Poll: What would it take for another company to poach you?
26 comments
Well, in ridiculous amounts, something like more money would work. Like, you offer me a million a year, I'll do the shittiest development job you have to offer for 5 years and retire.
But, assuming all things are equal, I would go with the job that allowed me to work whenever/wherever. Mainly because I'd love to work from home and travel at my leisure. Being able to book a trip overseas for a few months and just work from wherever I'm at is worth more to me than money or the type of work I'd be doing.
But, assuming all things are equal, I would go with the job that allowed me to work whenever/wherever. Mainly because I'd love to work from home and travel at my leisure. Being able to book a trip overseas for a few months and just work from wherever I'm at is worth more to me than money or the type of work I'd be doing.
I already have plenty interesting work, where I work on a semi-flexitime arrangement (part time would lead to me getting bored), where I work from home 95% of the time, with the other 5% split between the office and a cafe.
So, I had to vote "more money".
Other factors that could potentially turn my head:
- Work that has meaning/world changing type impact.
- a better team (that said, my current one is pretty awesome)
- Outstanding benefits of some sort.
- Toys/hardware.
- Tequila (Bourbon also acceptable).
So, I had to vote "more money".
Other factors that could potentially turn my head:
- Work that has meaning/world changing type impact.
- a better team (that said, my current one is pretty awesome)
- Outstanding benefits of some sort.
- Toys/hardware.
- Tequila (Bourbon also acceptable).
I'm probably different (my own startup), but the only things which would make me M&A exit would be:
1) Chance to work on a dramatically more interesting problem (I'd probably jump ship in 15 minutes to do seriously credible human Mars settlement, or space cannon/ram accelerator for a $1/MB LEO sat constellation, or a viable way to deploy blinded ecash globally, or a US Senate seat or SCOTUS appointment, or "Commander, ISAF" so I could effect the complete withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan within 6 months...)
2) A more effective way to deploy my product/service to more users (i.e. if Apple wanted us to turn the OSX and iOS network infrastructure into the most secure/performant/reliable way for businesses and groups to network)
More money generally wouldn't be enough; even just "go work for an immediate pre-IPO company where you're likely to get a $3mm payout if things go well, plus a $200k/yr salary" if #1 or #2 weren't met. SpaceX is really the only place which meets #1 and viable pre-IPO in the next year I think.
1) Chance to work on a dramatically more interesting problem (I'd probably jump ship in 15 minutes to do seriously credible human Mars settlement, or space cannon/ram accelerator for a $1/MB LEO sat constellation, or a viable way to deploy blinded ecash globally, or a US Senate seat or SCOTUS appointment, or "Commander, ISAF" so I could effect the complete withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan within 6 months...)
2) A more effective way to deploy my product/service to more users (i.e. if Apple wanted us to turn the OSX and iOS network infrastructure into the most secure/performant/reliable way for businesses and groups to network)
More money generally wouldn't be enough; even just "go work for an immediate pre-IPO company where you're likely to get a $3mm payout if things go well, plus a $200k/yr salary" if #1 or #2 weren't met. SpaceX is really the only place which meets #1 and viable pre-IPO in the next year I think.
Having my own startup as well, it's hard for me to imagine #1 really working out in any meaningful way since you'd be coming from the outside. In order for the work to really be interesting to me, I would still have to be able to be the primary decision maker and it's rare (at best) that someone from outside the organization would be put in that position.
M&A only really makes sense to me in the #2 case, where the merger actually better enables us to deliver our product. I certainly think there are cases where acquisition can be a boon to your users, we just don't hear about them as much.
For money to be a motivating factor, though, it would have to be enough to ensure that I could fulfill our promise to our users and also bankroll working on one of the problems from #1 :)
M&A only really makes sense to me in the #2 case, where the merger actually better enables us to deliver our product. I certainly think there are cases where acquisition can be a boon to your users, we just don't hear about them as much.
For money to be a motivating factor, though, it would have to be enough to ensure that I could fulfill our promise to our users and also bankroll working on one of the problems from #1 :)
" In order for the work to really be interesting to me, I would still have to be able to be the primary decision maker and it's rare (at best) that someone from outside the organization would be put in that position."
