4 ms·

Controversial opinion but learned through experience the hard way here, repeatedly proven, anyone that you feel "like lack of commitment from him could possibly

Controversial opinion but learned through experience the hard way here, repeatedly proven, anyone that you feel "like lack of commitment from him could possibly influence our culture in a negative way", just pass (at least until you have product market fit or a repeatable business running). As soon as shit hits the fan, they will either leave or drop performance, and you will have to let them go. In your case, I think the issue is not about part time, but the commitment itself. If it's your first hire, you need them to be on-board, and contrary to what most people say, have more expectations than people would for a "normal" employee. The truth is, that person is not a normal employee, it's the first hire in a very early stage business. If you treat that hire as a regular employee, you will build expectations and won't be able to live up to it, and it will backfire for both of you 6-8 months down the road. That will hurt your ability to build a core team, and you will have to start from scratch. Do not give up on that, no matter what the popular opinion tells you. Most people are not founders, and you should trust the guts that you have about building your core team.

skrebbel 7y ago
Fellow founder here. I think I agree with the gist of what you write, but I disagree that a part-time commitment is a good indicator of the level of emotional commitment. Passion is important, and there's a huge spectrum between "passion as an excuse to get people to work many hours without compensating them" and the bill-by-the-hour contractor attitude. You don't want your first employees to be anywhere near the right of that spectrum. Basically, you want them to proudly wear the company logo t-shirt. But this is perfectly possible without driving yourself into a burnout. While I agree with many commenters here that way too many startups work their team too hard for absolutely no benefit to anybody, I do think that employees of small startups can be expected to have said startup at top thing on their minds, bordering family etc. This information is missing from the OP's question. There's a world of difference between an applicant going "oh, hm yeah I can do some work for you but only 3 days a week because I'm actually focused on my side project and I hope it becomes a proper startup someday" and "woa that sounds awesome, I'm all in! but I don't want to work more than 3 days because I've a couple of hobbies / open source projects / whatever that I like to keep time for". In the first scenario, the engineer might be writing hours for you, but actually thinking about their other thing at the same time. They won't be super productive, and they'd especially not be all too creative. Like you, I'd never recommend that a startup hire someone who doesn't have the success of said startup at top of their mind (again, possibly bordering family matters). But I disagree with your suggestion that the amount of hours/days committed is a good indicator of that. Part-time is the future, folks, accept it, embrace it.
- superzadeh 7y ago
  100% agreed, that's what I meant by "I think the issue is not about part time, but the commitment itself". We very often try to rationalize things that are more "felt" (sense of commitment) to more tangible things. In this case, the author might feel that the person is not committed, and might attribute it to the part time as way to reason/explain that feeling that the other person isn't committed. Chances are, they would most likely feel the same if the person was full time. If the person was highly committed, they wouldn't even start to rationalize this way about part time, and it'd be a no-brainer decision to hire them and make it work.
- spottybanana 7y ago
  > Part-time is the future, folks, accept it, embrace it. I don't have problems with having part-time employees, but quite difficult to see it being "the future". There are some people who want part-time possibilities, but in my experience majority prefer full-time employment. Also usually full-time employment is also desirable for employer. However often those who want part-time deals, are quite talented etc, so it makes sense to make arrangements with them. Also sometimes part-time is good match for the employer as well, if the workload matches that for some reason.
- eropple 7y ago
  > I do think that employees of small startups can be expected to have said startup at top thing on their minds, bordering family etc. They won't be credited like founders, compensated at-the-time remotely near market, will be overworked to the bone if they don't actively fight it, and in the event of success will be hilariously undercompensated, if not actively screwed. So--why?
  - skrebbel 7y ago
    > will be overworked to the bone if they don't actively fight it Says who? Srsly stop working for shitty startups. And stop assuming all founders are exploitative psychopaths. We're not. Many of us just want to build an awesome company that's an awesome place to work at. You don't need to overwork the team for that. But you also won't get there with a bunch of disinterested contractors who just do their assigned tasks.
mindcrime 7y ago
The truth is, that person is not a normal employee, it's the first hire in a very early stage business. If you treat that hire as a regular employee, you will build expectations and won't be able to live up to it, and it will backfire for both of you 6-8 months down the road. If that's true, then I hope that person gets compensation that is consistent with that status. I wouldn't have a problem with that... what gets me is when people want somebody to basically act like a founder in terms of commitment, but the compensation is just "regular employee". F that.

