Do not waste your time on a shitty job in a startup
Under the cut translation of a huge article written by Michael Church and dedicated to startups. The article caused an extraordinary turbulence ... of opinions, let's say, on different sites and aggregators, so I decided to translate it into Russian and see the reaction. The text is VERY long, but also very interesting. And a few explanations before reading: in the article we are talking about an engineer in a startup, it is from this position to consider everything; Some financial and economic terms may not have worked out very adequately and I will be happy with any constructive amendments.
What I want to talk about is true for July 2012 15 years ago it wasn’t necessarily the same, and it’s not a fact that it will be true in a year. But at the moment this is absolutely true for most people to a sufficient degree, so I feel obliged to speak out. The current world of IR startups (IR = investment capital / venture capital) - I gently call it IR - is, to put it mildly, a total waste of time for most of the people involved.
Startups If we drop all the charm and appeal of this concept, then the bare essence remains: a young growing business. There are good or bad motives to start a business or to join it, but in most of human history they were not considered as “exciting” or “attractive”. Registration of legal entities, staffing, hiring accountants - these are not very attractive functions for most people. These are “mundane” tasks that people have to solve in pursuit of an important goal, and starting a business is usually not considered to be particularly exciting, interesting. However, in the area of ​​1996, something has changed: people began to consider “start-ups” as the final, rather than intermediate stage. From business in the phase of clumsy growth and risk business, start-ups have become a lifestyle. All this was wonderful, because for decades the position in sustainable business for young talents was systematically overestimated, and in growing companies, on the contrary, it was underestimated . For ambitious young people, it made sense - purely economically - to defy risk in a growing company. Thus, the most ingenious rushed in the direction of startups, where they could take a responsible position and take advantage of career opportunities, access to which in a stable business would require many years of waiting.
')
And now everything turned upside down. In 1995, many talented young people went into large corporations because they did not see alternatives in the small private sector, while in reality there were worthy alternatives in the form of start-ups. In 2012, many young people go to startups with the same goal: being firmly convinced that there is no other way to realize themselves, and in a sustainable big business their career will be bent in stagnation. I think they are wrong, and this delusion allows start-ups to use them for their own purposes. A typical average job offer for a software engineer, to which he agrees, is sadly insignificant in terms of salary, and the career path offered by start-ups could be much steeper.
Despite all this, I am not saying that people should not join start-ups. If the offer is worthy, and the work seems interesting, then you can try. I just do not think that the current peremptory mentality of “startups is awesome!” Will serve us well. This is bad for all of us, because there is no tyrant worse than someone who sells himself cheap, and right now a lot of decent people sell themselves for a penny in favor of some kind of “startup experience”.
There are 7 misconceptions about startups that I would like to dispel.
1. A startup will make you rich. This is true, but for founders whose shares are measured in stock exchange points (point is a unit of measure for the rate of securities, translator’s note ). It is not true for most employees who have to be content with cents and other trifles.
The usual share (in stocks - the note of a translator ) for an engineer, frankly, is small. Nickel (0.05 percent) of the business of 80 people is not a reason for pride. This is not a partnership or ownership. Many engineers are mistaken when they believe that the very first sentence of a share is only the beginning, and that the share will grow when they “manifest”; in reality, this happens quite rarely.
Moreover, gains and bonuses for startups are very uncharacteristic. To receive the same salary within three years from the moment of hiring is very typical for a strong specialist. (And what happens to specialists, not necessarily strong, when they do not meet expectations? They are fired, often without warning and compensation.) Significant increases in the proportion are even rarer. When a startup is doing well, the cost of a share increases, and that’s what the increase in share is. And when things aren't very ... well, this is not the time for requests.
There are exceptions. One of them, when a company finds itself in very constrained circumstances and cannot afford to pay salaries at all , in this case the company usually increases the shares to employees in order to compensate for non-payment of salaries. This situation is not particularly good, because the shares are usually offered based on the current value (more precisely, the estimated value in the last round of financing, in which the company was probably in better shape), and an ordinary employee would be better off to get her money. Another example is not so rare - when a company “renews” or extends the investment period with a proportional increase. The right to 0.1%, stretched over four years, will result in 0.025% per year. It is quite typical for a company to adhere to the same course in the following years. That is, in six years an employee can grow up to 0.15%. But what is atypical is the growth from 0.1% to 1% for good productivity. The only situation where this can happen is when a promotion takes place at the same time, and internal promotions (a little later about this) in startups are surprisingly rare.
2. The “real” cost is several times the official one. This is the usual line, which adheres to both the company when hiring, and engineers who justify their decision to work on a startup. (“My real share is about $ 250,000, because a startup should cost $ 5 billion.”) People like to think that they are smarter than the market. This is usually not the case. Moreover, those few people who are really smarter than the market, do not occupy (or convince others to occupy) the lowest positions, in which the share is about 0.05% of dubious business. People who have earned such experience deservedly (or reliably fooling the market) are in a significantly higher position.
So if someone says: “the real value of the share should be ...”, we can confidently assert that this someone does not understand fucking what he is talking about.
In reality, the individual assessment by an engineer of the value of a share should be significantly lower than the cost calculated on the basis of a round of financing. When an investor offers $ 10 million for 20% of the business, the firm says that in its opinion the value of the company is $ 40 million for them . And now for the investor the share is always worth more than for the engineer (and much more). So for an engineer, the fair value of a share of 0.1% of the cake is most likely not $ 40,000. Perhaps $ 10-20,000.
There are several reasons for this discrepancy. First, the share of the investor gives power. It gives board seats, influence on top managers, and the ability to transfer several management positions to children or people to whom they owe something. A 0.1% piece of an engineer stretched for years gives him no control, respect or prestige. This is a lottery ticket, not a voice. Secondly, the share in a startup is a high-risk resource, and among investors, the risk profile is different from ordinary people. An ordinary person will prefer $ 2 million at once than the 50% risk of getting $ 5 million, despite the fact that the expected profit from the last offer is higher. Investors think differently, because their resources are well enough distributed to make risky (and more profitable) decisions. Thirdly, the engineer does not have protection against “diluting” a share and will be on the losing side in any business restructuring by the investor (startups rarely share such information with holders of simple shares, for example, with engineers). Fourthly, investment capitalists who invest in a very successful business raise their authority and receive a decent return on investment, while ordinary workers may receive a small income, but very little prestige, unless they receive a senior position. Otherwise, there is only the fact of work on a startup.
In truth, employees of a startup should evaluate their share and options approximately in the ÂĽ value that investors give them. If they are offered $ 25,000 salary per year, they should agree only for a share of $ 100,000 (in the current estimate). If we take as a basis the $ 40 million company with a four-year investment cycle, then you need to ask for 1%.