Can you say more about this? I ask because it is a common reason people go and start their own company. The risk of course is if you decide wrong your company goes out of business. I've suggested to folks a contract, basically they have some idea that is going to change the world, and I'm willing to give them fully autonomous authority to make the decisions, with the caveat that we define the success criteria of the idea, which is to say a measurable way to say that they have achieved success or not, and a timeline for when that has to be met. They have to agree that if they don't meet the criteria they're out of a job.
The goal is to tie "primary decision maker" to "is most directly impacted by". That binding is a natural pair when doing your own company, it's less natural when you are in a larger company. I've found when my decisions could affect the future of someone "above" me in the food chain, that made them quite nervous if they didn't trust my decision making ability.
I wonder sometimes if this request for decision making authority is really a request to be trusted. Would be interested in thoughts on that.
Can you say more about this? I ask because it is a common reason people go and start their own company. The risk of course is if you decide wrong your company goes out of business. I've suggested to folks a contract, basically they have some idea that is going to change the world, and I'm willing to give them fully autonomous authority to make the decisions, with the caveat that we define the success criteria of the idea, which is to say a measurable way to say that they have achieved success or not, and a timeline for when that has to be met. They have to agree that if they don't meet the criteria they're out of a job.
The goal is to tie "primary decision maker" to "is most directly impacted by". That binding is a natural pair when doing your own company, it's less natural when you are in a larger company. I've found when my decisions could affect the future of someone "above" me in the food chain, that made them quite nervous if they didn't trust my decision making ability.
I wonder sometimes if this request for decision making authority is really a request to be trusted. Would be interested in thoughts on that.
This is actually something I've considered quite a bit and I've come to realize that I think there's a certain amount of megalomania necessary to be a "primary decision maker". You have to genuinely believe that you can make better decisions than most. In my case, however, the motivator isn't megalomania so much as my need to address problems - I see problems everywhere and in every case in which I've worked for someone, I've largely been forced to just stew in them.
To some degree I think I agree with you that what this ultimately comes down to is trust - trust that I can fix this, or that I can make blah happen. I've worked for some great people who did trust me, but unfortunately someone up the chain didn't. To make any real impact I think you have to be willing to take some serious risks and when you're that far away from the problem, it's hard to imagine why those risks are worth taking.
In any sufficiently large organization, preaching a disparate vision is bound to hit a wall, because somewhere in there is another guy just like you - someone crazy enough to start a company because they believe in their own vision.
To some degree I think I agree with you that what this ultimately comes down to is trust - trust that I can fix this, or that I can make blah happen. I've worked for some great people who did trust me, but unfortunately someone up the chain didn't. To make any real impact I think you have to be willing to take some serious risks and when you're that far away from the problem, it's hard to imagine why those risks are worth taking.
In any sufficiently large organization, preaching a disparate vision is bound to hit a wall, because somewhere in there is another guy just like you - someone crazy enough to start a company because they believe in their own vision.
I'd also seriously consider "job in NZ" or "job in Estonia or Czech Republic", although I guess I could just do corp relo there.
I've often thought that a company could recruit really great people by restricting the work week to three days and paying a proportionately lower salary.
I'd take that offer, but I make $120K/year, so I can afford to lose 40% of my income.
How about we regulate the number of hours in the work week according to productivity? If productivity is skyrocketing, why are we all still working at least 40 hours a week?
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/
"An average worker needs to work a mere 11 hours per week to produce as much as one working 40 hours per week in 1950. (The data here is from the US, but productivity increases in Europe and Japan have been of the same magnitude.) The conclusion is inescapable: if productivity means anything at all, a worker should be able to earn the same standard of living as a 1950 worker in only 11 hours per week. "
How about we regulate the number of hours in the work week according to productivity? If productivity is skyrocketing, why are we all still working at least 40 hours a week?
