5 ms·

There are a couple of things worth mentioning here. 1. "I have kids that I can use my vacation time for". If you think this way, you shouldn't apply for a job

There are a couple of things worth mentioning here. 1. "I have kids that I can use my vacation time for". If you think this way, you shouldn't apply for a job at a startup. You need to be prepared that there is a good chance for you to not spend a minute with your family, nor to have a vacation, over next months/years. 2. From what I learned, startups don't necessarily hire the best technical person. The are looking for the best motivated one. From what you write, it may appear that you are not really motivated/interested. A few years back I was looking for a job and spent about half a year to manage that. Got rejected by, probably, 100 companies, and got only two offers. And not because I am a jerk or technically incompetent. It's just in most cases I was not really interested, and I believe people saw that. So, it looked really strange and unfortunate to me, but I totally understand why it happened, and don't blame anyone except for myself. Usually, it's your fault, in fact. You might be not well prepared, you didn't sleep last night, you don't care about the company/product, you don't have enough skills that they require, you behave offensive, you are late for the interview, and so on. You know, I am not defending the interviewers and hiring managers, but they all have their point as well. It's you who wants to change your job, so it's all on you. Regardless of how ridiculous the interview process may appear to you.

cookiecaper 10y ago
>1. "I have kids that I can use my vacation time for". If you think this way, you shouldn't apply for a job at a startup. You need to be prepared that there is a good chance for you to not spend a minute with your family, nor to have a vacation, over next months/years. This is 100% a ridiculous belief that investors try to cram into founders' heads so they can get more free labor (on top of the already-depressed salaries many investors already mandate). It is not good for your company to overwork its employees, even when the company is a startup. Some flexibility re: crunch time or emergency changes is reasonable, some expectation of working some evenings here or there, but this belief that someone should go weeks, months, or years with minimal family or vacation time is bonkers. Only the desperate fall for it, and only the naive manager tries to enforce it. Investors may promote it because they're effectively running the equivalent of a shiny sweatshop. Neither founders nor employees should accept this type of abuse. My advice is to never take a job that even hints these are the expected working conditions. >2. From what I learned, startups don't necessarily hire the best technical person. The are looking for the best motivated one. From what you write, it may appear that you are not really motivated/interested. Again, this is a red flag for an employer you don't want to work for. Not everyone hires strictly based on technical merit, and that's fine -- culture fit is important. But if that culture's demands are that you work 65 hours a week for them and smile while doing it, you must run. These guys are not attracting real technical talent. They are attracting desperate collegiates looking for lottery tickets. Once you're no longer a desperate collegiate, you don't want those people to be your colleagues. > Got rejected by, probably, 100 companies, and got only two offers. And not because I am a jerk or technically incompetent. It's just in most cases I was not really interested, and I believe people saw that. So, it looked really strange and unfortunate to me, but I totally understand why it happened, and don't blame anyone except for myself. That you went to 100 interviews and got only 2 offers is a big red flag also. My experience is that good help will get an offer on a much higher portion of their interviews than that, maybe something between 30-50%? As stated previously perhaps you're just targeting the wrong companies, but if you're a skilled developer and you have a 2% offer rate, you are doing something seriously wrong. Maybe it's asking for too much for your skill level, maybe it's not washing well enough before the interview, I don't know what it is, but that's way low. I'm not trying to take away from the sentiment that job seekers be prepared, good candidates, but it sounds like there's a lot about your approach that could do with some tweaking.
- csbubbles 10y ago
  I am not an investor, but a startup founder. Please don't take it the wrong way, but I would have never hired a person who thinks the way you write. I am sure you are a great person, skilled and experienced technically, and all that stuff. But when you are trying to get a new business off the ground, you basically risk your whole life. If you surround yourself with people who don't share your beliefs and goals, who you can't rely on, who care about other things more than about building a successful business, you are totally doomed from the beginning. There is nothing wrong, by the way, with the way you treat such things. Most people on Earth are not entrepreneurs, so it's expected. The point was that if you think that way, you should never even think about joining a startup (at least not at the initial stage). Regarding the skills, the motivation is much more important (I believe, at least). Say, if you don't know a thing about software engineering, but you love the industry the product targets at, and you are willing to learn, I would be happy to hire you and reject all the experienced engineers from Google, Facebook and other fancy companies who don't give a damn about the product, regardless of how skilled they are.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    I'm an entrepreneur too. I'm indicating that the philosophy you're sharing serves only the investors, and that's why they try to ingrain it into naive or inexperienced founders. There is a problem when you allow your work to consume everything. Things are out of balance. That's true no matter how small or big the company is. It's not healthy for the founders or the employees to behave that way. This isn't to say that one shouldn't spend a lot of time working on stuff or that strict insistence on a 40-hour week is always appropriate, but there is more to life than work, even when you're trying to get a startup off the ground! Some equilibrium must be maintained, for the sanity of all. Specifically, delaying important familial developments like marriage and children or spending so much time engrossed in work that you become negligent of your familial responsibilities is absolutely an unfair trade, no matter how rich you get from the startup lottery (and realistically, you'll probably get 0 rich, which makes neglecting permanent, irrevocable relationships like family even less intelligent). I understand that you disagree and would avoid hiring someone who is interested in work-life balance, and that's fine, but my belief is that this attitude is not good and you're not going to get good people with it. It artificially constrains your selection of talent to the naive and/or the desperate, neither of which make a good foundation for a company.

