

Cult Creation: How to hire your startup team [pdf] - lobo_tuerto
http://blognewcomb.squarespace.com/storage/essay_pdfs/cult.pdf

======
callmeed
_> By "cult" what I mean is a group of super high quality people who trust
each other and have similar ways of thinking, learning, reacting, problem-
solving and working together_

This still doesn't convince me that your new definition of "cult" is good.
"quality" and "trust" I get, but no one would ever say they want a low-
quality, untrustworthy team.

But the rest ... I thought a homogeneous, monoculture of people was bad? I
don't know anything about the teams Steve has lead, but it seems like this
approach could be a breeding ground for various -ism's

See also:

Avoid Monoculture: [http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2011/08/25/avoid-
monocult...](http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2011/08/25/avoid-monoculture-
travel-read-widely-let-experience-be-your-compass/)

Diversity = Productivity:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/science/08conv.html?_r=0](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/science/08conv.html?_r=0)

The Signals that Make Tech Start-Ups So Homogeneous
[http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/01/the-signals-that-make-tech-
star...](http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/01/the-signals-that-make-tech-startups-so-
homogeneous/)

~~~
troels
I think it's a tradeoff. A monoculture group can work very efficiently on the
tasks that they do well, but they will have certain types of risks. In an
early stage startup, this might be preferable, to just get something out the
door.

~~~
callmeed
Yeah, that's exactly what the HBR article I linked to talks about. Hard to
reverse that once you start down that road, though.

------
tptacek
_Super A = a(a), a=a, super B=c(c), b=c and c=0_

"Network" hiring, in a nutshell.

I feel comforted that I compete with companies that think this is the way to
hire, and also feel like the comprehensive rebuttal to this PDF would be doing
my competitors a favor.

~~~
malandrew
I work for Steve right now and I've worked at several different companies and
in several different industries and our hiring practices are far better than
what I've experienced in other companies. Are there ways in which I think the
process could be better, yeah of course. Judging by what you have on this
page, [http://www.matasano.com/careers/](http://www.matasano.com/careers/) ,
the rigor of process is not terribly different what you guys do. Where there
are differences is that we de-emphasize lots of phone/distance stuff and
emphasize on-site stuff. If we think people have the technical chops, we're
more than happy to have them come in and pay them to work with us for 1-2
weeks. However now that we have an open-source framework available out in the
wild now, we're moving in the direction of judging people on what they build
and do with our code, so that we don't have to rely on people spending as much
time with us, because that's hard to do when you already have a full-time job.

Judging the hiring process at the company of a person based on a essay is
naïve. There's a lot more to it that what fits on paper and what is in that
essay has evolved in the past few years. I've met a lot of the people who
Steve has hired at his previous company and all have been solid people I'd
work with. Both Tom-Preston Warner and Chris Wanstrath worked at Powerset.
Cliff Moon is brilliant as are the people who work with him at Boundary.

On a side note, after reading your hiring page, I'm not looking for work, but
I am curious about what resources you'd recommend to people interested in
learning about pen-testing web apps and building fuzzers. Never done any of
that type of stuff before, and I know nothing about it and I'm curious.

~~~
malandrew
Can the person who downvoted me, please tell me why they did?

~~~
cpach
“Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it
makes boring reading.” Please.

~~~
malandrew
That wasn't a complaint. It was a request for clarification. I don't know what
I did wrong in the eyes of the downvoter so I can't do anything to correct my
behavior in the future.

95% of the time, it's obvious to the person being downvoted, why they were
downvoted. However when it is nebulous, then there is no lesson that the
downvotee can learn from the situation.

If it makes for boring reading, there should be a feature that allows you to
make a comment that is only visible to the downvoter or make it possible to
ask the downvoter why they downvoted you in a way that allows them to respond
anonymously.

------
amirhhz
Here's a more readable HTML version from back when I first came across this:
[http://web.archive.org/web/20111008014250/http://blognewcomb...](http://web.archive.org/web/20111008014250/http://blognewcomb.squarespace.com/essays/2010/10/14/cult-
creation.html?printerFriendly=true)

------
elbrodeur
I worked with Steve at a company before famo.us. He's an excellent leader and
really does foster team cohesion unlike anything I've ever seen. Plus he's a
natural teacher and likes to involve people in the creation of the
"cult"/company culture/vision.

A++ would do it again.

------
didgeoridoo
Is there a readable version of this somewhere?

I can see the appeal of a scribd PDF for those times you have a gorgeous,
well-thought-out magazine layout that just wouldn't translate well to the web.
This is not one of those times.

~~~
malandrew
This article was published a long time ago and I not sure a pure HTML version
exists. However I can ask Steve later today when I see him.

