[HN Gopher] Tell HN: Two YC companies in a row hired and then di...
___________________________________________________________________
Tell HN: Two YC companies in a row hired and then didn't take me on
I'm a senior iOS developer with background at a FAANG etc, so
during good times it was always very easy to find jobs. Recently
I've had some pretty bad experiences with two YC companies in a
row. In both cases I went through long recruitment processes,
spoke at length with the founders and technical staff, did a (paid)
trial project, in one case this lasted for almost a month. In both
companies everyone I talk to was extremely positive, even gushing,
so I was not surprised to be hired. I was very surprised though
that in both cases they changed their minds before the formal
employment had begun, due to their financial situation. They were
never rude, and they did pay me for the hours I had worked, but it
still wasted a lot of my time since I didn't seek any other jobs
while trial working for them. It's hard to imagine that it was
some kind of ruse to get very short term work done, but it's also
hard to see how they couldn't plan better. Perhaps they started
hiring on the expectation of being able to raise money, but that
seems unprofessional and disrespectful towards the candidates, no?
Author : Grustaf
Score : 142 points
Date : 2022-12-22 17:36 UTC (5 hours ago)
| rognjen wrote:
| While what you went through is definitely not cool, I think this
| was a mistake:
|
| > since I didn't seek any other jobs while trial working for them
|
| IMO a trial project is just another step in the interviewing
| process so you should have continued to interview with others.
| You might have even gotten another offer in the meantime and
| forced their hand to make a decision before the trial period is
| over.
| rqtwteye wrote:
| Where do people get all the time to do trial projects and then
| also interviewing constantly ? I really don't get it.
| rognjen wrote:
| For me specifically, interviewing was a full-time job -- and
| not one where you can phone it in.
|
| I was given a trial project by one company and I told them
| I'm still interviewing and I could commit only 10 hours a
| week (if I'm not mistaken). Two weeks in, I had gotten
| another offer and told them that they had to make a decision
| now.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| Hey, why not start your own company?
|
| I bet if they wanted to hire you, but circumstances disrupted
| that, they saw value that others would see.
| jjulius wrote:
| >Hey, why not start your own company?
|
| Dude's looking for a job as a senior iOS dev and the advice is
| to start his own company?
| avgDev wrote:
| HE COULD BUILD THE NEXT AMAZON OR FABECOOK!
|
| /s obviously
| gwbas1c wrote:
| (I don't think this comment deserved to get blocked)
|
| "Been there done that." I'm an excellent developer, and I tried
| to start my own company. The workload when starting your own
| company is very different than merely developing software.
|
| Although I won't go so far as to say it takes a special someone
| to start their own company; many of us know what we want to do
| with our careers and know the where we want to stretch our
| comfort zones and where we want to stay in them. Joining an
| early stage company is often a stretch in itself, especially if
| someone just wants to spend most of their day programming.
| phphphphp wrote:
| Most early stage companies are wildly optimistic about their
| future and are at constant risk of going belly up. As a
| candidate, it's important to go into the process with your eyes
| wide open and to do your due diligence.
|
| If you need or want stability, early stage companies probably
| aren't worth your attention. Even if they hired you and even if
| you started, you'd be no less at risk of being let go. If you'd
| like stability, you'll need to look for companies that are well
| capitalised and are executing on a long term strategy rather than
| fighting for survival (and even then, there's still a risk --
| even FAANG's are rescinding offers).
|
| Although what happened isn't ideal, I don't think it reflects too
| badly on the startups in question because they did pay you -- and
| likewise, it's fair for you to be annoyed / disappointed /
| frustrated.
| Grustaf wrote:
| > Most early stage companies are wildly optimistic about their
| future and are at constant risk of going belly up.
|
| Yeah, sure. Ideally I'd like to see them being super optimistic
| in their own mind, and perhaps with potential investors, media
| etc, but more realistic when communicating with people like
| prospective employees. I would still have gone through the
| trial work and all the interviews even if I had known that
| their finances were shaky, the only difference is that then I
| wouldn't have stopped my job seeking efforts, and it would also
| have been less of a shock.
|
| Of course, pausing job seeking was my decision and my
| responsibility, but it wouldn't have cost them anything to be
| more forthcoming. If changing financial fortunes was indeed the
| true reason.
| phphphphp wrote:
| There's the need for a sort of... naive is probably the wrong
| word, but a type of optimism that is more than just being
| positive, a type of optimism that means you believe deep in
| your soul that your startup is going to succeed no matter
| what, and that optimism doesn't allow for differentiating
| between internal and external presentation -- there's _just_
| optimism.
