3 ms·

A few thoughts: 1. There's been a big difference between mostly hiring generalists, and only hiring generalists. When you only hire generalists, all those gene

A few thoughts: 1. There's been a big difference between mostly hiring generalists, and only hiring generalists. When you only hire generalists, all those generalists are trying to figure out the tech from scratch, which can be messy. If you have a specialist in a tech stack and then otherwise hire mostly generalists, you pair people who can learn quickly with someone who is capable of teaching them - this is a great mix. 2. Your hiring should reflect your goals. Sometimes startups really do just need to get a prototype out as soon as possible. But, sometimes, startups need help figuring out what kind of thing they should build in the first place. Those are two different skill sets, and not all engineers are great at helping shape product decisions. 3. While you need to consider the good and bad in all people, and recognize there is no perfect candidate, hiring someone who isn't a good fit for the role is often worse than not hiring someone at a startup. If you have 12 months of runway and you're burning 2-3 months being distracted by a Smart Jerk, then you might be jeopardizing your whole company. 4. So-called soft skills should be taken into consideration. It's not just someone's coding skills. Are they good at giving feedback? Are they effective at working with others? Do they demonstrate the ability to project plan?

lumost 4y ago
>3. While you need to consider the good and bad in all people, and recognize there is no perfect candidate, hiring someone who isn't a good fit for the role is often worse than not hiring someone at a startup. If you have 12 months of runway and you're burning 2-3 months being distracted by a Smart Jerk, then you might be jeopardizing your whole company. This really clarifies the hiring decision as an investment decision in the early stage. However I must ask, why not offer a good chunk of the company to engineers to ensure you have the best chance? If SmartJerk can sink the company, then is SmartNicePerson worth 5%?
- jkingsbery 4y ago
  Lack of execution in your tech roadmap can sink your startup. However, effective execution by your engineering team does not guarantee success. The thing that leads to success is product-market fit and growing revenue. Tech can be a barrier preventing revenue, but the thing that determines revenue is product (does your thing solve a problem?) and marketing (can you make other people aware of your thing?). But there aren't a lot of product-minded engineers out there: most engineers get excited about scaling databases rather than marketing funnels. So the tradeoffs aren't symmetrical: a bad engineer hire hurts than a good engineer hire helps. In any case, 5% is a lot for any salaried employee. It's been a few years since I've been at a startup, but employee share pools used to be 15% or 20% - you wouldn't give a third or a quarter of your pool to one person.
  - lumost 4y ago
    Fair, however I'd generally expect that you are more likely to find engineers who care about your product if you give more equity. In times past, great engineers moved to startups to satisfy their ambition. Now big-tech is giving out liquid compensation that is 2-3x more valuable than a startup compensation package at exit. All else being equal, a large well funded corporation is more likely to find product market fit than a small underfunded one.

lumost 4y ago

>3. While you need to consider the good and bad in all people, and recognize there is no perfect candidate, hiring someone who isn't a good fit for the role is often worse than not hiring someone at a startup. If you have 12 months of runway and you're burning 2-3 months being distracted by a Smart Jerk, then you might be jeopardizing your whole company. This really clarifies the hiring decision as an investment decision in the early stage. However I must ask, why not offer a good chunk of the company to engineers to ensure you have the best chance? If SmartJerk can sink the company, then is SmartNicePerson worth 5%?

jkingsbery 4y ago
Lack of execution in your tech roadmap can sink your startup. However, effective execution by your engineering team does not guarantee success. The thing that leads to success is product-market fit and growing revenue. Tech can be a barrier preventing revenue, but the thing that determines revenue is product (does your thing solve a problem?) and marketing (can you make other people aware of your thing?). But there aren't a lot of product-minded engineers out there: most engineers get excited about scaling databases rather than marketing funnels. So the tradeoffs aren't symmetrical: a bad engineer hire hurts than a good engineer hire helps. In any case, 5% is a lot for any salaried employee. It's been a few years since I've been at a startup, but employee share pools used to be 15% or 20% - you wouldn't give a third or a quarter of your pool to one person.
- lumost 4y ago
  Fair, however I'd generally expect that you are more likely to find engineers who care about your product if you give more equity. In times past, great engineers moved to startups to satisfy their ambition. Now big-tech is giving out liquid compensation that is 2-3x more valuable than a startup compensation package at exit. All else being equal, a large well funded corporation is more likely to find product market fit than a small underfunded one.