
Working for startups sucks, you'll be happier working for The Man - idlewords
http://substitute.livejournal.com/1921465.html
======
ironkeith
"The dot coms I have known were all doomed. Almost all of them were the
classic two-founder startups going after a niche in the market. All of them
needed outside money to achieve their goals, and in every case the outside
money wrecked the company. Uncontrolled hiring wiped out the competence and
the culture of these places within months. Executives who came in with the
outside money were out of their depth and resorted to arbitrary decision-
making and tyranny, and sometimes deliberately failed at their fiduciary
responsibilities. "

I worked for a company matching that description precisely, and can attest to
the fact that it really sucked, a lot. The strange thing for me was that it
was a subtle shift from "wow, this is so exciting" to "I can't believe how
much this sucks". I can't even pinpoint exactly when it happened.

In the beginning it was exciting. Lot's of money floating around, everyone
assuming things would be wildly successful and we'd all be rich. Reality was a
hard pill to swallow (I was the fifth employee of a company that grew to just
over 100 then contracted to around 25). That said, I'm not really tempted to
go to the corporate world. I can't just unplug my ambition and accept being a
small cog in a giant machine. I would much rather take all the lessons I've
learned on "what not to do" and channel that into a new (and hopefully better)
startup.

------
byoung2
I've worked at the two extremes he describes. I've worked for Fortune 250 and
500 companies with cubicle farms and bureaucracy and I've worked for a
2-founder startup with an office overlooking the beach and all glass
furniture. Each had its ups and downs. Working for the "Man" meant I was just
a cog in an amorphous machine that always made money no matter what I did.
Working at a frathouse masquerading as a business, I learned a lot and got
free beer every Friday.

Now I'm working for a company in the middle. It was a hip startup in 1998 but
has now grown up to be profitable. The older guys are still here, but there is
fresh energy too. The company expanded way beyond its original purpose
(remember when Amazon only sold books? We're like that), and each vertical
feels like a small startup sharing space with other startups. I think it's a
good fit for me, but I can't help but think that if I create a startup now, in
10 years I could be the one running a place like this.

~~~
abyssknight
Completely off topic, but this is the sort of place I'm looking for now. I've
sat in the start up, older dot com, and now in the ginormous corporation but
I'm looking for a middle ground. I'd be curious to find out where you work,
but I won't pry. Of course, I've been told I should set up shop for myself
more than once. I'm just not sure its time yet.

~~~
byoung2
To satisfy your curiosity, I work for Internet Brands. The name change
reflects its "grownup-ness" over the past decade since it started off as
CarsDirect.com back in 1998. I like that each vertical is like a separate
company with a startup feel, but all sharing one big office space.

Since the company started out in an incubator (Idealab), I think they
(subconsciously or consciously) kept that incubator feel. For example, when my
team is working on a site and we have a vBulletin question, we can walk to the
other side of the floor and talk to the people who wrote vBulletin.

------
swombat
Summary: Working in a really bad start-up is less good than working in a
really good corporate environment.

There are shitty, corrupt, nepotistic, lying corporations and there are also
sterling start-ups. The world's not black and white.

~~~
neilk
No, there are some things that happen in startups which absolutely don't
happen in established businesses in North America. I've seen fraud, overt
sexism, early-stage employees fired the week before they vest, and tyrannical
abuse of underlings.

That said, the author of the post works only in the LA area, so I think all
his experience has been with media-oriented startups. I have a feeling there's
a higher degree of frat boy douchiness in that world. San Francisco startups
tend to have a more placid, nerdy, bike-rack-in-the-lobby atmosphere, although
they can ultimately be just as cruel.

~~~
coglethorpe
Big companies have fraud, just look at Enron. The sexism isn't overt for legal
reasons, but that doesn't change the end results. One very big, very old
company I worked had a manager who loved hiring attractive female interns and
another who almost exclusively hired people from his home country and all but
openly admired to preferential hiring based on nationality.

