3 ms·
The difference is that most of those things are risks you can't reasonably plan for. If you know that the start-up you're working for has x months of runway, th
by semanticist 15y ago
The difference is that most of those things are risks you can't reasonably plan for. If you know that the start-up you're working for has x months of runway, then you can plan for looking for a new gig, ensure you have savings to carry you over, or decide to work elsewhere.
But you can't plan for it if the company's owner hides it from you. If you think you need to lie to your staff about the company's finances, then you're an untrustworthy prick.
And if you get lucky, no one will ever know. And if you don't get lucky, everyone will know that you can't be trusted, and that could affect your ability to get contracts and employees at your next venture.
- nirvana 15y agoI agree with you, but I'd like to point out that the article was expressing apprehension at hiring the guy (e.g.: he was concerned as to whether he'd be able to keep him employed for more than 2 months)... there's no indication that the financial state of the company was hidden from the employee. At least in my experience, while I haven't known the exact financial state of startups I've worked for, I've generally known the level of risk I was signing up for.
- semanticist 15y agoIf you're completely up-front about the financials then there's no reason to be apprehensive, surely? After all, the employee is deciding their own level of risk then.