Comment by fmavituna | Hacker News Reader

Comment by fmavituna | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

As an employer I'm quite cautious about hiring people who previously ran one or more startups. The chances they've got the "Entrepreneurial Bug".

The obvious advantage is that it's quite likely that they'll be well rounded, knows different stuff and got lots of experience in the world, there are tons of great skills especially found in founders.

At the same time the chances are he/she will be leaving the company after 9 months, because she just discovered "the next best thing" and want to work on that because she saved some money in the last 9 months. I try to talk the person and understand what's the long term plan, whether they are actually committed or just want to take a breath and get financially better in between projects.

If the person does great work for those 9 months, why do you prioritize commitment?

Would you really prefer to hire someone who will perform worse but makes you feel better because you know he probably won't get a job elsewhere or have independent ideas? Isn't that the very definition of "B people hire C people"?

We had someone do amazing work for just a couple of months and it was disappointing to lose him to a start-up but we appreciated the two months of output. But that would be the exception. It can take quite a few months to get up to speed on some code bases, and to learn the non-IT business side if one is new to the sector, so we are loathe to hire anyone with demonstrated startup fever.

No, he might prefer to wait with hiring someone. In some jobs, it can take a few months just getting a person up to speed, certified etc, so hiring someone is an investment.

Heh, I hear that off and on and I'm curious where that comes from. Is it just something that people repeat because it sounds good, or is there solid evidence for it?

No one wants to hire someone that can take their job in 6 months. People don't like hiring threats to themselves.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com