I think your point about stage of the company and its changing needs is fascinating. As a consultant, we occasionally advice on the right hire for organisations in our niche (often big tech).
I'm curious about your take on the idea that many, if not most, people at startups tend to be mercenary in nature - jumping from one organisation to the next. In Europe, we often think of employees in the USA as contractors rather than employees. They can be terminated at will and they seem to change jobs every 2 to 3 years (some a lot sooner).
Do you see this reflected in the startups you're discussing here?
I expect there is more moving around between startups simply because it is the optimal thing to do - outcomes are more variable and employees are building a "portfolio".
However for the very best startups, including many I've been fortunate to work with, the average tenure of employees is much longer.
This is the exact right take on whether or not someone should be joining a startup and what they should pay attention to. I get this question all the time from people thinking about "trying out" working at a startup. It's simply not for everyone and that's fine. Moreover, it MIGHT be something that's fit for you, but not that specific company due to the stage they're at. That's a unique perspective that I hadn't quite considered.
Great analysis and synthesis, Dan! On the point about not taking the job if they give you a VP or Director title with a few years of experience, that may be true more today than 15 years ago (when there were very few people who had years of startup experience in a specific function), but it's the quality and not the quantity of your experience that matters. If you're coming out of 4 years of hypergrowth experience, that may translate to 12 years of "regular" experience in terms of what you've seen and packed in a small amount of time. And having worked in 6th gear intensively may be more valuable to a startup than a Director who is only used to operating in a comfortable 2nd gear and has spent years getting used to resources and predictability. Thoughts?
On your first point, I agree this is becoming more true as the ecosystem matures and there is a more efficient job market for senior roles.
Also agree that 4 years at a startup can = many more elsewhere. I still think its less likely at that point that getting a very senior title is a positive signal, but I do agree there could be cases where it makes sense. My point was mainly directed at people who are truly new to a function or have just a few years of experience.
Love this article Dan. What's your take on also considering the investors in a particular startup? Startup success is metrics (retention is HUGE!) but there's also that "Fairy dust" that great funds add with certain PortCos- at the end of the day we all want great outcomes and it seems like the best funds tend to have the best outcomes as well.
I joined as the 6th employee of a company that eventually became worth now $3B.
So much LUCK involved... but the one thing I did focus on was the TEAM (specifically, the founders). I wrote separately:
"It’s embarrassing to admit, but when I joined Privia, I had zero projection about the future of the business. I didn’t ask about revenue, business model, investors, customers, or whatever else smart people ask about when evaluating a startup.
I liked the mission, but I mostly remember thinking: “woah, these are some of the smartest people I’ve ever met!”
I later heard that early-stage investors pick the founder, not the idea, because it’s too early to validate an idea and good founders figure it out.
If you are figuring out what to do with your life, picking the people to work with is a good heuristic; at the very least, you’ll witness what great work looks like."
I came across your LinkedIn profile through your Game One and Game Two article and found myself reading through your other articles. Thank you for taking the time to share such quality content!
I have an article idea that might be helpful for both startup founders and those looking to work for startups. Would you mind if I send you a LinkedIn message to discuss this?
Great article, Dan. Exactly what I was looking for at the moment. I'm contemplating starting my PM career after graduating this Spring, and so far, my only PM exposure has been through 2 FAANG internships. I'm curious to hear your perspective on whether diving into a startup for my initial PM role is a good move. Can one effectively learn the ropes in a hyper-growth environment, or would you recommend a more established setting for gaining foundational experience?
I think your point about stage of the company and its changing needs is fascinating. As a consultant, we occasionally advice on the right hire for organisations in our niche (often big tech).
I'm curious about your take on the idea that many, if not most, people at startups tend to be mercenary in nature - jumping from one organisation to the next. In Europe, we often think of employees in the USA as contractors rather than employees. They can be terminated at will and they seem to change jobs every 2 to 3 years (some a lot sooner).
Do you see this reflected in the startups you're discussing here?
I expect there is more moving around between startups simply because it is the optimal thing to do - outcomes are more variable and employees are building a "portfolio".
However for the very best startups, including many I've been fortunate to work with, the average tenure of employees is much longer.
Thanks for sharing. I wonder if it varies on the maturity of the startup too.
This is the exact right take on whether or not someone should be joining a startup and what they should pay attention to. I get this question all the time from people thinking about "trying out" working at a startup. It's simply not for everyone and that's fine. Moreover, it MIGHT be something that's fit for you, but not that specific company due to the stage they're at. That's a unique perspective that I hadn't quite considered.
Thanks for the kind words!
Great analysis and synthesis, Dan! On the point about not taking the job if they give you a VP or Director title with a few years of experience, that may be true more today than 15 years ago (when there were very few people who had years of startup experience in a specific function), but it's the quality and not the quantity of your experience that matters. If you're coming out of 4 years of hypergrowth experience, that may translate to 12 years of "regular" experience in terms of what you've seen and packed in a small amount of time. And having worked in 6th gear intensively may be more valuable to a startup than a Director who is only used to operating in a comfortable 2nd gear and has spent years getting used to resources and predictability. Thoughts?
Thanks Lisa!
On your first point, I agree this is becoming more true as the ecosystem matures and there is a more efficient job market for senior roles.
Also agree that 4 years at a startup can = many more elsewhere. I still think its less likely at that point that getting a very senior title is a positive signal, but I do agree there could be cases where it makes sense. My point was mainly directed at people who are truly new to a function or have just a few years of experience.
Love this article Dan. What's your take on also considering the investors in a particular startup? Startup success is metrics (retention is HUGE!) but there's also that "Fairy dust" that great funds add with certain PortCos- at the end of the day we all want great outcomes and it seems like the best funds tend to have the best outcomes as well.
Great addition - looking for top tier investors is a hack to find many of the other things mentioned here, because they are screening the same things.
I joined as the 6th employee of a company that eventually became worth now $3B.
So much LUCK involved... but the one thing I did focus on was the TEAM (specifically, the founders). I wrote separately:
"It’s embarrassing to admit, but when I joined Privia, I had zero projection about the future of the business. I didn’t ask about revenue, business model, investors, customers, or whatever else smart people ask about when evaluating a startup.
I liked the mission, but I mostly remember thinking: “woah, these are some of the smartest people I’ve ever met!”
I later heard that early-stage investors pick the founder, not the idea, because it’s too early to validate an idea and good founders figure it out.
If you are figuring out what to do with your life, picking the people to work with is a good heuristic; at the very least, you’ll witness what great work looks like."
From here: https://newsletter.thewayofwork.com/p/from-early-startup-to-public-company
I came across your LinkedIn profile through your Game One and Game Two article and found myself reading through your other articles. Thank you for taking the time to share such quality content!
I have an article idea that might be helpful for both startup founders and those looking to work for startups. Would you mind if I send you a LinkedIn message to discuss this?
Great article, Dan. Exactly what I was looking for at the moment. I'm contemplating starting my PM career after graduating this Spring, and so far, my only PM exposure has been through 2 FAANG internships. I'm curious to hear your perspective on whether diving into a startup for my initial PM role is a good move. Can one effectively learn the ropes in a hyper-growth environment, or would you recommend a more established setting for gaining foundational experience?