
Ask HN: How do you convince people to work for you as a non-exciting startup? - alphagrep12345
Most great companies attract people because they have a great mission which is marketed well. Say you have a great commercial startup idea but not a great marketable vision (Think of a B2B software that&#x27;d help people with xyz), how do you convince good people to join you? You can&#x27;t say - &quot;This is the greatest thing the world has ever seen&quot;. Is it only money then?
======
PhilWright
Sell the developer on the chance to use the latest technology.

Sell the developer on the chance for career growth as the company grows.

Sell the developer on the fast paced environment without all the meetings and
bureaucracy of larger companies.

Sell the developer on the chance to work broadly across many projects and not
be stuck doing the same specialism all the time.

Sell the developer on being a big fish in a small pond and not just another
numbered resource.

Your selling the culture and environment.

~~~
partisan
Having had an unsexy startup, all of the above helped to attract good talent.
As developers ourselves, we were attracted to an environment like the one you
describe and so we created a company that we would want to work in. We had no
turnover for several years as a result.

------
kochb
Even if it’s a mundane problem, if your product solves a valuable need for an
underserved market you shouldn’t have problems making a market rate hire.
There are plenty of people who would be happy to work on a good opportunity
while enjoying the freedoms of a small company. Substance is more attractive
than marketable hype any day.

------
jasonkester
Just pay more. Developers care a lot less than you think about what it is
they're building. I mean sure, we'd all like to build something cool. But not
if it means leaving money on the table.

------
davismwfl
If you can’t sell the vision to a prospective employee you’ll fail to sell to
clients. Not being a dick to you, just I have seen this before. Doesn’t make
you bad just a good gut/reality check to help you adjust as needed.

The pitch is very similar between the two. You are selling the employee on the
same base values you sell a client on.

Show why the client wins and how your solution will address the pain.
Highlight the challenges because even in mundane problems there are always
challenges. Engineers sometimes fail to see the challenges of why a problem
would be fun to tackle so that is the one area you have to help highlight.

I do agree that the less interesting and challenging the problem then you do
have to compensate in other ways to attract talent. But also be honest you
don’t always need high end engineers to solve simple problems. So hire what
you need and don’t fall victim to hiring the wrong type of person for the type
of work you need done.

------
pizzaparty2
Let everyone architect but only after they've completed some challenging but
reasonable tasks. For example:

\- passes multiple choice test about how current code works

\- has a professional knowledge of the language they are using (part 2 of the
test)

\- has read and done a book report on 2-3 design-pattern/architecture books.

Once you do all that you go in the queue. New developers have precedence over
seasoned developers. When a new project comes up the developer who gets that
greenfield is the first developer in that queue who hasn't had a chance to
architect yet.

The main idea is that good developers don't want to be assembly line workers
and yet a total lack of autonomy seems to be the norm for (I think) most
software developers. So the ability to make technical decisions is a real
benefit IMO.

Some other things that might be advantages:

\- you now have a team of experts. Good job.

\- you can avoid senior devs possessing all of the knowledge of the companies
software (because only that select few got to design anything) and then not
having an incentive to improve.

\- Creating a genuine interest in new code (because you want to see how the
new guy did it).

"Everyone is an architect" should be your tag line.

~~~
yellow_lead
Although this may attract developers initially which is the original question,
this seems like an ineffective strategy for a business. In _The Mythical Man
Month_ , the author argues that one of the most important things in software
architecture is conceptual integrity. Having many different architects cycle
through seems like a great way to end up with too many different ideas in your
systems and a poor conceptual integrity.