|
| There are founders who will only accept defeat when they are
| physically unable to make payroll or even when payments to
| employees start bouncing: that's bad behaviour but it's the
| sort of behaviour that is closely related to the same type of
| behaviour required to succeed.
|
| I completely agree that they would ideally be more open with
| prospects, people they're interviewing etc. but I am not sure
| if that's something we can expect to get. I spend a lot of
| time looking at the workatastartup website listings and
| (perhaps naively) I feel like I can identify which companies
| are flying by the seat of their pants (and therefore might
| one day wake up and realise "oh shit, we have to fire the new
| guy") vs. the ones that I could expect to disclose to me a
| few months in advance when things are looking dicey.
|
| As applicants, we have to assume the worst and plan
| accordingly.
| Tempest1981 wrote:
| What do hiring companies do if they have 1 position open, but
| find 2 candidates that are essentially a tie, and can't choose
| between them? Would they have both of them do a trial project?
| Could that have happened here?
| tedmiston wrote:
| I think this is the most probable explanation.
|
| And the candidates needn't even be a tie. Maybe they have one
| candidate that's less experienced or a significantly less
| expensive hire but that is sufficient enough for what the role
| requires.
|
| It can be really difficult to make a call like that, but at the
| end of the day, the smaller the company is, the more tightly
| controlling runway and burn rate could increase chances of
| survival.
|
| I think this matters less once a company passes a sufficient
| headcount threshold. It's hard to draw a specific line in the
| sand, but perhaps ~75-100 people.
| dinkumthinkum wrote:
| I feel like you are just experiencing work at risky startups.
| Look up DreamWorld. YC invested in that is one of the most absurd
| frauds (or insert whatever word makes you comfortable) in the
| industry. The hucksters were even lauded as disrupters.
| Presumably you don't work for peanuts and you are having bad
| experiences with startups related to finances. I think this is
| why people use the phrase "par for the course".
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| Back in the day we did in-person interviews around the floor, and
| would make an offer before the interviewee left the building (or
| say sorry no).
|
| But that was a long time ago. Still, in a competitive market it
| seems a sensible approach.
| helsontaveras18 wrote:
| I understand where your frustration is coming from. As a founder,
| you do your best to prepare for the best and worst outcomes at
| the same time. It sounds like they ran a real recruitment process
| and paid you for your time, hoping to hire you.
|
| However, the funding market is very poor. It's likely they
| realized that someone of your calibre, while useful to the org,
| wasn't absolutely, 100% needed to the survival of the company.
| That's not to say you weren't impressive. It's just that founders
| right now are in survival mode, not "Let's hire the best talent
| we can find" mode. Founders are trying to use the minimum
| resources possible to get to their next milestone.
|
| It sounds like the YC founders made a tough call but one that
| protected their runway.
| tedmiston wrote:
| I agree this feels like a sign of the times and the greater
| macroeconomic environment has forced many startups to choose
| between going into survival mode or going bankrupt by running
| out of runway too soon.
|
| I've always been frustrated by startups that hire over-
| optimistically. I worked for one that doubled headcount twice
| from 15 to 30 to 60 in just a few months (with a heavy emphasis
| on engineering) pre-PMF only to turn around just a few months
| later and layoff half of the company, then a few months after
| that, half again. That obliterated the culture and morale, and
| then also follow-on effects of more people leaving that made it
| even worse.
|
| They are a rare success story that went on to eventually re-
| raise a "seed" round two more times (!), rebuild and eventually
| achieve unicorn status. However, in the process it required
| changing virtually the entire company (90+%) including all new
| C suite, the founders being demoted, etc.
|
| I can't help but wonder in a parallel universe what could have
| happened had we not hired excessively to begin with.
|
| I think too many founders today expose themselves to being
| overly dependent on venture capital by growing headcount too
| fast.
| andrew_ wrote:
| Not at all surprised by this. I worked for a YC company. I've
| interviewed with over a dozen of them over the years. One thing
| that YC companies don't do very well is interview/hire. All but
| one (the one I worked for) went down the typical broken path of
| 6+ hours of total interview time, including multiple live coding
| sessions with pedantic exercises (the one's we've all come to
| know well - algorithm regurgitation), the ominous "culture fit"
| calls, and over-emphasis on equity. I've found it surprising that
| YC doesn't better coach founders/companies on how to be more
| efficient and more innovative with their hiring processes.
