
Run Your Startup Like a Cult - t23
http://www.wired.com/2014/09/run-startup-like-cult-heres/
======
TheCapn
Articles like this make me believe that even if I managed to find my way into
Silicon Valley I simply wouldn't fit in. My job is not my identity, I feel its
healthy to generate a life outside your work that is entirely separate; heck I
see it as a _necessity_ for longevity in life to have such segregation.

I've turned down jobs that promote "monthly massages", "beer fridays", "gaming
evenings", and other perks like the article mentions because when you step
back and look at it they're trying to replace your life outside of work with
excuses why you shouldn't leave work. Bind your job to your necessities and
leaving becomes so much harder.

I own one T-shirt with my company logo (company uniform not counted) and I
only have that because we got "sponsored" jerseys from the owner when we did a
rec sport league. I don't wear it outside of the gym or doing laborious
physical work, I feel a bit weird wearing it in public in a way; we are not a
"brand", we do not need social marketing to be the multi-million dollar small
business group that we are, hell the Joe standing behind me in the coffee
lineup isn't interested in what we do anyway, he's not our market.

But it goes beyond that... Rule #3 raises alarm bells where having one person
solely responsible for entire aspects of a business leaves you in a tight
space should he hit the road, or fall ill. Heck even daily situations like ego
or pride masking his greater vision can mean death for the company no? Even
having a second individual sharing the load from those responsibilities allows
for collaboration, brainstorming and are those not productive?

Perhaps I write a lot of these questions hypothetically. I'm not in the start-
up biz, I don't really see an interest in it as you might be able to tell it
clashes with my personality. Is life really seen as this dogmatic in the
culture? I know its not universal but it certainly seems prevalent when I read
the comments on HN and the like.

~~~
jiggy2011
_I 've turned down jobs that promote "monthly massages", "beer fridays",
"gaming evenings", and other perks like the article mentions because when you
step back and look at it they're trying to replace your life outside of work
with excuses why you shouldn't leave work. Bind your job to your necessities
and leaving becomes so much harder._

This isn't always the case, especially in larger companies. Sometimes perks
are just perks.

~~~
TheCapn
I shouldn't make it sound like I _dislike_ creative perks, but I definitely
have a problem when the company tried using those as selling points in lieu of
more traditional job perks that I was looking for. Perks that I like are
spending accounts, flexible hours, pension, additional work holidays. The
company I moved to after turning down those types had ones like: 1 paid day
off per year to use volunteering; 0% interest loan on tech purchases (with
certain stipulations), 1% yearly salary towards a spending account of my
choice. 1 year into the company and I had 30 days of paid time off to use
whenever I wanted (within reason... I couldn't go jet away mid launch for 5
weeks)

I'm just trying to say that the fact that they thought going against the grain
and being creative in an attempt to match the stories you hear out of Google
or the like rubbed me the wrong way.

~~~
kelnos
I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with, then. The article specifically
points out that playing the "perk war" is a bad idea, and people who are
swayed by things like laundry service are likely not the people you want.

------
themoonbus
"Hire Employees Who Are Excited to Wear Your Logo on Their Hoodies"

I was hoping this article wasn't as ridiculous as the headline, and some of
the advice is good... but it's stuff like this, Silicon Valley.

Is it possible anymore to just want to work hard on an interesting problem, or
do I really have to be a "fanatic" about it?

~~~
trhway
>"Hire Employees Who Are Excited to Wear Your Logo on Their Hoodies"

how about building a company that would make it employees excited to wear its
logo on their hoodies. Compare for example wearing "Palantir" vs. "SpaceX" on
your hoodie :)

~~~
spiffage
I'm pretty sure employees at both Palantir and SpaceX wear company-branded
clothes a lot. I know that's the case at Palantir for sure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Easy, because they have the knowledge and experience you need for the job. If
you're a professional you'll find a way to work with anyone. Yes, you'll have
personality clashes from time to time but I have yet to work at a place where
that didn't happen.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
_Easy, because they have the knowledge and experience you need for the job._

Right but there are tons of people who have that - it's worth waiting for
someone with both that and the cultural fit. As was mentioned in one of the
lectures on "How to start a startup" Airbnb took 5 months to find their first
hire for exactly this purpose.

~~~
zaccus
There might be tons of people with knowledge and experience, but they're not
in your typical applicant pool. They tend to already have jobs.

------
freshflowers
Every headline in this article pissed me off.

Every paragraph in this article actually contained solid advice, even though I
don't agree with all of it.

