How to Survive an Acquisition(charity.wtf)
charity.wtf
How to Survive an Acquisition
http://charity.wtf/2016/02/03/how-to-survive-an-acquisition/
132 comments
This completely describes our experience. Thank you.
On the bright side, you're in a better place now! I'm looking forward to seeing what you're doing at Hound.
This Hound? http://www.soundhound.com/hound
And, remember, they will use you until they don't need you. Just because you're valuable this month, doesn't mean you will be, next month.
If you seem to be performing a lot of knowledge transfer. If you find yourself, a couple of weeks or months in, cut by cut being eliminated from communications and events.
The best way to, personally, survive an acquisition is to be cultivating your options before you ever hear of it, and to be honing them once you do. You might choose to stay. You might be given no choice.
If you seem to be performing a lot of knowledge transfer. If you find yourself, a couple of weeks or months in, cut by cut being eliminated from communications and events.
The best way to, personally, survive an acquisition is to be cultivating your options before you ever hear of it, and to be honing them once you do. You might choose to stay. You might be given no choice.
I've been through 3 acquisitions one very badly done, one well done, and one several years in that im still on the fence about. This is great advice in any case.
Even in the case when say one of your side is brought into the c suite it's important to understand that you need to find acceptance and a reason to exist according to the rules of the buyer however bizzare they may be. In the case of my one bad acquisition our ceo came in as cto, but couldn't navigate the nightmare politics of our buyer. We still ended up lacking cover and lost a ton of great people to burnout and political hijinks. Our products suffered. Our customers suffered. It took us too long to understand the rules of the game and that the real interests of the company were at odds with making our products and customers successful. Or at least that was not the primary concern.
It's tough, figuring out the ground rules. Best bet is to make sure you are working in the best interests of someone who does and can guide you through it.
Even in the case when say one of your side is brought into the c suite it's important to understand that you need to find acceptance and a reason to exist according to the rules of the buyer however bizzare they may be. In the case of my one bad acquisition our ceo came in as cto, but couldn't navigate the nightmare politics of our buyer. We still ended up lacking cover and lost a ton of great people to burnout and political hijinks. Our products suffered. Our customers suffered. It took us too long to understand the rules of the game and that the real interests of the company were at odds with making our products and customers successful. Or at least that was not the primary concern.
It's tough, figuring out the ground rules. Best bet is to make sure you are working in the best interests of someone who does and can guide you through it.
Or of course, just move on! Could be that's the best advice most of the time.
The advice I give: lateral into the actual company as soon as possible.
I was once asked to be in charge of an acquisition. We would let the new group (over 100 people in a building on the East Coast) keep doing the same work with the same management. What they didn't know was that that is code for keeping them isolated from the real company. And we would even assign a multi-talented team to integrate their product with our doc group and engineering groups - in a show of how important their work was to our company. What they didn't know was that that was really done so that I could prepare a list of technology worth saving for the CEO (Let's call him Larry). The plan was to spend perhaps six months understanding their code, another six months taking the parts we want, and then letting them go. There was really nothing they could do about it. We simply wanted to consolidate our position in the market.
Since then I've spoken to other CEOs who were acquired by that company. They boast about how they were allowed to keep working on their projects and how they were important to the company and their great relationship to Larry as part of a Fortune 50 company. But then, over time, they found they weren't being given freedom anymore and they left. They just never really understood what was really happening.
Since then I've spoken to other CEOs who were acquired by that company. They boast about how they were allowed to keep working on their projects and how they were important to the company and their great relationship to Larry as part of a Fortune 50 company. But then, over time, they found they weren't being given freedom anymore and they left. They just never really understood what was really happening.
> 3-4 hour daily commute
It saddens me that anyone thinks this is acceptable. I know some people don't mind it, but what a waste of your life to do this for any extended period of time.
It saddens me that anyone thinks this is acceptable. I know some people don't mind it, but what a waste of your life to do this for any extended period of time.
My last CEO thought I was insane because I took a pay cut to swap a 90 minute each way commute for a 15 minute commute, but that's about 600 hours of extra time per year I get to spend with my wife and kids. 25 whole days.
Life is so very short. What value can you put on 25 extra days with your kids in a year. They're only going to be home for ~20 years. That's ~500 more days you get to have with them. An extra year and a half. It's a no brainer. There is no way you could pay me to give up a year and a half of my family.
There is no way you could pay me to give up a year and a half of my family.