| tedmiston wrote:
| There have been a few YC companies to reinvent / optimize /
| improve the tech hiring process, such as Triplebyte.
|
| In theory, they could be a better approach. In practice, my
| experience has been that many companies don't actively monitor
| and interests go unseen or trivially dismissed. I had companies
| like Dropbox mark my interest on Triplebyte as "no relevant
| experience" after viewing my profile for less than a minute and
| for which I've actually been doing and have 5+ years of
| relevant experience.
| eclipticplane wrote:
| I view the Triplebytes of the world as negative signal on
| companies. They aren't willing to spend time coding with
| candidates? The core thing I'm being hired to do? If they
| don't have the time due to number of candidates (common
| reason), _they have a screening/sourcing problem_ not a
| _technical exercise problem_.
|
| For me, watching _how_ someone solves a problem is just as
| important as the actual solution if I 'm going to be working
| with them on a daily basis.
| tedmiston wrote:
| A lot of Triplebyte's value as a candidate is in being able
| to skip past screener type calls / the very earliest
| stages. I don't think it is at the point where they
| entirely replace technical interviews.
| solarmist wrote:
| Unsurprisingly since most of them are trying to figure it out
| as they go and don't realize how much of their time they should
| be devoting to this until much later.
| switchupcb wrote:
| Michael Seibel recommends that all hires raise the average IQ
| score of the company. Yet they also recommend that startups be
| run by outliers? It doesn't work logically. Regardless, many
| programmers (technical founders) believe that LeetCode
| performance is correlated with IQ Score (since Google started
| using DS&A).
| gedy wrote:
| I'd rather a real IQ test vs leetcode cramming games and
| having junior coders being the gatekeepers anyways.
| tedmiston wrote:
| It sounds comforting in theory but expensive in practice.
|
| That advice has long been old startup lore even before
| Michael was at YC.
|
| But wrt literal IQ (I recall the advice being "smarter" than
| the average person in the room, not IQ specifically), I think
| the intended meaning is more "cognitive ability" or i.e.,
| ability to learn quickly.
|
| I think this is why most early stage startups can do well
| with mostly strong junior engineers and a lesser percentage
| of seniors to oversee the cloud engineering concerns like
| scale, architecture, infrastructure, security, etc.
| avgDev wrote:
| I score above average on IQ tests. Today, I would fail an
| algorithm interview. I have been building business apps. I
| can take an idea and make it a feature from 0 to
| database/api/web app.
|
| I made a decision to just suck it up next year and practice
| algorithms. I have no problem getting offers from average
| companies. However, all the big dogs want data structures and
| algorithms. It doesn't feel right for me, but oh well.
| hbrn wrote:
| > I went through long recruitment processes
|
| Sadly a lot of startups are still doing that. I was too, but I
| learned from my mistakes.
|
| You're not freaking Google, good candidates (the ones you
| _should_ hire) have multiple offers and are not going to wait
| until you make up your mind. Being able to send an offer fast
| might not guarantee a great hire, but being slow drastically
| increases chances of getting a mediocre one. You get 90% of the
| signals in the first interview anyway, and there 's a lot of
| evidence that even the best hiring processes are not very far
| from coin flip.
|
| Bundle all your interviews in a single day. Send offer in one day
| at most. After all, startups are about moving fast.
| searealist wrote:
| It sounds like they were unsure of you, took you on for a trial
| period to prove yourself, and then you didn't meet expectations.
| They then made up an excuse about the economy to avoid
| confrontation. Not blaming you or anything. Just letting you know
| the most likely explanation in case that helps you in the future.
| tracker1 wrote:
| I seriously doubt that... to me it's becoming _very_ familiar
| and probably to anyone who was in software development around
| 1999-2002 timeframe. A _lot_ of companies at that time rolled
| over with little to no notice. Promised offers were revoked, on
| a few occasions after expensive relocation. There was a whole
| "recession club" movement even as the jobs were completely
| dried out in the west coast for software devs. Hit the Phoenix
| area about a year following, post-911 was when a lot of
| companies just cut projects that were stalled or further from
| done.
|
| If you're in a position, hold on to it... if you are looking,
| look for company+industry stability first and foremost. If it's
| like a couple decades ago, it could last a year or three.
| searealist wrote:
| These companies did not freeze hiring. They took on OP with a
| trial work period. We are not talking about a take home
| project during the interview stage. This only happens when a
| company in unsure about a candidate and wants to give them a
| chance. It's clear what has actually happened here and
| everyone telling the OP it's just the economy is not doing
| them any favors in the long run.