3. If you join a startup earlier, you can take the position of leader. Fuck you.
Points 1 and 2 hardly surprised many. Most software engineers know math enough to understand that they don’t get rich monstrously in their shares, but there is a strong belief that joining a company early guarantees them a management position (with more money). Do not expect. In fact, one of the best ways to not get into the leaders is to join a startup in the early stages.
For engineers, a startup is: many hours of work, ever-changing requirements and strict deadlines; and this all leads to the fact that the quality of the produced code is significantly lower than if this code were written in more relaxed conditions. This does not mean that they do a poor job, just under such pressure of deadlines, to do it qualitatively is almost impossible. So in the atmosphere of a typical startup, the code quickly deteriorates, especially if the requirements and deadlines are put by the head of a non-techie. Three years and 50 employees after what they built is terrifying, like a legacy system assembled by a legacy system, “filed” by at least ten people and built under pressure from deadlines; and even the chief architect is unable to understand it. Yes, to raise such a huge system for such a period was heroic, but for an outside observer the system seems disgusting. She definitely does not give reasons for improvement.
These engineers deserve , to be honest, honor and respect for building a system from scratch. Even despite the shortcomings, if the system works, the company owes it not the least success. Unfortunately, the impulse “that you have recently done for me” is very strong, and engineers are judged by the outcome of their projects (the ugly delayed-legacy monster), and not by the effort that their completion cost.
Moreover, many start-ups sponsored by investors are not very deep from a technical point of view, so for most people a startup’s success is determined by the level of marketing, and not the technical side of the project. As a result, the engineer’s task is not to build a system that “will live for 10 years,” since if a company loses on the marketing front, there will be no “10 years”. The task of the engineer is to rivet the features quickly and keep the house of cards from falling long enough to reach the next stage. If this entails “technical debt,” then so be it.
If the company succeeds, then most of the fame will go to the sellers, managers and managers. And the engineers? Well, they did their work, of course, but they built in the end some kind of “barely working” curve system, which also “does not scale”. As soon as the company gets rich and installs a hipster-career environment (i.e., when people are “better” constantly), programmers will be replaced by more experienced engineers to “scale up the infrastructure”. These newcomers will work better not because they are cooler, but because the requirements are already much more developed, and the deadline load is no longer. When they take over what has been done by the past generation, improve it in view of the past, it may seem that they are really cooler, and the benevolence of the leadership will switch to "fresh blood." The old engineers will probably not be fired, but they will still be pushed aside and will hire new people over them.
In addition, startups always have a lack of money, and they rarely have money to pay the really necessary people, so they negotiate with them, offering management positions instead of money. When they enter the expansion stage, they usually offer $ 100,000– $ 150,000 a year for an engineer, while trying to hire engineers who can get $ 150,000– $ 200,000 on Google or on Wall Street. In order to sweeten the offer, they offer in return executive positions, resounding titles and “freedom from heritage” (which means a subtle hint to burning out the existing infrastructure if she suddenly does not like it). Since novices are offered leadership positions, for the "oldies" they practically do not remain. As a result, it turns out that the leadership positions that the first engineers are counting on will end up in the future freshly hired employees.
Frankly, being a “regular programmer” in a startup is a crappy choice. If a company does not show obvious respect for engineering talent (as Google or Facebook does), then it rolls into a place where people who do serious things (ie, engineers) get humiliated, and marketing people rise to the contrary.
4. There is no boss in startups. Clearly absurd statement, but it is constantly encountered. Start-up fans often claim that someone who “works for the company” will end up in “slavery by the Boss” or will “work for the owner”, while a startup is the path to independence and financial freedom.
The truth is this: almost everyone has a boss, even inside a startup. The CEO has a board of directors, the vice presidents and C O (for example, CIO, CTO - translator's note *) have the CEO, the rest also have a manager. This is not always bad. A competent manager will help to achieve a lot of things that could hardly have happened without him. In the end, the idea of ​​joining a startup and not having a boss is generally absurd.
In fact, I think that the founders of startups have the worst kind of “bosses” - venture investors. It is important to note here that in the United States a rather small “defeat radius” of the boss in the workplace is not true for all cultures, however, I mean by this that bosses usually do not have real power over subordinates. Yes, they have more influence and higher wages, but they are also older and usually longer in their place. An openly despising subordinate boss (as if he were naturally superior to everyone) would not last long. And from the difficult boss you can escape - just change jobs. And the most hostile thing that they can legally do is to dismiss, with the same effect. More bosses have no (legal) ways to have a long-lasting negative effect on someone's career.
But for venture investors, the “radius of defeat” is much larger, and the spirit of social superiority is much stronger. For example, when a company receives financing, it is assumed that it will pay the legal costs of both parties . This is not a particularly big expense item, but this action itself sends a powerful social signal: you are no match for us, buddy, and you will have to put up with it in order to enjoy the privilege of communicating with us in general.
But still worse because of the incestuous nature of venture capitalists, for it leads to the worst case of patterned action ever observed in a supposedly progressive and intelligent community. Investors love a startup only if other investors love it. The most famous venture capitalists are all familiar with each other, communicate, and instead of competition act in collusion. They have all the cards in their hands. A person who rejects the proposed conditions with multiple liquidation value and preferred shares (here I will not give these disgusting terms, since they are on the verge of violence, and I want to write a text safe for work) is unlikely to receive another sentence.
A manager who meets a candidate with a clearly unfavorable deal and says: “If you do not sign up, I will make several calls and no one will hire you anymore,” clearly violates the law. This is extortion. And in venture investment? And they do not even need to say this. Everyone understands that if you refuse to sign an agreement with a fivefold liquidation value, then there is a serious risk of a telephone call, after which the interest of other investors will run out. That is why venture investors leave with multiple liquidation value and preferred shares.
People who do not really want to “work for their uncle” should not look in the direction of invested start-ups. There are honest and ethical venture capitalists in nature who, even for a million miles, will not fit the fraud with the extortion that I just described. Perhaps even most of them.But in any case, the relationship between the investor and the founder is much more skewed than in the case of an ordinary employee and manager. No manager can legally damage an employee’s career, but a venture capitalist can block (and sometimes does so) the opportunity to receive venture capital in the future.
Instead, those who really do not want to work under the "boss" should think about smaller companies that work "for pleasure", you can keep control of them. Venture investors are absolutely not interested in such firms, so you need either an investment of business angels or your own savings. In any case, for lovers of independence, such a company is the best choice.
