I think I'm a bit naive, but how can a high dollar exit leave your vested shares worthless?
Let’s Admit Why There Are So Many “Job Hoppers” In Startupland
41–50 of 67 posts
Re: Let’s Admit Why There Are So Many “Job Hoppers” In Startupland
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never had any luck getting a serious answer to that question. It's always hand-wavy fluff. It's the employer's equivalent of "what is your biggest weakness". It just tests their ability to BS.
my biggest weakness is my inability to acknowledge how truly great I am. :-)
Although that's most likely true, unfortunately, based on my research, I haven't seen anywhere that says that is an acceptable answer. I know. Sad isn't it?
Re: Let’s Admit Why There Are So Many “Job Hoppers” In Startupland
#43This whole discussion about "job hoppers" is so bogus.
Employment is a relationship. It has two sides. When one party decides to end it, the most common reasons are:
1) Other party's chronic inability to respond and satisfy the breaker-upper's needs. 2) A competitor coming along who satisfies those needs much better.
Employers regularly break up employment relations for those two reasons. But now some CEOs and VC managers will have us believe that it's wrong for employees to do the same to them.
Employers are expected - nay, obligated! - to fire employees who fail to meet performance expectations. But if an employer fails to meet your compensation expectations, and you leave, the Susters and Calacanises shall publicly insult you and announce they will not hire you, and nobody else should either.
It is telling that only very specific employers and very specific dream-dealing businessmen are among the mob shouting indignantly about loyalty and morality. When was the last time Google or Palantir blogged petulantly about "Generation Y" and "trophy kids"?
Suster, Calacanis et al are reacting to their own failing at keeping employees, with all the grace, maturity and effectiveness of that girl you dumped, who went out on the street and shouted about what a terrible person you are to leave her, and how nobody else should ever trust or date you.
Mature, successful employers do not waste their time on that. They're too busy making great products with their happy, motivated, tenured employees - or bidding polite farewell to those who should or want to move on.
This article is spot on. Startup executives are world-class dealers of dreams. They need to be more weary of selling to their own employees. Too many bright engineers work insanely hard for a year or two, then discover all they're getting is fairy dust, and quit. Why don't Suster and Calacanis write an article about that?
It's most striking when a top employee leaves for a company that's not a startup. Take that engineer that left Mahalo for Yahoo recently. Suster and Calacanis call him a flake, yet how much you want to bet he'll stay at Yahoo longer than a year?
And since when is it acceptable to attack an ex-employee that way, sleazily keeping his name out, when everyone on the internet knows who the epitaphs refer to?
These people are sore losers, and they'll keep losing until they figure out what that "dying company" is doing right that makes their best engineers "hop" there rather than labor at their own enterprises.
All they do right now is poison and taint an otherwise healthy, open and mature dialogue between employees and employers.
Re: Let’s Admit Why There Are So Many “Job Hoppers” In Startupland
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not so. Turnover rate is something you can measure. They can either choose to lie about it or not. Biggest weakness is subjective.
Certainly the number would be objective, the subjective part would be establishing an industry standard against which to compare it. Without context, the number alone can't tell you all that much. Honestly, the most surefire litmus test I've found is ex-employees who still speak positively about the employer.
Honestly, the most surefire litmus test I've found is ex-employees who still speak positively about the employer.
Conversely, a very vague non-answer, like "I couldn't really say" may hint at a non-disparagement clause in exchange for a severance package (with an NDA covering the existence of the agreement itself).
Re: Let’s Admit Why There Are So Many “Job Hoppers” In Startupland
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never had any luck getting a serious answer to that question. It's always hand-wavy fluff. It's the employer's equivalent of "what is your biggest weakness". It just tests their ability to BS.
You can keep asking the question in other ways: "How long was the person before me here?" "What's the average length of time someone stays here?" "How long have *you* been here?" If you really want to know the answer, you just have to keep asking. Turnover rate is the first real question I ask. (Also: the lack of an answer is an answer on its own.)
The beauty of that last one is how there's absolutely no way to fluff it away.
You're asking for a number. Your interviewer either gives it to you, or he evades.
Another brilliant one is "how long are you planning to stay?".
This can lead to some of the most revealing and unstructured discussions you'll engage in during your interview process. Not for the feint of heart.
Re: Let’s Admit Why There Are So Many “Job Hoppers” In Startupland
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can keep asking the question in other ways: "How long was the person before me here?" "What's the average length of time someone stays here?" "How long have *you* been here?" If you really want to know the answer, you just have to keep asking. Turnover rate is the first real question I ask. (Also: the lack of an answer is an answer on its own.)
Mentioning a "person before me" in an interview is a bad idea, because it brings forth associations you might not want. Also, there might not be such a person. The second and third questions are good, but short tenures could also signify a rapidly growing company (which is something to be wary of, but not for the same reason) like Google in 2006.
"short tenures could also signify a rapidly growing company"
Sure, but if everyone interviewing you are less than a year in, where are all the people who worked here before?
And why are you being interviewed mostly or exclusively by junior team members who haven't proved themselves yet? Is the company entrusting the selection of successful employees to newbies who haven't yet proved they can be such?
An interviewer for a company in the middle of a growth spurt should be able to explain that, quote some enticing growth figures, and mention that "almost all of the original team members are now project leaders and executives... in fact, if this goes well, you'll meet some of them shortly".
Re: Let’s Admit Why There Are So Many “Job Hoppers” In Startupland
#47Can anyone please explain to me what he means when he says that 'most' stock options become worthless even when the startup is sold for a hefty profit? I am quite confused by how they could be devaluated like that.
Re: Let’s Admit Why There Are So Many “Job Hoppers” In Startupland
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is actually one of the use cases we're most proud about on Unvarnished ( Community-powered professional reviews http://www.getunvarnished.com ): the ability for information about hiring managers to float as well as information about employees. So if a boss has high turnover rates under him, the idea would be that the reason why could float on his Unvarnished profile, such that would-be employees can get this inf…
I heard about you guys on NPR, but didn't call in because I was driving. I have a few concerns. 1. Your basic value proposition rests on getting people to pay money to have the ability to respond to things said about them. That's going to leave a bad taste in people's mouths. 2. Many people (like me) have deliberately chosen to not join facebook. We can't even try to address issues we see. 3. Identity is much more co…
Many people (like me) have deliberately chosen to not join facebook. We can't even try to address issues we see.
I wouldn't call this "can't". If you actually couldn't use their preferred identity provider, that would be different (and it could happen; I had a lot of trouble getting a Facebook account at all a few years back, due to my unusual name). But choosing not to sign up is not the same as not being able to sign up.
Re: Let’s Admit Why There Are So Many “Job Hoppers” In Startupland
#49Can anyone please explain to me what he means when he says that 'most' stock options become worthless even when the startup is sold for a hefty profit? I am quite confused by how they could be devaluated like that.
The terms for the options that most rank-and-file employees get are rarely great. After the interest (which can be high), preference (sometimes double preference) and other terms it is often likely that your 0.2% of the company really isn't worth anything much. There's also the chance that you didn't have acceleration in there, and you weren't fully vested by the time the sale was made.
Re: Let’s Admit Why There Are So Many “Job Hoppers” In Startupland
#50Genius = "TheFunded.com for employees to privately rate their employers"
http://glassdoor.com
Here's the thing- at some small companies that still doesn't really work. I can't put anything out there about my current company like that because it would be painfully obvious (even if anonymous) that it was me.