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/
"An average worker needs to work a mere 11 hours per week to produce as much as one working 40 hours per week in 1950. (The data here is from the US, but productivity increases in Europe and Japan have been of the same magnitude.) The conclusion is inescapable: if productivity means anything at all, a worker should be able to earn the same standard of living as a 1950 worker in only 11 hours per week. "
"If productivity is skyrocketing, why are we all still working at least 40 hours a week?"
Because of 1) inflation/devaluation/taxation and economic mismanagement at the national level, 2) outsourcing/global wage-competition (when there are extreme global disparities), and contracting rather than long-term employment, 3) increasing corporate returns and executive remuneration coupled with the very small number of people who own stocks that would allow a person to actually benefit from corporate growth, and last but not least, 4) social-status competition and financial irresponsibility (for example, having children without financial stability, because everyone else is or because your spouse wants children, etc, etc).
Also, very few of us own our own businesses so we are particularly subject to items 1, 2, and 3. 4 never helps, but it is hardly uncommon.
Item 1 also has a nefarious hidden aspect to it: optimization without ownership is suicide. Ie, we are largely optimizing the processes and property of other people. Think of the workers displaced by the Industrial Revolution who lost their jobs. We are now working ourselves out of information jobs (publishing, for example). That in and of itself is not a problem but progress, however by working for a wage as the majority of us do, we retain no ownership of the proceeds and so have gotten no farther ahead, while prices continue to rise (say hello to our old friend communism). The lack of ownership results in modern resentment and job protectionism, and the economic equivalent of Munchausen syndrome by which we create new problems, or sustain existing ones, in order to remain the recipient of a benefit. (For example, we delay technological convergence in order to capitalize on the transition...)
Because of 1) inflation/devaluation/taxation and economic mismanagement at the national level, 2) outsourcing/global wage-competition (when there are extreme global disparities), and contracting rather than long-term employment, 3) increasing corporate returns and executive remuneration coupled with the very small number of people who own stocks that would allow a person to actually benefit from corporate growth, and last but not least, 4) social-status competition and financial irresponsibility (for example, having children without financial stability, because everyone else is or because your spouse wants children, etc, etc).
Also, very few of us own our own businesses so we are particularly subject to items 1, 2, and 3. 4 never helps, but it is hardly uncommon.
Item 1 also has a nefarious hidden aspect to it: optimization without ownership is suicide. Ie, we are largely optimizing the processes and property of other people. Think of the workers displaced by the Industrial Revolution who lost their jobs. We are now working ourselves out of information jobs (publishing, for example). That in and of itself is not a problem but progress, however by working for a wage as the majority of us do, we retain no ownership of the proceeds and so have gotten no farther ahead, while prices continue to rise (say hello to our old friend communism). The lack of ownership results in modern resentment and job protectionism, and the economic equivalent of Munchausen syndrome by which we create new problems, or sustain existing ones, in order to remain the recipient of a benefit. (For example, we delay technological convergence in order to capitalize on the transition...)
So how do we more equally distribute the benefits of progress without resorting to "socialism"?
Well, first let me predicate my response and say that I think a free market is highly desirable and that it is undesirable to manipulate markets rather than letting competition decide the details.
That said, IMHO, it's necessary to break up monopolies.
The problems are obvious with that though: people feel like they are being robbed of their earned property and will argue that the free market should sort things out and that it is indeed socialist to intervene at all (I mostly agree).
The sad fact, however, is that countries do exactly that (at least every one I can think of) through taxation and inflation (among other methods) to make holding uninvested wealth undesirable. In that sense, socialism is already employed to attempt to redistribute the benefits of progress.
I strongly dislike taxation though, so I want to approach the issues in terms of capitalism and the free market.
To do so, I think it is necessary to draw a line between young and mature markets. A young market is closer to a free market by virtue of it's low barriers to entry, high size/potential for profit, and lack of incumbent monopolies. Monopolies are a well-known and undesirable symptom of a market that has stopped changing and is not accessible to competition. I would also suggest that a heavy focus on financial derivatives over real wealth (real estate, manufacturing, durable goods, etc) would indicate an overly mature market - one that's difficult to add value to as a new entrant - and I think that's exactly what we can see today (and what's more, we bail them out to keep them going).