Everything that I have previously said about the relationship between investors and founders does not apply to ordinary engineers. An engineer joining a company of more than 20 employees will most likely have a boss over them. And this is not at all bad. No worse and no better than any other company. All this makes start-ups advertising slogans “without a boss” vs. "Work on uncle" "slightly absurd.
5. Engineers in startups "change the world." Startups do not move the world (with some exceptions). Startups need to think about monetization in the current world, and not “change humanity”.
This is the "bait" that companies are trying to catch a 22-year-old engineer to work for 65% of what he would have earned in a normal company, plus a slightly ridiculous share in promotions. This does not happen.
The problem with changing the world is that he really does not want to change, and to such an extent does not want that only a few people who have the necessary resources, it turns out to "push through" the improvements. Fundamental improvements happen smoothly — not revolutionary — and require focusing efforts on a general small front.
Scientific research is changing the world. Huge infrastructure projects are changing the world. And most of the firms operate incrementally, and there is nothing wrong with that. Startups are not the best engine to "change the world." They are exceptionally good in another: in finding ways to profit from non-flexible, already existing trends that (a) have recently appeared, (b) no one has yet thought (or could not) realize. Thus, startups are changing the world gradually: they simply did not survive if they did not bring profit. In other words, most of them are application-level concepts that fill the “world-changing” trend (for example, the Internet), but not the main drivers of change. This is quite good, but people should understand that their chances of personally causing global changes, even in a startup, are very small.
6. If you work for a startup, you can then become the founder yourself. I have already said that working at a startup is shitty: you are at great risk, plus a low salary for work that (probably) will not make you rich, will not take you to managers, will not bring independence, and will not allow you to change the world. So what does it mean to be the founder. This is a much cooler thing. Founders can get rich, they can make connections useful for a career. So why aren't so many people becoming the founders of venture startups? Well, they just can't. Less than one percent goes to investment. A delayed dream is probably the most ancient book story, let's talk about it especially. The usual laudable prospect of a startup in front of a potential employee in the venture capital camp is: "This position will help you become the very founder of a startup." Frankly, this is not true. The only thing that such work can offer is to establish contacts with an investor who will be useful in the future when organizing a startup, but an engineer who, after having set up a device in an already financed startup, will contact the investor,will be put out the door as an "arrogant prima donna."
A non-managerial position in a startup without contacting an investor provides for the future founder no more opportunities than any other office work. People who really want to become founders of startups prefer to work with finances (with a mixture of venture capital) or get an MBA education instead of their usual start-up work.
7. In a startup, you can learn a lot. This last point may be true, but I strongly disagree that this is always true. Companies tend to average with growth, so balances on both sides are startups. And there are things that can teach something in small companies, as long as they remain small, and nowhere else. In other words, in a startup you can learn what it is very difficult to learn outside of it.
Here, however, lies the misconception that a startup is much more useful in terms of learning new things just for the reason that it is a startup. Yes, there is a lot of unique and interesting work in it, but also a hellish amount of dirty, more than anywhere else. In general, a startup provides less career development opportunities than an established stable company. In a stable company, great people remain even after five years of work, so they have more than enough time to realize their potential. Startups are more busy with staffing squabbling, marketing, and expansion than with opportunities for the development of their employees.
So where to go?
I'm not trying to preach the idea that you cannot work in a startup. Some startups are great companies. Some people pay well and offer career options, and not at the same time. Some have great ideas that can “shoot” and actually make the first employees rich or change the world. People have to go to startups if it's worth it.
My experience tells me that, on average, there is not much difference between large and small companies, but there are many more variations among small ones for obvious reasons. The best and worst companies are most likely startups. The worst usually do not live to a large size, from this it may seem that start-ups are by nature excellent. As if not so.
As I said, there is no worse tyrant than selling yourself for a penny. People who agree to such monstrous deals put a pig not only for themselves, but for all of us. The reason why young engineers are lured to the position of Total Only Programmers for a measly 0.03% share and dubious career prospects, is that a bunch of fool companies do not hire them.
Are we seeing now, in 2012, the inflation of a start-up bubble? Yes and no. In terms of valuation - I do not think so. Well, at least to me, this is not obvious. I think few people are relatively ignorant (as I, for example, when it comes to evaluating technology companies) can deceive the market, I do not see evidence of the unreasonableness of the valuation of these companies. And indisputableThe bubble is inflated in the field of extremely high importance of work in a normal position in a mediocre startup.
How to distinguish a worthy case, how to choose? Here are some basic rules.
1. If working for a company is a serious financial risk for you, you are the Founder. Count on this attitude to yourself. By "serious financial risk" I mean getting money less than (a) on average it is worth living in your area or (b) 75% of the average market salary.
If you agree to this, then you are an investor.and should be treated as a partner. That is, demand the same respect and independence as to the founder. This does not mean not to get to work, if there is no connection with the investor. This means that it is necessary to know the full capitalization structure (an irrelevant question for an employee , but relevant to the founder ), and also to understand how fair it is in the context of the four-year funding cycle. (If the first hired engineer gets 1% for all the work done, and the CEO - 90% only for connections, this is not fair. If the first engineer receives 1%, the CEO - 5%, and the remaining 94% are distributed between employees and investors, while the CEO has been working without a salary for a year, this is much more honest) You should have the right to present yourself to the public as the Founder.
2. If you have at least five years of experience in programming, and the risks of the company are not minimized, then demand a position at the level of vice president. The first hired engineer will be engaged exclusively in programming - not managing or sitting at rallies, or talking to the press in the role of a “manager”. Many of us (including me) will prefer just such a mode of operation - full-time programming with high productivity. It may seem that the “official” job titles do not mean anything (except for the CEO), and that it is not worth making an effort in this direction. Wrong.
Positions mean nothing if there are four people in a company. Nothing at all.So hold the position of vice president at this moment, before it became too important and difficult to achieve. As soon as you become more than 25, formal positions will begin to grow in importance, and the requirement of a programmer to get the position of vice president may seem unreasonable.
You may be told that posts are outdated, useless, arrogant, and often they have strong arguments in favor of such statements. However, people in companies attach high importance to institutional coherence.(this means that there is an additional mental load that contradicts the company's “official” declarations — through job titles — on the status of employees) and high status; however, a shallow and insignificant person who has been granted an expressive post can easily become almost untouchable. . With the growth and "clouding" of the company, the privileges granted by the name of the position only increase.
