Live data from Hacker News

Run Your Startup Like a Cult

wired.com

41–50 of 74 posts

Re: Run Your Startup Like a Cult

#41
This article is classic. The thing that strikes me most is the author's assertion that hiring should not be based on the classic indicators like talent and professionalism, but on some kind of subtle chemistry that a person either does or doesn't have as you perceive it. As he puts it, "Why work with a group of people who don’t even like each other?"

Well, in the adult world, you hire mature, professional people who learn to work with each other and overcome their differences. It's fine if they aren't all buddies outside of work. In the startup "Real World" (a la MTV), you artificially craft a group of people who seem to "mesh" and then suffer the consequences later when the latent adolescent dynamics emerge.

I remember interviewing at a certain prominent software agency. I won't say who they are, but will only say that you've probably heard of them. Things went great, as far as I could see. I represented myself as someone who was technically competent and could get the job done. Great, right? They ended up passing and not taking me on. It took me a long time to extract the reasons why, but eventually they revealed that it was because of a perceived "culture issue."

Startup geeks don't seem to realize how frustrating an experience like this is. You go in, having done all your homework, having all the right experience, then you're turned down over something that you have absolutely no control. Something that is completely un-actionable and basically equates to saying "we just don't like you."

This cannot and should not be the way that people conduct business in the tech world.

Re: Run Your Startup Like a Cult

#42
post #8

Articles like this make me believe that even if I managed to find my way into Silicon Valley I simply wouldn't fit in. My job is not my identity, I feel its healthy to generate a life outside your work that is entirely separate; heck I see it as a necessity for longevity in life to have such segregation. I've turned down jobs that promote "monthly massages", "beer fridays", "gaming evenings", and other perks like the…

Almost exactly this comment comes up in every thread that talks about start-up culture, or one that discusses internal dynamics in successful high growth start-ups.

There is a kind of "formula" that is thrown around in the startup world as the ingredients of successful startups before they really get huge:

- Small teams

- Very fast growth of user base

- Less than robust technical infrastructure

- Obsessive and arguably irrationally enthusiastic founders

Why all these? Because they are CHEAP to start and stop and feedback is immediate and focused on the team. They are also pretty fragile, hence why you need people who will persevere in the face of insane obstacles. In a startup it you will have too few people for all of the tasks that you need which requires a certain type of personality, someone super flexible, adaptable and dedicated to expanding your capabilities no matter what.

Thiel et al. are not describing work environments of people who want a comfortable life as a first goal. They are describing work environments of people who are rabidly pursuing a massive goal (hold aside for a moment judgements about what those goals should be).

I am unsure why this post almost always shows up on these types of discussions, considering that this forum is arguably for the rabidly focused founders, rather than just people who are technology focused.

Re: Run Your Startup Like a Cult

#43
it can be very dangerous to run your startup like a cult, most notably because you will be building an enormous, ever-increasing blind spot. people will try so hard to fit in that they will not want to speak against the group, a cult most would expect to be very harsh to opposing opinions.

Re: Run Your Startup Like a Cult

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once a company goes beyond a certain scale these perks can be delivered quite cheaply, at a much lower per employee cost than the employee would ever be able to get for themselves. This is one of the things a big company can use to entice people away from small startups where they might not get similar perks. Having say a small fund to use for sporting activities can improve interpersonal relationships between employ…

> Once a company goes beyond a certain scale these perks can be delivered quite cheaply, at a much lower per employee cost than the employee would ever be able to get for themselves. This is one of the things a big company can use to entice people away from small startups where they might not get similar perks. Or you could just, you know, pay them more.

I think you missed a critical piece about economies of scale.

A larger company would likely be able to negotiate a lower per-instance cost for a "perk" than an employee would be able to get themselves. Hence if you "just paid them more" with the idea that they would be going to get that same perk, it would cost some multiple more given that they don't have the same purchasing power as the company.

You can disagree that they would go and choose the same perk, but this line of reasoning assumes that there is no consistency of preferences eg. Gourmet coffee or good food is fungible as a perk regardless of the provider.

Re: Run Your Startup Like a Cult

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once a company goes beyond a certain scale these perks can be delivered quite cheaply, at a much lower per employee cost than the employee would ever be able to get for themselves. This is one of the things a big company can use to entice people away from small startups where they might not get similar perks. Having say a small fund to use for sporting activities can improve interpersonal relationships between employ…

> Once a company goes beyond a certain scale these perks can be delivered quite cheaply, at a much lower per employee cost than the employee would ever be able to get for themselves. This is one of the things a big company can use to entice people away from small startups where they might not get similar perks. Or you could just, you know, pay them more.

The extra that you have to pay somebody to compensate for the lack of say gym services could well be substantially more than it costs a larger company to deliver gym services themselves.

Consider that a gym membership might cost $50/month at a private gym because the gym needs to make a profit. There is also dead loss because of time travelling between work and the gym.