The first stages of market development are almost idyllic: new products and services are possible, and wealth can be created by adding value. In a mature market, value is difficult to create under the burden of monopolist control and market manipulation, often to the extreme of halting progress to maintain the incumbent's advantage (cornering a market, or inflicting technological restrictions like DRM, for example). By definition, the further growth of a anti-competitive monopoly is a detriment to the market, and therefore to society. There is no clear line, but sometimes we choose to intervene.
There are laws specifically targeting anti-competitive behavior, insider trading, etc, for example, in order to promote the early-growth period, but there are more things that could be done that are less reactionary and of broader benefit...
One that stands out to me is to eliminate copyright and patents, etc. I know to expect criticism on that regard in this forum, but those are exactly the sorts of monopolies that are blocking the redistribution of value and are being exploited by incumbent monopolies to the exclusion of individuals and developing business who might use them to create new value, solve real problems, and thus distribute the benefits of progress without resorting to "socialism." Instead we are extending copyright, and our society is becoming focused on protecting imaginary property, a situation that is analogous to letting Henry Ford have, and helping him maintain, a monopoly on the assembly line when the assembly line clearly benefited all modern businesses. It would be absurd to scale up enforcement of "assembly line infringement." The modern equivalent, easy copying and, dare I say, copyright infringement, clearly benefits everyone (distributing knowledge and tools), and also serves to redistribute wealth without taxation and government intervention (which has many other undesirable attributes). This is the fruit of a hundred years of effort, and what's more, it's proliferation fosters growth in conventional markets: for example, I am convinced that the early PC hardware industry boom benefited hugely from software and music proliferation (before the monopoly protectionism set in), creating wealth across the board, and the decline in hardware sale coincides with the modern crackdown on copyright infringement, destroying revenue.
The goal then, IMHO, is to stop protecting monopolies. Let technological, industrial, and other types of progress, be used as public resources freely and encourage every generation of growth to make the most of the resources available instead of encouraging monopolies that stop them at the gate.
Furthermore, by avoiding explicit intervention to begin with (by not protecting monopolies to begin with), we would avoid the trap of having to maintain the artificial balances that result that lead to cronyism, and minimize intervention.
Unfortunately, once an organization (government, NGO, etc) has an official reason to exist, paid positions, and a granted authority/monopoly, it is difficult to get it to relinquish it's role. In those cases, direct action may be required to escape gridlock, but the moral is still to avoid the trap in the first place.
As such, organizations need deliberate limitations to prevent monopoly abuse (and to prevent resorting to socialistic taxation).
That said, IMHO, it's necessary to break up monopolies.
The problems are obvious with that though: people feel like they are being robbed of their earned property and will argue that the free market should sort things out and that it is indeed socialist to intervene at all (I mostly agree).
The sad fact, however, is that countries do exactly that (at least every one I can think of) through taxation and inflation (among other methods) to make holding uninvested wealth undesirable. In that sense, socialism is already employed to attempt to redistribute the benefits of progress.
I strongly dislike taxation though, so I want to approach the issues in terms of capitalism and the free market.
To do so, I think it is necessary to draw a line between young and mature markets. A young market is closer to a free market by virtue of it's low barriers to entry, high size/potential for profit, and lack of incumbent monopolies. Monopolies are a well-known and undesirable symptom of a market that has stopped changing and is not accessible to competition. I would also suggest that a heavy focus on financial derivatives over real wealth (real estate, manufacturing, durable goods, etc) would indicate an overly mature market - one that's difficult to add value to as a new entrant - and I think that's exactly what we can see today (and what's more, we bail them out to keep them going).
The first stages of market development are almost idyllic: new products and services are possible, and wealth can be created by adding value. In a mature market, value is difficult to create under the burden of monopolist control and market manipulation, often to the extreme of halting progress to maintain the incumbent's advantage (cornering a market, or inflicting technological restrictions like DRM, for example). By definition, the further growth of a anti-competitive monopoly is a detriment to the market, and therefore to society. There is no clear line, but sometimes we choose to intervene.