Another advantage of having a position at the level of vice president is that it implies a vice-president in something. That is, such a person will be considered as representing a certain critical component of the company. In addition, top management may feel uncomfortable if the owner of such a position is not treated as expected. For example, "Vice-President for Culture". Doesn't it sound very shitty? In a small company, probably, yes. It is so useless that many CEOs would be happy to get rid of such a position. “Do you want to become a vice-president of culture and do the same for the same salary? Yes, it is easy! ”What else can mean the situation when the CEO arranges a showdown with the vice president of culture? What culturenot very important to the company. And what if such a vice president is under pressure and forced to resign? To the public, this means that the company “lost” the Vice President for Culture. This is much more significant than the care of the All Only Programmer.
More importantly, the post of vice president sets an implicit limit on the number of people who can be hired from above, because companies do not want to have 50 vice presidents from 70 employees. This eliminates the position and creates the impression of a bloated state about the company (with the exception of finance, where the position of vice president means a middle manager and usually without special authority). If you are just a programmer, the company can easily hire a lot of people and put them above you. And if you are a vice president, then everyone put above you should also be a vice president, if not even a first vice president, and companies become very conservative in this regard when the title of the position becomes significant.
A summary of all this: the job title is very important and you have to get the important sounding position before the company grows and settles. You will be told that the name does not mean anything, that “leadership in action, and not in the name,” and in all this there is some truth, but still demand a position. Take while it costs nothing, because one day it will change. So if you are a skilled developer in the middle of a career ladder (5 or more years of experience), and the company is still in the formative stage, then having some kind of vice presidential position is a very reasonable step.
3. Evaluate your stake in stocks or options in the fourth part of the current valuation.This has already been discussed above. This is because such a risky asset for a rich, diversified investor costs much more than for an employee, about 3-4 times the difference. This means that it is possible to agree to work for the difference with the average market salary of $ 25,000 only for an annual share of $ 100,000 (stocks or options, according to current estimates).
It is also worth bearing in mind that in startups, increases and bonuses are rare, and that working in a startup can significantly affect the trajectory of salary changes. A person should realistically evaluate a startup proposal in the light of what he expects to earn over the next 3-5 years, and not in the light of what he currently has.
4. If you suspect a delay in the payment of wages, reflect this in the contract.This item does not apply to all startups, as it is strange to delay payments after a round of funding. Startups usually pay immediately in cash and in shares.
If cash is preferred, it is important to explicitly reflect this in the payment agreement. The delay in cash payments, in truth, is the company's debt to employees at zero percent. Being left to its own devices, a rationally working company is unlikely to want to repay a loan with zero interest. It is very important to be aware. How long can delays last? (Start-ups never have “enough money,” so the “When there is enough money” argument doesn’t roll.) What percentage of a funding round is considered for payroll debt payments? How to deal with client profit? It is very important to put all these things in the contract, otherwise ... deferred payments are just a promise, and unfortunately, not very much worth it.
The most important aspect that arises in case of delays in payments is dismissal, because it is a mess when the company you left owes you money. Nobody expects to be fired, but good people are fired all the time. In a small company, the risk is even greater, because remittances are almost impossible due to their size, and internal policies and personal traditions may be wilder than in established firms.
And even in startups, weekend benefits are very rare. Startups are not afraid of lawsuits, because they last for years, and during this time the company will either (a) die or (b) grow to a state in which this lawsuit will not be of particular importance. The process of dismissal in a large company usually includes a period of notice (“working out”) (during which a smart person will find a job) or severance pay, or both; because durable companies don't want to mess with lawsuits. In startups, there is usually neither one nor the other.
People tend to think that the risk in a startup comes down to a threat to fly out of business, but they also have to lay off a bunch of employees, and often it is not always legitimate. This is not always bad (the dismissal of too few people can be as disastrous as the dismissal of too much), but this is a risk that needs to be borne in mind.
I would not advise trying to negotiate severance payments in a contract when hiring a startup, such a requirement will almost certainly be rejected (and may also lead to the withdrawal of the offer). However, regarding the delay in payments, I would advise in the contract to clearly define: if such a delay arises, it is immediately paid in case of dismissal on the initiative of the employer. On the same day, the full amount, along with the latest salary.
5. While the company has not strengthened (for example, it has entered an IPO), do not settle for a “steep cliff” without a condition on a delayed salary in the contract in case of dismissal on the initiative of the employer. A steep cliff is a standard venture start-up agreement where an employee does not receive a share or an option if he quits during the first year (either on his own or on the initiative of the company). The problem with the “cliff” is that it creates a perverse incentive for the company to fire employees before they get at least some share.
A “cliff” should be processed like this: if an employee is dismissed when a “cliff” is imposed, then his share is converted into real money (at the most recent cost estimate) and paid when he is fired.
This term is informal and many startups will desperately resist when it is mentioned. Fine. Do not work with them.It is very important; The last thing you want to do is to let the company be tempted to fire you because of a poorly formed compensation package.
6. Develop your career. Just “being in a startup” is not enough. The most attractive thing about working at a startup is the opportunity to learn a lot, it is possible, but not at all guaranteed. Startups tend to allow career development only for themselves. People making efforts for development will learn and learn a lot. And those who are stuck in a pile of junior work will not go far.
I think it is useful to discuss in advance my perspectives after the end of the “cut-off” period. Salary increases are rare in startups, and the gap between the average market salary and the “start-up” will only increase with time. When a request for a promotion is rejected, it's time to remember that you would prefer to work in that machine learning project or try to implement new approaches to solving problems the company faces.
7. If it is stuck on something from the above, leave.All of the above requirements are quite reasonable, but they may face opposition, because there is no end to the young talents in the market who are now ready to accept unreasonable working conditions “in a startup”. So get ready, that a certain percentage of your demands will be rejected, up to rejection of the job offer itself. For example, the CEO of some startups will resist the fact that some kind of programmer, even if he is the very first hired technician, will begin to demand investor contacts. Well, this is a sign that he perceives you as the Only Programmer, run away from them.
People often find negotiations unpleasant or even unworthy, but the entire business is built on negotiations. It is very important.Negotiations bring clarity, because courtesy does not mean much in a business environment and only during negotiations you can form the right opinion about your impression. The CEO can give you a million compliments and give a thousand promises of a bright future in the company, but if he does not want to discuss a decent deal, then he does not see in you any special value. So leave, do not waste a year or two in start-up work-to-anywhere.
In the light of a suspiciously large number of words in this article, I’ll just leave it here. If the number of exceptions and special cases leaves the impression of the blurriness of the entire message, then this is for the reason that there is somethe number of decent startups, and the last thing I would like to convey to you that all startups are a waste of time. Do not misunderstand me, although I consider most venture startups (especially in the “social media” environment) to be a completely wasteful resource and talent, among them are waiting for the discovery of pearls. Probably. If no one worked in startups, looked for startups, then there would be no new companies in the world, and this is bad for everyone. In my opinion, the true message is this: take good sentences and work on good jobs (your KO), and the complexity (which is noticeable from an indecently large article) is how to determine what “good” is. And it is precisely this that I, from the height of my experience and observations, tried to convey to you.
