4 ms·

There's another question to ask: Do you actually want to keep your job as your company grows? This is not to imply "yes" or "no"; it's a very personal answer.

There's another question to ask: Do you actually want to keep your job as your company grows? This is not to imply "yes" or "no"; it's a very personal answer. At the companies I've been in, there are some who thrived moving into new roles as the company grew, and there were others that would have been happier and more successful taking their skills to the next startup.

anon4242 8y ago
My thoughts exactly. I've mostly worked in small companies with tiny engineering teams but I've had a go at some larger companies as well. Personally I thrive in the small companies and wither in the large ones. In the small companies I tend to spend a large part of my day writing code (which I love), meetings are rare and typically to the point. In the big companies I've found it hard to find stuff to do and the meetings are many and repetitive. It seems to me that the bigger companies hire for redundancy. In the largest company I worked for (~3k ppl) I typically received >100 emails/day + dozens of slack channels. In my current job we're 8 ppl and I rarely get more than 1 email/week :)!
sdrinf 8y ago
The fundamental principle-agent issue here, is that startup-y people, who thrive on small teams getting stuff done, are essential for getting a startup up the ground; however it is exactly the point where startups hold the least cash to compensate with. This generally leads to stock-option based compensation; which, in turn, expires 30 days after employee leaves. This economics -as practiced presently- strongly implies for savvy startupy people to work only on startups of their own; which in turn makes early hiring extremely difficult. There are 2 points of equilibrium here: * The current one is people leading less savvy people on. This leads to a lot of resentment; see rest of HN for that. * a much less wrong solution would be to have secondary markets set up significantly earlier in the game (post series a); which would make stock & options immediate liquid. Despite sales difficulties(for finding counter parties for that), this can be a huge advantage during hiring, as employees don’t have to take on lottery tickets; and allow early employees to resign with much less resentment.
- savrajsingh 8y ago
  Secfi.com trying to solve this in some regard (not quite)
- jcroll 8y ago
  Can you elaborate more on how this "secondary market" would work?
  - pbreit 8y ago
    Easiest would be to offer employees a small % of liquidity during a fundraising round. Not sure why this is not done more frequently.
    - goldfeld 8y ago
      Because anything of value is kept tight for investors and for the possibility of more investors? Early startups don't have much else to offer, which is not to say the way startups is done is morally commendable.
bduerst 8y ago
I've given this thought before, and generally I think the answer is, "yes". There's something to be said about riding the growth wave in a company or industry that is on the up-and-up, and it usually involves more career opportunities, fatter project budgets, and just a general sense of optimism from everyone else you work with. Of course there are exceptions/outliers, but in general, "yes". The inverse of this is, "Do you want to be working at a company that is shrinking?" and I think the answer is generally, "no".
- goldfeld 8y ago
  At least a company ostensibly shrinking won't be shrouded in hypetrain fumes. Maybe it's actually a great idea for those with the know-how to navigate it, jumping around stabilizing wounds, maybe you can become an hero.

anon4242 8y ago

My thoughts exactly. I've mostly worked in small companies with tiny engineering teams but I've had a go at some larger companies as well. Personally I thrive in the small companies and wither in the large ones. In the small companies I tend to spend a large part of my day writing code (which I love), meetings are rare and typically to the point. In the big companies I've found it hard to find stuff to do and the meetings are many and repetitive. It seems to me that the bigger companies hire for redundancy. In the largest company I worked for (~3k ppl) I typically received >100 emails/day + dozens of slack channels. In my current job we're 8 ppl and I rarely get more than 1 email/week :)!

sdrinf 8y ago

The fundamental principle-agent issue here, is that startup-y people, who thrive on small teams getting stuff done, are essential for getting a startup up the ground; however it is exactly the point where startups hold the least cash to compensate with. This generally leads to stock-option based compensation; which, in turn, expires 30 days after employee leaves. This economics -as practiced presently- strongly implies for savvy startupy people to work only on startups of their own; which in turn makes early hiring extremely difficult. There are 2 points of equilibrium here: * The current one is people leading less savvy people on. This leads to a lot of resentment; see rest of HN for that. * a much less wrong solution would be to have secondary markets set up significantly earlier in the game (post series a); which would make stock & options immediate liquid. Despite sales difficulties(for finding counter parties for that), this can be a huge advantage during hiring, as employees don’t have to take on lottery tickets; and allow early employees to resign with much less resentment.

savrajsingh 8y ago
Secfi.com trying to solve this in some regard (not quite)
jcroll 8y ago
Can you elaborate more on how this "secondary market" would work?
- pbreit 8y ago
  Easiest would be to offer employees a small % of liquidity during a fundraising round. Not sure why this is not done more frequently.
  - goldfeld 8y ago
    Because anything of value is kept tight for investors and for the possibility of more investors? Early startups don't have much else to offer, which is not to say the way startups is done is morally commendable.

bduerst 8y ago

I've given this thought before, and generally I think the answer is, "yes". There's something to be said about riding the growth wave in a company or industry that is on the up-and-up, and it usually involves more career opportunities, fatter project budgets, and just a general sense of optimism from everyone else you work with. Of course there are exceptions/outliers, but in general, "yes". The inverse of this is, "Do you want to be working at a company that is shrinking?" and I think the answer is generally, "no".

goldfeld 8y ago
At least a company ostensibly shrinking won't be shrouded in hypetrain fumes. Maybe it's actually a great idea for those with the know-how to navigate it, jumping around stabilizing wounds, maybe you can become an hero.