There are laws specifically targeting anti-competitive behavior, insider trading, etc, for example, in order to promote the early-growth period, but there are more things that could be done that are less reactionary and of broader benefit...
One that stands out to me is to eliminate copyright and patents, etc. I know to expect criticism on that regard in this forum, but those are exactly the sorts of monopolies that are blocking the redistribution of value and are being exploited by incumbent monopolies to the exclusion of individuals and developing business who might use them to create new value, solve real problems, and thus distribute the benefits of progress without resorting to "socialism." Instead we are extending copyright, and our society is becoming focused on protecting imaginary property, a situation that is analogous to letting Henry Ford have, and helping him maintain, a monopoly on the assembly line when the assembly line clearly benefited all modern businesses. It would be absurd to scale up enforcement of "assembly line infringement." The modern equivalent, easy copying and, dare I say, copyright infringement, clearly benefits everyone (distributing knowledge and tools), and also serves to redistribute wealth without taxation and government intervention (which has many other undesirable attributes). This is the fruit of a hundred years of effort, and what's more, it's proliferation fosters growth in conventional markets: for example, I am convinced that the early PC hardware industry boom benefited hugely from software and music proliferation (before the monopoly protectionism set in), creating wealth across the board, and the decline in hardware sale coincides with the modern crackdown on copyright infringement, destroying revenue.
The goal then, IMHO, is to stop protecting monopolies. Let technological, industrial, and other types of progress, be used as public resources freely and encourage every generation of growth to make the most of the resources available instead of encouraging monopolies that stop them at the gate.
Furthermore, by avoiding explicit intervention to begin with (by not protecting monopolies to begin with), we would avoid the trap of having to maintain the artificial balances that result that lead to cronyism, and minimize intervention.
Unfortunately, once an organization (government, NGO, etc) has an official reason to exist, paid positions, and a granted authority/monopoly, it is difficult to get it to relinquish it's role. In those cases, direct action may be required to escape gridlock, but the moral is still to avoid the trap in the first place.
As such, organizations need deliberate limitations to prevent monopoly abuse (and to prevent resorting to socialistic taxation).
I have a friend in France who went to a job interview for a contract position - he was expecting 25% pay more than the employer had budget for. Though the employer was pretty interested in him, my friend exited the interview, effectively saying, "well, looks like we're at an impasse - thanks for your time and please call me if you reconsider". On his way back home the employer called him and asked him if, considering he just recently had a kid (note: not legal to ask for that here in the states), he would be amenable to lowered pay for commensurate lowered hours (ie, 4 days a week). He accepted happily.
He was disappointed he only got a 1 year contract as opposed to 2 years - I was flabbergasted when I heard that - not sure anyone would ever get that kind of employment guarantee here in the US for contract work.
It's about time we started considering salary employment contracts for fewer days than the standard five.
He was disappointed he only got a 1 year contract as opposed to 2 years - I was flabbergasted when I heard that - not sure anyone would ever get that kind of employment guarantee here in the US for contract work.
It's about time we started considering salary employment contracts for fewer days than the standard five.
I used to do contract programming work for grant funded research and would have 1 or 2 year funding guarantees.
I would love this.
Like working part-time? What's the difference?
Some companies have reduced (or no) benefits for part time employees. Less tuition reimbursement (now that you have time to actually use it...), more out of pocket health insurance expenses (now that you're being paid less...).
There's also a corporate culture where anyone working part time or remote isn't as committed to the company. Guess who's first in line for layoffs?
There's also a corporate culture where anyone working part time or remote isn't as committed to the company. Guess who's first in line for layoffs?
Totally, then everyone could work on their startup the other 4 days of the week.
You joke, but I would.
What you do with your leisure time is still up to you.
I'm happy freelancing ~10hrs a week and earning about the UK's average wage. Three days a week at a company would be perfect.
How do you fill your pipeline
Also interested in answer to this.
Tangentially, I did my degree in Economics and my dissertation on satisficing.[1] There are plenty of SMEs that need the help of a programmer, one that can understand how a business works and what it needs to be competitive.
