Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If founders treated their investors the same way they treated their employees

software.rajivprab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 278 posts

Re: If founders treated their investors the same way they treated their employees

#81

Post by kristopolous »

omarhaneef wrote: post #78
kristopolous wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, that's really uncalled for and a complete misrepresentation of the topic. Would you like to add to the conversation instead? I'll be happy to read whatever you have to say.

I am (obviously?) kidding, which you would know if you saw me. (Too good looking for startups too). I did not mean to upset you.

You didn't! Just trying to steer things in a more fruitful direction.

In the startup world they usually call this employee waves. Hoffmann, Christensen & Collins all broke up different people as part of different waves (using different models) and that some people "belong" in certain waves. Others, such as say, Davidow and Von Hippel went into detail on how to insulate new technology from late wavers at established firms in order to successfully incubate it (Christensen talks about this as well). See Kidder's book on the Eagle project and Fergusons book on the IBM PC for some examples. Also search "sony missed ipod" for some really interesting counter-examples.

Also how BBN beat Raytheon for ARPAs IMPs is a fascinating example.

Anyway, I'm a first waver who wants to improve on being a much later waver.

Re: If founders treated their investors the same way they treated their employees

#82

Post by pjmlp »

skrebbel wrote: post #41
seibelj wrote: post #3

Valid reasons to work for a startup: - You are a cofounder. - You have little experience and you are using this to break into the industry, and get experience on many different technologies ("wear many hats"). - They are working on a very specific problem or using a specific technology that you strongly desire to work on and it's difficult to do it anywhere else. - You want to work a certain way (remote, on the beach…

Frankly I'm getting tired of this drum HN keeps beating about startups not offering a good work/life balance. Some startups don't, true. Some FAANGs don't either, what's the difference? I know plenty of startups that have a sane working culture as a key point of differentiation in the job market.

I have been at this for a while, reaching mid-40's, and the truth is while there are startups with life balance stories and corporations with unlimited overtime, the stereotypes really apply for the large majority of companies.

Re: If founders treated their investors the same way they treated their employees

#83

Post by pb7 »

marcinzm wrote: post #68
trimbo wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber employees who joined in 2015 actually saw their RSUs decrease in value by the time the lockup ended in 2019. 4 years of working at a pre-IPO unicorn for negative growth. Heard this from multiple people but here's an article: https://www.financialsamurai.com/how-uber-employees-failed-t...

That depends totally on the RSU package they got when they joined. Negative growth if the package was 50% higher than their previous or FAANG comp is still a net gain.

This is true and was the case for some people but if you had taken an Uber offer, for example, to Facebook or Google, they would have matched it.

Re: If founders treated their investors the same way they treated their employees

#84

Post by high_derivative »

drchopchop wrote: post #53
skrebbel wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly I'm getting tired of this drum HN keeps beating about startups not offering a good work/life balance. Some startups don't, true. Some FAANGs don't either, what's the difference? I know plenty of startups that have a sane working culture as a key point of differentiation in the job market.

Agreed, I am 40+ and am a CTO at a startup which has great work/life balance. We pay approximately market (for a normal dev job, not FAANG), haven't had people do overtime in well over a year, are transparent about finances, and have practically zero politics. It is also possible for a startup to be "stable", especially if it's bootstrapped/profitable.

'have practically zero politics' tingles my bs-meter. How would you know how your employees feel about this? There is always politics. Of course not for the ones who cannot be promoted further, but for everyone else. My boss not acknowledging the existence of politics would be a red flag to me.

Re: If founders treated their investors the same way they treated their employees

#85

Post by pb7 »

Swizec wrote: post #65
seibelj wrote: post #3

Valid reasons to work for a startup: - You are a cofounder. - You have little experience and you are using this to break into the industry, and get experience on many different technologies ("wear many hats"). - They are working on a very specific problem or using a specific technology that you strongly desire to work on and it's difficult to do it anywhere else. - You want to work a certain way (remote, on the beach…

Personally I like to work with startups because: - they pay more than enough for my near-term financial goals - the equity is ok - they let me work on sidehustles - I get to work on stuff that is truly make or break for the company, not some bullshit pet project a PM needs to get promoted

Wouldn't it feel like it's a little bit bullshit if the company went out of business shortly after and all that work was for nothing? All of our work is so ephemeral.

Re: If founders treated their investors the same way they treated their employees

#86

Post by nostrademons »

So founders do treat some of their investors like this - look at every ICO, and a lot of dumb overseas money, and a good number of friends/family/fools rounds. And conversely, there are some employees that they treat with kid gloves, who basically get the investor treatment. Look at executive hires.