~~~
borkabrak
Ask him about that twenty bucks he still owes me.

------
elliptic
What's this weird idea that "B-players hire C-players to make themselves look
good?" Are we convinced that all the B-players (let's face it, that's most of
us) are so terribly weak and insecure? Is it relative? Would the A-players at
Powerset be B-players on a team with Jeff Dean? Would that cause them to hire
C(B?)-players? If you hire someone better than your current A-players does
that demote them and turn them into poisonous cancers?

------
michaelochurch
_By "cult" what I mean is a group of super high quality people who trust each
other and have similar ways of thinking, learning, reacting, problem-solving
and working together_

That is... not what a cult is.

By "diaper", I mean the tool you use to pound nails in.

 _The best way to prove to yourself and to potential investors that you have a
killer idea is to see if you can get a number of A level engineers to join you
by only offering them equity and no initial salary._

First of all, this "real men don't take salary" nonsense is blatant classism.
It makes the classism of "Hiring is Obsolete" appear subtle.

Second, A-level engineers aren't going to take on personal financial risk for
someone else's idea (unless they're rich, in which case, why aren't they angel
investors?) It just does not happen. The sub-market salaries and low autonomy
of typical startup jobs are going to attract B players, except in dogshit
economic situations like November 2008 (which one hopes we'll never see
again).

 _How to convince a superstar to join you: "Let me rent you for 6 months.
You'll learn an insane amount about building a startup from me that will help
you prepare to start up your ﬁrst company. You'll have the pedigree of
Powerset standing behind you; and you'll have some cash in your pocket."_

I'm probably too old to be considered a "superstar" by the sorts of asshats
that VCs fund, but I would see this as akin to unpaid internships (in, say,
publishing) that tout the career benefits (to which, the proper response is:
"fuck you, pay me"). "This is a career opportunity for you" is such
condescending shit it makes me want to vomit. It's saying, "I have connections
and you're a middle-class fuckup, so work for me for free."

 _I urge founders to offer people a one-month, auto-terminating, consulting
contract that pays the person the exact amount of cash and equity (but in NSOs
instead of ISOs) that the person would get if they were an employee._

Yeah, fuck that shit. If I'm getting zero job security past one month (I know
how to get a severance in almost any corporate job; I'm paranoid and well-
studied) I'm charging a consulting rate. That's at least $250 per hour for
someone like me. A typical tech salary, on a one-month contract? Fuck off.

 _Start off by using relatively standard equity disbursals for each type of
role - VCs can help, they have many, many stat sheets on this one._

Standard equity disbursals are _fucking pathetic_ and not going to attract
anyone skilled. (You might get a stray, talented 22-year-old who doesn't yet
know how good he is. One of him per 5 losers.) This doesn't matter for most
startups because most of them are marketing gambits involving technology (not
technology itself) and can do just fine with a mediocre tech team.

~~~
malandrew

        I'm probably too old to be considered a "superstar" by the 
        sorts of asshats that VCs fund, but I would see this as 
        akin to unpaid internships (in, say, publishing) that tout 
        the career benefits (to which, the proper response is: 
        "fuck you, pay me"). "This is a career opportunity for 
        you" is such condescending shit it makes me want to vomit. 
        It's saying, "I have connections and you're a middle-class 
        fuckup, so work for me for free."
    

These people are not doing unpaid internships. They are paid what they would
be making doing a comparable job elsewhere.

    
    
        Yeah, fuck that shit. If I'm getting zero job security 
        past one month (I know how to get a severance in almost 
        any corporate job; I'm paranoid and well-studied) I'm 
        charging a consulting rate. That's at least $250 per hour 
        for someone like me. A typical tech salary, on a one-month 
        contract? Fuck off.
    

FWIW in Steve's companies people are paid market rate for this month.
Consulting at $250 an hour is really only realistic if you are already working
as a consulting, otherwise you're in the position of spending time getting
clients. The overhead of getting clients for those not already consulting can
easily drop your $250 an hour to $100 an hour for a one month gig.

    
    
        Standard equity disbursals are fucking pathetic and not 
        going to attract anyone skilled. (You might get a stray, 
        talented 22-year-old who doesn't yet know how good he is. 
        One of him per 5 losers.) This doesn't matter for most 
        startups because most of them are marketing gambits 
        involving technology (not technology itself) and can do 
        just fine with a mediocre tech team.
    

IMHO standard equity disbursals based on the tables from top VCs could be
better, but the amount of equity given out is related to the amount of risk
involved. If a startup raised money from a Greylock, Sequoia, A16Z, Benchmark,
etc, than that startup has less risk than a startup with funding from Joe
Schmoe VC. The top VCs offer a lot more support than cash. Some of the top VCs
have hiring departments have helped find us excellent candidates working big
company jobs that are quietly open to working for an rising star startup.

I've heard enough pitches from startups working on mediocre ideas with no idea
on what their revenue model might be. I'd take 0.1 to 1% at a startup with a
much more real chance of success where I will work with better people than 10%
of options in a stock that wouldn't even get listed on SHITDAQ.

I would love it if equity disbursals were better, but the game is what it is
and anyone who actually wants to make money off equity needs to be a founder.
If your plan is to make money off equity, you need to plan to be a founder
someday and you need to be playing the cards you have now in a way that you
get dealt a solid hand later when you are the founder. It's basically like
counting cards. Make lots of small bets where you don't make a lot of money
and probably leave money on the table until you see that the shoe is set up in
a way that you know your odds are pretty solid and you then start making
bigger bets.

I recommend that people optimize for the quality of people they work with and
the opportunities that get them the most valuable connections and
opportunities long term. Unless you're among the first 5 employees, trying to
optimize for equity is naïve. So few companies are going to be a $1 billion +
exit that your statistical chances of choosing one of those while being among
the first 10-20 employees is stupidly low.

This post from Robert Cezar Matei is highly instructive:
[http://www.quora.com/Instagram/Did-anyone-decline-an-
offer-t...](http://www.quora.com/Instagram/Did-anyone-decline-an-offer-to-
work-at-Instagram/answer/Robert-Cezar-Matei)

At the end of the day, everyone should evaluate stock options on the following
scale ... Are options from this company likely to afford me a new car, new
house or a new life. Unless you can answer new life or possibly new house with
a straight face, you should optimize for salary if you don't plan on founder a
company and if you do, you should optimize for what increases your chances
later of hiring the best people, raising the most money and giving up the
least equity. Founding a company and achieving a successful life changing exit
is a long game.

Disclaimer: I currently work for Steve.