What I want to talk about is true for July 2012 15 years ago it wasn’t necessarily the same, and it’s not a fact that it will be true in a year. But at the moment this is absolutely true for most people to a sufficient degree, so I feel obliged to speak out. The current world of IR startups (IR = investment capital / venture capital) - I gently call it IR - is, to put it mildly, a total waste of time for most of the people involved.
Startups If we drop all the charm and appeal of this concept, then the bare essence remains: a young growing business. There are good or bad motives to start a business or to join it, but in most of human history they were not considered as “exciting” or “attractive”. Registration of legal entities, staffing, hiring accountants - these are not very attractive functions for most people. These are “mundane” tasks that people have to solve in pursuit of an important goal, and starting a business is usually not considered to be particularly exciting, interesting. However, in the area of ​​1996, something has changed: people began to consider “start-ups” as the final, rather than intermediate stage. From business in the phase of clumsy growth and risk business, start-ups have become a lifestyle. All this was wonderful, because for decades the position in sustainable business for young talents was systematically overestimated, and in growing companies, on the contrary, it was underestimated . For ambitious young people, it made sense - purely economically - to defy risk in a growing company. Thus, the most ingenious rushed in the direction of startups, where they could take a responsible position and take advantage of career opportunities, access to which in a stable business would require many years of waiting.
')
And now everything turned upside down. In 1995, many talented young people went into large corporations because they did not see alternatives in the small private sector, while in reality there were worthy alternatives in the form of start-ups. In 2012, many young people go to startups with the same goal: being firmly convinced that there is no other way to realize themselves, and in a sustainable big business their career will be bent in stagnation. I think they are wrong, and this delusion allows start-ups to use them for their own purposes. A typical average job offer for a software engineer, to which he agrees, is sadly insignificant in terms of salary, and the career path offered by start-ups could be much steeper.
Despite all this, I am not saying that people should not join start-ups. If the offer is worthy, and the work seems interesting, then you can try. I just do not think that the current peremptory mentality of “startups is awesome!” Will serve us well. This is bad for all of us, because there is no tyrant worse than someone who sells himself cheap, and right now a lot of decent people sell themselves for a penny in favor of some kind of “startup experience”.
There are 7 misconceptions about startups that I would like to dispel.
1. A startup will make you rich. This is true, but for founders whose shares are measured in stock exchange points (point is a unit of measure for the rate of securities, translator’s note ). It is not true for most employees who have to be content with cents and other trifles.
The usual share (in stocks - the note of a translator ) for an engineer, frankly, is small. Nickel (0.05 percent) of the business of 80 people is not a reason for pride. This is not a partnership or ownership. Many engineers are mistaken when they believe that the very first sentence of a share is only the beginning, and that the share will grow when they “manifest”; in reality, this happens quite rarely.
Moreover, gains and bonuses for startups are very uncharacteristic. To receive the same salary within three years from the moment of hiring is very typical for a strong specialist. (And what happens to specialists, not necessarily strong, when they do not meet expectations? They are fired, often without warning and compensation.) Significant increases in the proportion are even rarer. When a startup is doing well, the cost of a share increases, and that’s what the increase in share is. And when things aren't very ... well, this is not the time for requests.
There are exceptions. One of them, when a company finds itself in very constrained circumstances and cannot afford to pay salaries at all , in this case the company usually increases the shares to employees in order to compensate for non-payment of salaries. This situation is not particularly good, because the shares are usually offered based on the current value (more precisely, the estimated value in the last round of financing, in which the company was probably in better shape), and an ordinary employee would be better off to get her money. Another example is not so rare - when a company “renews” or extends the investment period with a proportional increase. The right to 0.1%, stretched over four years, will result in 0.025% per year. It is quite typical for a company to adhere to the same course in the following years. That is, in six years an employee can grow up to 0.15%. But what is atypical is the growth from 0.1% to 1% for good productivity. The only situation where this can happen is when a promotion takes place at the same time, and internal promotions (a little later about this) in startups are surprisingly rare.
2. The “real” cost is several times the official one. This is the usual line, which adheres to both the company when hiring, and engineers who justify their decision to work on a startup. (“My real share is about $ 250,000, because a startup should cost $ 5 billion.”) People like to think that they are smarter than the market. This is usually not the case. Moreover, those few people who are really smarter than the market, do not occupy (or convince others to occupy) the lowest positions, in which the share is about 0.05% of dubious business. People who have earned such experience deservedly (or reliably fooling the market) are in a significantly higher position.
So if someone says: “the real value of the share should be ...”, we can confidently assert that this someone does not understand fucking what he is talking about.
In reality, the individual assessment by an engineer of the value of a share should be significantly lower than the cost calculated on the basis of a round of financing. When an investor offers $ 10 million for 20% of the business, the firm says that in its opinion the value of the company is $ 40 million for them . And now for the investor the share is always worth more than for the engineer (and much more). So for an engineer, the fair value of a share of 0.1% of the cake is most likely not $ 40,000. Perhaps $ 10-20,000.
There are several reasons for this discrepancy. First, the share of the investor gives power. It gives board seats, influence on top managers, and the ability to transfer several management positions to children or people to whom they owe something. A 0.1% piece of an engineer stretched for years gives him no control, respect or prestige. This is a lottery ticket, not a voice. Secondly, the share in a startup is a high-risk resource, and among investors, the risk profile is different from ordinary people. An ordinary person will prefer $ 2 million at once than the 50% risk of getting $ 5 million, despite the fact that the expected profit from the last offer is higher. Investors think differently, because their resources are well enough distributed to make risky (and more profitable) decisions. Thirdly, the engineer does not have protection against “diluting” a share and will be on the losing side in any business restructuring by the investor (startups rarely share such information with holders of simple shares, for example, with engineers). Fourthly, investment capitalists who invest in a very successful business raise their authority and receive a decent return on investment, while ordinary workers may receive a small income, but very little prestige, unless they receive a senior position. Otherwise, there is only the fact of work on a startup.
In truth, employees of a startup should evaluate their share and options approximately in the ÂĽ value that investors give them. If they are offered $ 25,000 salary per year, they should agree only for a share of $ 100,000 (in the current estimate). If we take as a basis the $ 40 million company with a four-year investment cycle, then you need to ask for 1%.
