Recently I commented on Lior Shamir's blog post The “Problem” with Startup Recruiting where he asks the question “why will the 20th talented person to join your startup join your startup?” -- especially given the rising competitiveness for startup talent and with companies like Google and Facebook vying for that same talent and corporate environments beginning to simulate startup perks. Lior's thesis borrowed from Peter Thiel is that “the 20th talented person will join your startup because your startup is working on an interesting and important problem.”
Keith Halperin responded with a comment, and closed by saying:
IMHO, the sooner the folks that run/work for startups learn that:(1) They aren’t on a “mission from God”- they won’t “change the world
(2) They’ll probably won’t”cash in” most don’t.
(3) Most people go to work to have a livelihood, not create a substitute family
(4) Working 80 hours /week gets old pretty fast,
the better.
My response:
I couldn't disagree more with the last paragraph of Keith’s comment. I should say “humbly” disagree because Keith is a master and someone I’ve gained a lot from thanks to his generous sharing of his knowledge in various places.
I disagree with Keith because I so passionately agree with you, Lior — and Peter Thiel for that matter. And Steve Jobs. There has to be a place for the crazy ones. Not every “crazy one” can start a company. Some will need to work for crazy startup founders, people audacious enough to think they are on “a mission from God” and that they are going to change the world. If I am not the crazy one starting a company, I want to be the crazy one helping to make the dream a reality, changing the world and if not the world — at least changing, disrupting SOMETHING — making SOMETHING better! There are people driven by this desire.
But not every person is meant to work at a startup and not every person with the makeup to work at a startup will be the right person for EVERY startup. Making the right match is critical — and this takes time, awareness, attention and skill. And the wisdom and humility to admit that you need help with this.
Where I do heartily agree with [thoughts shared earlier in Keith's comment] is that startups need to open up their thinking and step away from the startup employee clone machine. And this may involve openness to people over 30 or even 40 or 50, people with kids and others who don’t need to work 80 hours a week to provide incredible value. The key is not how many hours, but how much stamina, productivity and passion. You still want people for whom time seems to fly when they are working because they love the mission and the work.
I do agree that startup founders cannot afford to treat employees or potential hires as though they are doing them a favor. Appreciation is huge in maintaining customers and it is huge in maintaining good team members. I believe that the most successful companies will think that both are incredibly important and will take the necessary actions to demonstrate this.
Terrific post Donna. Yes, working for a startup is not for everyone and you need some crazy in you. Also agree that startups need to step away from the herd behaviour when hiring because talented people can come from different age groups and work backgrounds. I do believe that once you do a startup it is difficult to switch back to a bigger company. It is a truly unique experience!
ReplyDeleteThanks Abdallah. I suspect that startups will become a more prevalent part of the economy and this will broaden hiring practices but will still require some unique attributes.
ReplyDeleteCrazy good, yes. Crazy bad, no :) They come in all ages, true.
ReplyDeleteI think it is still super important to be a star in one skill as well as developing a broad range of other skills. I completely agree that startups will become more prevalent in the US and in other parts of the world.
ReplyDeleteYep! And knowing the difference is really really really important ...except sometimes we are a bit of both.
ReplyDeleteNot sometimes. Always.
ReplyDeleteEveryone I've ever met who is crazy good has a crazy bad lurking inside, even if not readily apparent. It's more a judgment call whether your culture can tolerate whatever the bad is. First you need to acknowledge that is probably the case, and then ask will it be minimized because you haven't mixed oil and water, and not be destructive.
I'd have to say that Keith is pretty much wrong:
ReplyDelete(1) Mission from "god", probably not, but definitely on a mission. If the team doesn't all believe this, you have little chance of success, because working in a startup involves doing some unnatural things that no sane "big company person" would ever do. It also involves working for less money because you believe in the future.
(2) It doesn't matter whether they "cash in" or not. Anyone who joins a startup to "cash in" is not someone you want on the team. Money is not a sufficient motivator to keep people aiming for the end destination, even when it looks like there's an 80-90% chance of failure. Everyone is happy to take the reward that success creates, but the reward is aspirational, not guaranteed. Keith is completely missing the point on this one.
(3) People that work in startups need to live, but none of them earn such a poor living that they can't support a family -- they just earn less than they would at Microsoft or IBM. If by livelihood you mean big house and expensive car guaranteed, then you need to work somewhere else -- probably the place that the startup will eventually disrupt.
(4) Working 80 hours can get old fast if you don't believe in the mission, think working for a startup is about cashing in, and don't believe you have a chance to change the world a little bit. For those who value these things and are crazy enough to believe them, 80 hour weeks on occasion (even for months at a time) is a reasonable part of the bargain. And, if you're ready to put your feet up and start collecting your pension, then don't apply to work at a startup.