| tracker1 wrote:
| I don't know which companies they were, and didn't see a
| mention of hiring continuing or not in the OP.
| bragr wrote:
| Honestly doesn't sound like anything YC specific. Everyone is
| tightening their belts and employees are very expensive and
| represent ongoing liabilities on balance sheets.
|
| The only thing I would fault you on is going after trial
| positions in this economic situation. Think of the opportunity
| cost of not going after positions that could be for sure, while
| you are working on a trial position.
|
| >that seems unprofessional and disrespectful towards the
| candidates, no?
|
| Nobody can predict the future. You don't know what investor will
| suddenly come up short on cash or what economic factor will
| clobber your balance sheet. It sounds like the whole process
| (interview + trial) lasted nearly a quarter and that's definitely
| on cycle for major financial changes.
| gnicholas wrote:
| > _The only thing I would fault you on is going after trial
| positions in this economic situation_
|
| I would be surprised if this were something the candidate
| suggested -- it was probably a part of the company's recruiting
| process. It may have been optional, or it may have been
| mandatory.
|
| > _Honestly doesn 't sound like anything YC specific_
|
| Possibly, though they are big on "hire slow, fire fast".
| Grustaf wrote:
| Yeah the trial work was not my suggestion, it was part of the
| process. But I don't think it's a bad idea in itself, I've
| always been a proponent of it, as long as it's handled well.
| anoojb wrote:
| This is rough. I'm sorry you've experienced this. I had a similar
| experience a few months ago interviewing with a profitable YC
| company with a multi-billion dollar valuation.
|
| I would encourage you to think of the YC investment (or any
| investor's "stamp of approval") as an indication of a potentially
| successful return of capital _for investors_. Not a good company
| for you as an employee to achieve your goals.
|
| Inherently, labor and capital are in conflict with each other.
| The things which make a company successful for the investors are
| usually not aligned to what makes it a great experience and
| outcome for the employee.
|
| I did a retrospective on my journey interviewing at this YC
| company and my key insight was to evaluate the leadership, not
| the investors. The hiring manager was great. But after
| retrospectively vetting the CEO and leadership team, I came to
| the conclusion that they were really struggling with building a
| healthy business in a really competitive space.
|
| As part of my retrospective I tried to take an analytical view of
| the competitive dynamics. It's pretty clear in the near term that
| the LowCode space I was looking at is going to face pressure from
| incumbents amidst a general re-pricing --
|
| https://blog.devnos.com/posts/2022-12-20-lowcode/
| WalterBright wrote:
| > The things which make a company successful for the investors
| are usually not aligned to what makes it a great experience and
| outcome for the employee.
|
| This is simply not true. Having happy employees is very good
| for business profitability.
|
| The unions are always trying to recast the relationship as
| adversarial, which is a huge mistake.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| > This is simply not true. Having happy employees is very
| good for business profitability.
|
| If it was true, then you'd think more companies would care
| about their employees. Amazon treats their warehouse and
| delivery people as disposable.
|
| > The unions are always trying to recast the relationship as
| adversarial, which is a huge mistake.
|
| If employers were treating their employees well, they
| wouldn't need a union.
| akhmatova wrote:
| _Having happy employees is very good for business
| profitability._
|
| It's what these companies pretend to believe, at least.
|
| Whether they actually, in reality, act in a way that make
| their employees happy -- or in a manner that is even fair or
| rational, by any detached observation -- is an entirely
| different matter.
| WalterBright wrote:
| Keep in mind that one cannot make everyone happy, ever.
| CPLX wrote:
| It's not unions that have created an adversarial relationship
| between capital and labor. It's automation.
| andrew_ wrote:
| There's too much nuance in this discussion to toss out
| generalities. In _some_ sectors, automation has played a
| huge role. Certainly not all. In some parts of tech the
| availability of abundant labor has played a role. Nuance is
| important.
| CPLX wrote:
| I like nuance as much as the next guy. But the
| relationship between labor and capital is kind of like
| predator and prey.
|
| Yes, sure, in the broad sense they're all part of the
| same ecosystem and if that ecosystem does well it can get
| to a happy stable state where each community prospers.
| That's certainly true.
|
| But also on a day to day level one of the parties is
| literally trying to consume the other one.
| WalterBright wrote:
| > the relationship between labor and capital is kind of
| like predator and prey.