By agreeing to participate in the work process, most people these days "give up" not 25 days a year, but full 100. Of course, there is a price tag they put on that time -- the salary.
This single-minded "family time is infinitely more valuable than work time" sentiment doesn't seem to match people's actions in reality. It looks more like some new-age signalling process; a (recent?) social phenomenon.
Are you being obtuse on purpose?
You are taking the argument to the other extreme: "Family time is SOOOO important, why are you even working? hypocrite"
Of course he has to "trade family time for work" aka salary. Of course he has to spend (probably) 40 hours a week (not including lunch/driving) to keep the bills paid... Everyone - except lottery winners, retired people, those lucky to be born into money, etc - has to do that.
But, as with anything, there comes a tipping point where the time spent isn't worth they money earned.
Assuming he was paid $100k (just a made up number), at 40 hours a week and 30 hours of driving, he would get paid ~$27/hour. (100k / 70 hours / 52 weeks)
If he cuts his pay to $75k (25% pay cut) and instead drives 30 minutes per day, he's now getting paid $29/hour (75k / 45 hours / 52 weeks). He "nets" less, but gets paid more per hour and has more time for "important" things.
Those are made up numbers, but for a "pay cut" he could get paid more per hour and have more time at home.
Does he quit because "family time is infinitely more important"? No... he's not an extremist that has to pull some basic, common-sense notion to an absurd degree. He made a trade off: It's called reality for most people.
You are taking the argument to the other extreme: "Family time is SOOOO important, why are you even working? hypocrite"
Of course he has to "trade family time for work" aka salary. Of course he has to spend (probably) 40 hours a week (not including lunch/driving) to keep the bills paid... Everyone - except lottery winners, retired people, those lucky to be born into money, etc - has to do that.
But, as with anything, there comes a tipping point where the time spent isn't worth they money earned.
Assuming he was paid $100k (just a made up number), at 40 hours a week and 30 hours of driving, he would get paid ~$27/hour. (100k / 70 hours / 52 weeks)
If he cuts his pay to $75k (25% pay cut) and instead drives 30 minutes per day, he's now getting paid $29/hour (75k / 45 hours / 52 weeks). He "nets" less, but gets paid more per hour and has more time for "important" things.
Those are made up numbers, but for a "pay cut" he could get paid more per hour and have more time at home.
Does he quit because "family time is infinitely more important"? No... he's not an extremist that has to pull some basic, common-sense notion to an absurd degree. He made a trade off: It's called reality for most people.
No, I am replying to a concrete argument. I quoted it at the top of my post.
That the family-work ratio cannot be extreme, and is very much a personal tradeoff, was the whole point of my post. I am baffled -- what exactly are you arguing against? It seems you're agreeing with a vengeance.
That the family-work ratio cannot be extreme, and is very much a personal tradeoff, was the whole point of my post. I am baffled -- what exactly are you arguing against? It seems you're agreeing with a vengeance.
No, you're making absurd assumptions to be able to make a pedantic argument.
Out of curiosity -- how was I supposed to read your original comment?
What I saw was the OP saying "I saved time commuting, all good" (doh). Then you came in with "no way you could pay me to give up family time", which sounds extremely... extreme.
If that wasn't the core of your message, what was?
What are the absurd assumptions?
What I saw was the OP saying "I saved time commuting, all good" (doh). Then you came in with "no way you could pay me to give up family time", which sounds extremely... extreme.
If that wasn't the core of your message, what was?
What are the absurd assumptions?
mathgeek, your sentiment is seconded.
Seeing people saying, "It's me time." is a bit disconcerting. Respectfully as an opinion, spending between 2 and 4+ hours a day sitting on a bus/train is not "me time". Why do I think that? Because of what I suspect the answer to this question would be: If you had 2 free hours at home would you spend it doing the exact same task that you would do for 2 hours on a bus?
I understand that a two plus hour commute is a choice and obviously there are people willing to accept it. But I am suspicious that the "me time" argument is in reality a rationalization to make what would generally be unacceptable appear acceptable.
And as an appeal to the emotional side, you have one life. Do you really want to spend 10% of your life on a bus every month?
Seeing people saying, "It's me time." is a bit disconcerting. Respectfully as an opinion, spending between 2 and 4+ hours a day sitting on a bus/train is not "me time". Why do I think that? Because of what I suspect the answer to this question would be: If you had 2 free hours at home would you spend it doing the exact same task that you would do for 2 hours on a bus?