3. If you join a startup earlier, you can take the position of leader. Fuck you.
Points 1 and 2 hardly surprised many. Most software engineers know math enough to understand that they don’t get rich monstrously in their shares, but there is a strong belief that joining a company early guarantees them a management position (with more money). Do not expect. In fact, one of the best ways to not get into the leaders is to join a startup in the early stages.
For engineers, a startup is: many hours of work, ever-changing requirements and strict deadlines; and this all leads to the fact that the quality of the produced code is significantly lower than if this code were written in more relaxed conditions. This does not mean that they do a poor job, just under such pressure of deadlines, to do it qualitatively is almost impossible. So in the atmosphere of a typical startup, the code quickly deteriorates, especially if the requirements and deadlines are put by the head of a non-techie. Three years and 50 employees after what they built is terrifying, like a legacy system assembled by a legacy system, “filed” by at least ten people and built under pressure from deadlines; and even the chief architect is unable to understand it. Yes, to raise such a huge system for such a period was heroic, but for an outside observer the system seems disgusting. She definitely does not give reasons for improvement.
These engineers deserve , to be honest, honor and respect for building a system from scratch. Even despite the shortcomings, if the system works, the company owes it not the least success. Unfortunately, the impulse “that you have recently done for me” is very strong, and engineers are judged by the outcome of their projects (the ugly delayed-legacy monster), and not by the effort that their completion cost.
Moreover, many start-ups sponsored by investors are not very deep from a technical point of view, so for most people a startup’s success is determined by the level of marketing, and not the technical side of the project. As a result, the engineer’s task is not to build a system that “will live for 10 years,” since if a company loses on the marketing front, there will be no “10 years”. The task of the engineer is to rivet the features quickly and keep the house of cards from falling long enough to reach the next stage. If this entails “technical debt,” then so be it.
If the company succeeds, then most of the fame will go to the sellers, managers and managers. And the engineers? Well, they did their work, of course, but they built in the end some kind of “barely working” curve system, which also “does not scale”. As soon as the company gets rich and installs a hipster-career environment (i.e., when people are “better” constantly), programmers will be replaced by more experienced engineers to “scale up the infrastructure”. These newcomers will work better not because they are cooler, but because the requirements are already much more developed, and the deadline load is no longer. When they take over what has been done by the past generation, improve it in view of the past, it may seem that they are really cooler, and the benevolence of the leadership will switch to "fresh blood." The old engineers will probably not be fired, but they will still be pushed aside and will hire new people over them.
In addition, startups always have a lack of money, and they rarely have money to pay the really necessary people, so they negotiate with them, offering management positions instead of money. When they enter the expansion stage, they usually offer $ 100,000– $ 150,000 a year for an engineer, while trying to hire engineers who can get $ 150,000– $ 200,000 on Google or on Wall Street. In order to sweeten the offer, they offer in return executive positions, resounding titles and “freedom from heritage” (which means a subtle hint to burning out the existing infrastructure if she suddenly does not like it). Since novices are offered leadership positions, for the "oldies" they practically do not remain. As a result, it turns out that the leadership positions that the first engineers are counting on will end up in the future freshly hired employees.
Frankly, being a “regular programmer” in a startup is a crappy choice. If a company does not show obvious respect for engineering talent (as Google or Facebook does), then it rolls into a place where people who do serious things (ie, engineers) get humiliated, and marketing people rise to the contrary.
4. There is no boss in startups. Clearly absurd statement, but it is constantly encountered. Start-up fans often claim that someone who “works for the company” will end up in “slavery by the Boss” or will “work for the owner”, while a startup is the path to independence and financial freedom.
The truth is this: almost everyone has a boss, even inside a startup. The CEO has a board of directors, the vice presidents and C O (for example, CIO, CTO - translator's note *) have the CEO, the rest also have a manager. This is not always bad. A competent manager will help to achieve a lot of things that could hardly have happened without him. In the end, the idea of ​​joining a startup and not having a boss is generally absurd.
In fact, I think that the founders of startups have the worst kind of “bosses” - venture investors. It is important to note here that in the United States a rather small “defeat radius” of the boss in the workplace is not true for all cultures, however, I mean by this that bosses usually do not have real power over subordinates. Yes, they have more influence and higher wages, but they are also older and usually longer in their place. An openly despising subordinate boss (as if he were naturally superior to everyone) would not last long. And from the difficult boss you can escape - just change jobs. And the most hostile thing that they can legally do is to dismiss, with the same effect. More bosses have no (legal) ways to have a long-lasting negative effect on someone's career.
But for venture investors, the “radius of defeat” is much larger, and the spirit of social superiority is much stronger. For example, when a company receives financing, it is assumed that it will pay the legal costs of both parties . This is not a particularly big expense item, but this action itself sends a powerful social signal: you are no match for us, buddy, and you will have to put up with it in order to enjoy the privilege of communicating with us in general.
But still worse because of the incestuous nature of venture capitalists, for it leads to the worst case of patterned action ever observed in a supposedly progressive and intelligent community. Investors love a startup only if other investors love it. The most famous venture capitalists are all familiar with each other, communicate, and instead of competition act in collusion. They have all the cards in their hands. A person who rejects the proposed conditions with multiple liquidation value and preferred shares (here I will not give these disgusting terms, since they are on the verge of violence, and I want to write a text safe for work) is unlikely to receive another sentence.
A manager who meets a candidate with a clearly unfavorable deal and says: “If you do not sign up, I will make several calls and no one will hire you anymore,” clearly violates the law. This is extortion. And in venture investment? And they do not even need to say this. Everyone understands that if you refuse to sign an agreement with a fivefold liquidation value, then there is a serious risk of a telephone call, after which the interest of other investors will run out. That is why venture investors leave with multiple liquidation value and preferred shares.
People who do not really want to “work for their uncle” should not look in the direction of invested start-ups. There are honest and ethical venture capitalists in nature who, even for a million miles, will not fit the fraud with the extortion that I just described. Perhaps even most of them.But in any case, the relationship between the investor and the founder is much more skewed than in the case of an ordinary employee and manager. No manager can legally damage an employee’s career, but a venture capitalist can block (and sometimes does so) the opportunity to receive venture capital in the future.
Instead, those who really do not want to work under the "boss" should think about smaller companies that work "for pleasure", you can keep control of them. Venture investors are absolutely not interested in such firms, so you need either an investment of business angels or your own savings. In any case, for lovers of independence, such a company is the best choice.
Everything that I have previously said about the relationship between investors and founders does not apply to ordinary engineers. An engineer joining a company of more than 20 employees will most likely have a boss over them. And this is not at all bad. No worse and no better than any other company. All this makes start-ups advertising slogans “without a boss” vs. "Work on uncle" "slightly absurd.