When someone at a big company is conveniently let go before their green card
is approved or that big bonus is paid out, it isn't a "firing," but a "layoff"
as the company "right-sizes." Bad bosses abuse underlings when they think the
job market lets them get away with it and will not hesitate to punish those
who step out of line.

Come to think of it, I've seen everything you describe at some of the many
Fortune 500 companies I've consulted at. Sadly, human nature defies corporate
size, and bad behavior can even creep into very big companies.

~~~
tptacek
That's true, but what's also true is that virtually every bigco has checks and
balances to address that problem, whereas the job of HR in a post-A-round
startup is mostly to screw you on health insurance.

Whether those checks function well or not, there's usually nothing you can do
about an irrational or abusive CEO or VP/Eng at a startup.

~~~
StrawberryFrog
_the job of HR in a post-A-round startup is mostly to screw you on health
insurance_

That goes only for the USA. Sorry to touch _that topic_ , but it's true.

~~~
jswinghammer
I've always had good experience with health insurance at the startups I've
worked for.

~~~
StrawberryFrog
IN the UK, it's just not an issue that you think about. Your NHS cover is
unaffected by who, if anyone, employs you.

------
cmos
The honest truth is that it's often unsettling for people to work at startups.
They are chaotic and messy.

It's not right for everyone.

The best people we hired into our startup were often refugees from the cubicle
world looking for a little adventure and ok with making less money. In the
interview we would try to paint a picture of daily life in a startup, the true
odds of success, or even survival, and how different a work experience this
was going to be for them.

And what an adventure we gave them. Some stayed, others ran back to cubicle
farms. Some had been at such bad places that in our worst moment they still
said "this isn't that bad.. I've been in worse jobs!".

I've been taking a 'break' from the startup world at a large gaming company
and I totally understand the appeal of an established company.

There are times in your life when you don't want work to be an adventure.

~~~
tptacek
I have a little speech I give candidates about how bad life is going to be at
our little company. When you find someone you want to hire, especially if
you've been looking for a long time, your brain switches to a mode that says
"don't screw this up!" Which is bad, because the thing that's worse than not
managing to hire an excellent candidate is hiring an otherwise-excellent
candidate who can't handle the company you're running.

It's actually worse to hire someone who is awesome and a deal-breaker culture
mismatch than it is to hire someone incompetent. The incompetent you can send
on their way. With a real talent, there's hard feelings and reputation hit.

------
sachinag
You know, I think the real insight in the piece is about the two startup
founders where no one is really in charge. I think it's a good kick to remind
founders that there needs to be a process for decision-making so you don't end
up in stalemates.

~~~
pg
I've found there doesn't necessarily have to be one founder who's in charge,
just that founders have to be able to cooperate. If the founders can't work
together, it's not likely to solve the problem to designate one as the boss.

Nor is the problem limited to groups of 2 founders. You can have groups of 2
that work together well and groups of 3 that bicker. I'm guessing the author
just had a limited sample size.

~~~
idlewords
Who doesn't have a small sample size when it comes to work? Even the most
determined job-hopper can only work at a small number of companies long enough
to really understand the dynamic. And even the most perceptive outside
observer won't really know what it's like to have devoted a big chunk of one's
life to a job.

There's an endless variety of human experience and we only get to live one
fragment of it ourselves. That's the point of swapping stories.

~~~
pg
I agree entirely. One of the great things about the Internet, which I believe
we still don't appreciate fully, is the degree to which it allows us to step
back and see the mosaic formed by these fragments.

The post in question is a good example. It's much more valuable when combined
with the comments on HN, many of them by people with first-hand experience of
startups, than it would have been as an isolated article in the print media.