I started with some of the freelancing sites. It's hard to find decent work, but if you do it with an eye on building relationships it can be worthwhile. (pro-tip, put some money through the site and hire yourself; takes about a week to do without arousing suspicion, but then you have ∞ly more chance of geting hired [$50-100 dollars should be fine])
Business forums for accountants, truckers or anything, can also provide you with leads. Just make sure that you show an interest in their work, not just in getting work from them.
Next, find a way to help the people that you've built relationships with make money. Adwords, I didn't know much about it, but a few hrs later and I had turned a 50€ a day campaign from loosing ~1/2 the π (profit) to doubling every day. (email me for some of the tricks)
Google apps script is just js and easy to learn. With a small number of regexen etc and the simple APIs into google's services GAS gives you, I have been able to speed up ~5-10 jobs that were done daily, from taking ~3hrs, to the time it takes to click a button. Apps that would take a week or two elsewhere are 10hr/day jobs with GAS.
This took about 6 months, but I have been working for about 1yr now at ~10hrs a week and I just ensure that people realise that 10hrs is my schedule and not to ask for more. I'm sure the _value_ I have provided to these businesses would allow me to double my rate tomorrow and face zero resistance; from ~£80k p.a pro rata, and I would say I am a moderate programmer at best.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing
I started with some of the freelancing sites. It's hard to find decent work, but if you do it with an eye on building relationships it can be worthwhile. (pro-tip, put some money through the site and hire yourself; takes about a week to do without arousing suspicion, but then you have ∞ly more chance of geting hired [$50-100 dollars should be fine])
Business forums for accountants, truckers or anything, can also provide you with leads. Just make sure that you show an interest in their work, not just in getting work from them.
Next, find a way to help the people that you've built relationships with make money. Adwords, I didn't know much about it, but a few hrs later and I had turned a 50€ a day campaign from loosing ~1/2 the π (profit) to doubling every day. (email me for some of the tricks)
Google apps script is just js and easy to learn. With a small number of regexen etc and the simple APIs into google's services GAS gives you, I have been able to speed up ~5-10 jobs that were done daily, from taking ~3hrs, to the time it takes to click a button. Apps that would take a week or two elsewhere are 10hr/day jobs with GAS.
This took about 6 months, but I have been working for about 1yr now at ~10hrs a week and I just ensure that people realise that 10hrs is my schedule and not to ask for more. I'm sure the _value_ I have provided to these businesses would allow me to double my rate tomorrow and face zero resistance; from ~£80k p.a pro rata, and I would say I am a moderate programmer at best.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing
Verba software offers this deal the first of every month, most recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5475063
(well, it's always offered, but they post in on HN Who's Hiring on the 1st)
(well, it's always offered, but they post in on HN Who's Hiring on the 1st)
That would be particularly interesting in segments where either the standard is 60-100h/wk (games), or where 3 day/week people actually would be more useful (certain kinds of consulting or incident response? I don't know)
You'd probably also need more careful contracts when it comes to stuff done outside of work, so it is feasible for someone to do two of these jobs at the same time, or one and a personal project.
the problem in this is benefits. those are expensive and price inelastic.
This would be solved with single payer. Would remove a ton of inefficiency from the system, as well as increase worker job mobility.
Where do I sign up?
1,2 and 4 but "Significantly more money" and competent recruiters mostly. Nothing turns me off to a perspective employer like having to tell their recruter to re-read the email I just sent back to them.
Where's the "none of the above"? I'd require substantial control over my own destiny and a fairly huge salary/signing bonus to even think about it.
I created HN Charts to visualize HN Poll data. Click the following link to visualize the result of this poll in a chart: http://hnlike.com/hncharts/chart/?id=5554681
I'm actually doing pretty OK visualizing these results in my head... :-)
No 'more equity'?
Where's the "'bout tree-fiddy" option?
any company that is willing to pay me full time to work remotely on interesting problems. So I can be with the people I care about at night and not have to relocate.
Same here. I'd be willing to get half the salary I'd normally get if it meant I could work from anywhere (which I am actually doing right now).
You didn't list "Better Work Environment", which would have been my answer.
