5 ms·

Study found corporate recruiters have a bias against ex-entrepreneurs

54 points by rmason 2y ago

SebFender 2y ago
Biases - but if I may - I've been on both sides and as an ex-entrepreneur, I feel I'm really easy going especially when it comes to office stuff. Have a chair? Great now let's solve this business issue. I don't expect much really and I'd say less than most as we're used to do more with less - as long as it's decent pay for the work and the team rocks. Now when it comes to office politics... I have to agree. I and most of us have no patience for incompetence and time burning in meetings and coffee talks...
invalidname 2y ago
Can confirm. I have 30+ years of experience. Submitted resume to jobs that should be trivial given my experience, I literally published books covering the technologies they use. Didn't even get a phone interview before rejection. When I do get to the interview they always love me, but it's surprisingly challenging to get to that stage.
rmason 2y ago
As someone who bounced between my own startups and working for others where a company put me on a hard project and really challenged me I could excel. If they wanted just another cog in a sea of cogs it didn't go so well. I can tell you having your own startup does spoil you. You never bring the same passion writing code for an employer once you've done it for your own ideas.
- brookst 2y ago
  Have also done both. I find it easier and perform better when the corporate project is entrepreneurial —- urgency or novelty means we have to do things differently than just executing the well-honed and predictable processes to produce version 47 of something. But corporate experience has made me a better entrepreneur (“hey, maybe we should have some process”). It requires a shift in thinking, but IMO that’s a good thing.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
andy99 2y ago
Why would anyone think that the average entrepreneur or even early startup person would be able to seamlessly transition back and forth between the entrepreneurial and big corporate worlds, at least at the lower levels relevant here. It's a different mindset and skillset. And it works both ways, you'd expect startups to be biased against salarymen.
- 34679 2y ago
  As someone who has done exactly that, I'll tell you why: because we know what's expected of employees. The people who start businesses are generally high performers. When I hired others, I naively expected them to approach their work in the same way I do. The reality is most people suck. They feel the best when they finish a shift having done the least, as though they got away with something. I feel the best when I get the most done.
- Aurornis 2y ago
  Many of the best entrepreneurs can (and do) excel greatly within corporate environments. They’ve learned how to lead, sell, and get things done even when they have to improvise. The problem is that “ex-entrepreneur” is a title that anyone can give themselves by merely registering a domain name and a business one evening. The title attracts a lot of people who have no business being an entrepreneur or leading people, but want to be in charge of people and running the show. That latter group is the long tail, and due to the inevitable failure of their startups those people are far more likely to be seeking jobs than the ex-entrepreneurs you want working for your company. Having spent some time in local startup and entrepreneur communities, I have no problem believing that the average person who self describes as an ex-entrepreneur would make for a below-average employee. A lot of these people want to be in charge and tell others what to do more than they want to do the work, which is the opposite of what you’re looking for in people to work for your company.
- throwaway98797 2y ago
  this big companies have processes that need to be followed once you get used to process hard to go to shoot from the hip world of early stage start ups
- 2y ago
justinclift 2y ago
https://archive.md/HJnOX https://archive.md/HJnOX
contingencies 2y ago
Perhaps the entrepreneurial octopus interprets corporate recruitment channels as damage and routes around the problem...
georgeburdell 2y ago
I’m not a recruiter, but I am in “Big Tech”, and dealing with founders, or even just people who have only worked at startups, is frustrating. They tend to have underdeveloped skills in teamwork and listening to authority. Honestly, I just want likable people who will execute on my ideas (or the ideas I’m simply passing on from higher management), or with light discussion, even if the execution isn’t perfect. I feel like a lot of corporate work is like this.
- thinkingkong 2y ago
  Without noticing you might have pointed out one of the reasons founder type people are founder type people. Blindly follow orders isnt really on most startup folks’ list of things to do.
  - WWLink 2y ago