Merely enabling us to collect and collate information we already "knew" is
surprisingly valuable. The clearest example may be open source software, but I
think we will see similar gains in almost all fields.

~~~
idlewords
Actually, I found it curious that the livejournal comments were far more
interesting than the thread here. The OP has some very articulate friends.

------
Markus
I can relate to this article.

I have experienced working for startups and large businesses. In my experience
I have preferred working for large businesses. For me, I actually find a lot
of the "perks" of startups to overall be worse for the environment. Sure, I
can show up whenever I want and dress how I like, but overall is this really a
good thing? Or does it just trend toward laziness and lack of personal
responsibility? What's so bad about a little structure -- I grew up in a
structured educational environment and learned to thrive in it.

Beyond this though, what I really like about larger companies is the expertise
at my fingertips. I think I'm a pretty good programmer, but I can't do
everything, and I don't have the experience to be good at everything.

At Corporation A, adding a new feature requires the following process:
marketing identifies a need, project manager creates a plan, software
architect decides how it should be implemented, programmer implements the
feature, designer spruces it up, QA ensures that it is correct, and sales
creates a pitch. Money rolls in.

At Startup B, it works like this: Investor X identifies a need, Investor Y
disagrees on implementation, 95% of time is spent discussing exact wording
instead of the usefulness of said feature. Programmer implements it, no one
remembers what it was for, it gets dropped at the next redesign.

People say they don't want to just be a "cog in a wheel", but I see nothing
wrong with being a cog in well-oiled, efficient machine. I find it very
satisfying to be a small but significant part of something larger than I could
ever create on my own.

~~~
derwiki
I work at a start up now after working at the largest software corporation for
about two years, and I guess I see the complete opposite. Sure, at the start
up, we can dress how we like, show up when we want, etc.. but honestly, people
dress the same as they did at the corporation, and people show up at roughly
the same time. And I feel (and see) more of a trend of personal responsibility
at the start up. With 20 engineers, there's no one to pass the buck to: if
something breaks from your area, you fix it. Especially dealing with a live
site with millions of customers, versus a two year release cycle at my
previous job.

I'm going to have to disagree on the point of expertise too. At my corporate
job, I tried bringing up functional programming at a happy hour and got a lot
of blank stares. Anything programming related that was not directly related to
the job, my coworkers didn't seem to care about. At the start up, people learn
different languages for fun and try to stay up with new technology.

I know that all I've done is provide more anecdotal evidence, but my
experience has been so 180 degree opposite from yours, Markus, that I felt
compelled to comment. I guess the big difference I see is that of passion:
corporate programmers are rarely super excited about what they work on, and
start up programmers almost have to be. I'm not saying passion means a better
product or success, but I'd choose working with passionate people any day of
the week.

------
jsankey
Perhaps the OP would be happier again working for an organically grown startup
(rather than a "well" funded one). In such companies "Real money is being made
and lost" - and a lot more directly than in a huge company (with all its
inefficiencies). What each employee does matters, and stupidity is punished.

~~~
abalashov
As someone bootstrapping a company that has no chance of getting funded by
doing consulting - and having started from next to nothing in savings + high
living expenses inherited from salaried days - I couldn't agree more.

------
timcederman
I've found I was most happiest in a startup environment. Even a couple of
hundred people feels too big for me.

I think it comes down to where your interests lie. I love wearing multiple
hats, and working on a million different things, and the excitement of that
type of environment.

~~~
tptacek
I'm definitely happier in startups too. Being in the middle of a startup with
traction [1] keeps you sharp. I tell myself that it also makes me more
valuable in either a bigco or another startup.

At some point though you need to seperate the emotional from the rational. And
building up career qualifications in challenging startups stops meaning that
much when you lose sight of any ways to deploy those qualifications down the
road.

[1] _Important qualifier_.

------
tjmc
To paraphrase: you'll be happier working for The Man than working for The
Boys.

I think the point here is he's talking about being an employee, not a founder
or a partner. The great benefit of _running_ a startup is doing things your
way. Unless employees believe in and are able to contribute to the startups
direction, they're just as powerless as they'd be at BigCo with none of the
upside that stablity brings.

------
robotron
I suggest trying both. Completely different worlds and each satisfies
different financial, career and personal needs.

My only "sucks" advice other than that: when looking at startups avoid family
run businesses where there is even a hint of nepotism like the plague.

~~~
borism
Most start-ups are usually founded by close friends who hire more close
friends and so on... So one can hardly avoid nepotism in start-up sphere, at
least this is my experience.

