4 ms·

Are you saying that a start-up can't have more than a certain number of employees?

by debacle 14y ago

alokhar 14y ago
Well, I'm sure there is a point when a startup has started up.
untog 14y ago
It's a genuine question. To my mind, a startup has a small number of employees and not very much money. This is hardly the first time I've heard of a company with >100 employees described as a startup, so I'm interested to know what people's definitions are.
- achompas 14y ago
  People were tossing it around to describe a 400-person Twitter team in 2010 or 2011 (can't remember which).
- rm999 14y ago
  As long as we are on HN, might as well as cite PG on what a startup is: http://paulgraham.com/growth.html http://paulgraham.com/growth.html >A startup is a company designed to grow fast. Being newly founded does not in itself make a company a startup. Nor is it necessary for a startup to work on technology, or take venture funding, or have some sort of "exit." The only essential thing is growth. Everything else we associate with startups follows from growth.
- debacle 14y ago
  Being a start-up really has nothing to do with number of employees.
- freyr 14y ago
  I once interviewed with a company that maintained a staff of <25 people throughout its entire 8 year existence. It struck me as odd when they described themselves as a startup. According to Paul Graham, "a startup is a company designed to grow fast." By this definition, they didn't fit the bill. Dropbox might, depending on whether or not they're still in a rapid growth phase.
  - shard 14y ago
    It seems like you're taking the term "fast" to refer to the number of employees. I think it refers more to revenue, or maybe user acquisition for those "we'll figure out how to make money later" companies.
  - nostrademons 14y ago
    Well, it can get confusing when "a company designed to grow fast" doesn't, and yet still has enough revenue coming in to not die. I worked at a company that considered themselves a startup when I first interned there in 2004 (they'd been founded around 2002 and had just gotten their first 7-figure contract). When I left in 2007, it was apparent they were really a small business, they started calling themselves a small business around 2009, and they finally went out of business in 2011. I think headcount topped out at around a dozen in 2006 - it'd been around 7 at my first internship, and I think it was down to just founders when they went under.
protomyth 14y ago
At 250 people, you would think you're a business and no longer a startup. Once you pass Dunbar's number you probably are no longer a startup.
- theorique 14y ago
  That's a reasonable upper bound. Once the company is big enough to the point where you don't remember everyone's name, it's past the startup point.
  - m0th87 14y ago
    Dunbar's number makes little sense for directly determining/classifying organizational sizes. Most of peoples' relationships lie outside of the organization they work for. You'd probably have little to no relationship with people in your organization way before you reach Dunbar's number.
    - saraid216 14y ago
      The advantage of calling out Dunbar's number is that it explains why there's an upper bound of some kind. But yes. 150 is far too high a number. I'd say it should be closer to 50. It makes me sad to link to this, since the PARC blog no longer hosts his images, but it's more than nothing: http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2005/10/dunbar_group_co.html http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2005/10/dunbar_group_co.html
      - tripzilch 14y ago
        I see your point, but there's more numbers when it comes to companies, there's a break at 7 or 8, and another one somewhere around 20. I might have fudged the numbers a littlebit, but they're both breaking points when a company needs to change its organisational structure: Starting with a flat, informal startup, at 7 or 8 is where people may feel their voice is not informally heard at (for instance) meetings, that needs to be addressed by a (slightly) more formal type of meeting. Somewhere around 20 there's a second break which is when you need to start thinking about an extra level of management (just one at first, of course). There's probably a few more that I don't know of and I would not be at all surprised if Dunbar's number is one of them.

Are you saying that a start-up can't have more than a certain number of employees?

by debacle 14y ago

Are you saying that a start-up can't have more than a certain number of employees?

alokhar 14y ago

Well, I'm sure there is a point when a startup has started up.

untog 14y ago

It's a genuine question. To my mind, a startup has a small number of employees and not very much money. This is hardly the first time I've heard of a company with >100 employees described as a startup, so I'm interested to know what people's definitions are.

achompas 14y ago
People were tossing it around to describe a 400-person Twitter team in 2010 or 2011 (can't remember which).
rm999 14y ago
As long as we are on HN, might as well as cite PG on what a startup is: http://paulgraham.com/growth.html http://paulgraham.com/growth.html >A startup is a company designed to grow fast. Being newly founded does not in itself make a company a startup. Nor is it necessary for a startup to work on technology, or take venture funding, or have some sort of "exit." The only essential thing is growth. Everything else we associate with startups follows from growth.
debacle 14y ago
Being a start-up really has nothing to do with number of employees.
freyr 14y ago
I once interviewed with a company that maintained a staff of <25 people throughout its entire 8 year existence. It struck me as odd when they described themselves as a startup. According to Paul Graham, "a startup is a company designed to grow fast." By this definition, they didn't fit the bill. Dropbox might, depending on whether or not they're still in a rapid growth phase.
- shard 14y ago
  It seems like you're taking the term "fast" to refer to the number of employees. I think it refers more to revenue, or maybe user acquisition for those "we'll figure out how to make money later" companies.
- nostrademons 14y ago
  Well, it can get confusing when "a company designed to grow fast" doesn't, and yet still has enough revenue coming in to not die. I worked at a company that considered themselves a startup when I first interned there in 2004 (they'd been founded around 2002 and had just gotten their first 7-figure contract). When I left in 2007, it was apparent they were really a small business, they started calling themselves a small business around 2009, and they finally went out of business in 2011. I think headcount topped out at around a dozen in 2006 - it'd been around 7 at my first internship, and I think it was down to just founders when they went under.

protomyth 14y ago

At 250 people, you would think you're a business and no longer a startup. Once you pass Dunbar's number you probably are no longer a startup.

theorique 14y ago
That's a reasonable upper bound. Once the company is big enough to the point where you don't remember everyone's name, it's past the startup point.
- m0th87 14y ago
  Dunbar's number makes little sense for directly determining/classifying organizational sizes. Most of peoples' relationships lie outside of the organization they work for. You'd probably have little to no relationship with people in your organization way before you reach Dunbar's number.
  - saraid216 14y ago
    The advantage of calling out Dunbar's number is that it explains why there's an upper bound of some kind. But yes. 150 is far too high a number. I'd say it should be closer to 50. It makes me sad to link to this, since the PARC blog no longer hosts his images, but it's more than nothing: http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2005/10/dunbar_group_co.html http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2005/10/dunbar_group_co.html
    - tripzilch 14y ago
      I see your point, but there's more numbers when it comes to companies, there's a break at 7 or 8, and another one somewhere around 20. I might have fudged the numbers a littlebit, but they're both breaking points when a company needs to change its organisational structure: Starting with a flat, informal startup, at 7 or 8 is where people may feel their voice is not informally heard at (for instance) meetings, that needs to be addressed by a (slightly) more formal type of meeting. Somewhere around 20 there's a second break which is when you need to start thinking about an extra level of management (just one at first, of course). There's probably a few more that I don't know of and I would not be at all surprised if Dunbar's number is one of them.