I am pretty sure the primary motivator for people being poached is money and the second is a great place to work. The economy is going down the toilet globally again and groceries/cost of living isn't going down either.
I upvoted all four options, and it wasn't really about what would it take to poach me, but more about what would constitute the ideal/perfect mix.
Keeping with the above sentiment, I'd add:
# smart(er) co-workers
# smart & understanding management/bosses.
# well designed/planned work environments
# skin in the game
I'm in my early 20s, and I'm positive that this list might look different for someone in his 30s, 40s or 50s, etc.
Keeping with the above sentiment, I'd add:
# smart(er) co-workers
# smart & understanding management/bosses.
# well designed/planned work environments
# skin in the game
I'm in my early 20s, and I'm positive that this list might look different for someone in his 30s, 40s or 50s, etc.
The biggest question for me is "would they do a better job of running Tarsnap than I can do?" I built Tarsnap because I want the world to have good, secure, online backups; it's a profitable corporation simply because that's the most natural form for a backup service to take.
Leaving Tarsnap out of the picture -- supposing I was working at a startup instead of being the sole founder of a startup -- hiring me would involve:
1. Having a technical employee (or possibly a formerly-technical employee who has moved into management) approach me. Even the best recruiters have enough cultural mismatch with me that they utterly fail to get my attention. Rough ballpark: If I say "use the address in my whois" and you manage to contact me, you pass that test.
2. Telling what you're doing -- on the ground. I don't care about your elevator pitch, and aside from being satisfied that you can pay your bills, I don't care how profitable the company is going to be -- I'm never going to work somewhere in the hopes of getting a big IPO payout.
3. Telling me what you would want me to work on. Give specific examples of technical problems. I'm never going to move to a different city based on "we're doing lots of exciting things and we're sure you'll enjoy working here".
And if you're really serious:
4. Flying me down, renting me a hotel room, and giving me a desk in your offices for a week. Don't pay me, and don't assign me work to do; just tell people that I'm there. By the end of the week, one of two things will have happened: Either I'll have spent most of the week working on my own stuff, and won't be interested in working for you, or I'll have been talking to people and solving problems and writing code and I'll be excited about joining your team.
Leaving Tarsnap out of the picture -- supposing I was working at a startup instead of being the sole founder of a startup -- hiring me would involve:
1. Having a technical employee (or possibly a formerly-technical employee who has moved into management) approach me. Even the best recruiters have enough cultural mismatch with me that they utterly fail to get my attention. Rough ballpark: If I say "use the address in my whois" and you manage to contact me, you pass that test.
2. Telling what you're doing -- on the ground. I don't care about your elevator pitch, and aside from being satisfied that you can pay your bills, I don't care how profitable the company is going to be -- I'm never going to work somewhere in the hopes of getting a big IPO payout.
3. Telling me what you would want me to work on. Give specific examples of technical problems. I'm never going to move to a different city based on "we're doing lots of exciting things and we're sure you'll enjoy working here".
And if you're really serious:
4. Flying me down, renting me a hotel room, and giving me a desk in your offices for a week. Don't pay me, and don't assign me work to do; just tell people that I'm there. By the end of the week, one of two things will have happened: Either I'll have spent most of the week working on my own stuff, and won't be interested in working for you, or I'll have been talking to people and solving problems and writing code and I'll be excited about joining your team.
That last one is a kicker.
If you don't mind me saying you are in the top 1% though - getting you to work for the company is a win - the rest of us still need to persuade a company they want to hire us.
I think I am saying I don't get enough recruiters calling me at all hours to think I can wait for ideal to come along
If you don't mind me saying you are in the top 1% though - getting you to work for the company is a win - the rest of us still need to persuade a company they want to hire us.
I think I am saying I don't get enough recruiters calling me at all hours to think I can wait for ideal to come along
They couldn't. I'm much happier working for myself. I know that's a non-answer but it was an important realization for me.
Can I add some more options to the poll?