|
| That is not inherent. Businesses have mutually beneficial
| relationships with suppliers and customers. Transactions
| are win-win. There's nothing fundamentally different
| between a business and its employees, and no reason why
| the relationship cannot be win-win.
|
| But unions frame their negotiations in terms of win-lose.
| This is a sad state of affairs.
| anoojb wrote:
| This point reminds me of Costco's Mission Statement and
| Code of Ethics. It's so simple and easy, but for reason
| it's really hard for companies to copy/paste into their
| organizations.
|
| https://customerservice.costco.com/app/answers/detail/a_i
| d/8...
|
| I inherently agree that this is a good Code of Ethics. It
| comes down to whether the people at these organizations
| conduct themselves in a way that embodies these
| principles. In the OP and my specific cases it was not
| the case. My position is that these principles are
| difficult and not particularly well adopted.
| greenyoda wrote:
| > _no reason why the relationship cannot be win-win_
|
| Although it can be win-win in theory, it frequently isn't
| in practice. A well-known example of companies working
| against their own employees is the "anti-poaching" policy
| illegally agreed to by Google, Apple and others a few
| years ago:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-
| Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
|
| There was no union here trying to create an adversarial
| situation. It was simply corporate greed (on the part of
| some of the most profitable companies in the world).
| WalterBright wrote:
| I can't think of a union negotiation where the union ever
| offered something in exchange for increased benefits. It
| was always based on threats of strikes, "the company can
| afford to pay more", trashing the company in public, etc.
|
| I.e. win-lose.
|
| Is it any surprise that companies don't like being
| treated like that? Would you?
|
| What if, instead, unions framed it as a partnership for
| improved success of the company. Like, for more benefits,
| we'll improve productivity to more than pay for it. Win-
| win! What a concept.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > I can't think of a union negotiation where the union
| ever offered something in exchange for increased
| benefits.
|
| Its relatively uncommon if your baseline is status quo
| ante (though I've seen it in repeatedly in public sector
| unions in downturns, and I've heard of it happening in
| private sector unions when the employer is in
| particularly dire straits), but not at all uncommon if
| your baseline is the employer's offer.
|
| > Like, for more benefits, we'll improve productivity to
| more than pay for it.
|
| Unions don't control productivity, so they can't promise
| that. Of course, if employers want to give labor a stake
| in productivity by offering equity, they are free to do
| so.
| akiselev wrote:
| _> This is simply not true. Having happy employees is very
| good for business profitability._
|
| That probably explains why most VC-funded businesses these
| days aren't profitable, even after they IPO :-)
|
| Liquidation preference does not make for happy employees.
| rdl wrote:
| Did they give you a confirmed offer letter and then revoke it, or
| was it just a failure to give you an offer letter?
|
| In the current rapidly-worsening economy, I probably wouldn't
| consider it obviously improper (just unfortunate) for a company
| to not make an offer even when it had previously planned to do
| so. At some level it would depend on exactly how specific they'd
| been (and whether it was reasonable to take decisions like giving
| notice to current employer based on that).
| ryankicks wrote:
| Hi Grustaf,
|
| Ryan here at YC. I help build YC's workatastartup.com, and also
| work with companies to help them find great people for their
| teams. Part of that includes teaching them to hire well --
| communicating clear expectations, having fair/reasonable
| questions, paying for the interviewee's time, and hiring when
| they're in a good position to do so.
|
| What you experienced sounds incredibly frustrating. Sorry that
| you went through that. I don't know the details on the company
| side, and the market is obviously pretty bad. But that still
| shouldn't be a catch-all excuse for you having a bad experience.
|
| If you're open to it, would love to connect live and learn more
| about what happened. And I'm also happy to make intros to
| founders/companies that might be a better fit -- especially ones
| that are in a strong economic position to do so.
|
| My email is ryan AT ycombinator.com if you'd like to connect.
| Hope to hear from you, and help if I can.
| nashashmi wrote:
| Maybe YC should take over The initial interviews. I'm not sure
| how to non technically evaluate candidates but I'm sure it
| would be on the basic stuff like dress, communication, and
| narrative on experience. This would give firms some assurance
| and less need for extensive multiple interview sessions. I mean
| you already took over the application portal. So maybe also
| take over the initial interview upon first selection by YC
| firm.
| andrew_ wrote:
| Could be very beneficial in hiring a founding engineer/team.
| YC could be a leader is busting the mold that is a broken
| tech hiring cycle.
