4 ms·

The author recommends having a mission so employees feel like they're working for a greater good. So is this why every job on Hacker News goes something like "H

The author recommends having a mission so employees feel like they're working for a greater good. So is this why every job on Hacker News goes something like "Help us change the world of [industry]," where [industry] can be something as banal as t-shirt printing or pizza delivery? If you don't believe me, here are some examples from the jobs board: Mobile Hacker? Come work with the team that's reinventing farming SimplyInsured (YC W13) Is Hiring Hackers - Change Healthcare Forever Homejoy is hiring hackers to change the home services industry I guess the only way to get smart people to work 60 Hrs a week for low pay is to convince them they are changing the world somehow.

joezydeco 13y ago
I don't think people really want to change the world. I believe the phrase is a coded message along the lines of "we're the next Facebook!", an application or service that will radically change the landscape of {insert something here} and turn into a massive public company and insanely huge IPO. That's what the mission is about. Since you can't guarantee success, you put the carrot at the end of the stick and it starts right here.
- normloman 13y ago
  Yeah, that's another possibility. Or it could be coded for "we're the next Apple," after all the mythologizing that took place in the wake of Steve Job's death.
  - joezydeco 13y ago
    Oh good point, Apple had the "change the world" message long before anyone else. But any startup that came out today and said "we're the next Apple!" would probably not get much traction.
pg 13y ago
The prospect of changing something is often what attracted the founders to the idea in the first place. The most successful founders are not usually in it just for the money. If they were they'd have taken that $50 million acquisition offer on the way up.
- jayp 13y ago
  While I agree with your premise, the didn't-take-early-offer-and-run seems doesn't provide strong enough evidence. For a super successful startup (a la dropbox, stripe, etc.) -- why take only $50 million and leave the rest (possibly hundreds of millions) on the table? Especially with investors chewing their ears out about going for the home run. And, possibly, with an opportunity to cash out partially (a la Groupon, airbnb, etc.)
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  In my (admittedly limited) experience, the main reason founders refuse acquisition offers is because they believe their startup has a great future and will be worth a lot more later. I don't think the thought process is ever, "Well, $50 million is great, but you know what? We're enjoying what we do so much that we'll turn it down even though that's the most we will realistically be able to get."
  - staunch 13y ago
    Or even more simply, their investors offer to let them to cash out a few million worth of shares as idiot insurance. This still doesn't really explain why a 22 year old Mark Zuckerberg had the cojones to turn down $1 billion. Very few people in the world would have done that.
    - pmp6701 13y ago
      He didn't turn it down, according to Andreesen Yahoo reduced the offer with the financial crisis to $200m http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2013/11/21/marc-andreessen/ http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2013/11/21/marc-andreessen...
      - pg 13y ago
        By, not to.
the_watcher 13y ago
>> where [industry] can be something as banal as t-shirt printing or pizza delivery? If you don't believe me, here are some examples from the jobs board: Maybe I am misreading your post, but not a single one of the YC companies is solving a problem as easily mocked as "pizza delivery" (which, in reality, is really simplifying food acquisition to reallocate those hours to something more productive than waiting in line). Healthcare and farming are two hugely important sectors. Home services are a major productivity win.
- normloman 13y ago
  You're right. Compared to some other job ads I've seen, those at least focus on important industries. I suppose I'm most skeptical about the claim that they are changing the world somehow. I can't believe that every startup is transforming an industry, or even trying to do so. Imagine some idealistic young hacker gung ho about disrupting farming, completely changing the way people grow food forever. And then on their first day, they realize they're job amounts to maintaining a mediocre iPhone app. Now I don't doubt an iPhone app could make farmers' lives better. But how much are you gonna change farming? Maybe software can make farming a tad more data-driven or a tad more organized. But the way we grow food won't change because some YC startup wrote an app for it. Yet clearly, startups want job candidates to believe they will change the world, or else they wouldn't put it in their ads. So what motivation could they have? 1. Like someone else mentioned, perhaps "changing the world" is code for "making lots of money." Could be. 2. My hypothesis: Startups use their "change the world" mission to justify low pay, long hours working conditions. People won't work under those conditions unless they believe they're working for a higher purpose. 3. Maybe delusional founders say "change the world" because they actually think their mobile/web-app/cloud crap will disrupt an industry. Sometimes that happens, but nobody should be foolish enough to think they know what it takes.
nswanberg 13y ago
Sam recommends having a mission but never wrote "for the greater good". At worst one could accuse the founders of uninspired copywriting as they attempt to state what they are aiming to do, which is to make something people want, and more specifically to do that in a novel way. People want light, but it makes little sense for someone to compete with GE to make lightbulbs in the exact same way as GE--if one liked what GE was doing the time and money would be better spent working for and investing in GE. And while they are low-margin business and not exciting, if someone were to genuinely find a new and useful take on tshirt printing or pizza delivery odds are the startup would be worthwhile. There are lots of tshirts printed and pizzas delivered.
aianus 13y ago
Sometimes people want to fix broken/corrupt/inefficient systems. I love airbnb, lyft, uber, and bitcoin because of the way they empower individuals and spit in the faces of the fat cat incumbents and government regulators. I'd rather get to a wear a self-righteous smirk to work than make an extra $20k a year to put in my 401k.
pmp6701 13y ago
Good founders are here to make revolutions happening.