~~~
rikthevik
I'm not sure if that's nepotism though. When I think nepotism I think of
people getting hired purely because of their relationship to the boss. If I
was doing a startup I'd be hiring people I knew could do a great job because
I'd done good work with them in the past.

------
ajju
There is a corollary to this which almost runs counter to the author's
argument. In my experience, if you work for a startup where you enjoy your
work, and the startup gets acquired, chances are your work will start sucking
within the year.

This is both because the culture will change very fast (except in rare cases)
and almost always the type of people who enjoy working for startups find it
very hard to enjoy working for BigCos.

------
budu3
I know its hard for us at HN to believe to someone is actually happier working
for the man. It's a personal choice. He likes the structure of cooperate life
to the adhoc environment in the previous startups he worked for. I can
appreciate his sentiments.

------
dustineichler
Having worked both, I can say I too definitely prefer working in a startup
environment. I give this guy in the article a few months before he changes his
tune. Working for a large company, I often felt like slamming my head against
my desk. If you enjoy bureaucy and make that work for you, then you'll
probably do well otherwise try a startup. Personally, I enjoy consulting now
but in a down economy it can be tough yet BS free. Work is work at the end of
the day, you have to do it. Nose to the grind stone.

~~~
derwiki
I wouldn't be so sure he'll change his tune. At my corporate job, the majority
of the people were very happy there. They were mostly older, with families,
kids, mortgages, etc.. just happy to be doing a job and being compensated well
for it. I was the only squeaky wheel (mostly because I was younger and didn't
want that other stuff yet), and I left as soon as I could.

~~~
dustineichler
Full agree. Large companies are great if you have a familiy, not if you've
something to prove.

------
sama
This guy should not have been working for a startup. That's the main lesson.
For people that like them, they're really good.

~~~
kogir
Working as an employee at a startup is a gamble. A startup employee needs to
be willing to look out for himself or herself. Employees need to be willing to
pick up and leave if they're consistently treated poorly.

Unpaid, un-comped overtime? Leave. Political bullshit? Leave. Illegal
activities? Leave.

The other mistake I see commonly made is employees assuming their options will
be worth something. Unless there's a market where the stock's value is known
(and the stock can be sold), it's a gamble with crappy odds.

Not all startups suck, but only fools stay at the ones that do. This guy
(girl?) left, and it was the right call. In fact, being willing to leave means
this person was exactly right for a startup.

------
wheels
Startups make bad day-jobs. They make good "doing important stuff" vehicles.
BigCo is great when you just want to not care, and sometimes, that's perfectly
valid. (e.g. when I was doing most of my open source work and needed something
to pay the bills)

------
sutro
This post reminds me of the seminal "EA Spouse" post (<http://ea-
spouse.livejournal.com/274.html>). Together the two posts bookend the pitfalls
of both startup and big company high tech employment.

------
johnnybgoode
He compares some aspects of the bubble lifestyle to a typical corporate job.
He's right that _even typical corporate jobs_ are often far better than big
bubble blowouts.

In the kind of startup he describes, a large amount of outside money is
injected into the company. Predictably, this makes all kinds of things go
wrong. You'll notice that one of the nice things he says about the big
corporation is essentially that there's some sanity there. Again, when
compared to a bubble company, that's very true in some ways.

------
startingup
I worked in a large successful tech company right after school. One of the
best periods of my life. I learned a lot, worked on really cool technology,
and I was treated well. I left for reasons unconnected to them, with much
regret.

There exist great start-ups, great big companies, lousy start-ups and lousy
big companies. And within great companies, big or small, there exist lousy
situations. Your immediate boss and your colleagues have more to do with your
happiness than almost anything else.

------
binarycheese
This sounds just like my last start-up. It went to hell. We had a perfectly
great (SaaS) product and a great team (5 employees - 1 founder, 1 programmer &
myself, 1 salesperson/marketing, 1 human resources/finance.).

Things were great until after the second round of funding: The board basically
took over: \- They forced us to increase to about 20 employees (within a few
months). \- We hired former "big time" CEO/Presidents/Vice Presidents as our
EVP's to help us grow fast. \- We were basically working 12 - 16 hours a day.
I slept many times at work during data migration (which took for ever) \- We
were taking more customers than we could handle which resulted in lawsuits
because we could not deliver on time (even after postponement).

Finally (after 2 years) the board fired the founder, brought in a new CEO from
"big time" company. Needless to say employee moral died and I and the original
employees were forced to resign (I was personally already on my way out). Two
months later at the collapse of the financial system, unable to get more
funding, they filled for chapter 11 . Everybody got fired and also lost their
shares, health insurance etc.

I now run my personal consulting firm and I am loving it. I actually get to
see my son everyday.

------
pmichaud
This is rosy if that's what you want to accomplish in your life, but you're
ignoring the upside potential. Maybe you just saddled up with the wrong
founders?