| ryankicks wrote:
| Hey andrew_1. Our hiring portal is a start, and we see lots
| of YC companies hire first employees/founding engineers on
| it. But any additional insights you have -- especially from
| the candidate's side -- is welcome. We'd love to get a
| better sense of what more we could do here.
| Firmwarrior wrote:
| I don't think YCombinator is supposed to be a megacorp with
| that much control over the startups it's founded, and I don't
| think that a few slipups like what happend to OP warrant
| adding all that red tape in the long run
| nashashmi wrote:
| I was not thinking in terms of startups losing control but
| rather startups sharing and getting YC's insights into
| candidates. Plus startups not being bogged down with
| terrible candidates if YC were to filter it for them. It's
| Efficiency in scale all around honestly.
| alooPotato wrote:
| This is another incredible value that YC provides. In the same
| way YC helps prevent investor bad behavior, it also prevents
| company bad behavior on behalf of candidates. Not saying it was
| intentional from the companies, but just makes sure everyone
| keeps candidate experience top of mind.
| adenozine wrote:
| I mean, it actually completely failed in this instance to
| prevent bad behavior, so...?
|
| I think you are meaning to say that it can bring
| accountability to these companies, in which case I'd agree.
| samtho wrote:
| If you're willing to give some inexperienced companies the
| benifit of the doubt, you can reasonably assume they just
| might not have it together yet. I doubt there was mal-
| intent, it sounds like budgets and headcount got yanked
| back, which sucks for both the candidate and the team that
| is trying to hire.
|
| In a larger company I've worked at (and have hired for),
| they had a process where if the candidate passed the first
| 2 interviews, you basically get a formal "intent to hire"
| process started which reserves money for the position that
| cannot be withdrawn except for VP-level intervention.
| arkitaip wrote:
| Does it work well if two YC companies failed OP in the same
| manner?
| evolve2k wrote:
| I think the parents point was along the line of, when YC
| companies do slip, there's someone around willing to step
| up and take responsibility and likely behind the scenes
| push those companies to do better.
| alooPotato wrote:
| exactly this
| searealist wrote:
| [flagged]
| solarmist wrote:
| My understanding is that YC is very opt-in to everything
| they offer. There is no requirement to seek them out for
| advice or recommendation.
| Grustaf wrote:
| Thanks for your reply, I just emailed you!
| that_guy_iain wrote:
| Wasn't there a YC newsletter email where they told companies to
| tighten their belts so to speak? I feel like them not being
| able to hire due to money issues could be down to YC telling
| people to calm down with their spending.
| kevin_nisbet wrote:
| Yea, I'm pretty sure a bunch of investors changed their
| guidance on managing runway this summer to extend the runways
| as future rounds may be harder. Something like where guidance
| for many would be 2 years, now to target 4. Although at least
| one company I talked to earlier in the year didn't have this
| memo.
|
| I think lots of companies are seeing a longer/harder sales
| cycle as well, so they're still growing, but at a reduced
| rate, which when combined with that investor advice can lead
| to reqs the company thought they had, not really being
| available when it comes to deciding on making an offer.
|
| What I don't know about, is if there's a bit more slack in
| the job market, where a year ago if you completed the
| interview you would get an offer, instead companies now have
| the ability to select among multiple good candidates.
| brhsagain wrote:
| Over the last couple years I had the same experience with two YC
| companies - full interview cycle, everyone gushing about me,
| nothing but positive all the way - except they actually _made me
| offers_ and then pulled out right before we were going to sign
| the offer letter, without giving me any reason. One went to the
| extra trouble of being weird about it -- they straight up phrased
| the rejection like "we've decided not to give you an offer
| anymore, and we've decided internally that that's all we're going
| to disclose." Bit unsettling, to be honest.
| davidguetta wrote:
| > It's hard to imagine that it was some kind of ruse to get very
| short term work done
|
| Who would do that if not than an YC-backed aspiring unicorn in an
| hustling environment ?
|
| Also a month long ? For a startup without money ? How many more
| arguments do you want to see it for what it is ?
| Grustaf wrote:
| I meant more that it seems sort of pointless, they did pay for
| it, and at a reasonable rate - I would have done it as a 1-3
| week project if they had asked, and they also invested a lot of
| time into the process so it seems very unlikely.
| mcguire wrote:
| I've suspected for a while that companies with long, drawn-out
| hiring processes are using the delay to see if someone better
| (for some definition of "better") will come along.
|
| In the current market, you are probably right about the problem
| being the funding situation; most companies in general, and
| startups (I suppose) specifically, are desperately bad about
| foreseeing bad outcomes. There's a hefty bias there.