joezydeco 13y ago

I don't think people really want to change the world. I believe the phrase is a coded message along the lines of "we're the next Facebook!", an application or service that will radically change the landscape of {insert something here} and turn into a massive public company and insanely huge IPO. That's what the mission is about. Since you can't guarantee success, you put the carrot at the end of the stick and it starts right here.

normloman 13y ago
Yeah, that's another possibility. Or it could be coded for "we're the next Apple," after all the mythologizing that took place in the wake of Steve Job's death.
- joezydeco 13y ago
  Oh good point, Apple had the "change the world" message long before anyone else. But any startup that came out today and said "we're the next Apple!" would probably not get much traction.

pg 13y ago

The prospect of changing something is often what attracted the founders to the idea in the first place. The most successful founders are not usually in it just for the money. If they were they'd have taken that $50 million acquisition offer on the way up.

jayp 13y ago
While I agree with your premise, the didn't-take-early-offer-and-run seems doesn't provide strong enough evidence. For a super successful startup (a la dropbox, stripe, etc.) -- why take only $50 million and leave the rest (possibly hundreds of millions) on the table? Especially with investors chewing their ears out about going for the home run. And, possibly, with an opportunity to cash out partially (a la Groupon, airbnb, etc.)
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
enraged_camel 13y ago
In my (admittedly limited) experience, the main reason founders refuse acquisition offers is because they believe their startup has a great future and will be worth a lot more later. I don't think the thought process is ever, "Well, $50 million is great, but you know what? We're enjoying what we do so much that we'll turn it down even though that's the most we will realistically be able to get."
- staunch 13y ago
  Or even more simply, their investors offer to let them to cash out a few million worth of shares as idiot insurance. This still doesn't really explain why a 22 year old Mark Zuckerberg had the cojones to turn down $1 billion. Very few people in the world would have done that.
  - pmp6701 13y ago
    He didn't turn it down, according to Andreesen Yahoo reduced the offer with the financial crisis to $200m http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2013/11/21/marc-andreessen/ http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2013/11/21/marc-andreessen...
    - pg 13y ago
      By, not to.

the_watcher 13y ago

>> where [industry] can be something as banal as t-shirt printing or pizza delivery? If you don't believe me, here are some examples from the jobs board: Maybe I am misreading your post, but not a single one of the YC companies is solving a problem as easily mocked as "pizza delivery" (which, in reality, is really simplifying food acquisition to reallocate those hours to something more productive than waiting in line). Healthcare and farming are two hugely important sectors. Home services are a major productivity win.

normloman 13y ago
You're right. Compared to some other job ads I've seen, those at least focus on important industries. I suppose I'm most skeptical about the claim that they are changing the world somehow. I can't believe that every startup is transforming an industry, or even trying to do so. Imagine some idealistic young hacker gung ho about disrupting farming, completely changing the way people grow food forever. And then on their first day, they realize they're job amounts to maintaining a mediocre iPhone app. Now I don't doubt an iPhone app could make farmers' lives better. But how much are you gonna change farming? Maybe software can make farming a tad more data-driven or a tad more organized. But the way we grow food won't change because some YC startup wrote an app for it. Yet clearly, startups want job candidates to believe they will change the world, or else they wouldn't put it in their ads. So what motivation could they have? 1. Like someone else mentioned, perhaps "changing the world" is code for "making lots of money." Could be. 2. My hypothesis: Startups use their "change the world" mission to justify low pay, long hours working conditions. People won't work under those conditions unless they believe they're working for a higher purpose. 3. Maybe delusional founders say "change the world" because they actually think their mobile/web-app/cloud crap will disrupt an industry. Sometimes that happens, but nobody should be foolish enough to think they know what it takes.

nswanberg 13y ago

Sam recommends having a mission but never wrote "for the greater good". At worst one could accuse the founders of uninspired copywriting as they attempt to state what they are aiming to do, which is to make something people want, and more specifically to do that in a novel way. People want light, but it makes little sense for someone to compete with GE to make lightbulbs in the exact same way as GE--if one liked what GE was doing the time and money would be better spent working for and investing in GE. And while they are low-margin business and not exciting, if someone were to genuinely find a new and useful take on tshirt printing or pizza delivery odds are the startup would be worthwhile. There are lots of tshirts printed and pizzas delivered.

aianus 13y ago

Sometimes people want to fix broken/corrupt/inefficient systems. I love airbnb, lyft, uber, and bitcoin because of the way they empower individuals and spit in the faces of the fat cat incumbents and government regulators. I'd rather get to a wear a self-righteous smirk to work than make an extra $20k a year to put in my 401k.

pmp6701 13y ago

Good founders are here to make revolutions happening.