding non-stop while living on somebody's couch will invariably leave a fella with a nice stack of cash. The sort of cash that goes a long way if one were to squeeze in a quick nine month trip to SE Asia before hopping back aboard the next startup for another fun, fast trip into the side of the mountain.
If you're young, unburdened, and looking to get exposed to a lot of cool tech in a short time (and still get paid for it), joining somebody else's startup is totally the way to go.
[+] [-] Swizec|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thrwwy20120508|14 years ago|reply
This seems to be at odds with the constant complaint of a talent shortage, especially when startups have to compete with the offers made by AmaGooBookSoft. Which is to be believed?
[+] [-] potatolicious|14 years ago|reply
If the company values you and you hold the keys to some aspect of the company's operation, the team is far too small for them to practice poor retention.
On the other hand, with a finite runway and the need to move quickly, if you can't keep up, there's little reason why the company needs to have you on board.
So I suppose it cuts both ways... but if you're a competent employee, I see startup hiring as advantageous for the employee at this point in time.
[+] [-] strlen|14 years ago|reply
Startups also do experience a higher degree (usually mutually agreed upon or voluntary) personnel turnover, some time well into the later stages. If you don't expect it, it can be unnerving: imagine if the person who recruited you and who you were eager to work with quits (this really shook me up first time it happened!). Nonetheless it is actually healthy: if someone believes that their personal interests and the startup's interests no longer align (either they don't think it will be as successful as they hope, or it has changed direction in a way that their technical skills are now underutilized), it is better for them to depart.
I think the article is mostly right. One place where I will disagree is in regards to "risk": traditional corporate careers (think joining GE or IBM and staying there for 10-15 years, entering management as the only possible promotion) actually offer less job security than working for younger technology companies (whether startups or Google/Facebook).
What one should consider instead are opportunity costs: financial (a startup might match a bigger company in base pay, but they will usually not offer RSUs that you can start selling in a year), but most importantly the non-financial ones (if the startup fails, will I still learn any unique, useful, and broadly applicable skills?)
[+] [-] mjw|14 years ago|reply
People should be prepared to be flexible of course, but I'd hate to see long hours perpetuated as part of this cargo cult start-up success myth and expected by default by founders.
[+] [-] MaxGabriel|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] n9com|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] moubarak|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sparknlaunch12|14 years ago|reply
For an employee, surely this would come through the interview process?
[+] [-] csallen|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Killah911|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michaelochurch|14 years ago|reply
The most important thing, when joining a company, is to enter one with a real engineering culture. Are the most qualified people making important decisions? Is it going to stay that way? Will you be able to make decisions that affect you? (Expecting to make decisions that affect others, in your first 12 months, is asking a big much.) Too many of these hot startups (and almost all of the VC darlings) have shitty MBA culture. Sure, they have free pizza (at 8:00 pm) and engineers can wear jeans, but the major decisions are still made by the wrong sorts of people.
Also, I think the social media bubble is going to embarrass itself just like the last one did, and I think it's going to splotch a lot of resumes. I think it's wiser to make for Real Technology now rather than in 2015 when a large number of people are trying to do the same because Google is no longer acq-hiring IUsedThisToilet apps for $487 million.
Finally, becoming a subordinate employee at a startup is usually a shitty deal. The stock option on 0.01073% of the company isn't real ownership. It's a lottery ticket. And if you don't know what preferences the investors have, you're in absolutely no position to evaluate the equity even if things do go well. (By the way, my friend had an offer at a VC darling, for 60% of the salary he was making but about 0.25% of the company. When he asked if there were preferences against that equity, the offer was rescinded. I don't know if this is normal, but it is telling.)
There are 4 reasons to join a startup. 1. For a promotion. This can be dicey because the startup might hire people above you as it grows, defeating the purpose of that move. If you join a startup as the first programmer and end up answering to an MBA-toting VP before your equity is fully vested, you've been fucked. Startups have good reasons not to make their first programmers CTOs, but if you're the first programmer, you should absolutely insist on investor contact and lock in a VP-level title. 2. You know and trust the people running the operation. I would say that this is the big one. Startups can be amazing opportunities if you trust the people running the show, and if they trust you to make important decisions. 3. Literally no one else is doing that kind of work. Since blue-sky R&D (once funded by large companies and governments) has disappeared or is only available to people with PhDs from top departments, this is not an uncommon case. 4. You're a founder.
[+] [-] thrwwy20120508|14 years ago|reply
This is disturbing, but it does seem like he dodged a bullet there.
I'll corroborate that I had an offer rescinded when I tried to negotiate salary and benefits... but this was not a startup. Do companies that behave like this think that everyone is desperate to work for them?
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bluedanieru|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anamax|14 years ago|reply
Another thing to know - it's fairly inexpensive if you're young and in decent health.
For the vast majority of you, worrying about health insurance is more silly than worrying about the cost of a car.