5. Engineers in startups "change the world." Startups do not move the world (with some exceptions). Startups need to think about monetization in the current world, and not “change humanity”.
This is the "bait" that companies are trying to catch a 22-year-old engineer to work for 65% of what he would have earned in a normal company, plus a slightly ridiculous share in promotions. This does not happen.
The problem with changing the world is that he really does not want to change, and to such an extent does not want that only a few people who have the necessary resources, it turns out to "push through" the improvements. Fundamental improvements happen smoothly — not revolutionary — and require focusing efforts on a general small front.
Scientific research is changing the world. Huge infrastructure projects are changing the world. And most of the firms operate incrementally, and there is nothing wrong with that. Startups are not the best engine to "change the world." They are exceptionally good in another: in finding ways to profit from non-flexible, already existing trends that (a) have recently appeared, (b) no one has yet thought (or could not) realize. Thus, startups are changing the world gradually: they simply did not survive if they did not bring profit. In other words, most of them are application-level concepts that fill the “world-changing” trend (for example, the Internet), but not the main drivers of change. This is quite good, but people should understand that their chances of personally causing global changes, even in a startup, are very small.
6. If you work for a startup, you can then become the founder yourself. I have already said that working at a startup is shitty: you are at great risk, plus a low salary for work that (probably) will not make you rich, will not take you to managers, will not bring independence, and will not allow you to change the world. So what does it mean to be the founder. This is a much cooler thing. Founders can get rich, they can make connections useful for a career. So why aren't so many people becoming the founders of venture startups? Well, they just can't. Less than one percent goes to investment. A delayed dream is probably the most ancient book story, let's talk about it especially. The usual laudable prospect of a startup in front of a potential employee in the venture capital camp is: "This position will help you become the very founder of a startup." Frankly, this is not true. The only thing that such work can offer is to establish contacts with an investor who will be useful in the future when organizing a startup, but an engineer who, after having set up a device in an already financed startup, will contact the investor,will be put out the door as an "arrogant prima donna."
A non-managerial position in a startup without contacting an investor provides for the future founder no more opportunities than any other office work. People who really want to become founders of startups prefer to work with finances (with a mixture of venture capital) or get an MBA education instead of their usual start-up work.
7. In a startup, you can learn a lot. This last point may be true, but I strongly disagree that this is always true. Companies tend to average with growth, so balances on both sides are startups. And there are things that can teach something in small companies, as long as they remain small, and nowhere else. In other words, in a startup you can learn what it is very difficult to learn outside of it.
Here, however, lies the misconception that a startup is much more useful in terms of learning new things just for the reason that it is a startup. Yes, there is a lot of unique and interesting work in it, but also a hellish amount of dirty, more than anywhere else. In general, a startup provides less career development opportunities than an established stable company. In a stable company, great people remain even after five years of work, so they have more than enough time to realize their potential. Startups are more busy with staffing squabbling, marketing, and expansion than with opportunities for the development of their employees.
So where to go?
I'm not trying to preach the idea that you cannot work in a startup. Some startups are great companies. Some people pay well and offer career options, and not at the same time. Some have great ideas that can “shoot” and actually make the first employees rich or change the world. People have to go to startups if it's worth it.
My experience tells me that, on average, there is not much difference between large and small companies, but there are many more variations among small ones for obvious reasons. The best and worst companies are most likely startups. The worst usually do not live to a large size, from this it may seem that start-ups are by nature excellent. As if not so.
As I said, there is no worse tyrant than selling yourself for a penny. People who agree to such monstrous deals put a pig not only for themselves, but for all of us. The reason why young engineers are lured to the position of Total Only Programmers for a measly 0.03% share and dubious career prospects, is that a bunch of fool companies do not hire them.
Are we seeing now, in 2012, the inflation of a start-up bubble? Yes and no. In terms of valuation - I do not think so. Well, at least to me, this is not obvious. I think few people are relatively ignorant (as I, for example, when it comes to evaluating technology companies) can deceive the market, I do not see evidence of the unreasonableness of the valuation of these companies. And indisputableThe bubble is inflated in the field of extremely high importance of work in a normal position in a mediocre startup.
How to distinguish a worthy case, how to choose? Here are some basic rules.
1. If working for a company is a serious financial risk for you, you are the Founder. Count on this attitude to yourself. By "serious financial risk" I mean getting money less than (a) on average it is worth living in your area or (b) 75% of the average market salary.
If you agree to this, then you are an investor.and should be treated as a partner. That is, demand the same respect and independence as to the founder. This does not mean not to get to work, if there is no connection with the investor. This means that it is necessary to know the full capitalization structure (an irrelevant question for an employee , but relevant to the founder ), and also to understand how fair it is in the context of the four-year funding cycle. (If the first hired engineer gets 1% for all the work done, and the CEO - 90% only for connections, this is not fair. If the first engineer receives 1%, the CEO - 5%, and the remaining 94% are distributed between employees and investors, while the CEO has been working without a salary for a year, this is much more honest) You should have the right to present yourself to the public as the Founder.
2. If you have at least five years of experience in programming, and the risks of the company are not minimized, then demand a position at the level of vice president. The first hired engineer will be engaged exclusively in programming - not managing or sitting at rallies, or talking to the press in the role of a “manager”. Many of us (including me) will prefer just such a mode of operation - full-time programming with high productivity. It may seem that the “official” job titles do not mean anything (except for the CEO), and that it is not worth making an effort in this direction. Wrong.
Positions mean nothing if there are four people in a company. Nothing at all.So hold the position of vice president at this moment, before it became too important and difficult to achieve. As soon as you become more than 25, formal positions will begin to grow in importance, and the requirement of a programmer to get the position of vice president may seem unreasonable.
You may be told that posts are outdated, useless, arrogant, and often they have strong arguments in favor of such statements. However, people in companies attach high importance to institutional coherence.(this means that there is an additional mental load that contradicts the company's “official” declarations — through job titles — on the status of employees) and high status; however, a shallow and insignificant person who has been granted an expressive post can easily become almost untouchable. . With the growth and "clouding" of the company, the privileges granted by the name of the position only increase.
Another advantage of having a position at the level of vice president is that it implies a vice-president in something. That is, such a person will be considered as representing a certain critical component of the company. In addition, top management may feel uncomfortable if the owner of such a position is not treated as expected. For example, "Vice-President for Culture". Doesn't it sound very shitty? In a small company, probably, yes. It is so useless that many CEOs would be happy to get rid of such a position. “Do you want to become a vice-president of culture and do the same for the same salary? Yes, it is easy! ”What else can mean the situation when the CEO arranges a showdown with the vice president of culture? What culturenot very important to the company. And what if such a vice president is under pressure and forced to resign? To the public, this means that the company “lost” the Vice President for Culture. This is much more significant than the care of the All Only Programmer.
