Something obvious I didn't understand at first: the earlier stage you are, the smarter the people you need.
They need to be autonomous, flexible, but above all brilliant at what they do.
If you get "average" employees who just wants to follow the specs and receive their salary, they will most likely cost you more to manage than they will create value.
In early stages, you're probably still trying to answer complex questions - and you need people who have the capacity to think outside the box to do so...
As you grow, you can start tolerating people who "think less" and just do what they're asked. You'll have managers to manage them.
In other words, the type of people you need at this stage are the type who could be almost be startup founders themselves. ;-) My 2 cents.
Totally agree with that. This will play into your mental health as well. The more weight other people can carry, the less you have to do. Don't underestimate having to feed the brains of 10 people constantly when they can't/won't think for themselves.
True. But it’s not only about thinking. In my experience it’s also a lot about the need for validation/ general independence. Many people (or even most?) need attention and regular pats on the back. Providing 10 people with this validation and attention can be a full time job.
This is about learning management and reminding them that the problems they might come to you with are the ones you hired them to solve, but you can drop what you're doing to help them if they need.
Not so much. I’ve been a manager for over 10 years and I can tell you people vary greatly in how much validation and attention they need from their manager. If you hire the right 10 people you can have uninterrupted stretches of time to do deep work yourself. If you hire the “wrong” 10 people then you can’t (were wrong is in quotation marks because they may not be the wrong hires under other circumstances).
No it doesn't. How do you write good specs for someone who is meant to own marketing for your business. You don't know marketing. You need someone who does.
The caveat being… brilliance will cost you. If you incentivize them to care deeply and solve your hard problems, and they have the capacity to do so, they will. But if you don’t, they’re not just going to toil unnecessarily for an incommensurate reward.
Do you reward these people with more than a fraction of a percent of equity? As someone who likes WLB enough, isn't enough of a gambler to take a 0.001% chance of being a millionaire over a 25-50% chance of getting a nice 6 figure payout from a more established startup, and has too many kids to boot, I never bothered looking at a company that didn't have a health insurance plan and a 401k match. But when I learned it was common for a founding engineer to get like half a percent of the company, I was appalled. I'd rather just start my own startup and roll the dice there if I'm still going to have to build the whole damn thing just for a fraction of a percent in equity.
It seems super weird that you'd literally be in the trenches with 1-2 other people who each have as much equity as 50-100 of you.
Otherwise, I mean, why should someone brilliant work for you instead of a company with much better odds of success?
Clearly, companies do hire founding engineers at these rates so maybe I'm the crazy one. But it just seems wild to me.
when I learned it was common for a founding engineer to get like half a percent of the company, I was appalled. I'd rather just start my own startup
I don't think people appreciate how hard it is to go from 0-1. To validate a product/market, get initial customers, before raising, heavily derisks the business and 1% is fair. Sure, you could just start your own startup, but you'll have to go through the brutal glass eating process of doing exactly that, starting a company.
"the type of people you need at this stage are the type who could be almost be startup founders themselves"
Pretty much. I run a bootstrapped SAAS and built a small team over the years. I havae made so many mistakes when hiring the early employees. So many. The biggest mistake: Hire someone who will be a good fit in a larger team/corporate where they have structure and are told what to do. Do not hire those people as your early employees no matter where they come from or how smart they are in general.
You need people who are "almost" entrepreneurial but cannot do their own thing. They love to own things, have autonomy and can wear multiple hats. They are willing to experiment with you and most importantly, move the needle. Very difficult to find especially when you are a nothing startup.
Yes, but I think that's a poor choice of words; those are not the same thing. There are lots of smart people who are not independent, self-directed, or hard working! My manager was just saying to me yesterday, "we need smart people who know how to get shit done—just hiring smart people isn't enough."
They went into detail about what they were talking about, making it clear what they meant. What more do you want, new made-up words so no one can argue that this specific word has multiple definitions (as ALL words do)?
Comments
Something obvious I didn't understand at first: the earlier stage you are, the smarter the people you need.
They need to be autonomous, flexible, but above all brilliant at what they do.
If you get "average" employees who just wants to follow the specs and receive their salary, they will most likely cost you more to manage than they will create value.
In early stages, you're probably still trying to answer complex questions - and you need people who have the capacity to think outside the box to do so...
As you grow, you can start tolerating people who "think less" and just do what they're asked. You'll have managers to manage them.
In other words, the type of people you need at this stage are the type who could be almost be startup founders themselves. ;-) My 2 cents.
Totally agree with that. This will play into your mental health as well. The more weight other people can carry, the less you have to do. Don't underestimate having to feed the brains of 10 people constantly when they can't/won't think for themselves.