    > Blindly follow orders isnt really on most startup folks’ list of things to do. The really funny thing I'm thinking about here is when I bring people onto a project I'm leading: I give them an intro to the project, all of the components at play, the needs of the project... and then introduce them to something they could work on and the general gist of what needs to be done. For some people that's enough to take it and run (and check in with feedback, minimal viable product, look for "does this sound good?" kinda stuff). For others it really feels like they need to be spoonfed an entire spec down to block diagrams, flowcharts, sequence diagrams, etc. And I've worked with teams that wanted that before we even assigned any software engineers to the project. Meanwhile I'm trying to get SOMETHING on a computer so we can start looking for the bugs that take a long time to manifest themselves. (and "that's not what we were expecting it to do!" from the systems team lol) Anyway, I can say that's not necessarily a big enterprise vs startup thing. It's more of a team vs team thing. IDK about startups.
    - thinkingkong 2y ago
      Oh! Yeah I think I know what you mean. I - personally - would attribute that to fear. People from certain experiences or backgrounds dont want to be wrong or look bad. So they’ll demand a spec instead of being given general guidance. To me people who need spoon feeding and entirely dismissable if they cant be coached. The whole style that seems to work best is “we need to cross this river” rather than “build me a temporary pontoon bridge that can carry a tank”.
lylejantzi3rd 2y ago
I've had recruiters from mid-sized, but rapidly growing, tech companies tell me to my face that they don't accept "entrepreneurial" applicants. This meant anybody who has worked at smaller startups or done consulting, contracting, or freelancing.
- bdw5204 2y ago
  That explains quite a bit. My entire career since college has been "worked at smaller startups or done consulting, contracting, or freelancing." How is somebody with that background who doesn't have enough runway or funding to launch a startup supposed to find a job when companies actively discriminate against you over your background?
anon373839 2y ago
Not specific to tech, there can be a kind of resentment that some corporate employees feel toward entrepreneurs and solos. They envy their freedom and willingness to take risks. And of course, from a hiring perspective, if you are truly looking for someone who will march in lockstep and not ask questions, why would you want people who think for themselves?
- szundi 2y ago
  Also after 15 years of witnessing a successful entrepreneur doing the exact opposite than they advise, what stays? The dislike. I had the opportunity to observe this many times with many of them. I am always amazed how closed people’s minds are. There are some good open people out there too.
- theferalrobot 2y ago
  Maybe that's it but whenever I've been in hiring rounds for dev roles and seen someone operating solo the story I see on their resume tends to look like they are solo because they were fired or otherwise couldn't make it in the corporate world so they tried to go solo, failed again and are trying to go back to the corporate world. That doesn't bode well. If I see someone got a real company going with a real developed product or service and a couple employees and that failed that is an entirely different story, that is hire material. I understand most companies won't make it but the number of 'CEO' titles I've seen on resumes running a single owner LLC just makes me chuckle to myself.
  - throwaway98797 2y ago
    what would be a better title then ceo for a small company? i’ve generally used owner.
    - financltravsty 2y ago
      President; managing director.
    - theferalrobot 2y ago
makk 2y ago
> They get stereotyped for not wanting to ‘be a small piece of the puzzle’ That’s hilarious. We’re ALL small pieces in a universal puzzle. Inescapable. And yeah, anyone who understands the value of their time and is in a position to make free decisions about what to do with it will not want to take your piss ant job.
UI_at_80x24 2y ago
I own(ed) my own business. It gets asked about at every job interview. The simple answer: I prefer a regular paycheck. I first started introducing Linux (as file/print servers) back in the mid-90's. The rate of support calls would drop from weekly to quarterly. A few of my clients I actually had to introduce a retainer. I was making "most of my money" on 'new hardware' upgrades. I was smart enough to stagger roll-outs so I would have somewhat consistent work at Q1 every year. But not enough to reliably pay the bills. The Microsoft Support racket was too lucrative, and would have forced me to be dishonest. I can't live like that. I gave the clients a choice: I run linux at home, and this is what I suggest for your servers. The level of honesty won me respect but not a paycheck.
- explorer83 2y ago