~~~
tptacek
What upside potential? The notion that a startup is going to make you a
millionaire (or even --- what you're telling yourself right now --- a
hundredthousandaire) is one of the most misleading things about startup
culture.

You will make more money plugging away diligently at a career in the Fortune
500 than you will spending the same 30 years in startups. I use the word
"will" here in the same same sense as you "will" win with KK facing 72
unsuited. Anybody here capable of starting a company is equally capable of
walking in the door at six figures in a big company.

The reason this "upside" notion is so pernicious is that it's fed by powerful
biases. We read about the successes. Even the failures we hear about, we're
reading about them by and large because they were "successful". The
overwhelming majority of startups won't get fundng, won't get significant
customer traction, won't feed their founders 2 years out, and won't get enough
press attention for us ever to hear about. Their stories are also boring.

As for what you accomplish with your life, remember this: over 10-20 years at
a big company, you will build things that people will use. Over the same years
at a startup, you're inevitably going to pour your heart and soul into code
that nobody will ever see. If you're unfortunate enough to "score" any
funding, even after the company dies, you're probably not going to get to do
anything with that code.

~~~
mediaman
The economics for a non-founder in a startup are drastically different than
they are for a founder; however, the risk is only slightly better than the
founders. It is among the worst risk/reward tradeoffs I can think of.

The two reasons to do it are (1) some people love the opportunity for
responsibility/growth or environment and/or (2) the poor risk/reward is
actually an investment in themselves, so that they can gain the skills to
become a founder.

For founders, I don't believe it's relevant that the median startup doesn't
make money: the more you found, the better you become; a diligent and
intelligent founder is bound to ultimately make quite a bit of money, but it
may be a good number of tough years and failed startups before that happens.

~~~
tptacek
Your reasoning here is tainted by survivorship bias.

Yes, founders and employees share similar levels of risk in a startup that has
reached the point where it can hire FT employees.

But before the startup hit that point, it endured a period of drastically
higher risk, which the employees never saw, and which the founders are being
compensated for.

~~~
mediaman
The only conditions that must be true in my reasoning is that (1) an early
non-founding employee faces substantially higher risk than a corporate job,
(2) at lower pay and with substantially less equity than would compensate for
that risk.

That the risk was higher for the founders prior to the FTE is certainly true,
but irrelevant, because we are not comparing whether an FTE has a good
risk/reward tradeoff relative to an opportunity to join earlier in the startup
under the same terms, but rather relative to a corporate job.

------
cinkler
"They were all white college grad males."

I think it is irrelevant here - everybody is free to start a startup, this is
not a sign of any conspiracy or discrimination.

~~~
wehriam
I don't think he was implying conspiracy or discrimination as much as noting a
common thread.

------
datums
I feel completely the opposite. I personally will avoid by any means to join a
company who silences my thoughts and ideas. In a startups your ideas might not
always be put into action, but from my experience they're heard and maybe
discussed further. Do you know how long it takes to make a simple change to a
production environment in a big corporation. It's called change control, I get
it, a lot can go wrong, a lot can be lost. I choose not to be a part of it.
I've been fortunate and have live through the journey of going from a startup
to a publicly traded company. It was a great experience and I learned a ton.
I've worked for a few big corp / business casual companies and It's not what I
enjoy, it's not how I choose to spend my work day.

