Who should you hire at a startup?
bothsidesofthetable.com
bothsidesofthetable.com
- dealing with high pressure
- finding a market where one might not exist
- wearing dozens of different hats
- making difficult prioritization decisions with limited info
There are exceptions. One is the topic of this article: people who are able to move up a rung faster than they would at an established company. Leaving a grunt programming job to be a technical VP is a valid reason to pick a startup. Another is to learn how to run your own startup - of course, you'd have to be going to a position where you'll actually get that experience. Heads-down hacking for twelve hours a day doesn't teach you to run a company.
It's the rank-and-file employees who usually get the short end of the stick in a startup. There are the obvious drawbacks - low salary/no benefits/long hours - and the possibility the company will fold up. Unfortunately, there's no real upside for the average employee. The average startup is not going to hire on enough staff that early hires are going to have much room for advancement. Assuming the company reaches an exit - almost always selling the company - the employees won't get a big payday, but they usually suffer in the acquisition. I've been through several purchases, and it's usually not a happy process unless you're waiting for a large check. Even if the acquirer wants the startup's staff, the founders and a lot of the staff will probably be gone in a couple of years while whatever was attractive about the startup's culture is systematically disassembled.
Of course, many startup employees probably don't see it this way. Startups thrive on young grads looking to preserve the sense of purpose, freedom, and esprit-de-corps of college life. After all, if the last year has shown anything, it's that most people don't make decisions like strictly rational, self-interested economists.
But the truth is that unless you hit the lottery ticket (e.g. Google) you only really make big money at startups by founding them or being a senior exec.
It's only economically irrational if you put a value on "purpose, freedom and esprit-de-corps" that's less than the difference between your salary at a bigco and your salary at a startup.
But the reality is this - for young people it's not always about the upside. I tell people, "you need to decide whether you want to learn or you want to earn." If it's the former go work as a 0.1-0.25% owner in a startup. You won't make retirement money.
If you want to "earn" you need to be there at the start or near to it.
When I was involved in a management buyout we went to loads of people to get advice, funding, resources, etc. Without exception the funding people - government sponsored in some cases, independent VCs in others - said that we were light on management skills (which we were) and we needed to find someone to fill the gap.
They then went on to suggest people who were demanding ukp30k for one day a week, plus equity. Here we were putting everything we had into this, and these people were insisting on a full living wage for 1 day a week, plus a piece of the profits pie.
OK, we weren't exactly a startup, but this "advice" really is given.
Are there? Doesnt this article just knock down a lot of strawmen?
The unfortunately reality of life is that most advice is bad and it takes people who swim against conventional wisdom to do great things.
The HN jobs section has been empty for a while and the previous "Ask HN: Who's Hiring? (take 2)" thread is a bit stale.
However, I don't think someone's résumé is the only way to determine whether someone is looking up or looking down.
There are plenty of experienced guys who have been there, done that, but are looking to accomplish something really significant. These guys are perfect for startups because they're just as interested in achieving lofty goals, plus they already have money to support themselves.