4 ms·

I don't think it is worth taking a below market wage offer from a startup just because you'll be "working on interesting/tough problems with very smart people,

by nilkn 14y ago

I don't think it is worth taking a below market wage offer from a startup just because you'll be "working on interesting/tough problems with very smart people, taking on huge amounts of responsibility, getting in way over your head every day, and generally beefing up your resume." You can do all that stuff at a bigger and more stable company. I'm not saying one should never work at a startup. I'm just saying that startup offers shouldn't be judged any differently from any other job offer. There might be smart people at startup X, but there are plenty of smart people at Google or Facebook or what have you as well. Take the expected value of your options and your salary and compare it to any other offer. No special rules should ever be made for startups except in extremely rare circumstances. Investor connections that one might get from being an employee at a startup are often vastly overstated as well. If you want to be a founder yourself, you need to just go found something--working for another founder just isn't the optimal way to get there, especially with the extra time commitment that many startups involve, meaning you won't have time for your own side projects. One of those rare exceptions I mentioned might be if you are asked to come on in a CTO or VP Engineering role for a new and emerging startup. This sort of experience can help you get executive positions later on at larger and more stable companies if that's the career path you want. Edit: I want to clarify my final point a bit more. Titles matter a lot in early-stage startups. Almost by definition, VC-backed startups are going to undergo rapid expansion--and that means lots of hiring. And that means that unless you have a senior title from the beginning you face the real risk of simply having people hired over you rather than being promoted yourself. This is especially true if you are hired into a junior role in the beginning. All of this means you may not get your desired leadership role in the end at all if you're not careful.

wtvanhest 14y ago
I don't work at a startup. But, there is a big advantage of working at a startup over a company like Conde Nest. Conde Nest is no longer growing rapidly which means... That the only way to move up is for people to quit or for you to out politic your coworkers. Contrast that with a rapid growth company, lets say one that IPOs in 10 years, yeah, you get a payout, but you also should get a huge increase in salary and responsibility over those 10 years.
- nilkn 14y ago
  I clarified this in an edit to my previous post, but this is actually a somewhat dangerous attitude. If you don't have a senior or executive level title from the beginning in an emerging startup, you face the real risk of simply having people hired over you rather than getting those increases in responsibility that you want. If you are VP of Engineering from the start, then the founders will struggle to hire too many people above you, if any, because they don't want to sacrifice the sanctity of that title. If you are brought on as a junior engineer, however, you can't count on getting the promotions you deserve. Of course, not every startup is going to do this. I'm just mentioning it as it should be part of the decision making process. Joining a startup does not equate to guaranteed increases in responsibility and leadership.
  - shykes 14y ago
    > If you are VP of Engineering from the start [...] If you are brought on as a junior engineer, however, you can't count on getting the promotions you deserve. Playing devil's advocate: for one early employee who kicks ass and is not rewarded with increased responsibilities, how many expect a VP title served on a silver platter in spite of their inexperience and/or inability to manage, and blame the company instead of themselves when that happens? Speaking as a founder, when I see someone over-delivering and eager to do more, I sure as hell will double his ration of responsibilities, and then double it some more as long as he's willing and able. And yes, in a good company when responsibilities and value added to the company truly double, so does compensation.
    - ebiester 14y ago
      ...And then you've loaded them up with a bunch of areas where they've taken technical responsibility until they're overwhelmed with maintenance. So you can't possibly put them in a management or leadership position, they're too valuable in what they're already doing! Doubling their responsibilities isn't going to get them on the conference call with investors. It isn't going to get them in charge of a team, in most cases. Instead, in most cases, an experienced lead will be hired. Or the team will be sold/aquihired, and he'll end up a junior engineer in BigCo anyway. So, why take a chance on a startup making below market rates, especially if it's not a clear winner? Now, I operationalize "Startup" as an organization in search of a repeatable business model, as Steve Blank suggests. If instead, the great but junior developer is looking at a profitable, growing company, it may make sense to join at below market rates. That way, product/market fit has already been established and your work can directly be correlated to things that increase profitability. But those are two different games.
eli 14y ago
Sure, these obviously aren't absolute rules. There are tons of cool big companies and plenty of startups doing boring, narrow work... but I think these are the exceptions.

by nilkn 14y ago

wtvanhest 14y ago

I don't work at a startup. But, there is a big advantage of working at a startup over a company like Conde Nest. Conde Nest is no longer growing rapidly which means... That the only way to move up is for people to quit or for you to out politic your coworkers. Contrast that with a rapid growth company, lets say one that IPOs in 10 years, yeah, you get a payout, but you also should get a huge increase in salary and responsibility over those 10 years.

nilkn 14y ago
I clarified this in an edit to my previous post, but this is actually a somewhat dangerous attitude. If you don't have a senior or executive level title from the beginning in an emerging startup, you face the real risk of simply having people hired over you rather than getting those increases in responsibility that you want. If you are VP of Engineering from the start, then the founders will struggle to hire too many people above you, if any, because they don't want to sacrifice the sanctity of that title. If you are brought on as a junior engineer, however, you can't count on getting the promotions you deserve. Of course, not every startup is going to do this. I'm just mentioning it as it should be part of the decision making process. Joining a startup does not equate to guaranteed increases in responsibility and leadership.
- shykes 14y ago
  > If you are VP of Engineering from the start [...] If you are brought on as a junior engineer, however, you can't count on getting the promotions you deserve. Playing devil's advocate: for one early employee who kicks ass and is not rewarded with increased responsibilities, how many expect a VP title served on a silver platter in spite of their inexperience and/or inability to manage, and blame the company instead of themselves when that happens? Speaking as a founder, when I see someone over-delivering and eager to do more, I sure as hell will double his ration of responsibilities, and then double it some more as long as he's willing and able. And yes, in a good company when responsibilities and value added to the company truly double, so does compensation.
  - ebiester 14y ago
    ...And then you've loaded them up with a bunch of areas where they've taken technical responsibility until they're overwhelmed with maintenance. So you can't possibly put them in a management or leadership position, they're too valuable in what they're already doing! Doubling their responsibilities isn't going to get them on the conference call with investors. It isn't going to get them in charge of a team, in most cases. Instead, in most cases, an experienced lead will be hired. Or the team will be sold/aquihired, and he'll end up a junior engineer in BigCo anyway. So, why take a chance on a startup making below market rates, especially if it's not a clear winner? Now, I operationalize "Startup" as an organization in search of a repeatable business model, as Steve Blank suggests. If instead, the great but junior developer is looking at a profitable, growing company, it may make sense to join at below market rates. That way, product/market fit has already been established and your work can directly be correlated to things that increase profitability. But those are two different games.

eli 14y ago

Sure, these obviously aren't absolute rules. There are tons of cool big companies and plenty of startups doing boring, narrow work... but I think these are the exceptions.