cookiecaper 10y ago

>1. "I have kids that I can use my vacation time for". If you think this way, you shouldn't apply for a job at a startup. You need to be prepared that there is a good chance for you to not spend a minute with your family, nor to have a vacation, over next months/years. This is 100% a ridiculous belief that investors try to cram into founders' heads so they can get more free labor (on top of the already-depressed salaries many investors already mandate). It is not good for your company to overwork its employees, even when the company is a startup. Some flexibility re: crunch time or emergency changes is reasonable, some expectation of working some evenings here or there, but this belief that someone should go weeks, months, or years with minimal family or vacation time is bonkers. Only the desperate fall for it, and only the naive manager tries to enforce it. Investors may promote it because they're effectively running the equivalent of a shiny sweatshop. Neither founders nor employees should accept this type of abuse. My advice is to never take a job that even hints these are the expected working conditions. >2. From what I learned, startups don't necessarily hire the best technical person. The are looking for the best motivated one. From what you write, it may appear that you are not really motivated/interested. Again, this is a red flag for an employer you don't want to work for. Not everyone hires strictly based on technical merit, and that's fine -- culture fit is important. But if that culture's demands are that you work 65 hours a week for them and smile while doing it, you must run. These guys are not attracting real technical talent. They are attracting desperate collegiates looking for lottery tickets. Once you're no longer a desperate collegiate, you don't want those people to be your colleagues. > Got rejected by, probably, 100 companies, and got only two offers. And not because I am a jerk or technically incompetent. It's just in most cases I was not really interested, and I believe people saw that. So, it looked really strange and unfortunate to me, but I totally understand why it happened, and don't blame anyone except for myself. That you went to 100 interviews and got only 2 offers is a big red flag also. My experience is that good help will get an offer on a much higher portion of their interviews than that, maybe something between 30-50%? As stated previously perhaps you're just targeting the wrong companies, but if you're a skilled developer and you have a 2% offer rate, you are doing something seriously wrong. Maybe it's asking for too much for your skill level, maybe it's not washing well enough before the interview, I don't know what it is, but that's way low. I'm not trying to take away from the sentiment that job seekers be prepared, good candidates, but it sounds like there's a lot about your approach that could do with some tweaking.

csbubbles 10y ago
I am not an investor, but a startup founder. Please don't take it the wrong way, but I would have never hired a person who thinks the way you write. I am sure you are a great person, skilled and experienced technically, and all that stuff. But when you are trying to get a new business off the ground, you basically risk your whole life. If you surround yourself with people who don't share your beliefs and goals, who you can't rely on, who care about other things more than about building a successful business, you are totally doomed from the beginning. There is nothing wrong, by the way, with the way you treat such things. Most people on Earth are not entrepreneurs, so it's expected. The point was that if you think that way, you should never even think about joining a startup (at least not at the initial stage). Regarding the skills, the motivation is much more important (I believe, at least). Say, if you don't know a thing about software engineering, but you love the industry the product targets at, and you are willing to learn, I would be happy to hire you and reject all the experienced engineers from Google, Facebook and other fancy companies who don't give a damn about the product, regardless of how skilled they are.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  I'm an entrepreneur too. I'm indicating that the philosophy you're sharing serves only the investors, and that's why they try to ingrain it into naive or inexperienced founders. There is a problem when you allow your work to consume everything. Things are out of balance. That's true no matter how small or big the company is. It's not healthy for the founders or the employees to behave that way. This isn't to say that one shouldn't spend a lot of time working on stuff or that strict insistence on a 40-hour week is always appropriate, but there is more to life than work, even when you're trying to get a startup off the ground! Some equilibrium must be maintained, for the sanity of all. Specifically, delaying important familial developments like marriage and children or spending so much time engrossed in work that you become negligent of your familial responsibilities is absolutely an unfair trade, no matter how rich you get from the startup lottery (and realistically, you'll probably get 0 rich, which makes neglecting permanent, irrevocable relationships like family even less intelligent). I understand that you disagree and would avoid hiring someone who is interested in work-life balance, and that's fine, but my belief is that this attitude is not good and you're not going to get good people with it. It artificially constrains your selection of talent to the naive and/or the desperate, neither of which make a good foundation for a company.