skrebbel 7y ago

Fellow founder here. I think I agree with the gist of what you write, but I disagree that a part-time commitment is a good indicator of the level of emotional commitment. Passion is important, and there's a huge spectrum between "passion as an excuse to get people to work many hours without compensating them" and the bill-by-the-hour contractor attitude. You don't want your first employees to be anywhere near the right of that spectrum. Basically, you want them to proudly wear the company logo t-shirt. But this is perfectly possible without driving yourself into a burnout. While I agree with many commenters here that way too many startups work their team too hard for absolutely no benefit to anybody, I do think that employees of small startups can be expected to have said startup at top thing on their minds, bordering family etc. This information is missing from the OP's question. There's a world of difference between an applicant going "oh, hm yeah I can do some work for you but only 3 days a week because I'm actually focused on my side project and I hope it becomes a proper startup someday" and "woa that sounds awesome, I'm all in! but I don't want to work more than 3 days because I've a couple of hobbies / open source projects / whatever that I like to keep time for". In the first scenario, the engineer might be writing hours for you, but actually thinking about their other thing at the same time. They won't be super productive, and they'd especially not be all too creative. Like you, I'd never recommend that a startup hire someone who doesn't have the success of said startup at top of their mind (again, possibly bordering family matters). But I disagree with your suggestion that the amount of hours/days committed is a good indicator of that. Part-time is the future, folks, accept it, embrace it.

superzadeh 7y ago
100% agreed, that's what I meant by "I think the issue is not about part time, but the commitment itself". We very often try to rationalize things that are more "felt" (sense of commitment) to more tangible things. In this case, the author might feel that the person is not committed, and might attribute it to the part time as way to reason/explain that feeling that the other person isn't committed. Chances are, they would most likely feel the same if the person was full time. If the person was highly committed, they wouldn't even start to rationalize this way about part time, and it'd be a no-brainer decision to hire them and make it work.
spottybanana 7y ago
> Part-time is the future, folks, accept it, embrace it. I don't have problems with having part-time employees, but quite difficult to see it being "the future". There are some people who want part-time possibilities, but in my experience majority prefer full-time employment. Also usually full-time employment is also desirable for employer. However often those who want part-time deals, are quite talented etc, so it makes sense to make arrangements with them. Also sometimes part-time is good match for the employer as well, if the workload matches that for some reason.
eropple 7y ago
> I do think that employees of small startups can be expected to have said startup at top thing on their minds, bordering family etc. They won't be credited like founders, compensated at-the-time remotely near market, will be overworked to the bone if they don't actively fight it, and in the event of success will be hilariously undercompensated, if not actively screwed. So--why?
- skrebbel 7y ago
  > will be overworked to the bone if they don't actively fight it Says who? Srsly stop working for shitty startups. And stop assuming all founders are exploitative psychopaths. We're not. Many of us just want to build an awesome company that's an awesome place to work at. You don't need to overwork the team for that. But you also won't get there with a bunch of disinterested contractors who just do their assigned tasks.

mindcrime 7y ago

The truth is, that person is not a normal employee, it's the first hire in a very early stage business. If you treat that hire as a regular employee, you will build expectations and won't be able to live up to it, and it will backfire for both of you 6-8 months down the road. If that's true, then I hope that person gets compensation that is consistent with that status. I wouldn't have a problem with that... what gets me is when people want somebody to basically act like a founder in terms of commitment, but the compensation is just "regular employee". F that.