  Life circumstances also change such as having a family, mortgage, wanting other hobbies, etc.. If a recruiter is assuming a previous entrepreneur is going to be permanently stuck in one mindset it's really not fair to the applicant. Maybe the person grew tired of the 90 hour weeks with no free time. Or wants to be able to take a day off without being stressed out that the whole deck of cards will collapse. They're primed to make good employees at that point who will likely appreciate the corporate perks vs someone who has been in that environment for a long time and feels entitled to it.
djyaz1200 2y ago
This seems true based on my experience. I've taken two startups from 0-$100,000/month in revenue on shoestring budgets, and I've tried for years to get a corporate job with no luck.
- DevopsQuestions 2y ago
  Could you describe those two startups?
xeckr 2y ago
I remember reading about how McDonald's makes prospective franchise owners take personality tests and actively select against creative types.
- bdw5204 2y ago
  That seems extremely plausible. The last thing McDonald's wants is a franchise doing something innovative or different because it wouldn't be the same terrible experience as every other McDonald's.
  - antod 2y ago
    I dunno if that all applies any more post covid in these parts. McDonalds was always predictably and blandly bad, but the couple of times I've stupidly visited since covid they seem to have swung into unpredictably bad territory. Maybe management creativity has won out after all.
jldugger 2y ago
Working at a FAANG, I've definitely seen founders and startup employees chafe at decision making that they felt powerless over. Stuff like legal refusing contracts with GCP due to reasons and then doing it anyways, or coping with staff engineers dictating decisions they'd have decided differently by quitting.
r0s 2y ago
Confirmed. I took a year off for my startup attempt, currently looking for another 9-5 and they really don't know what to do with me. I think the bias is merely confusion. In recruiter land anything uncertain is a pass. The primary problem I suspect is I seem overqualified. Having a diverse skill set in all things software such as product development and engineering AND management AND devops (etc.) is just too much to process for a recruiter. Also for hiring managers in general. It's great if you're applying to say a director level position but if you NEED A JOB and try for an IC role it's a tough sell. Proficiency in multiple tech stacks is the same negative signal. Secondary is perceived or real attitude misalignment. The problems most corporate tech companies are solving are boring and they know it. They must never admit it, and candidates especially need to demonstrate complete obliviousness. Candidates need to walk the line, simultaneously signaling technical ultra-competence and naive enough to consider yet another CRUD legacy app maintenance task challenging and interesting. I personally don't have a problem working on boring problems, and I'm less inclined to create unnecessary challenges by using bleeding edge tech to pad my resume. Both qualities I can never admit to a recruiter. To actually get interviews, I severely cut down my resume to fit each open role. Recruiters can intuit my experience somehow anyway, and just about every senior IC role I've interviewed for lately came with a big disclaimer that this role will NEVER include management responsibilities. I guess to hedge against senior ICs expecting compensation for the management tasks they absolutely will be doing.
elango 2y ago
it is not recruiters, most folks in corporates look at startups as competition, insubordinate, have a bias for action and understand business drivers much better
neilv 2y ago
> “It’s really critical for them to be able to explain the elephant in the room,” Sure, but here's another elephant in the room: > “So it’s really challenging for recruiters to understand whether their qualifications, experience, or job responsibilities are comparable to a conventional applicant’s.” It's really challenging for recruiters to understand anything about anyone's ability. Can we admit that the bulk of tech hiring is nonsense, and move forward?
- tennisflyi 2y ago
  No. Gatekeepers mean dumb salaries all around
ta_tunestub 2y ago
Not just recruiters, but hiring managers. I trained the model used to rate candidates’ resumes at a largish public company (based on hiring manager feedback signals), and when you inspected resumes with “CEO” as a job title the expected scores (all else being equal) were much lower.
kazinator 2y ago
What reasoning about the facts surrounding an applicant is not "bias"? The term "bias" usually implies "unfair bias", like a lower likelihood of hiring some black, all else being equal. Being an ex-enterpreneur isn't like being a woman, or black; it's a relevant piece of job background. Would that person rather continue to be an enterpreneur? Are they here because they ran out of money, or got spooked, or burned out or whatever?

