4 ms·

I have empathy here for the founders, going through all the overhead of finding a great candidate (you only saw the time invested in you, not the time invested

I have empathy here for the founders, going through all the overhead of finding a great candidate (you only saw the time invested in you, not the time invested in all the other candidates), then realizing you have to restructure your entire runway when conditions change or reality asserts. > Perhaps they started hiring on the expectation of being able to raise money, but that seems unprofessional and disrespectful towards the candidates, no? They were 100% doing this, and that's pretty much the base case for any VC-funded startup. If you believe this to be disrespectful than I advise you to stick with profitable/public employers. If anything, appreciate that they didn't try to hire you in spite of their financial squeeze, then end up laying you off a few months later with minimal severance because they overran their runway.

Grustaf 4y ago
If this was the case, then it would not hurt their chances to hire people much if they were open about it, saying that hiring was conditioned on closing the next round for example. But in both cases the message was clearly the opposite and that they had 18+ months of runway. In one case they had additionally signed a contract for a similar amount.
- gwbas1c 4y ago
  Makes me curious about their side of the decision. If they essentially told you, on the last day of your trial, that they aren't hiring you, that's not very respectful of your job search. FWIW: Most startups fail. Most startups will evolve to be a place that you won't like. There is a reason why startups have such high turnover. In my case, often when I ask a founder tough questions, I get rejected. It's okay, because I probably won't have the patience to work for someone who can't answer my tough questions. But, getting back to you: I suspect "funding" is a convenient excuse, but I wouldn't read too much into it. Instead, I suggest being a lot more defensive in the process: Don't do 1-month contracts. Instead, target ~6-month contracts with a ~1-week trial and a ~3 week severance. Explain that you've found that 1-month trials are impractical given how much time you spend interviewing. Point out that, just like the contracting status protects the company, you need severance to protect yourself too.

Grustaf 4y ago

If this was the case, then it would not hurt their chances to hire people much if they were open about it, saying that hiring was conditioned on closing the next round for example. But in both cases the message was clearly the opposite and that they had 18+ months of runway. In one case they had additionally signed a contract for a similar amount.

gwbas1c 4y ago
Makes me curious about their side of the decision. If they essentially told you, on the last day of your trial, that they aren't hiring you, that's not very respectful of your job search. FWIW: Most startups fail. Most startups will evolve to be a place that you won't like. There is a reason why startups have such high turnover. In my case, often when I ask a founder tough questions, I get rejected. It's okay, because I probably won't have the patience to work for someone who can't answer my tough questions. But, getting back to you: I suspect "funding" is a convenient excuse, but I wouldn't read too much into it. Instead, I suggest being a lot more defensive in the process: Don't do 1-month contracts. Instead, target ~6-month contracts with a ~1-week trial and a ~3 week severance. Explain that you've found that 1-month trials are impractical given how much time you spend interviewing. Point out that, just like the contracting status protects the company, you need severance to protect yourself too.