A company might well be able to provide on site gym services to employees at a much cheaper rate, especially if they already have space that is underutilised, they don't need it to be profitable and the facilities are so close that employees can just work out during their lunch break.

So with everything factored in you might be comparing $60/month to compensate an employee for a private gym vs $15-20/month with an employer provided gym.

The net result is healthier employees because more of them are likely to use the gym than if it was not provided and it's also a more efficient way to provide gym services if it is used by more than X% of employees.

Re: Run Your Startup Like a Cult

#46

Every headline in this article pissed me off. Every paragraph in this article actually contained solid advice, even though I don't agree with all of it. So I would like to add rule #5: Don't talk in ludicrous hyperbole. Smart people won't take you seriously, and you'll actually attract the kind of feeble minded people that would join a real cult.

Well put.

Re: Run Your Startup Like a Cult

#47
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's amazing they asked, because you got a clear indication that they will have no respect for your life. Good to know that early. Its doubly amazing because I told them I'd be busy that day in a previous email. :) > I mean, every startup I've worked with has behaved in some way like this. But there are extremes. I work for a large company now, and couldn't be happier. I work at least 2/3rds what I did at a startup…

> Its doubly amazing because I told them I'd be busy that day in a previous email. :) I think this sounds intentional. They were screening you, looking for employees who wanted to work with them so bad they'd drop everything. I actually give them some kudos for that in that they were being indirectly honest about their expectations. You got a quick sense that it was a poor fit and bowed out, which is in both parties'…

> They were screening you, looking for employees who wanted to work with them so bad they'd drop everything.

It isn't healthy in personal or business relationships for one partner to expect you to break promises. I keep my agreements and I expect others to do the same. If you expect other people to break promises to indulge your whims, you are too selfish for me to tolerate you.

I would never, ever, ask people to fail to meet their obligations to other people unless it was an emergency. Anyone who does is someone to avoid at any reasonable cost.

> I think this sounds intentional.

I know it wasn't intentional because I had made it clear in the previous email that it was a line I wouldn't cross. The effort they went through after that email made it very, very illogical for them to have continued the conversation. They wasted at least 30 minutes of their time on the phone + whatever it took to setup the environment they wanted me to use.

The alternative is they didn't believe me, in which case they are stupid, given the weight I give to promises and clearly established boundaries. I'm assuming since they got into YC they aren't stupid.

Re: Run Your Startup Like a Cult

#48
post #8

Articles like this make me believe that even if I managed to find my way into Silicon Valley I simply wouldn't fit in. My job is not my identity, I feel its healthy to generate a life outside your work that is entirely separate; heck I see it as a necessity for longevity in life to have such segregation. I've turned down jobs that promote "monthly massages", "beer fridays", "gaming evenings", and other perks like the…

The fourth point in the article raises some red flags for me. I agree with the Capn:

>My job is not my identity, I feel its healthy to generate a life outside your work that is entirely separate;

You've hit on an important point here. There are lots of way to express similar sentiments, and you state it in a very practically appealing way (i.e. wrapping our identity firmly around our jobs is a dangerous path). I agree, but will state it slightly differently

As active agents we _do_ things, but those things we do are separate from who we _are_ (IMO, of course). If what I _do_ is be a Google employee and all I _am_ is a Google employee, what room is there left to grow? Ask yourself the question: who is this I?

If I is what you do, perhaps consider the consequences of a future where that job opportunity is no longer available or you don't enjoy doing it anymore. So instead of building your self identity on something external to yourself (in this case, a job), identify with something that is more concrete in it's foundation (what that is is up to you).

Re: Run Your Startup Like a Cult

#49

This article is classic. The thing that strikes me most is the author's assertion that hiring should not be based on the classic indicators like talent and professionalism, but on some kind of subtle chemistry that a person either does or doesn't have as you perceive it. As he puts it, "Why work with a group of people who don’t even like each other?" Well, in the adult world, you hire mature, professional people who…

Well, in the adult world, you hire mature, professional people who learn to work with each other and overcome their differences.

You just described a specific personality trait - that of someone who can moderate their desires in order to get along with the broader group. This is exactly the same reasoning that people are looking for with "culture fit" - they are looking for a very specific personality trait.

This cannot and should not be the way that people conduct business in the tech world.

Why? The tech world, like any other business place, is a mixture of people with different attitudes and personalities. If you clearly would have a personality clash with someone, why would it be worth hiring them?

Re: Run Your Startup Like a Cult

#50
Here are some bad answers: “Your stock options will be worth more here than elsewhere.” “You’ll get to work with the smartest people in the world.” “You can help solve the world’s most challenging problems.” Every company makes these same claims, so they won’t help you stand out.

Just cover the basics and then promise what no others can: the opportunity to do irreplaceable work on a unique problem alongside great people.

Isn't that a contradiction?

Post reply on HN