54 points by rmason 2y ago

Biases - but if I may - I've been on both sides and as an ex-entrepreneur, I feel I'm really easy going especially when it comes to office stuff. Have a chair? Great now let's solve this business issue. I don't expect much really and I'd say less than most as we're used to do more with less - as long as it's decent pay for the work and the team rocks. Now when it comes to office politics... I have to agree. I and most of us have no patience for incompetence and time burning in meetings and coffee talks...

invalidname 2y ago

Can confirm. I have 30+ years of experience. Submitted resume to jobs that should be trivial given my experience, I literally published books covering the technologies they use. Didn't even get a phone interview before rejection. When I do get to the interview they always love me, but it's surprisingly challenging to get to that stage.

rmason 2y ago

As someone who bounced between my own startups and working for others where a company put me on a hard project and really challenged me I could excel. If they wanted just another cog in a sea of cogs it didn't go so well. I can tell you having your own startup does spoil you. You never bring the same passion writing code for an employer once you've done it for your own ideas.

brookst 2y ago
Have also done both. I find it easier and perform better when the corporate project is entrepreneurial —- urgency or novelty means we have to do things differently than just executing the well-honed and predictable processes to produce version 47 of something. But corporate experience has made me a better entrepreneur (“hey, maybe we should have some process”). It requires a shift in thinking, but IMO that’s a good thing.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

andy99 2y ago

Why would anyone think that the average entrepreneur or even early startup person would be able to seamlessly transition back and forth between the entrepreneurial and big corporate worlds, at least at the lower levels relevant here. It's a different mindset and skillset. And it works both ways, you'd expect startups to be biased against salarymen.

34679 2y ago
As someone who has done exactly that, I'll tell you why: because we know what's expected of employees. The people who start businesses are generally high performers. When I hired others, I naively expected them to approach their work in the same way I do. The reality is most people suck. They feel the best when they finish a shift having done the least, as though they got away with something. I feel the best when I get the most done.
Aurornis 2y ago
Many of the best entrepreneurs can (and do) excel greatly within corporate environments. They’ve learned how to lead, sell, and get things done even when they have to improvise. The problem is that “ex-entrepreneur” is a title that anyone can give themselves by merely registering a domain name and a business one evening. The title attracts a lot of people who have no business being an entrepreneur or leading people, but want to be in charge of people and running the show. That latter group is the long tail, and due to the inevitable failure of their startups those people are far more likely to be seeking jobs than the ex-entrepreneurs you want working for your company. Having spent some time in local startup and entrepreneur communities, I have no problem believing that the average person who self describes as an ex-entrepreneur would make for a below-average employee. A lot of these people want to be in charge and tell others what to do more than they want to do the work, which is the opposite of what you’re looking for in people to work for your company.
throwaway98797 2y ago
this big companies have processes that need to be followed once you get used to process hard to go to shoot from the hip world of early stage start ups
2y ago

justinclift 2y ago

https://archive.md/HJnOX https://archive.md/HJnOX

contingencies 2y ago

Perhaps the entrepreneurial octopus interprets corporate recruitment channels as damage and routes around the problem...

georgeburdell 2y ago

I’m not a recruiter, but I am in “Big Tech”, and dealing with founders, or even just people who have only worked at startups, is frustrating. They tend to have underdeveloped skills in teamwork and listening to authority. Honestly, I just want likable people who will execute on my ideas (or the ideas I’m simply passing on from higher management), or with light discussion, even if the execution isn’t perfect. I feel like a lot of corporate work is like this.