I understand that a two plus hour commute is a choice and obviously there are people willing to accept it. But I am suspicious that the "me time" argument is in reality a rationalization to make what would generally be unacceptable appear acceptable.
And as an appeal to the emotional side, you have one life. Do you really want to spend 10% of your life on a bus every month?
I occasionally take the train to travel larger distances. Between a 2 hour flight and a 6 hour train ride, I will take the train. Because a 2 hour flight is not just a 2 hour flight. It's a 2 hour "dealing with getting to and through airports" plus a 2 hour flight, with the whole experience microchunked into a plethora of annoyances and issues that I will not have any chance to sit down on my computer and do anything.
In comparison, when I take the train, I arrive at the station a leisurely 15 minutes early. And I sit in a gigantic chair (compared to the plane) for those six hours. And they have free coffee and wifi. And the desk at my chair is not a baby's highchair platform, but an actually usable work surface. So I work.
And while the food isn't high quality, it's better than anything I've ever had on an airplane. Burgers and pizza and beer. Or fresh salads and coldcut sandwiches. Candy, granola bars, teas, water. It's a small convenience store.
No, I don't spend my time commuting. I spend my client's time commuting. Working on the train is the closest thing to teleporting I think any of us will come to in our lifetime.
In comparison, when I take the train, I arrive at the station a leisurely 15 minutes early. And I sit in a gigantic chair (compared to the plane) for those six hours. And they have free coffee and wifi. And the desk at my chair is not a baby's highchair platform, but an actually usable work surface. So I work.
And while the food isn't high quality, it's better than anything I've ever had on an airplane. Burgers and pizza and beer. Or fresh salads and coldcut sandwiches. Candy, granola bars, teas, water. It's a small convenience store.
No, I don't spend my time commuting. I spend my client's time commuting. Working on the train is the closest thing to teleporting I think any of us will come to in our lifetime.
How I wish the US had more trains!
You can get to all the useful places on the East Coast.
You're spot on, but there is a use. It's sometimes handy to have a chunk of your life where you're forced to be idle for blocks of time. I loved taking the bus for that reason, because there was always a distraction at home, and I was busy at school. So the long (1.5 hour each way) bus commute was great for reading or just clearing out the mind (I'm an introvert, so long periodic stretches of isolation are nice).
Of course, I like being only 15 minutes from home. But I miss having that external crutch a bit.
Of course, I like being only 15 minutes from home. But I miss having that external crutch a bit.
I have a 3 hour commute (by express bus with comfy seats, etc.). Honestly, I just use the commute time as "me time", not too different from hanging out at home.
The long commute lets me be close to my parents, in a neighborhood my wife likes, $1100 rent for a 2 bedroom in NYC, etc.
The long commute lets me be close to my parents, in a neighborhood my wife likes, $1100 rent for a 2 bedroom in NYC, etc.
I am in a similar situation and it's usually just fine, but it becomes difficult on days when I would be better off sacrificing that "me time" to do something else (chores, errands, family obligations, etc.). When that happens, the only thing I can cut back on to meet those obligations is sleep.
Yes, that is what happens. Especially on days with bad traffic.
Where the heck do you live that you can get a 2BR in the NY metro area for $1100? Even the scuzziest areas start at $800-900 for a 1BR.
Not Manhattan (at least not anywhere above Chinatown and below Harlem). Plenty of places in queens and Brooklyn if you search the right places.
There are plenty of places in CT where you can get a decent 2BR for $1100, be walking distance from a Metro North station, and have less than a 2 hr commute.
The Far Rockaways and Staten Island are technically part of NYC.
NYC is a big place. I live in Glen Oaks, near the border of Nassau county.
3 hours is Albany. I pay about $800/mo for a 4b/3ba house there. When I used to be on the Amtrak a lot there was a fair number of folks doing that commute, mostly lawyers and construction guys.
90 minutes is Rhinebeck/Poughkeepsie. Plenty of country and suburbia places for $1100.
90 minutes is Rhinebeck/Poughkeepsie. Plenty of country and suburbia places for $1100.
Agreed, when I'm on the train its just not as bad as driving, even when it takes longer.
Do they seriously expect you to work 8hrs with a commute like that?
Never met a company that gave any sort of shit about how long it took employees to get there. I even once worked at a place that moved and added an hour to everyone's commute.
Except, probably, the CEO's.
https://books.google.com/books?id=_h4eF9H9UtQC&pg=PA93&dq=%2...
https://books.google.com/books?id=_h4eF9H9UtQC&pg=PA93&dq=%2...