So I would like to add rule #5: Don't talk in ludicrous hyperbole. Smart
people won't take you seriously, and you'll actually attract the kind of
feeble minded people that would join a real cult.

~~~
davesque
Well put.

------
psaintla
Please don't, I've worked at these kinds of companies. It's creepy as hell and
will drive away good employees who just aren't willing to buy into the
nonsense.

~~~
api
My first thought on reading the title was "so I should molest my employees'
children while I appropriate their finances to offshore numbered bank
accounts?"

A "cult" is not a good model for anything. Not only does it refer to a form of
abusive relationship, but it also refers to a mindless follower dynamic. If I
am founding a company to do innovative knowledge work, I _do not want_
mindless followers. I want employees who are smarter than me in various ways,
especially in areas that are my weaknesses, and I want them to apply
themselves fully which means I need to pay them well or cut them in on
ownership. Sure, maybe I could get a "bargain" on labor by hoodwinking people
with image, but people wise up fast and I will have high turnover.

It's good to have a sense of mission and purpose, but that doesn't make
something a "cult." The article contains some solid advice if you ditch the
hyperbole.

It's also okay to have a company that demands a lot from its employees as long
as its up front about that. An example would be SpaceX: apparently they are
tough as hell to get into and they tell you up front that basically you'll
have no life, etc., but lots of people want to work there because they believe
in the mission. If I were in a different life phase / circumstance, I would
work there knowing going in that I'm sorta gonna be joining the army for a
while. (I'd also do it for the resume and the experience.) But I don't
consider that a cult either, since the mission is _real_. They're actually
building real spaceships that fly and stuff. To me "cult" means the mission is
bullshit.

------
HillRat
While at least some of the advice is solid ("give each employee just one job"
is really just a special case of "make it clear who is responsible for the
outcome, not just the process"), Thiel is either making a truly trivial
argument -- your employees should be more than mere clock-punchers -- or is
recommending a dangerous path for most companies. In my experience -- and,
like many in tech, I have more experience with this than I or portfolio care
to remember -- highly-insular, self-regarding companies are _usually_ total
failures, for the usual Kool-Aid-related reasons.

Such companies, whether startups or established firms, inevitably end up
focusing on aspects of their business (prestige, culture, a particular product
mix, a particular technology or implementation, internal politics) that are
irrelevant or actively-damaging to their profitability and external relations.
In short, they end up believing their own press, and stop falsifying their
assumptions. SWOT analyses become elaborate exercises in self-justification,
failures to hit revenue or profit targets are handwaved away, and exogenous
causes for short-term improvements are taken as proof that the company is run
by brilliant minds who are no less than the _weltgeist_ on horseback.

I exaggerate, but only slightly. Survivorship bias is a powerful fallacy, and
far more organizations starve from narcissistic self-regard than feast out on
their good looks. Rather than cultic insularity, successful companies should
constantly have their antennae out, alert for unexpected opportunities and
dangers, _especially_ if they clash with the company's stated "culture" or
mission. (This sounds trivial, but it's very difficult in practice -- CEOs
tend to be very psychologically invested in their cultures; lower-level
employees are frequently unwilling to bring concerns up the line; managers
often have political incentives to hide, mitigate, or redirect bad news; and
it can be hard to separate the usual employee grousing from objectively-
genuine concerns.)

Cults that try to adapt reality to themselves are suicide pacts; cults that
adapt themselves to reality become religions.

------
brd
From personal experience, the biggest downside to this advice is that it
builds a culture of being in or out. You either tow the company line or you're
not part of the team, it leaves little room for challenging the status quo
when you see mistakes being made.

~~~
JonnieCache
The idiom is "toe the line", to stand with ones toes exactly at the appointed
spot.

I like the idea of towing the company line though, it takes on a nautical
meaning.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
"Toe the line" comes from the British house, where there were two lines drawn
down the middle of the room. Each side was supposed to stay behind their line
when debating, to avoid bloodshed, challenges to duel etc. The speaker would
holler "Toe the line!" when anyone crossed over.

At least that's the legend I know.

~~~
pjlegato
The lines are still there today:
[https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4070/4642915654_4fbb595e20_z.j...](https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4070/4642915654_4fbb595e20_z.jpg)

------
SickOfVCBS
Translation: hire only people who are willing to eat your shit and take almost
as much risk as you, but for pennies on the dollar because they believe so
strongly in your "mission."

------
csolares23
I wanted the title to be a joke also.. Sad it's not. I just moved to SV and I
feel like I get these types of pitches all the time. I would rather happily
work on interesting stuff and go home to my personal life to unwind without
having the pressure to stay at work for "pleasure". Maybe I just don't fit in
with what the VCs pump out?

------
arjie
Interesting article. The people who'd be convinced by it don't need it because
they already follow it. The people who aren't are unlikely to be big
participants in the startup world.