thinkingkong 2y ago
Without noticing you might have pointed out one of the reasons founder type people are founder type people. Blindly follow orders isnt really on most startup folks’ list of things to do.
- WWLink 2y ago
  > Blindly follow orders isnt really on most startup folks’ list of things to do. The really funny thing I'm thinking about here is when I bring people onto a project I'm leading: I give them an intro to the project, all of the components at play, the needs of the project... and then introduce them to something they could work on and the general gist of what needs to be done. For some people that's enough to take it and run (and check in with feedback, minimal viable product, look for "does this sound good?" kinda stuff). For others it really feels like they need to be spoonfed an entire spec down to block diagrams, flowcharts, sequence diagrams, etc. And I've worked with teams that wanted that before we even assigned any software engineers to the project. Meanwhile I'm trying to get SOMETHING on a computer so we can start looking for the bugs that take a long time to manifest themselves. (and "that's not what we were expecting it to do!" from the systems team lol) Anyway, I can say that's not necessarily a big enterprise vs startup thing. It's more of a team vs team thing. IDK about startups.
  - thinkingkong 2y ago
    Oh! Yeah I think I know what you mean. I - personally - would attribute that to fear. People from certain experiences or backgrounds dont want to be wrong or look bad. So they’ll demand a spec instead of being given general guidance. To me people who need spoon feeding and entirely dismissable if they cant be coached. The whole style that seems to work best is “we need to cross this river” rather than “build me a temporary pontoon bridge that can carry a tank”.

lylejantzi3rd 2y ago

I've had recruiters from mid-sized, but rapidly growing, tech companies tell me to my face that they don't accept "entrepreneurial" applicants. This meant anybody who has worked at smaller startups or done consulting, contracting, or freelancing.

bdw5204 2y ago
That explains quite a bit. My entire career since college has been "worked at smaller startups or done consulting, contracting, or freelancing." How is somebody with that background who doesn't have enough runway or funding to launch a startup supposed to find a job when companies actively discriminate against you over your background?

anon373839 2y ago

Not specific to tech, there can be a kind of resentment that some corporate employees feel toward entrepreneurs and solos. They envy their freedom and willingness to take risks. And of course, from a hiring perspective, if you are truly looking for someone who will march in lockstep and not ask questions, why would you want people who think for themselves?

szundi 2y ago
Also after 15 years of witnessing a successful entrepreneur doing the exact opposite than they advise, what stays? The dislike. I had the opportunity to observe this many times with many of them. I am always amazed how closed people’s minds are. There are some good open people out there too.
theferalrobot 2y ago
Maybe that's it but whenever I've been in hiring rounds for dev roles and seen someone operating solo the story I see on their resume tends to look like they are solo because they were fired or otherwise couldn't make it in the corporate world so they tried to go solo, failed again and are trying to go back to the corporate world. That doesn't bode well. If I see someone got a real company going with a real developed product or service and a couple employees and that failed that is an entirely different story, that is hire material. I understand most companies won't make it but the number of 'CEO' titles I've seen on resumes running a single owner LLC just makes me chuckle to myself.
- throwaway98797 2y ago
  what would be a better title then ceo for a small company? i’ve generally used owner.
  - financltravsty 2y ago
    President; managing director.
  - theferalrobot 2y ago

makk 2y ago

> They get stereotyped for not wanting to ‘be a small piece of the puzzle’ That’s hilarious. We’re ALL small pieces in a universal puzzle. Inescapable. And yeah, anyone who understands the value of their time and is in a position to make free decisions about what to do with it will not want to take your piss ant job.

UI_at_80x24 2y ago

I own(ed) my own business. It gets asked about at every job interview. The simple answer: I prefer a regular paycheck. I first started introducing Linux (as file/print servers) back in the mid-90's. The rate of support calls would drop from weekly to quarterly. A few of my clients I actually had to introduce a retainer. I was making "most of my money" on 'new hardware' upgrades. I was smart enough to stagger roll-outs so I would have somewhat consistent work at Q1 every year. But not enough to reliably pay the bills. The Microsoft Support racket was too lucrative, and would have forced me to be dishonest. I can't live like that. I gave the clients a choice: I run linux at home, and this is what I suggest for your servers. The level of honesty won me respect but not a paycheck.

explorer83 2y ago
Life circumstances also change such as having a family, mortgage, wanting other hobbies, etc.. If a recruiter is assuming a previous entrepreneur is going to be permanently stuck in one mindset it's really not fair to the applicant. Maybe the person grew tired of the 90 hour weeks with no free time. Or wants to be able to take a day off without being stressed out that the whole deck of cards will collapse. They're primed to make good employees at that point who will likely appreciate the corporate perks vs someone who has been in that environment for a long time and feels entitled to it.

djyaz1200 2y ago

This seems true based on my experience. I've taken two startups from 0-$100,000/month in revenue on shoestring budgets, and I've tried for years to get a corporate job with no luck.