The difference is basically two letters: "No". Most institutional investors have the ability and inclination to say no to a deal. Many executives - or even high-level FAANG engineers - have the ability and inclination to say no to a deal. Your average engineer a couple years out of college does not, or if they do, they don't understand the power of declining a job offer. Start your negotiations with "no". Be curious and open to opportunities, and show a lot of enthusiasm during the interview process, but whenever you feel you're treated unfairly, walk away. People will stop treating you unfairly.

Re: If founders treated their investors the same way they treated their employees

#87

Post by vlunkr »

lkbm wrote: post #66
seibelj wrote: post #3

Valid reasons to work for a startup: - You are a cofounder. - You have little experience and you are using this to break into the industry, and get experience on many different technologies ("wear many hats"). - They are working on a very specific problem or using a specific technology that you strongly desire to work on and it's difficult to do it anywhere else. - You want to work a certain way (remote, on the beach…

Main reason: it's more fun. I could be a cog in a giant corporate machine, or I can have a measurable impact where I work. I can stay in my lane and do my specific job tasks, or I can run around putting out fires and helping wherever help is needed. I mindlessly build the specific design product handed me, or I can guide my own work in accordance to the needs of our customers and the business. I can follow policy and…

Both of these comments make good points, but are two ends of a false dichotomy. Not every startup is going to have horrible work/life balance, and not every job at a big company is going to be boring and soul crushing. And there are all sorts of jobs in the middle and to the side of this spectrum.

Re: If founders treated their investors the same way they treated their employees

#88

Post by kevinmchugh »

drchopchop wrote: post #53
skrebbel wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly I'm getting tired of this drum HN keeps beating about startups not offering a good work/life balance. Some startups don't, true. Some FAANGs don't either, what's the difference? I know plenty of startups that have a sane working culture as a key point of differentiation in the job market.

Agreed, I am 40+ and am a CTO at a startup which has great work/life balance. We pay approximately market (for a normal dev job, not FAANG), haven't had people do overtime in well over a year, are transparent about finances, and have practically zero politics. It is also possible for a startup to be "stable", especially if it's bootstrapped/profitable.

Loose definitions of "startup" means there will be lots of exceptions or talking past each other when one tries to make declarations about the nature of startups.

One popular definition of "startup" (Steve Blank's) basically precludes profitability.

Re: If founders treated their investors the same way they treated their employees

#89

Post by e1g »

drchopchop wrote: post #53
skrebbel wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly I'm getting tired of this drum HN keeps beating about startups not offering a good work/life balance. Some startups don't, true. Some FAANGs don't either, what's the difference? I know plenty of startups that have a sane working culture as a key point of differentiation in the job market.

Agreed, I am 40+ and am a CTO at a startup which has great work/life balance. We pay approximately market (for a normal dev job, not FAANG), haven't had people do overtime in well over a year, are transparent about finances, and have practically zero politics. It is also possible for a startup to be "stable", especially if it's bootstrapped/profitable.

You might work at a small or young company that is not a startup. A "startup" is a specific type of business designed for rapid growth. If there are profits, that means holding cash in a bank offers better returns that re-investing into sales/operations which implies there is no fast growth.

Re: If founders treated their investors the same way they treated their employees

#90

Post by smattiso »

nostrademons wrote: post #86

So founders do treat some of their investors like this - look at every ICO, and a lot of dumb overseas money, and a good number of friends/family/fools rounds. And conversely, there are some employees that they treat with kid gloves, who basically get the investor treatment. Look at executive hires. The difference is basically two letters: "No". Most institutional investors have the ability and inclination to say no…

The problem is that some people need money and can't say no. That's why anybody works for minimum wage...

The executives and investors and FAANG engineers have all made good money and seen decent RSU terms, you can't pull the wool over their eyes. Someone who is just getting into tech may be allured by a 50k salary and "1 MILLION OPTIONS!!!!" (There are ten trillion in the option pool).

I think engineers would do well to know that you are a COST CENTER to the business and the people who run it. They need you to make their product so they can make money but they hire you begrudgingly. You are in their power and they want to take advantage of you by paying you the least they can (shady options awards) and working you as much as possible (why did you slip on this feature you story pointed!!!).

Put yourselves in their shoes and you would do the same. Starting a successful business is all about customer growth and making money. If you aren't directly responsible for a part of that then you are a cost. Make sure you are getting paid what you are worth because nothing in this world gets built without great engineers, but the system is run by people who want to have power over you. Be careful.

Post reply on HN