More importantly, the post of vice president sets an implicit limit on the number of people who can be hired from above, because companies do not want to have 50 vice presidents from 70 employees. This eliminates the position and creates the impression of a bloated state about the company (with the exception of finance, where the position of vice president means a middle manager and usually without special authority). If you are just a programmer, the company can easily hire a lot of people and put them above you. And if you are a vice president, then everyone put above you should also be a vice president, if not even a first vice president, and companies become very conservative in this regard when the title of the position becomes significant.
A summary of all this: the job title is very important and you have to get the important sounding position before the company grows and settles. You will be told that the name does not mean anything, that “leadership in action, and not in the name,” and in all this there is some truth, but still demand a position. Take while it costs nothing, because one day it will change. So if you are a skilled developer in the middle of a career ladder (5 or more years of experience), and the company is still in the formative stage, then having some kind of vice presidential position is a very reasonable step.
3. Evaluate your stake in stocks or options in the fourth part of the current valuation.This has already been discussed above. This is because such a risky asset for a rich, diversified investor costs much more than for an employee, about 3-4 times the difference. This means that it is possible to agree to work for the difference with the average market salary of $ 25,000 only for an annual share of $ 100,000 (stocks or options, according to current estimates).
It is also worth bearing in mind that in startups, increases and bonuses are rare, and that working in a startup can significantly affect the trajectory of salary changes. A person should realistically evaluate a startup proposal in the light of what he expects to earn over the next 3-5 years, and not in the light of what he currently has.
4. If you suspect a delay in the payment of wages, reflect this in the contract.This item does not apply to all startups, as it is strange to delay payments after a round of funding. Startups usually pay immediately in cash and in shares.
If cash is preferred, it is important to explicitly reflect this in the payment agreement. The delay in cash payments, in truth, is the company's debt to employees at zero percent. Being left to its own devices, a rationally working company is unlikely to want to repay a loan with zero interest. It is very important to be aware. How long can delays last? (Start-ups never have “enough money,” so the “When there is enough money” argument doesn’t roll.) What percentage of a funding round is considered for payroll debt payments? How to deal with client profit? It is very important to put all these things in the contract, otherwise ... deferred payments are just a promise, and unfortunately, not very much worth it.
The most important aspect that arises in case of delays in payments is dismissal, because it is a mess when the company you left owes you money. Nobody expects to be fired, but good people are fired all the time. In a small company, the risk is even greater, because remittances are almost impossible due to their size, and internal policies and personal traditions may be wilder than in established firms.
And even in startups, weekend benefits are very rare. Startups are not afraid of lawsuits, because they last for years, and during this time the company will either (a) die or (b) grow to a state in which this lawsuit will not be of particular importance. The process of dismissal in a large company usually includes a period of notice (“working out”) (during which a smart person will find a job) or severance pay, or both; because durable companies don't want to mess with lawsuits. In startups, there is usually neither one nor the other.
People tend to think that the risk in a startup comes down to a threat to fly out of business, but they also have to lay off a bunch of employees, and often it is not always legitimate. This is not always bad (the dismissal of too few people can be as disastrous as the dismissal of too much), but this is a risk that needs to be borne in mind.
I would not advise trying to negotiate severance payments in a contract when hiring a startup, such a requirement will almost certainly be rejected (and may also lead to the withdrawal of the offer). However, regarding the delay in payments, I would advise in the contract to clearly define: if such a delay arises, it is immediately paid in case of dismissal on the initiative of the employer. On the same day, the full amount, along with the latest salary.
5. While the company has not strengthened (for example, it has entered an IPO), do not settle for a “steep cliff” without a condition on a delayed salary in the contract in case of dismissal on the initiative of the employer. A steep cliff is a standard venture start-up agreement where an employee does not receive a share or an option if he quits during the first year (either on his own or on the initiative of the company). The problem with the “cliff” is that it creates a perverse incentive for the company to fire employees before they get at least some share.
A “cliff” should be processed like this: if an employee is dismissed when a “cliff” is imposed, then his share is converted into real money (at the most recent cost estimate) and paid when he is fired.
This term is informal and many startups will desperately resist when it is mentioned. Fine. Do not work with them.It is very important; The last thing you want to do is to let the company be tempted to fire you because of a poorly formed compensation package.
6. Develop your career. Just “being in a startup” is not enough. The most attractive thing about working at a startup is the opportunity to learn a lot, it is possible, but not at all guaranteed. Startups tend to allow career development only for themselves. People making efforts for development will learn and learn a lot. And those who are stuck in a pile of junior work will not go far.
I think it is useful to discuss in advance my perspectives after the end of the “cut-off” period. Salary increases are rare in startups, and the gap between the average market salary and the “start-up” will only increase with time. When a request for a promotion is rejected, it's time to remember that you would prefer to work in that machine learning project or try to implement new approaches to solving problems the company faces.
7. If it is stuck on something from the above, leave.All of the above requirements are quite reasonable, but they may face opposition, because there is no end to the young talents in the market who are now ready to accept unreasonable working conditions “in a startup”. So get ready, that a certain percentage of your demands will be rejected, up to rejection of the job offer itself. For example, the CEO of some startups will resist the fact that some kind of programmer, even if he is the very first hired technician, will begin to demand investor contacts. Well, this is a sign that he perceives you as the Only Programmer, run away from them.
People often find negotiations unpleasant or even unworthy, but the entire business is built on negotiations. It is very important.Negotiations bring clarity, because courtesy does not mean much in a business environment and only during negotiations you can form the right opinion about your impression. The CEO can give you a million compliments and give a thousand promises of a bright future in the company, but if he does not want to discuss a decent deal, then he does not see in you any special value. So leave, do not waste a year or two in start-up work-to-anywhere.
In the light of a suspiciously large number of words in this article, I’ll just leave it here. If the number of exceptions and special cases leaves the impression of the blurriness of the entire message, then this is for the reason that there is somethe number of decent startups, and the last thing I would like to convey to you that all startups are a waste of time. Do not misunderstand me, although I consider most venture startups (especially in the “social media” environment) to be a completely wasteful resource and talent, among them are waiting for the discovery of pearls. Probably. If no one worked in startups, looked for startups, then there would be no new companies in the world, and this is bad for everyone. In my opinion, the true message is this: take good sentences and work on good jobs (your KO), and the complexity (which is noticeable from an indecently large article) is how to determine what “good” is. And it is precisely this that I, from the height of my experience and observations, tried to convey to you.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/147675/
All Articles