DevopsQuestions 2y ago
Could you describe those two startups?

xeckr 2y ago

I remember reading about how McDonald's makes prospective franchise owners take personality tests and actively select against creative types.

bdw5204 2y ago
That seems extremely plausible. The last thing McDonald's wants is a franchise doing something innovative or different because it wouldn't be the same terrible experience as every other McDonald's.
- antod 2y ago
  I dunno if that all applies any more post covid in these parts. McDonalds was always predictably and blandly bad, but the couple of times I've stupidly visited since covid they seem to have swung into unpredictably bad territory. Maybe management creativity has won out after all.

jldugger 2y ago

Working at a FAANG, I've definitely seen founders and startup employees chafe at decision making that they felt powerless over. Stuff like legal refusing contracts with GCP due to reasons and then doing it anyways, or coping with staff engineers dictating decisions they'd have decided differently by quitting.

r0s 2y ago

Confirmed. I took a year off for my startup attempt, currently looking for another 9-5 and they really don't know what to do with me. I think the bias is merely confusion. In recruiter land anything uncertain is a pass. The primary problem I suspect is I seem overqualified. Having a diverse skill set in all things software such as product development and engineering AND management AND devops (etc.) is just too much to process for a recruiter. Also for hiring managers in general. It's great if you're applying to say a director level position but if you NEED A JOB and try for an IC role it's a tough sell. Proficiency in multiple tech stacks is the same negative signal. Secondary is perceived or real attitude misalignment. The problems most corporate tech companies are solving are boring and they know it. They must never admit it, and candidates especially need to demonstrate complete obliviousness. Candidates need to walk the line, simultaneously signaling technical ultra-competence and naive enough to consider yet another CRUD legacy app maintenance task challenging and interesting. I personally don't have a problem working on boring problems, and I'm less inclined to create unnecessary challenges by using bleeding edge tech to pad my resume. Both qualities I can never admit to a recruiter. To actually get interviews, I severely cut down my resume to fit each open role. Recruiters can intuit my experience somehow anyway, and just about every senior IC role I've interviewed for lately came with a big disclaimer that this role will NEVER include management responsibilities. I guess to hedge against senior ICs expecting compensation for the management tasks they absolutely will be doing.

elango 2y ago

it is not recruiters, most folks in corporates look at startups as competition, insubordinate, have a bias for action and understand business drivers much better

neilv 2y ago

> “It’s really critical for them to be able to explain the elephant in the room,” Sure, but here's another elephant in the room: > “So it’s really challenging for recruiters to understand whether their qualifications, experience, or job responsibilities are comparable to a conventional applicant’s.” It's really challenging for recruiters to understand anything about anyone's ability. Can we admit that the bulk of tech hiring is nonsense, and move forward?

tennisflyi 2y ago
No. Gatekeepers mean dumb salaries all around

ta_tunestub 2y ago

Not just recruiters, but hiring managers. I trained the model used to rate candidates’ resumes at a largish public company (based on hiring manager feedback signals), and when you inspected resumes with “CEO” as a job title the expected scores (all else being equal) were much lower.

kazinator 2y ago

What reasoning about the facts surrounding an applicant is not "bias"? The term "bias" usually implies "unfair bias", like a lower likelihood of hiring some black, all else being equal. Being an ex-enterpreneur isn't like being a woman, or black; it's a relevant piece of job background. Would that person rather continue to be an enterpreneur? Are they here because they ran out of money, or got spooked, or burned out or whatever?