6 ms·

Yes but that doesn't take into account that startups are far more likely to hire someone in a growth/reach position. Yes the employee takes a risk, but in many

by wdewind 11y ago

Yes but that doesn't take into account that startups are far more likely to hire someone in a growth/reach position. Yes the employee takes a risk, but in many cases the company is taking a risk hiring them as well. Joining a startup early isn't the best choice for everyone, but for someone looking for a new role, or significant responsibility growth, it can be a great opportunity to prove yourself that you otherwise wouldn't be offered at a bigger company. Examples of this can range from someone coming out of a bootcamp into their first engineering position, or a senior engineer from a bigger company joining as CTO of a startup.

kzhahou 11y ago
The company takes a risk on the employee. The employee takes a risk on the company. When the company IS finally successful, it's due to EVERYONE's work. Not in equal amounts, certainly, but not at a ratio of 50-5000x from founders to every other individual.
- wdewind 11y ago
  > Not in equal amounts, certainly, but not at a ratio of 50-5000x from founders to every other individual. I'm not sure I can agree with that statement. All I can say is that if you think you have a deal that isn't fair to you you should leave. But I can certainly imagine scenarios in which a founder contributes 50x more value than an early stage employee.
angersock 11y ago
company is taking a risk hiring them as well This is a nice way of saying the company can't/won't pay for some "ideal" candidate. or significant responsibility growth This is a nice way of saying "will be taken advantage of". ~ The issue I have taken with your stance is that it seems to presuppose some business that is automatically a big hit were it not for a potentially terrible hire, instead of a business that won't go anywhere without good execution by a team. It's a subtle but important difference, and not recognizing that difference leads to treatment of employees as tools instead of (effectively) later-stage cofounders.
- wdewind 11y ago
  >This is a nice way of saying "will be taken advantage of". Or it's a recognition that if you are serious about growing your career you need to do so by demonstrating you are capable of handling greater levels of responsibility. If you think you are being exploited then don't join the copmany. But the idea that more responsibility means more exploitation and that you don't gain anything from that is incredibly short-sighted. > The issue I have taken with your stance is that it seems to presuppose some business that is automatically a big hit were it not for a potentially terrible hire, instead of a business that won't go anywhere without good execution by a team. I don't agree that's my stance. If you've never run an engineering team and you get an opportunity to do so out a startup that fails, you've still gained from that experience significantly. The company paid a lot of money for you to make mistakes that you wont make when you go on to lead your next team. It's difficult to calculate the value of that, but it's absolutely real and it's why a lot of people transition to smaller companies in order to grow their careers. Early employees (and I am one) are absolutely not later stage cofounders. My suggestion to people who are in a position where they feel like a later stage cofounder without the upside is to leave that position. I'm currently at a company where I absolutely know I could not do what the founder/CEO does, and I don't feel like the deal I got is exploitative at all despite having, of course, significantly less equity than the founder. YMMV. Edit: to further clarify the last point: this company absolutely could have succeeded without me, it could not have succeeded without the founder and a few key hires. If you are joining a typical "lean startup" that is just some engineers who are trying to figure out a business, then yeah, sure, you are a fool to join as an early employee. If you are joining a business with a founder who deeply understands an industry and how to execute, then it's a completely different deal you are signing up for. Apples and oranges.

by wdewind 11y ago

kzhahou 11y ago

The company takes a risk on the employee. The employee takes a risk on the company. When the company IS finally successful, it's due to EVERYONE's work. Not in equal amounts, certainly, but not at a ratio of 50-5000x from founders to every other individual.

wdewind 11y ago
> Not in equal amounts, certainly, but not at a ratio of 50-5000x from founders to every other individual. I'm not sure I can agree with that statement. All I can say is that if you think you have a deal that isn't fair to you you should leave. But I can certainly imagine scenarios in which a founder contributes 50x more value than an early stage employee.

angersock 11y ago

company is taking a risk hiring them as well This is a nice way of saying the company can't/won't pay for some "ideal" candidate. or significant responsibility growth This is a nice way of saying "will be taken advantage of". ~ The issue I have taken with your stance is that it seems to presuppose some business that is automatically a big hit were it not for a potentially terrible hire, instead of a business that won't go anywhere without good execution by a team. It's a subtle but important difference, and not recognizing that difference leads to treatment of employees as tools instead of (effectively) later-stage cofounders.

wdewind 11y ago
>This is a nice way of saying "will be taken advantage of". Or it's a recognition that if you are serious about growing your career you need to do so by demonstrating you are capable of handling greater levels of responsibility. If you think you are being exploited then don't join the copmany. But the idea that more responsibility means more exploitation and that you don't gain anything from that is incredibly short-sighted. > The issue I have taken with your stance is that it seems to presuppose some business that is automatically a big hit were it not for a potentially terrible hire, instead of a business that won't go anywhere without good execution by a team. I don't agree that's my stance. If you've never run an engineering team and you get an opportunity to do so out a startup that fails, you've still gained from that experience significantly. The company paid a lot of money for you to make mistakes that you wont make when you go on to lead your next team. It's difficult to calculate the value of that, but it's absolutely real and it's why a lot of people transition to smaller companies in order to grow their careers. Early employees (and I am one) are absolutely not later stage cofounders. My suggestion to people who are in a position where they feel like a later stage cofounder without the upside is to leave that position. I'm currently at a company where I absolutely know I could not do what the founder/CEO does, and I don't feel like the deal I got is exploitative at all despite having, of course, significantly less equity than the founder. YMMV. Edit: to further clarify the last point: this company absolutely could have succeeded without me, it could not have succeeded without the founder and a few key hires. If you are joining a typical "lean startup" that is just some engineers who are trying to figure out a business, then yeah, sure, you are a fool to join as an early employee. If you are joining a business with a founder who deeply understands an industry and how to execute, then it's a completely different deal you are signing up for. Apples and oranges.