Live data from Hacker News

Questions to Ask Before Joining a Startup

hharnisc.github.io

151–160 of 348 posts

Re: Questions to Ask Before Joining a Startup

#151
post #42

The only valid reasons for working at a seed-stage / series A startup: You are a founder. They are working with a technology or in an industry that you specifically want to work with and it is very hard to work on it professionally, and doing side projects are infeasible. You need experience and you have no other option to get experience. You are getting a significant title bump that moves your career forwards. Inval…

I guess this might fall under "You need experience and you have no other option to get experience.", but I ended up on the path of working for startups because

1. I never graduated from university (life came up, and I couldn't afford to keep going); but, also,

2. I don't live in the US (I'm Canadian.)

Any of the US bigcorps that want to hire programmers, expect them to get a visa and move to the US.

You know what you need, to get a work visa as a programmer coming to the US?

A college degree!

So, my employer pool was instantly limited to non-US companies. Mostly local Canadian companies. Most of those are very conservative and also expect a college degree. The only ones that aren't, are startups. So that's what I had to do.

The really annoying thing is, I ended up doing work for these Canadian startups that would netted me a $300k USD salary if I had been doing it for a US bigcorp. But, because Canadian salaries are lower, and startup salaries are lower, I was only getting ~$60k.

After years of doing that, I'm a Canadian startup founder... and still only making (i.e. paying myself) $60k.

I guess I'm an object lesson in the value of a college degree!

Re: Questions to Ask Before Joining a Startup

#152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is nominally a series A startup, but actually a bootstrapped since series A startup. Big difference.

"Bootstrapping" usually refers to funding the company (in the seed stage) without external investment, whether through pre-selling to customers, relying on founders' savings, doing consulting, etc. I think the term you're looking for is "profitable".

Not quite, since a "profitable" investor-backed company is still usually pushed by those investors to seek further investment, whether the company needs it to continue growing or not. (It just needs it to grow to the level that an investor would care about.)

The concept here is closer to "firing your investors" or "buying back your equity", but they haven't necessarily done that yet.

Re: Questions to Ask Before Joining a Startup

#153
post #42

The only valid reasons for working at a seed-stage / series A startup: You are a founder. They are working with a technology or in an industry that you specifically want to work with and it is very hard to work on it professionally, and doing side projects are infeasible. You need experience and you have no other option to get experience. You are getting a significant title bump that moves your career forwards. Inval…

Is "stability" in terms of overall job security, or day-to-day chaos?

Because I would add "chaos" to the list of negatives. The odds are likely you're going to get a C-suite or board that has ADHD-like tendencies, especially when chasing large customers and/or funding rounds.

You will continually be dropping or delaying long-term work for short-term projects to help the company achieve other goals.

Re: Questions to Ask Before Joining a Startup

#154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the implicit point is that if you are NOT a cofounder those feelings of ownership are unlikely to be matched by reality. As a non-founder you do not have the input and upside of an owner.

please note that i am referring to the sense of ownership and responsibility that comes from being one of the important cogs. this is reality in a startup. i don't mean it in a legal/financial sense, and i am not referring to any extrinsic reward, eg financial upside.

> this is reality in a startup

Five-year-old well-funded-and-profitable companies with 50 employees, where you as employee #50 are just there to toil away writing some dumb CRUD backoffice code—are still referred to as "start-ups."

And, in fact, since the other kind of startup dies more often than it succeeds and grows into this kind, most startups that are hiring at any given moment are this kind of startup.

Re: Questions to Ask Before Joining a Startup

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I joined GitLab as #29. My work life balance has never been this good. I've been working here for ~3 years, my benefits have been excellent, I have learned so much. GitLab may be an anomaly and YMMV, but it has been the best company I've ever worked for, period. Nothing has comes close. In the end I love what I do. I don't agree with this post.

> GitLab may be an anomaly and YMMV I think this is the crux of his argument. Of course there are outliers, but 90% of the time (I don't know the actual percentage, but I'd venture it's around there - if we're only talking about money I'd say 99.9%) someone will be happier if they go to a more established company. And people are often disillusioned when their equity becomes worthless, because for years they were told…

Not anomaly at all, I have been working in 4 different startups, 3 of them while having a family already, two of them were successful, and one is on the way. In 3 out of the 4 I had pretty decent working conditions, much better than working for a corporate. Not too much stress just doing my job during normal hours with a lot of flexibility to work from home. Maybe because those startups were created by older people or maybe because they are not in the silicon valley but those start ups are out there and I prefer working in those places mainly for the lifestyle, I could make more money in the corporate probably.

Re: Questions to Ask Before Joining a Startup

#156
post #42

The only valid reasons for working at a seed-stage / series A startup: You are a founder. They are working with a technology or in an industry that you specifically want to work with and it is very hard to work on it professionally, and doing side projects are infeasible. You need experience and you have no other option to get experience. You are getting a significant title bump that moves your career forwards. Inval…

Salary - you would make (much) more at a big company.

Benefits - very bad.

Both of these are valid reasons to work at a startup, if you have a family to feed and care for.