Maybe this could work for a short time at a startup, but I'd be curious to
know your thoughts in response.

~~~
pizzaparty2
That's a good point. I left out a concept of constraints. For example, it has
to be written in the same language as our other applications. But if it's not
different enough from an existing application just copy the existing
application and don't call it a greenfield.

Or let someone burn their turn by copying the existing application but making
minor tweaks and changes. That could work just as well.

------
DoreenMichele
You've no doubt heard the story of the two brick layers.* One sees himself as
"building a wall." The other sees himself as "building a cathedral."

You should hash it out with someone and figure out how to explain why it
matters. No one thinks Burger King is "solving world hunger" but the reality
is that ubiquitous cheap eateries are, in fact, part of why there is no
widespread, devastating starvation in the US.

I really like a couple of scenes from _The Devil Wears Prada " when Andy is
given a big picture overview of why both fashion generally and this fashion
magazine in particular matter.

[https://vimeo.com/354919615](https://vimeo.com/354919615)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj8mHwvFxMc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj8mHwvFxMc)

You need to work on your visioning statement or elevator speech or similar. If
you are providing a service and doing it well, it's possible to get excited
about it. You may need a little help with figuring out how to communicate it,
but it can be done.

If it's also "boring" insofar as being reliable, steady and well-paid work,
there are lots of people who will see that as a huge draw. Not everyone
ascribes to the philosophy that "It's better to burn out than to fade away."
Some people like a lack of drama in their lives.

_ First reference I could readily find (and slightly different from the
version I remember): [https://betterlifecoachingblog.com/2012/03/30/the-two-
brickl...](https://betterlifecoachingblog.com/2012/03/30/the-two-bricklayers-
a-story-about-our-mindsets/)

------
this2shallPass
Besides what others people have mentioned - flexibility, growth, and learning.
Do people have autonomy? Is there sane work life balance? Good engineering
practices (including good code review and reasonable prioritizing of technical
debt)? Good overall company dynamic and practices (sane, including clients not
overly dictating internal company operations, internal teams working well
together, collaborative / non-competitive people who are trying to accomplish
some shared goals)? Stability (high-value customers, lots of them, and/or lots
of money raised)? Little politics? Unique technical issues (huge scale, real
time, etc)? Are people heard / is their feedback taken into account?

------
BjoernKW
Those who claim that their product is the greatest thing since sliced bread
(which ironically itself wasn't the "greatest thing since sliced bread" at
first) sometimes might be delusional or even just lying.

I'd take an honest product that provably helps people over a mere pipe dream
any day. That's not to say that a visionary product doesn't have appeal or
can't be truly world-changing but chances are that you'll make a far greater
impact in changing the world by taking small, incremental steps.

------
amirathi
As a small company you can offer flexibility, growth, and learning along with
a competitive pay.

Flexibility - Work remotely, set your own hours etc. We care about
output/productivity & not how or when you work.

Growth - Make sure there's always a next level/challenge/goal/increased pay
etc.

Learning - In small companies folks can (and should) wear different hats & get
to learn about sales, business, marketing etc. on the job.

I'd look at SO Developer survey & focus on things that matter to people apart
from company vision & pay.

------
hos234
You don't. It works only after you get enough funding to afford them.
Initially you just stay focused on getting simple things done. And done well.
That attracts better people through your satisfied customers and investors.

------
muzani
Treat them better than average? Maybe 4 day workweeks or unlimited paid time
off. Maybe even treat them as friends.

~~~
jurgenwerk
Companies should never advertise unlimited time off. This is a myth. There's
always a limit, and what this does is just impose extra stress when trying to
guess what it is.

~~~
muzani
Yeah, it depends on the maturity of the team and requires a lot of trust.
Obviously, you can't take off half the year.

4 day workweeks mean about 52 extra days off, and yet not everyone wants a 3
day weekend. I'd enjoy some 3 day weekends, but too much will be stressful
when dealing with the bottomless amount of things to do at a startup.

You can straight up say every year has 66 day PTO, but that means that people
will feel guilty about not using it. But maybe this approach is the best.

------
romanovcode
> Is it only money then?

It's always only money. Most developers do not care much about the product
they are building.

~~~
UglyToad
Hmm, I'm not sure that's universally true or even true for a majority. Though
I might just be in a bubble.

I care deeply about what a job would be asking me to build and I will
absolutely leave money on the table if the product is immoral (for example
gambling, ad tech, software for ICE, most arms manufacturers, most energy
companies).

Work is unfortunately about 33% of your time on earth and it matters what you
do with it, some people are mercenary and only care about money and that's
their lookout but your statement reads as a consensus when I don't think it
is. If it was no one would work for charities or public schools or public
healthcare bodies.

In answer to the OP as long as the work isn't actively harmful then it's about
quality of Life (and yes, money). No silly 40 hour plus weeks, etc.

------
rajacombinator
Why are you doing it if you’re not excited about it? Why are you excited about
it if not the “vision?” Sometimes just the money is good enough. (And being
realistic about this is way better than claiming to save the world with your
b2b widget.)

------
burntoutfire
Two ideas:

\- Hire remotely including from outside of the US

\- Hire older people.