I suspect they don't. In those big companies, all they need to do in order to verify that "knowledge workers" are very hardworking is one of the biggest falsehoods ever are just 3 glimpses a day at any south bay campus parking lot: 9AM, 12AM, then 4PM.
Not to mention those "Working from Home" tech workers, who are most of the time not even at home and rarely working :P
Not to mention those "Working from Home" tech workers, who are most of the time not even at home and rarely working :P
If you take the Facebook bus and work on WiFi you can pretty easily.
I commute 2 hours each way per day and you get used to it. It sucks but so do home prices in South Bay.
I never got used to the Microsoft commute, and that was rarely worse than 90 minutes coming home. It sucked, it continued to suck, it never got any better, it ruined my day, I hated my life, and it felt so good to drive away on my last day of that terrible job knowing I would never again have to spend any time on SR520 if I didn't want to. (I avoided that road for years afterward, actually, even when it would have been the sensible route to wherever I was going.)
I'm not going to try to get used to it, never again. Life is too short to waste that much of it in hell. I won't even consider a job with a bad commute anymore. If that limits my employment prospects, so be it - I have a life to live!
I'm not going to try to get used to it, never again. Life is too short to waste that much of it in hell. I won't even consider a job with a bad commute anymore. If that limits my employment prospects, so be it - I have a life to live!
Was the connector not an option for you or have things gotten better? I commute in slightly off hours (7am and 4pm) and it consistently takes ~35 minutes door to door.
The connector was not an option for me. I quit in 2009; things may well have gotten better since then.
Commuting by car is much worse than commuting by bus or train (for any time greater than 45 min).
Your bus options must be a hell of a lot nicer than mine. (I haven't had the option of commuting by train since college, alas.)
NYC metro area - I've been commuting by train, but I know many people who live in NJ who commute in by bus.
wow, where did you live where getting to microsoft via 520 took 1.5 hours? 1 hour i believe as an occasional max. maybe across puget sound?
Getting to Microsoft never took all that long - it was getting home that took forever and sucked the life out of me.
Yeah, I have the same issue going south on I-405 in the afternoon. The road is clogged from 3 miles north of Bellevue and remains clogged until a couple miles south of I-90. I used to spend 50% of my commute time in that pile.
We really needed to build rail in the space where we added a toll lane.
We really needed to build rail in the space where we added a toll lane.
I commute ~60 minutes each direction by car. My drive is simple: few minutes to main road from work/home... 55 minutes north/south on a single road... few minutes to work/home.
The time honestly dissapears... Podcasts and/or audio books.
The scary part is how much time is spent on "auto-pilot".
The time honestly dissapears... Podcasts and/or audio books.
The scary part is how much time is spent on "auto-pilot".
Do you subtract those hours from how much time you'd be in the office or do you spend 12 hours a day away from home every day?
I do about 2 hours a day when I'm not biking, but because we have a strong remote-work culture, I find myself working from home more and more, and expect to be fully remote pretty soon.
I do about 2 hours a day when I'm not biking, but because we have a strong remote-work culture, I find myself working from home more and more, and expect to be fully remote pretty soon.
Like many "knowledge workers" I don't track my hours, but my job requires a certain amount of in-office time, and the length of my commute doesn't really affect that requirement.
I've seen many people on tech shuttles in the Bay Area get on the shuttle at 9 and get off the shuttle at 6. The shuttle is considered to be "in the office".
A lot depends on what you do during those hours, and what the work expectations are.
At one point in my life I lived a block from work, and put in 12-14 hours every day and fielded calls 2-3 times a week at 2-3am. That's no different than an 8-10 hour a day job with a 4 hour commute and pager duty.
When I was single it was ok - I had many friends at work and that was our life. I wouldn't try to do it with a family.
When introverts read or are productive on their commute, why not? But I currently struggle with a 30 min commute and have become a podcast addict.
At one point in my life I lived a block from work, and put in 12-14 hours every day and fielded calls 2-3 times a week at 2-3am. That's no different than an 8-10 hour a day job with a 4 hour commute and pager duty.
When I was single it was ok - I had many friends at work and that was our life. I wouldn't try to do it with a family.
When introverts read or are productive on their commute, why not? But I currently struggle with a 30 min commute and have become a podcast addict.
It is ridiculous indeed. If your work can be done from home there is no reason to come to office apart from occasional meetings. Even things like scrum stand ups can be done via hangouts.
