

Ask HN: Founders whose startups failed, do you experience bias in interviews? - massung

Over the past few years I&#x27;ve been seeing a steady increase in the number of resumes that pass in front of my eyes that have the last job experience at 1-2 years with the title &quot;CEO&quot; or &quot;President&quot; and this very much signals &quot;failed startup&quot;.<p>Several of us who are part of the hiring process (note: we&#x27;re all programmers) find ourselves having to try and ignore certain biases we&#x27;ve been noticing:<p>&quot;Oh, failed company, they must not be very good...&quot;<p>&quot;Is someone who&#x27;s used to being boss of the company going to handle taking orders?&quot;<p>etc. And the bias appears to be worse the older the applicant is (that&#x27;s just a gut feel, I have no data to back that up).<p>Obviously these are false, and we take time to stop and remind each other of the many quality traits a startup founder brings (and the experiences a failed one brings as well!).<p>But, I&#x27;m curious if many of you have personally experienced these biases? Is this common? If you could tell someone in a hiring position something - with respect to this - outside of an interview setting, what would it be?
======
vicbrooker
Steve Blank was recently in Melbourne and said that his opinion was that
'experienced' was a better adjective than 'failed' for founders who have
stopped working on a startup. It's a nice perspective.

Personally I agree, but would add a single caveat. I consider a founder
'experienced' when they have made a good faith effort to attempt solving a
difficult/worthwhile problem. Someone who succeeds at someone pedestrian isn't
terribly interesting and neither is someone who tried to build the hyperloop
with paper mache for a week.

So, my advice is to ignore the title and give weight to the particular
characteristics of their startup. The presence or absence of success is far
less relevant than what they were trying to achieve and how they executed. I
would pick someone who got to 80% of a home run over anyone who succeeded at
hitting to first base. Ask questions about how they executed, the unique
problems they faced and why they picked their vertical - this will tell you
more about them than a snap judgement based on whether they were a CEO or a
President.

On a side note, I would generally consider managing to found a company that
survives for 1-2 years (full time) while tackling a hard problem as a
demonstration of above average/high capacity. I would definitely look into
them.

Again, depends on the context of your workplace, and the context of what they
actually worked on.

Hope this helps.

------
NateDad
Hopefully most people are aware that only one in ten startups succeed. That
and often times a "startup" is really "me and my buddy hacking on some stuff
on the weekends". It's actually the latter that bugs me more... calling one's
self a CEO when you never had any employees (other than your buddy, who worked
for fun & free beer)... it feels like it cheapens the title. Sure, call
yourself a founder, absolutely... but CEO is a bit different.

------
staunch
These people should have the good sense use titles that are subsets of their
full roles.

    
    
      s/CEO/Sr. Product Manager/g
      s/CTO/Sr. Software Engineer/g

~~~
benhamner
You mean lie on the resume / hide their level of responsibility?

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever (beyond being dishonest, it would
likely be surfaced in reference checks and stop a hire).

I'd see the startup experience as very positive, assuming they could
articulate why the startup failed and learned from the experience. There's
many startup CEO's who would make (and are) great sales, strategy, or product
leaders, and CTO's who would be great fits for engineers, architects, or
engineering managers.

~~~
zackbloom
The best course is probably to use 'Founder'. You're not really a C-level
executive until you have a company big enough to require one.

~~~
thegenius
I opt for the less glamorous title owner/operator

------
acjohnson55
I've only held two jobs since my startup, and my first job directly led to my
second job. I know for sure that my failed startup experience was considered
an asset in that first job because the company was very entrepreneurial
minded. It was a very natural fit.

Before I ran a failed startup, I was a grad student who never actually
graduated (albeit, a very good one who opted to start a startup rather than
write a thesis), and before that, I was a failing high school teacher teacher.
So I have a bit of a history of not achieving unambiguous success.

Honestly, it really comes down to how you sell your experience. If the
interview has behavioral questions, your running a startup should give you
plenty of good fodder to pull from. Know the role you're applying for and be
able to succinctly explain how your skills and experience will allow you to
excel. Ideally, have some quantitative evidence of your capabilities. Don't be
a know-it-all; come in with great questions and be a listener. And hopefully
you can frame your startup, and especially its downfall, in a positive light.

One last thing, my personal opinion, based purely on my instincts, is that
although I was technically President and CTO, I feel most natural identifying
my former role as "Founder" (with responsibilities and accomplishments
outlined), because we never quite reached a stage where we truly had executive
responsibilities that would translate to an established company.

------
gwbas1c
I was one of those 18-month CTOs. I just made sure to get past it very quickly
in the phone screening and get to why I was looking for a job, the kind of
role that I was best suited for, ect, ect.

IMO, the approach to take with such a candidate is to see if this is someone
who needed to "sow wild oats," or someone who keeps making the same life
mistakes over and over again.

I understand your bias that older candidates are the worst ones. They're the
slow learners.

------
wojt_eu
Comments so far focused on bias in judging capability based on past startup
results. I'd really wish see the other angle explored: "Is someone who's used
to being boss of the company going to handle taking orders?"

When reviewing resumes do you expect the founder to just want to recover for a
year before founding another startup?

