4 ms·

Ask HN: What will motivate you to apply for a job at a pre-funded startup?

13 points by _448 4y ago

How would you evaluate an early-startup in the first place to build that motivation? And also, what would repel you from applying at an early-stage startup?

dmitrygr 4y ago
To offer a counter-point to a lot of comments here: nothing. And it is not personal. Been there, done that. Too old and wise now to work for free. Only so many years of life left, they are best spent on family, friends. fun.
ac2u 4y ago
>How would you evaluate an early-startup in the first place to build that motivation? Lots of equity. (If you’re pre-funded you can’t offer good salary) > And also, what would repel you from applying at an early-stage startup? Not having lots of equity. Lots of pre-revenue roadmaps instead of figuring out how to charge early. (Unless it’s a social network)
themodelplumber 4y ago
Connections that really feel good can be extremely motivating, funding or no. If I had a hiring role for that organization I'd emphasize connection over exact job skill matches if it came down to it. I'd make sure every new hire felt really good to at least 2-3 leaders they'll work with, too, so the leadership could reach out to them comfortably to seal the connection. Then I'd build on that in future hiring and interviews, and get other employees involved as a way of building the collection of motivated folks who can soak it in and enjoy our vibe. This organization in a pre-funded state and wanting employees should have an amazing vibe, no excuses. But it doesn't have to be _everybody's_ amazing vibe. It has to be something positive, reasonably energetic, and then the other stuff can follow as suits the situation: Geeky, specialized, diverse in a particular way, and so on. If I somehow ended up as a hiring candidate I'd be doing so much backgrounding on the organization that I'd have a full outline of everything I'd be getting from it every day I was there, and right through its implosion if needed. Really wish I had done this in the dot com era! Repellent to me, to give an example, would be a cultural mismatch based on factors that weren't accessible to me before interviewing, but which should have been. For example if I arrive on site with no accessible context to mull over beforehand, and the environment is extremely particular in a given way, that's really awkward to have to work through and can indicate an important but missed connection already. "Particular" could be: Most people here WFH except you, and it's a warehouse in a sketchy area; we are divided into two teams, and you'll be on the one that's more workaday and has to stand up much of the day; we have a warm-greetings environment and nobody is WFH because they all love being together, etc. Anyway. Just some thoughts, hope they can be helpful.
kerblang 4y ago
- Honesty about difficulties you're facing (repellent would be gushing hipsterism) - Empowerment to get things done - A pursuit of legitimate business opportunity (repellent would be craptocurrency, spamware)
p1esk 4y ago
I have worked as the first employee in 2 different startups, and as an early employee in 2 more. Some of the reasons for joining, assuming low salary and low equity (non-cofounder) role: I would want to work on your idea for free as my side project; I would really like you and believe you will succeed; I really like working for you and learning from you; I believe the company will grow really fast and I will grow with it; I believe what you want to do is really cool, and it's a great opportunity for me to learn it (e.g. new technology, a killer application no one has thought about yet, etc). Having said that, the above reasons work for junior people only. By now I have gained enough experience to be a cofounder, so I'm not likely to work with no pay and no equity - by no equity I mean anything less than 10%, and no pay = anything less than 150k.
ericbarrett 4y ago
Equity, and also: a contractual obligation to not dilute my equity more than the founders, crafted to avoid shenanigans like selective grants which sidestep this. It doesn't have to be as much equity as the founders, but it must stay proportionate. Dilution is obviously necessary for external investment, but more than once I have seen early employees screwed out of valuable equity by the following scenario: once the company is getting traction and revenue, the founders take a huge round of funding. All existing shares and grants are diluted, but the VC investors give the founders a "make-up" grant (or whatever; the mechanism isn't important) that keeps them whole—while early employees, who aren't part of the negotiations, have their stakes reduced to tiny fractions of what they were. This in spite of many years of sweat and struggle and overwork equal to what anybody else in the company put in. So basically they are discarded when no longer useful. For anybody actually considering joining an early startup as an employee, make sure you get this in your employment contract, and get your own lawyer to review it. "Trust me bro" means nothing in 2-3 years if $millions are on the line.
- p1esk 4y ago
  Does this mean insisting on getting “preferred” rather than “common” shares?
- xs83 4y ago
  I have almost exclusively worked in early-stage startups, over the past 10 years as a CTO / Technical founder and I agree with Eric here, most start up founders have no idea what they are doing when it comes to equity, so more often than not its not malicious, you just get unfavourable terms because of a misconception of things like Dilution and other requests from VC's for further capital. Dilution happens, but being diluted more than the founders is a no-no. It needs to be on the same level playing field. Having not only this in a contract but also a remediation should dilution pass a certain level is prudent. It might feel like bad form to talk about this when you aren't even at the company yet but your due diligence now matters more than when you are on the job. Ask to see the finances, ask to see the investor holdings, ask the founders what % they own, research the VC's and funds that are invested, calculate the remaining runway at 2x growth, 3x growth etc - how long do they really have before they have to start raising funds. If there is any perceived opaqueness or subterfuge - walk away. Also don't accept a low salary on the promise of equity alone unless: - You are a founder and have preferred shares (and the amount more than makes up for it) - It is something you truly believe in and you have a decent stake in it - You have a pool of reserve funds to keep you going for 6 months should the shit hit the fan Many start-ups fail because they can't get the funding they need and sometimes it gets desperate and VC's can smell this a mile off so the terms get worse for everyone - knowing this will help you know your worth at this point. I think after this next start up I will be looking for a period of stability so I will only be going with well funded (3+ years runway at 3x growth size) start ups