------
FreeRadical
It's nice to see an alternative view for a change.

------
derwiki
I think the main take away is: some jobs/companies are good, some are bad.

------
supertramp
The Man was once a startup.

~~~
CitizenKane
I don't think this is entirely accurate. There are a lot of companies out
there that end up being bought by wealthy investors or companies. These
investors or companies may have gotten their riches through inheritance or by
some other means.

Even then, The Man may have been a startup, but money and power can transform
people in surprising ways, or they might have been The Man from the beginning.

I think that generally you don't really want to be working for the man whether
it's in the context of a startup or a large company.

------
moon_of_moon
Nonsense.

I've worked with several venture funded startups, all entirely satisfying
experiences, and twice for large corporations. The big places were both good
for the first six months, and then you ask yourself repeatedly 'what kind of
fucken life is _this_?'

edit: important to note, the caliber of the founders is key. if they have done
this before, or if they've held senior positions at large organizations
before, then it's a good bet.

------
chrischen
I'd like to question the two founders paradigm. We see Microsoft, apple,
facebook all with one iconic leader. Having _cofounders_ implies each of the
founders are equally invested and dedicated, which the article shows can cause
power struggles. So it seems the best mix of founders is to have one lunatic
visionary dominate and regular people cofound.

~~~
jamesk2
> So it seems the best mix of founders is to have one lunatic visionary
> dominate and regular people cofound.

Woz and Paul Allen were pretty visionary themselves. I think working at the
same company after they've made it doesn't appeal to everyone and Allen
actually got sick and left. Microsoft was well on it's way to being massive so
I wouldn't chaulk it up to Bill Gates alone.

~~~
chrischen
Then why would most people attribute apple with jobs, Microsoft with gates,
facebook with zuckerberg, and yahoo with yang?

There is one guy who is more invested in it than the others right?

You should get someone to help, but I don't think it would be good to have two
founders who have visions for the company. Their respective visions would
eventually diverge and then conflict would arise.

~~~
jamesk2
Woz left Apple a long time ago, so did Allen and Filo (Yahoo Co-Founder). It's
a bit of survivor bias and interest in the limelight that the more famous
names persist.

~~~
chrischen
If they left then that's a sign that they had less interest or was less
invested in the company.

You can't have two people trying to dominate. Unless both founders have
perfectly matching visions, their joint command will be as bad as design by
committee. Someone is bound to leave or become somewhat subordinate to the
other. In the end one person will come out as the _main_ visionary guy for a
specific company.

------
JCThoughtscream
I suppose it's a good thing, then, that I've apparently been saddled with the
leadership aspect of my own venture. Sure, it means I have to make all the
decisions (and yes, there've been a few nightmares), but at least somebody
making the decisions, right?

------
albertsun
It makes sense that even if the mean quality of work experiences at a startup,
the standard deviation would be so much higher than in a corporate environment
that the worst experiences are much worse.

------
ahoyhere
It's fun to watch the Justification Machine rumble on, here on HN. Not that it
ever turns off.

The past few days I've been counting the number of articles on the front page
that are "meta." That is, to do with HN itself, or meatless 'questions' such
as "What are the true traits of an entrepreneur?" (Not an actual news item,
but it captures the idea nicely.)

It hovers around 30%.

Everybody here is getting high on their own supply.

The value of HN to me has dropped dramatically over the past 9 mos. The
critical thinking has all but disappeared, and the boosterism (Yay startups! I
have the traits of a true entrepreneur!) has gone way up.

This author makes very many excellent points, but sure, go ahead, dismiss them
out of hand as jealousy or aversion to "risk" rather than a well-formed
critique.

------
cakesy
Ok, so working for a company is better than working for a doomed startup, full
of racists and incompetents. Really? That certainly is good advice, I am just
not sure that anyone else needs that to be explicitlt pointed out. I can't
wait for your next article, eating a donut is better than being punching in
the face.