True. But it’s not only about thinking. In my experience it’s also a lot about the need for validation/ general independence. Many people (or even most?) need attention and regular pats on the back. Providing 10 people with this validation and attention can be a full time job.
This is about learning management and reminding them that the problems they might come to you with are the ones you hired them to solve, but you can drop what you're doing to help them if they need.
Not so much. I’ve been a manager for over 10 years and I can tell you people vary greatly in how much validation and attention they need from their manager. If you hire the right 10 people you can have uninterrupted stretches of time to do deep work yourself. If you hire the “wrong” 10 people then you can’t (were wrong is in quotation marks because they may not be the wrong hires under other circumstances).
This just sounds like someone who can't write good specs
No it doesn't. How do you write good specs for someone who is meant to own marketing for your business. You don't know marketing. You need someone who does.
Well if you can't, then I guess we shouldn't be complaining about feeding brains and average employees who just want to follow specs
I think you skipped the original post and went straight to the point you disagree (with no coherent point) without even understanding the discussion.
We're not.
Have you ever managed 10 people, wrote and checked specs and managed a business on top of that? Clearly not.
The word you are looking for is responsible.
Someone who will take burdens from you and go handle them themselves and don't need to be cajoled, directed every step, motivated, managed, etc.
There is crossover with smart, but that's just a nice to have - responsible is the primary attribute you need here.
Plenty of smart or even brilliant and still lazy people out there that will not fit here.
Your description reminded me of Karl, Homer Simpson’s assistant for one episode
The caveat being… brilliance will cost you. If you incentivize them to care deeply and solve your hard problems, and they have the capacity to do so, they will. But if you don’t, they’re not just going to toil unnecessarily for an incommensurate reward.
Do you reward these people with more than a fraction of a percent of equity? As someone who likes WLB enough, isn't enough of a gambler to take a 0.001% chance of being a millionaire over a 25-50% chance of getting a nice 6 figure payout from a more established startup, and has too many kids to boot, I never bothered looking at a company that didn't have a health insurance plan and a 401k match. But when I learned it was common for a founding engineer to get like half a percent of the company, I was appalled. I'd rather just start my own startup and roll the dice there if I'm still going to have to build the whole damn thing just for a fraction of a percent in equity.
It seems super weird that you'd literally be in the trenches with 1-2 other people who each have as much equity as 50-100 of you.
Otherwise, I mean, why should someone brilliant work for you instead of a company with much better odds of success?
Clearly, companies do hire founding engineers at these rates so maybe I'm the crazy one. But it just seems wild to me.
I don't think people appreciate how hard it is to go from 0-1. To validate a product/market, get initial customers, before raising, heavily derisks the business and 1% is fair. Sure, you could just start your own startup, but you'll have to go through the brutal glass eating process of doing exactly that, starting a company.
I would focus first on profit or rev share or commission.
Alignment on profitability and efficiency leads to wanting to be together more permanently anyways.
If they can stick around there may be room for a larger conversation for actual retention.
Handing out equity for a self-funded startup doesn't mean as much especially if the hires don't execute.
"the type of people you need at this stage are the type who could be almost be startup founders themselves"
Pretty much. I run a bootstrapped SAAS and built a small team over the years. I havae made so many mistakes when hiring the early employees. So many. The biggest mistake: Hire someone who will be a good fit in a larger team/corporate where they have structure and are told what to do. Do not hire those people as your early employees no matter where they come from or how smart they are in general.
You need people who are "almost" entrepreneurial but cannot do their own thing. They love to own things, have autonomy and can wear multiple hats. They are willing to experiment with you and most importantly, move the needle. Very difficult to find especially when you are a nothing startup.
I think this is the top hiring mistake for startupS - hiring the big cheese from BigCo who turns out to be a total culture clash.
I do however disagree with your final paragraph. We had a few wantrapreneurs who were usually moonlighting and clearly didn’t want to be there.
"few wantrapreneurs who were usually moonlighting"
Yes that's the potential downside. That's why I said "almost" who cant do their own thing. That difference is very slim.
Unless you are a startup which deals with highly complicated technologies and algorithms you don't need the smartest people around.
I think in this case "smart" is equivalent to independent, self-directed, hard working
Yes, but I think that's a poor choice of words; those are not the same thing. There are lots of smart people who are not independent, self-directed, or hard working! My manager was just saying to me yesterday, "we need smart people who know how to get shit done—just hiring smart people isn't enough."
“very competent experienced pragmatic X” is a good target for early employees
They went into detail about what they were talking about, making it clear what they meant. What more do you want, new made-up words so no one can argue that this specific word has multiple definitions (as ALL words do)?