Comment by michaelochurch | Hacker News Reader

Comment by michaelochurch | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'm going to agree and disagree. Good-faith business failure really shouldn't be stigmatized, but it is. As with record labels (which is what VCs are) you get a first shot if you can get an introduction, a second shot if you grovel, and then you're done. That's why even the most ill-conceived startups get "acq-hired" these days instead of actually failing. The career damage associated with failing is too much for anyone to stomach at this point.

The culture of fear actually makes sense because, in a feudalistic reputation economy where you can spend months dealing with the fallout of a bad reference or a business failure, there is a lot to be feared.

I feel like a lot of people put these manic "I quit my job to do a startup" posts and put them on HN and get lots of kudos. No one writes, "I'm 33 and answer to a 26-year-old 'tech lead' and I have no savings; that's how much my three startup failures have fucked up my life and career." People talk a good game about their successes, but failures are embarrassing, messy and complicated and almost no one is willing to share a full story over one of those, especially if they involve other people. (That's understandable, but it's still biased reporting.)

The unfortunate truth is that we really don't live in a world where that kind of cavalier attitude toward failure can be afforded. That's especially true given how rapidly age discrimination becomes a problem for us.

I've gotten to where I am by being honest about my shortcomings and sharing my most embarrassing stories. Unimportant people are always shocked and the quiet people that make decisions have always seemed to appreciate it... even if it made them upset at first.

I believe it is the eve of being well-known that we are all our own spokespersons and that our branding and image is just as much a puff piece as a coke commercial.

I do agree this falls apart when the stories involve other people, at least non-anonymous people. No one likes a snitch.

I've gotten to where I am by being honest about my shortcomings and sharing my most embarrassing stories.

I live in New York. Most people expect perfect career histories, even in startups. Even minor blemishes put you out forever. It's that competitive.

When I was at Google, I put together a strategy that would have saved Google+ Games (there was a G+ Games, you ask? My point exactly) and no one took it seriously because my previous startup (at which I was an engineer, not CEO) had failed. Had that startup become a success, people would have taken the suggestion seriously and Google would be worth at least tens of millions more.

I'm 29 and already deal with age discrimination and the "job hopper" stigma from having made a couple bad calls and having a story that looks more like freelancing than the "company man" fantasy (which is dead, and people who still believe in it and hold "job hopping" against people should be evaluated for dementia).

I also get an unbelievable amount of shit about leaving Google and, on a job interview, you can't exactly say, "Oh, their reputation as a great place to work is completely fraudulent because in 2009 they hired a bunch of transplant execs who turned the company into Enron, and now it's impossible to move to a better project." It's the truth, but I can't say it.

Maybe it's magically different in the Valley. I don't live there; I don't know.

You're basing an entire alternate reality off one outcome; what about the one where your startup succeeded and ended up costing google tens of millions?

Argh - I am so glad I don't live in an elitist nyc/valley area where people compete through job cannibalism. My life is simple, my home is cozy and my nights are mine. I write code in a small shop on its 11th year, my 5th. I am so glad that software is not all about life in the fastlane. I admire your life style, but I do not envy it.

You're basing an entire alternate reality off one outcome; what about the one where your startup succeeded and ended up costing google tens of millions?

The startup where I worked was completely unrelated to the idea that would have saved G+.

I'm saying that, had that startup succeeded and had I ended up at Google around the same time, I would have had the credibility to actually roll up my sleeves, push a few idiots out of the way, and save those tens of millions of dollars. But I didn't have that credibility, at least not then, so I had to sit back and watch as enormous amounts of value were incinerated before my eyes.

I follow your comments and your skeptic bubblebursting approach is refreshing. You should write a blog or something.

He has a blog[1] that he's linked a couple of times. I'm just amazed by how long the entries are, I can never force myself to write that much.

http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/

Tech companies in New York will hire anyone with a pulse.

Getting hired is easy. I got hired at Google, which is supposedly uber-selective. Getting taken seriously is annoyingly difficult even with minor mistakes.

Now that I'm 29 and have had 6 jobs, I really don't want to keep changing. I'll gladly bolt if I end up with an awful manager, bait-and-switch hiring, or any of the other nonsense that we put up with in this industry, but there's something to be said for a 5+ year fit. I really don't want another 6-month fling. Any idiot can get "a job"; getting the right one, one that comes with some credibility and autonomy, is important.

It seems that most people, after a startup fails, end up in the shitpile applying for bullshit subordinate roles where they might get to write 5 lines of new code per day in the vain hope that one day, several years later, The Boss might throw them a bone and give them a real project.

Most SV companies I've dealt with seemed not to have their act together. A couple were pretty cool, but one told me to expect 5 phone screens (I bowed out; don't have time for that shit at my age) and one required signing a full-on non-compete to take a coding test! This prima donna shit gets old.

Getting hired is easy?

I think there are a few million unemployed Americans who would love to have a word with you.

If you can program, and you're under 40, it's easy to get "a job". Getting good jobs is harder.

Yep. Fear can be healthy as long as you understand what you're afraid of and why; it doesn't have to stop you from doing certain things, but it can lead you to at least consider either not doing them or approaching them very carefully.

While I agree that we -- at least the two of us, anyway -- lead lifestyles that don't support high-stakes gambling, trust fund babies and other independently-wealthy people can afford that attitude, at least to a point.

The only difference is where that point is. For some people it's high enough that dropping everything and throwing a Hail Mary just isn't a big deal. For most of us that's a very poor decision. Discovering or deciding where that point is in your current situation should be the first step for anyone in deciding just how afraid they should be of failure depending on the investment they're considering.

Why are startup failures so bad for the founders? I haven't heard that before.

A total failure (not an acq-hire) is bad for your reputation. The acq-hire gets you a Director or VP-level position at the acquirer even though it leaves your employees screwed. Actual run-out-of-money business failure makes it hard to get funded again. VC is a regressive reputation economy in which no one likes you if they perceive others as not liking you, so actually having to close a business down makes you unfundable.

Is this from the experience of someone who tried to raise again after failing? At the end of the day it's what you produce and the opportunity at hand not what you've done. Raising with a pitch and a dream is rightfully more difficult the second time around.

Is this at the seed stage or later? Wouldn't VCs prefer to put their money in one who has tried a startup before and failed than a first-timer for whom there are a lot more unknowns?

Acq-hire is the socially acceptable way to fail. If you actually fail in the everyone-gets-fired sense, then you have the double stigma of (a) failing and (b) not having built something deserving even of the consolation prize.

Oh, and if your investors fire you "for performance" (if the thing in a tail spin, getting fired almost doesn't matter and might make your life better) you might as well kill self. No one is going to touch a fired founder with a 10-foot pole. Even regular jobs are out of the question, much less the EIR sinecures and executive injections that acqui-failed founders usually get.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com