|
| On the other hand, I guess you just have to keep looking for a
| job until you get an actual commitment---don't stop because you
| _might_ have one.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > I've suspected for a while that companies with long, drawn-
| out hiring processes are using the delay to see if someone
| better (for some definition of "better") will come along.
|
| In a way, yes. Hiring isn't a game of finding the first person
| who walks through the door who passes an arbitrary bar. It
| takes some time to collect candidates, interview multiple
| people, and choose which one to hire.
|
| However, that process should stop after the offer letter is
| extended. A company that rescinds offers as part of their
| normal hiring process would be very unusual. I suspect in this
| case the companies' explanations (financial situation changed)
| is honest.
|
| I always try to get candidates through the interview process as
| fast as possible, but recently it's usually the candidates who
| are extending the process out. A lot of people like the idea of
| shopping around at different companies with your offer letter
| in hand, which can take weeks or months if you let them. At
| some point we have to thank the candidate for their time and
| inform them that we're moving on to other candidates, because
| we need to hire _someone_.
| ryankicks wrote:
| Lots of good points here, on both sides of the hiring
| equation.
|
| In a strong market, candidates have been able to shop around,
| get multiple offers (based on interest, comp, etc) and pick
| the best one for them. If for nothing else, it's useful to
| get multiple data points to understand the state of the
| market. Candidates should absolutely do this -- to make sure
| they're making the right decision based on the possible
| options out there.
|
| We tell our founders that setting deadlines to accept an
| offer are not effective, especially given the above. It adds
| unnecessary stress to the situation, and it sets a bad tone
| for the relationship.
|
| We also tell our founders to ask what timeline the candidate
| is looking at, and say when the company is hoping to make a
| decision. And if those don't align from the start, to note it
| upfront. (We also ask out founders to write one-pagers on
| their interview process, to communicate and set those
| expectations at the beginning of the process. That's fairly
| new, and taking some time to adopt, but we're working on it.)
| Grustaf wrote:
| > I've suspected for a while that companies with long, drawn-
| out hiring processes are using the delay to see if someone
| better (for some definition of "better") will come along.
|
| Ah, that's an interesting explanation, seems much more likely
| than a hustle to get (not even very cheap) short term labour.
| That could be the case at least for the second of the
| companies, for the first one I think it might be more down to
| inexperience or recklessness.
| imroot wrote:
| I have commented in the past that the longest hiring cycle was
| almost 10 months at RedHat back in 2005, and I've had it be as
| short as a week in the early 2010's for a TechStars backed
| company.
|
| If a company doesn't have a hiring plan that doesn't end in 4-6
| weeks, I'm not interested in even communicating with that
| company. I have no issues with trials or paid projects: I would
| actually prefer a trial or a paid project to starting somewhere
| only to find out that half the infrastructure including their
| MongoDB instances are running on Windows servers.
|
| (Ironically enough, in the Medical field, it takes 12-18
| _months_ to get hired because of the due diligence involved: my
| significant other was shocked when I was able to go from
| looking to hired in less than 28 days back in 2017!)
| micro_cam wrote:
| From an employee point of view, YC companies have a weird
| correlated risk due to investor sentiment ... if YC and other
| vc's are nervous about the economy an email goes out that says
| "if you don't have two years of runway do what you can to get it"
| and a bunch of companies will start rescinding offers and/or
| doing layoffs.
|
| Investor and CEO sentiment has been a roller coaster the last
| couple of years and very few ceo's have a steady hand on the
| tiller. I've seen companies go from hiring like crazy to laying
| off then back to hiring like crazy in way to short of a time
| period.
|
| If interviewing right now I would flat out ask about runway, burn
| rates and hiring plans and be looking for a company that raised
| at the right time, has a decent amount of cash and has a pathway
| to being profitable. And make sure the founders seem to have a
| steady hand on the tiller.
|
| I was an early employee at my last co and we figure out pretty
| fast the trial work / lengthy process thing doesn't scale at all.
| YC seems to push this (do things that don't scale) and it might
| make sense for your first couple of employees (when there is high
| risk of a bad hire and you suck at interviewing and are scared to
| fire people). But even short ~1 hour take home projects filter
| out too many good good candidates. Get good and comfortable at
| making a decision based on a normal day long interview and get
| good at firing people who aren't working out to mitigate risk.
| neilv wrote:
| This post already fell off the front page.
|
| While there are posts that have lower points and were posted
| longer ago that are still on the front page.