13 points by _448 4y ago

How would you evaluate an early-startup in the first place to build that motivation? And also, what would repel you from applying at an early-stage startup?

dmitrygr 4y ago

To offer a counter-point to a lot of comments here: nothing. And it is not personal. Been there, done that. Too old and wise now to work for free. Only so many years of life left, they are best spent on family, friends. fun.

ac2u 4y ago

>How would you evaluate an early-startup in the first place to build that motivation? Lots of equity. (If you’re pre-funded you can’t offer good salary) > And also, what would repel you from applying at an early-stage startup? Not having lots of equity. Lots of pre-revenue roadmaps instead of figuring out how to charge early. (Unless it’s a social network)

themodelplumber 4y ago

Connections that really feel good can be extremely motivating, funding or no. If I had a hiring role for that organization I'd emphasize connection over exact job skill matches if it came down to it. I'd make sure every new hire felt really good to at least 2-3 leaders they'll work with, too, so the leadership could reach out to them comfortably to seal the connection. Then I'd build on that in future hiring and interviews, and get other employees involved as a way of building the collection of motivated folks who can soak it in and enjoy our vibe. This organization in a pre-funded state and wanting employees should have an amazing vibe, no excuses. But it doesn't have to be _everybody's_ amazing vibe. It has to be something positive, reasonably energetic, and then the other stuff can follow as suits the situation: Geeky, specialized, diverse in a particular way, and so on. If I somehow ended up as a hiring candidate I'd be doing so much backgrounding on the organization that I'd have a full outline of everything I'd be getting from it every day I was there, and right through its implosion if needed. Really wish I had done this in the dot com era! Repellent to me, to give an example, would be a cultural mismatch based on factors that weren't accessible to me before interviewing, but which should have been. For example if I arrive on site with no accessible context to mull over beforehand, and the environment is extremely particular in a given way, that's really awkward to have to work through and can indicate an important but missed connection already. "Particular" could be: Most people here WFH except you, and it's a warehouse in a sketchy area; we are divided into two teams, and you'll be on the one that's more workaday and has to stand up much of the day; we have a warm-greetings environment and nobody is WFH because they all love being together, etc. Anyway. Just some thoughts, hope they can be helpful.

kerblang 4y ago

- Honesty about difficulties you're facing (repellent would be gushing hipsterism) - Empowerment to get things done - A pursuit of legitimate business opportunity (repellent would be craptocurrency, spamware)

p1esk 4y ago

I have worked as the first employee in 2 different startups, and as an early employee in 2 more. Some of the reasons for joining, assuming low salary and low equity (non-cofounder) role: I would want to work on your idea for free as my side project; I would really like you and believe you will succeed; I really like working for you and learning from you; I believe the company will grow really fast and I will grow with it; I believe what you want to do is really cool, and it's a great opportunity for me to learn it (e.g. new technology, a killer application no one has thought about yet, etc). Having said that, the above reasons work for junior people only. By now I have gained enough experience to be a cofounder, so I'm not likely to work with no pay and no equity - by no equity I mean anything less than 10%, and no pay = anything less than 150k.

ericbarrett 4y ago

Equity, and also: a contractual obligation to not dilute my equity more than the founders, crafted to avoid shenanigans like selective grants which sidestep this. It doesn't have to be as much equity as the founders, but it must stay proportionate. Dilution is obviously necessary for external investment, but more than once I have seen early employees screwed out of valuable equity by the following scenario: once the company is getting traction and revenue, the founders take a huge round of funding. All existing shares and grants are diluted, but the VC investors give the founders a "make-up" grant (or whatever; the mechanism isn't important) that keeps them whole—while early employees, who aren't part of the negotiations, have their stakes reduced to tiny fractions of what they were. This in spite of many years of sweat and struggle and overwork equal to what anybody else in the company put in. So basically they are discarded when no longer useful. For anybody actually considering joining an early startup as an employee, make sure you get this in your employment contract, and get your own lawyer to review it. "Trust me bro" means nothing in 2-3 years if $millions are on the line.

p1esk 4y ago
Does this mean insisting on getting “preferred” rather than “common” shares?
xs83 4y ago
I have almost exclusively worked in early-stage startups, over the past 10 years as a CTO / Technical founder and I agree with Eric here, most start up founders have no idea what they are doing when it comes to equity, so more often than not its not malicious, you just get unfavourable terms because of a misconception of things like Dilution and other requests from VC's for further capital. Dilution happens, but being diluted more than the founders is a no-no. It needs to be on the same level playing field. Having not only this in a contract but also a remediation should dilution pass a certain level is prudent. It might feel like bad form to talk about this when you aren't even at the company yet but your due diligence now matters more than when you are on the job. Ask to see the finances, ask to see the investor holdings, ask the founders what % they own, research the VC's and funds that are invested, calculate the remaining runway at 2x growth, 3x growth etc - how long do they really have before they have to start raising funds. If there is any perceived opaqueness or subterfuge - walk away. Also don't accept a low salary on the promise of equity alone unless: - You are a founder and have preferred shares (and the amount more than makes up for it) - It is something you truly believe in and you have a decent stake in it - You have a pool of reserve funds to keep you going for 6 months should the shit hit the fan Many start-ups fail because they can't get the funding they need and sometimes it gets desperate and VC's can smell this a mile off so the terms get worse for everyone - knowing this will help you know your worth at this point. I think after this next start up I will be looking for a period of stability so I will only be going with well funded (3+ years runway at 3x growth size) start ups