These HN comments seem to indicate that too. Lots of people talking like long
term employees. Few actual startup participants.

------
trustfundbaby
Poor article IMO. This is the kind of stuff that parody movies are made of.

This kind of attitude is what gives rise to mono cultural companies where
everyone looks, thinks and acts the same. The cultures seem okay but they're
brittle in that as soon as someone shows up who doesn't think exactly like
everyone else, the whole thing falls apart or the additions are become
"problems".

I've worked at a startup and I've resolved that if I do ever build a one, I
want a company that is heavily resilient to diversity of thought and where
everybody doesn't have to be best pals with everyone else because that is just
fucking annoying after a while.

------
gooseus
Why not just adapt these 7 steps?

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-mason/start-your-own-
cul...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-mason/start-your-own-
cult_b_3999121.html)

I'll give it a shot:

How to make a Cult Startup in 7 Steps:

1) Begin with the Vision. It must be capitalized and either already be
validated by pillars of an industry or actively opposed by them (because it's
so disruptive).

2) Setup your inner management circle, make sure it includes big name
advisors, partners that ensure immediate market penetration and investors that
are always about to drop millions in the next round. It's not required that
any employees ever see or speak to these people beyond a single meeting, which
should also be a party to distract from any deep inquiry or feedback.

3) Make sure your employees are chasing a moving target and are under
continually increasing external pressure. If they get close to a product,
change the requirements... then say an important demo is only a week away to
ensure they work day and night. Start small and soon your employees will be
sleeping in the office and giving up holidays and weekends for your Vision.

4) Always have stories of the last meeting you or other members of the elite
group attended. Make sure anecdotes are exciting and perfectly validate the
Vision and it's end goals. Your employees are already familiar with stories of
billion dollar buyouts and paradigm shifting applications.

5) Hire from the friends of your employees. This has the double advantage of
rapidly growing your startup (from 4 to 16 employees in just 2 months!) while
allowing you to mix your employees loyalties to each other with their loyalty
to the Vision.

6) Keep everyone busy and excited. Always have an upcoming investor demo that
is very important and leave no room for downtime which could be used to
question product viability, technology decisions, or anything related to the
Vision. Stock the fridge and cabinets with caffeine, junk food and alcohol to
keep energy level high and overall cognition low.

7) Always talk about the Vision related to the eventual payoff. Changing an
industry/the world for idealists or billion dollar buyouts for the more
materially minded. It doesn't matter, you're doing what Google and Facebook
and Uber and Amazon have done; and they should expect to enter the same
paradise when their time comes.

That was fun, hooray satire! Enjoy the rest of your day everyone!

------
api
This post from JWZ's awesomely hoary old web site is relevant:
[http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/11/watch-a-vc-use-my-name-to-
se...](http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/11/watch-a-vc-use-my-name-to-sell-a-con/)

------
dfraser992
He fails to mention the fact that people who run cults are the ones who
benefit the most. The startup I was with in Hayward got bought by Peoplesoft
back in 2002, and so 90%+ of the employees transistioned over (the CEO spread
some rumor about signing bonuses if people stayed on...)

The first day of orientation at Peoplesoft involved listening to a HR person
constantly attach "People" as a suffix to key terms - i.e. PeoplePeople. It
was brainwashing 101 and quite annoying if you were a hard-bittern veteran of
the startup ecosystem. Capitalism is just as much a cult as religions are.

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

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

Isn't that a contradiction?

------
soneca
I would like to know more about WhatsApp culture. Small team, incredible
talent, unbelievable outcome. Pretty sure even Peter Thiel would consider them
to be among the "best startups". I think they give signs not to be this kind
of cult, but they don't do lots of interviews, so it is hard to know.

Anyone have a more privileged view on this?

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

------
linker3000
Rule 2: Giving People a Chance to “Change the World” Is a Lousy Way to Recruit
Employees

Have to say that I roll my eyes every time I see an HN article titled "X is
hiring: Help change the face of Y forever"

~~~
RankingMember
If you haven't already, watch Silicon Valley (the Mike Judge TV show). There's
a whole episode where you see startups trotting out these "Changing the world
through [buzzword buzzword buzzword]" mission statements. It's so accurate
it's scarily funny.

------
gmarx
"... promise what no others can: the opportunity to do irreplaceable work on a
unique problem alongside great people."

So, step one- be a great person.

In the words of Maxwell Smart "missed it by that much"

------
gamechangr
# 2 "Giving people a chance to Changing the world is a lousy way to recruit.

Totally agree! Ironic that "Changing the World" has become a meaningless
phrase.

------
inscrutablemike
This is the kind of advice you give to people you want to compete against.