|
| This post is potentially very relevant to HN's startup founders
| and workers, for what OP mentions, and my comment about the risk
| of a hazard becoming a practice.
| DelaneyM wrote:
| I have empathy here for the founders, going through all the
| overhead of finding a great candidate (you only saw the time
| invested in you, not the time invested in all the other
| candidates), then realizing you have to restructure your entire
| runway when conditions change or reality asserts.
|
| > Perhaps they started hiring on the expectation of being able to
| raise money, but that seems unprofessional and disrespectful
| towards the candidates, no?
|
| They were 100% doing this, and that's pretty much the base case
| for any VC-funded startup. If you believe this to be
| disrespectful than I advise you to stick with profitable/public
| employers.
|
| If anything, appreciate that they didn't try to hire you in spite
| of their financial squeeze, then end up laying you off a few
| months later with minimal severance because they overran their
| runway.
| Grustaf wrote:
| If this was the case, then it would not hurt their chances to
| hire people much if they were open about it, saying that hiring
| was conditioned on closing the next round for example. But in
| both cases the message was clearly the opposite and that they
| had 18+ months of runway. In one case they had additionally
| signed a contract for a similar amount.
| gwbas1c wrote:
| Makes me curious about their side of the decision. If they
| essentially told you, on the last day of your trial, that
| they aren't hiring you, that's not very respectful of your
| job search.
|
| FWIW: _Most startups fail. Most startups will evolve to be a
| place that you won 't like._ There is a reason why startups
| have such high turnover.
|
| In my case, often when I ask a founder tough questions, I get
| rejected. It's okay, because I probably won't have the
| patience to work for someone who can't answer my tough
| questions.
|
| But, getting back to you: I suspect "funding" is a convenient
| excuse, but I wouldn't read too much into it. Instead, I
| suggest being a lot more defensive in the process: Don't do
| 1-month contracts.
|
| Instead, target ~6-month contracts with a ~1-week trial and a
| ~3 week severance. Explain that you've found that 1-month
| trials are impractical given how much time you spend
| interviewing. Point out that, just like the contracting
| status protects the company, you need severance to protect
| yourself too.
| strangattractor wrote:
| There has been talk of recession for quite some time. There is
| obviously belt tightening going on. It also sounds like you are
| rather experienced - maybe a bit older - i.e. more expensive.
|
| Hang in there.
| tracker1 wrote:
| Really reminds me of around 2000-2002 or so.
| Throw4949 wrote:
| >I didn't seek any other jobs while trial working for them.
|
| Here is the problem! Always have backup job or gig to fall back
| on.
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| Did you use your FAANG status to negotiate an unusually high
| salary? Perhaps they acquiesced to your demands under the
| condition they would evaluate your performance to see if you were
| worth the high price.
|
| That is, the founders may have said something to each other along
| the lines of "well, he's really expensive but maybe he's worth
| the price if he performs equivalently to 2-3 engineers. Let's
| hire him for a month or two and see how it goes."
|
| Did you ask for an outsized salary and then perform poorly (or
| even "averagely") during the trial period? This might explain it.
| neilv wrote:
| > _did a (paid) trial project,_
|
| Is the trial project something that could be used by the startup?
|
| If so, there's a hazard that a startup could accidentally or
| intentionally use the carrot of a supposed/potential FTE hiring
| as a way to get contract work on better terms (more available,
| more committed, lower cost).
|
| It could _additionally_ be a way for the startup to fill their
| hiring funnel, and then (even bigger win) keep it in a holding
| pattern.
|
| This would be a multiple win for a startup that isn't ready to
| hire, but needs work done relatively inexpensively and well on
| their schedule, and would like to have the option to hire when
| necessary (people it's keeping captive), with lower risk, and all
| while keeping more equity. The worker correspondingly loses
| multiple ways.
|
| I doubt this was the intention this time, but I guess this could
| easily become a practice, especially if it ends up being wisdom
| quietly passed around in startup circles.
| cutemonster wrote:
| Unlikely? In software, if you stay and work in the same
| project, you get a lot more productive as time goes by.
| Intentionally hiring people for weeks or a month, typically
| makes no sense. (Note that s/he got paid for the time)
| robswc wrote:
| I tend to agree.
|
| The amount of time and effort they would have to spend on
| ramp-up and context sharing... seems it would be a nightmare.
| Unless its just some grunt work but even then, seems much
| more reliable to have a contracting partner in that case.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-22 23:02 UTC)