~~~
sheepmullet
_FWIW in Steve 's companies people are paid market rate for this month.
Consulting at $250 an hour is really only realistic if you are already working
as a consulting_

$250/hr for a 1 month contract _is_ market rate. As an applicant I am taking
on a huge amount of risk unless I personally know and trust the employer and
team (in which case such a contract is rarely necessary). I can do a week,
maybe even two, without having to leave my existing job. More than that and
I'm wearing the risk. Why would I want to do that?

~~~
malandrew
A consultant with a reputation and track record of delivering projects on a
one month deadline and who came through a referral that vouched for their work
product gets $250 an hour.

A person being hired as an employee where we probably know nothing about their
work quality unless an existing employee has worked with them prior at another
job is not a consultant. Both sides are taking risk. The company is paying the
person with a lot less indication that it is going to work out than they would
with a consultant with a reputation. With a consultant with a reputation, they
know exactly what deliverable they are paying for and there is a contract that
gives guarantees and protection to the company if the consultant fails to
deliver.

I think it would be fair to pay $250/hr to someone for that month on the
condition that they have pay back a penalty if they fail to perform adequately
for the job to be hired. Such a scenario balances risk and makes sense when
consulting is the name of the game. If you were to make that offer to a
candidate there interested in a job, not consulting, but a job, I don't think
most would do it because they mentally aren't there interviewing with you with
a consultant attitude.

Consultants take contracts for jobs they know they can deliver on. Except for
the most exceptional candidates (i.e. that that have the capacity and know-how
to be one man consultancy shops capable of doing the type of work you need
them to do), most interviewees are probably applying to work at your company
because it is a step up from the type of work they have previously performed.
Basically, selection bias dictates that there is typically more risk for the
employer when hiring an employee than when hiring a consultant, which is why
you don't pay people like consultants.

At the end of the day the two situations are apples and oranges and you pay
apples and oranges rates for each scenario, respectively.

That all being said, the amount of time the interviews are done today is two
weeks. Given the amount of job security software engineers have today, this
isn't that big a deal. You'd be surprised how many engineers are in a position
to do something like this. For those that absolutely can't afford to do that,
we try accommodate.

~~~
sheepmullet
_A person being hired as an employee where we probably know nothing about
their work quality unless an existing employee has worked with them prior at
another job is not a consultant._

I understand they are not an actual consultant and won't likely perform as
one. I'm saying that because you want them to take on much of the risk of
being a consultant you should pay them accordingly. Anything less is shifting
the majority of the risk to the employee which is IMO incredibly immoral.

At least with a 1-2 week trial it is possible to keep your existing job which
greatly reduces the risk.