- remote working plus monthly flights and hotels to meet the crew
- collegiate atmosphere and focus on learning and experimentation
- remote working plus monthly flights and hotels to meet the crew
- collegiate atmosphere and focus on learning and experimentation
More money. I enjoy the work I currently do (though it's starting to get a bit samey, a change wouldn't be bad) but I am paid woefully under what my salary should be, because I stem from a government organisation that's now gone privatised.
I am strongly considering jumping ship because it's essentially costing me at least $40k/year in opportunity cost to stay in this position. That's no small chunk of money.
I am strongly considering jumping ship because it's essentially costing me at least $40k/year in opportunity cost to stay in this position. That's no small chunk of money.
Easy, equal or better pay/benefits and more interesting work. I think people have a sliding scale though. For me, excellent health insurance coverage would be a dealbreaker. I'd stay where I was if another company offered to pay me 50% more without health coverage but totally leave if they offered me 10% less with the same health coverage and more interesting work.
For me at the moment: not sure it's possible, but double my salary and I would listen to the pitch.
I am currently doing work on a political test that matches candidates to your views and shows you the closest match, both party and congressional candidate.
Every party that put forth a list had an invitation extended to send us a list of emails for their top 5 candidates to answer the same questions.
So far 45000 people out of an electorate of 220000 have gotten results from the test. 213 candidates out of 280 have responded.
I really feel that I have served democracy. I'm not sure any other job could have given as much job satisfaction.
I am currently doing work on a political test that matches candidates to your views and shows you the closest match, both party and congressional candidate.
Every party that put forth a list had an invitation extended to send us a list of emails for their top 5 candidates to answer the same questions.
So far 45000 people out of an electorate of 220000 have gotten results from the test. 213 candidates out of 280 have responded.
I really feel that I have served democracy. I'm not sure any other job could have given as much job satisfaction.
[deleted]
All of the above, pretty much. Right now I make a six figure salary, and on top of that, I get stock options each month worth a few grand. To successfully poach me, you'd have to convince me of each of the following:
A) Your company is a better place to work than mine B) Your problems are more interesting than the ones I'm working on now C) You can pay me my current salary + a raise D) You can pay me enough to give up the remaining stock option grants for the next year (since I assume the new company will have a 1-yr cliff for stock options... also disregarding differences in option amounts). E) That your company will still be in business in at least 1 year, preferably 2.
Bonus: if I get a significant amount of stock (not options) in a pre-IPO circumstance where it's likely that I'll get $1MM+ for my share post-IPO or post-acquisition.
It's highly unlikely that this will come to pass. However, I may eventually become disenchanted with my current position, resign and then be willing to lower my standards.
A) Your company is a better place to work than mine B) Your problems are more interesting than the ones I'm working on now C) You can pay me my current salary + a raise D) You can pay me enough to give up the remaining stock option grants for the next year (since I assume the new company will have a 1-yr cliff for stock options... also disregarding differences in option amounts). E) That your company will still be in business in at least 1 year, preferably 2.
Bonus: if I get a significant amount of stock (not options) in a pre-IPO circumstance where it's likely that I'll get $1MM+ for my share post-IPO or post-acquisition.
It's highly unlikely that this will come to pass. However, I may eventually become disenchanted with my current position, resign and then be willing to lower my standards.
Assuming I'd get insurance, I'd take a 50% pay cut if I could work 3 days a week or work remote.
If I could do 3 day weeks and work remote, I'd probably take a 60-70% pay cut.
More money would be nice, but in reality it'd be a temporary thing to save more money while I searched for a part time/remote job.
If I could do 3 day weeks and work remote, I'd probably take a 60-70% pay cut.
More money would be nice, but in reality it'd be a temporary thing to save more money while I searched for a part time/remote job.
nothing brings greater happiness than being with people you enjoy hanging out with. even the work can be dull, but if it's with folks you really gel with, you can make it fun/challenging/etc.
Has anyone else felt that we are heading to a world populated by Untenured Prfofessors - people who effectively can sustain them selves on less than full time work and still find time for their own research?
I know the above is virtually all soft stuff, compared to the money and autonomy-related options in the question, but having worked in places where I felt valued and supported, and in places where I felt ignored and mistrusted, it's important.