An aside re: the original post -- Facebook and Google are indeed competing for the same people, but a startup person is a startup person, and they're unlikely to want to work for Facebook or Google. They've long since passed into big company status and lost their innovative edge. The only big company with a culture resembling a startup in recent memory is Apple, and that's because Steve Jobs never stopped believing he was on a mission to change the world.
Wise words. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI love this comment -- thank you for sharing your wisdom on startups and hiring! Living up to your pen name.
ReplyDeleteThanks Donna -- I aspire to wisdom, and hope to get there someday. For now, I'm just experienced and observant.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who's been in a startup and has a few grey hairs has made the mistake of hiring the wrong people, me included. It's easy to think that someone with a fantastic-looking resume from a big company who has (choose your impressive stats):
- run projects with more than 100 people
- been responsible for $50M in sales
- managed a budget of $10M
- had a department of 200 people, etc,
is exactly what you need right now to grow. But it almost never is. In fact, they are usually anathema to the culture, and don't know how to work in an environment where they have to empty their own waste basket.
It's really painful for both parties. The big company guy who is comfortable with structure and a plan and a big paycheck and who thinks their options are a guaranteed lottery ticket worth millions in the first year is a fish out of water, struggling to survive. And the manager who hired him has an unproductive and dissatisfied previously successful person who doesn't understand why their approach doesn't work, and who often causes much trouble on the team if the mistake isn't corrected quickly.
Been there, done that.
Getting to this thread late. My crazy "bad" side stems from my perfectionism, which is part of my value though too. One area I know I will have to make compromise are initial expectations with hiring, and then allowing people time to tinker once I've given direction for a vision; I like things done now, too, rather than later.
ReplyDeleteI like to tinker, understand the value of it - though once I've tinkered enough design wise or other strategy-thinking wise and have a set vision of how something needs to be, I am not fully sure how easily my mind will be changed; If I find the right brilliant creative people then perhaps easily.
I don't make decisions quickly either, I'm very discerning.
Thanks for the comment, Matt.
ReplyDeleteThe best hiring is done by people who are self-aware.
It's a tough one. Even now I am unsure of if certain relationships that could be very fruitful if fostered could end up being a waste of energy put into them. I guess I'll learn to discern better and better. I always am interested in working with the very best, however sometimes the very best are that way only when they're in an imbalanced but stable state. I understand being in that position, though it's something you can't know until you know someone and when circumstances start changing. On the flip side, you have all the other regular worries if a person is a hard worker or not.
ReplyDeleteThe rule of thumb in hiring is that the past is the best predictor of the future. There are exceptions to this and the more experienced and skill you become at hiring then the more risks you can take to find those gems that may seem like riskier hires but would be a great fit. But even then there are clues -- and assessments that help to predict this.
ReplyDeleteIn the meantime, learn how to get the information that gives you the best sense of how they have performed in past situations. Starting with a clear idea of what skills, abilities and personality traits are most conducive to success in your situation. Good hiring starts with analysis. And, yes, discernment helps tons -- so if you are strong there then this puts you ahead.
I definitely am strong at discernment - I also have a big heart and can see how people can evolve if fostered, which I know I need to balance this with what you said, and consider the best predictor being the past.
ReplyDeleteI am wondering if I can get away with a balance with some people being more flexible, and their responsibilities being less than say people who I know have so more focus / different working styles.
A lot of the feelers I'm putting out now are more for people who will help plan and move many things forward, and so there are lots of possible tasks they could be aligned with, along with being apart of brainstorming, planning, outreach, etc..
And thanks. Much appreciated dialogue.
And so you determine which attributes to look for in accomplishing this objective. You communicate this as an opportunity rather than as a job. You communicate clearly what is expected and what you believe you are offering in terms of opportunity. Give people enough information so that they do not feel betrayed after a few months in the job. Hiring in this type of situation needs to be highly relational -- that's my opinion.
ReplyDeleteA client once told me that if he ever decided to sell his company and start a new one in an entirely different industry, he could do this with the same group of people. He believed in them that strongly.
If you ever want to discuss this further, email me or call.
Interesting post -- pity I found it 2 months after the fact. I've only done one startup (as emp. #4), and it was a raging success, so my experience of the startup world is somewhat atypical...
ReplyDeleteStill, I meet a lot of founders would do well to acquaint themselves with Joy's Law: "No matter who you are, most of the smartest people work for someone else."
Working back from there, I think you and Keith are actually closer on this than it seems at first glance.