Sometimes any job is a good job, even if it's only temporary while you try to find the perfect gig.

Edit to add:

I've been in exactly this position. I took a dev job with a startup I knew was a complete loser, run by scam artists. But I had to put food on the table. Fortunately, I was only there about eight months before I landed a real job with a real company.

The dodgy company imploded, exactly as I expected it to.

Re: Questions to Ask Before Joining a Startup

#157
These comments are fucking ridiculous.

Please, by all means ask about the dev operations at a startup so that founders know not to hire you. You will sacrifice execution for enterprise best practices. You will over over-complicate every project.

Web sites running perl cgi are still online today and pull more traffic than the shit site you were tasked to create with infinitely more resources.

Re: Questions to Ask Before Joining a Startup

#158
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the context of a startup, I would expect almost all of those to be disappointing. But maybe that's what you're hoping to see. In my opinion, if you're a start-up and you've got all those boxes checked, you're possibly doing the right things in the wrong order, and that's a red flag for me. What I hope to hear are responses like, "so this is how we're doing CI. It's awful, almost non-existent. But that's because at…

This. As I always say, "If you are building a startup, over-engineering is a far bigger sin than creating technical debt."

And in many places they go hand in hand - some pieces of code will be massively over-engineered and genericised for a future that will never come, while other, important (but possibly less interesting) pieces will be peppered with // TODO and // THINK ABOUT THIS LATER.

Re: Questions to Ask Before Joining a Startup

#159
post #42

The only valid reasons for working at a seed-stage / series A startup: You are a founder. They are working with a technology or in an industry that you specifically want to work with and it is very hard to work on it professionally, and doing side projects are infeasible. You need experience and you have no other option to get experience. You are getting a significant title bump that moves your career forwards. Inval…

Salary - you would make (much) more at a big company. Benefits - very bad. Both of these are valid reasons to work at a startup, if you have a family to feed and care for. Sometimes any job is a good job, even if it's only temporary while you try to find the perfect gig. Edit to add: I've been in exactly this position. I took a dev job with a startup I knew was a complete loser, run by scam artists. But I had to put…

Well, sure, but those are not specific reasons to take a job in a startup, which the comment was about, those are reasons to take any job.

Re: Questions to Ask Before Joining a Startup

#160
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the context of a startup, I would expect almost all of those to be disappointing. But maybe that's what you're hoping to see. In my opinion, if you're a start-up and you've got all those boxes checked, you're possibly doing the right things in the wrong order, and that's a red flag for me. What I hope to hear are responses like, "so this is how we're doing CI. It's awful, almost non-existent. But that's because at…

I would expect most to be disappointing too, and it's a good idea to avoid those. Proper logging doesn't take more time, it just takes more discipline / giving a damn. People and companies that say: we don't have time to do it right Almost always mean: we don't know how to do it right Talent, not time, is the enemy of quality. (at some point that stops being true, but most companies (startups or not) are soooo far fr…

I think the point Waterluvian is making is that if a startup has all its development practices buttoned down right, it's either not a startup or it's going to go out of business soon. Most people (who are even thinking of working at a startup, at least) would rather have a job that's organized chaos than not have a job at all.

The ideal order of tasks for a startup usually looks something like this (and I say "ideal" because very few startups actually take paths resembling anything close to this):

1.) Figure out what & for whom you're building the product. The founders should do this before hiring employees.

2.) Validate that the people for whom you're building the product will use it, and ideally will pay for it. The founders should do this before hiring employees.

3.) Take investment. Ideally this would get pushed as late as possible or skipped entirely, both because you get better terms for that money when you've made more progress and because it often comes with strings that prevent you from going back to step #1 if necessary, but it's usually a prerequisite for step #4.

4.) Build the product. If the founders can do this themselves, they're at a huge advantage, because oftentimes you find you need to go back to step #1 after this is complete. But usually you need employees for this.

5.) Charge money, so that it becomes a sustainable business.

6.) Everything else that goes with being an actual business, from getting HR policies right to development practices to career ladders for employees to working out company mission statements.

And if you're doing step #6 before you've completed step #5, there is a very large chance that you've made a critical error in judgment that will kill the company. Why? Because you haven't actually validated step #1, and all the work in steps #4-6 depends upon getting that right. You might have setup a beautiful CI dashboard with 100% test coverage, only to find that all your unit tests & continuous integration need to be thrown out because your product needs to be rewritten in another language because the product concept requires a large & critical library that's only available in another language. You might have spent months developing & building relationships with employees only to find they need to be fired because you need a completely different skillset to build a different product for a different market.

It's fine to want a nice, orderly, 100% tested with CI setup and a robust release process development process as your working environment. At an earlier point in my career, I certainly did. But if that's what you want, I would highly recommend not working at a startup and going to Google instead, where you have a full test suite run on 1000s of machines on every commit and the results of it are instantly visible on their code review dashboard. That's what I did, and it was only when I realized that Google in 1999 was about as far away from that as it's possible to get that I became more comfortable with the codebase being a complete mess as long as it works & has happy users.

Post reply on HN