Hacker News Reader

Comment by smalter | Hacker News Reader

It sounds like the only thing that YC has to do with this post is that it framed the author's initial perceptions of the company, perhaps in a way that blinded him/her to the truth: every pre-product market fit startup is a mess on the inside.

It's a bit counterintuitive, but that's why I actually do the opposite from most founders who are trying to hire: I tell potential hires everything that's horrible about our company--all the reasons why we suck, why we'll fail, etc.

It turns out that the candidate that's a good fit really values having that conversation and relishes the opportunity to think through what the problems are and how they can help. It's also extremely differentiating from how most companies hire. I say, if you suck, embrace it.

View on HN

I received that kind of anti-pitch before I joined CrowdFlower back when, and I found it very compelling.

It did in fact turn out to be an accurate representation of the cofounders' culture of transparency, too.

I find that people who can do both; See how they are under performing and share it with others, do better than those who try to put on a brave 'face'.

The reality is that we all suck in our own way and we have strengths that we may or may not recognize. But the only way forward is to let go of your ego, embrace the fail, and learn as fast and as durably as you can.

A common observation people make about founders of successful companies are that they are really "down to earth" and "approachable." I have come to understand that it is their ability to not let their own ego interfere with listening and learning that makes it possible for them to be successful.

This is an awesome hiring approach.

If the only reason people join is because they want to ride your rising stock, they're probably a brutal hire.

In some sales technique philosophies, sales people try to give prospects reasons to NOT buy, or ask them things along the lines of "why would you want to join this, given that I'm revealing $shitty_fact_x and $shitty_fact_y?"

You might lose some good people, but candidates who are willing to see that really want it, feel like its a great fit, and probably think of those problems as challenges where they can really make a difference.

I have to ask: do you find you have a lot of applicants who turn away after this conversation?

In other words, other factors aside, does this negatively impact your hire/interview ratio?

It may do that, and when it does it's probably for the better. When you are in a pre-seed startup, things are not rosy, and you want to make sure that your potential hire does not hate being a part of it in a few months.

In other words, you want to make sure you hire the kind of person who really wants to join an early stage startup, in spite of all the risks associated with it.

I'm a big fan of this approach, it weeds out the idealists and folks who just want to coast. When interviewing we like to reveal what we see as the sordid underbelly parts of our company to see if they flinch. It means there's no surprises when they join and they don't feel they've just been bait-and-switched when they get chucked into the murky depths of a long forgotten and hastily knocked together business critical service app. This was how I was sold my present job and I'm still here ten years later enjoying it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com