The real advice, having been thru many non-coastal telecom mergers:
Its just like a merger on that old TV show Survivor, there's 3000 of us, 100 of you, and after "synergy" there's only going to be 3000 positions, so nothing personal but you are all gone.
The first meetings with the new bosses are a job interview, treat it as such.
Highest priority should be a transfer into the buying company. You want to get on to the existing team as the newest hire, not sitting on the team that's being picked bare before downsizing. Existing teams in the big company have political power and thats all that matters.
Start saving every penny, your job is gone but you have warning you'll be looking for work soon. You may have relo expenses, may not find a job immediately, who knows.
Its easier to find work when you're the first rat to desert the sinking ship, not the last. You want to be the first guy to get a new job. Unless you're 64 and planning to retire, ignore a couple thousand bonus if you stick around. Six months of lost income is probably a lot more than $5K if you're the last downsized. Pretend that bonus doesn't exist unless you're planning on retiring or dropping out.
Assume you've lost it all. The job title, the work environment, the benefits, the vacation time, the seniority, the freedom, the technology. If you get to keep any of it after the merger, you'll feel better.
Sometimes the merger is the time to get away with things. Why, I've always been able to work from home. This is my last chance to upgrade the software without 500 pages of paperwork and procedures, hurry up!
Its just like a merger on that old TV show Survivor, there's 3000 of us, 100 of you, and after "synergy" there's only going to be 3000 positions, so nothing personal but you are all gone.
The first meetings with the new bosses are a job interview, treat it as such.
Highest priority should be a transfer into the buying company. You want to get on to the existing team as the newest hire, not sitting on the team that's being picked bare before downsizing. Existing teams in the big company have political power and thats all that matters.
Start saving every penny, your job is gone but you have warning you'll be looking for work soon. You may have relo expenses, may not find a job immediately, who knows.
Its easier to find work when you're the first rat to desert the sinking ship, not the last. You want to be the first guy to get a new job. Unless you're 64 and planning to retire, ignore a couple thousand bonus if you stick around. Six months of lost income is probably a lot more than $5K if you're the last downsized. Pretend that bonus doesn't exist unless you're planning on retiring or dropping out.
Assume you've lost it all. The job title, the work environment, the benefits, the vacation time, the seniority, the freedom, the technology. If you get to keep any of it after the merger, you'll feel better.
Sometimes the merger is the time to get away with things. Why, I've always been able to work from home. This is my last chance to upgrade the software without 500 pages of paperwork and procedures, hurry up!
I experienced an unusual variation of the acquisition. The company wasn't acquired by another company, but sold out a majority interest to a private equity firm. I did as you suggest here, started looming immediately, jumped ship after the next major release. Turned out it was mistake, the company actually did quiet well, and didn't have the mass layoff I feared. I liked the job and regretted leaving out of fear.
> Assume good intent. Aggressively assume good intent.
I can't account for anyone else, but my experience says the exact opposite. Most of the acquisitions I've seen, are because the acquiring company wants IP/contracts/some other good that they can't build themselves. Once they have that, the employees are on the short-list.
Obviously every acquisition is different, and should be judged by it's own circumstances, but, having been on both sides of the equation, I'd recommend being skeptical of everything they do. It is hard to do that without becoming toxic, however.
I can't account for anyone else, but my experience says the exact opposite. Most of the acquisitions I've seen, are because the acquiring company wants IP/contracts/some other good that they can't build themselves. Once they have that, the employees are on the short-list.
Obviously every acquisition is different, and should be judged by it's own circumstances, but, having been on both sides of the equation, I'd recommend being skeptical of everything they do. It is hard to do that without becoming toxic, however.
I think she means it in a day-to-day sense. People will make comment and put forth actions that could come off as rude or malicious, but it's more likely they don't understand where you're coming from (a culture clash which could lead to discussion, or to fights, depending)
Yeah, or just completely oblivious. Most of the technical "advice" they insisted on giving us was just completely wrong.
Also, gotta say, I was never as self-conscious about being a woman in tech until we got acquired by Facebook. I've never had so many experiences of walking in to a room (as a tech lead) and having a dude look me up and down and say, "ummm, how technical are you?"
Also, gotta say, I was never as self-conscious about being a woman in tech until we got acquired by Facebook. I've never had so many experiences of walking in to a room (as a tech lead) and having a dude look me up and down and say, "ummm, how technical are you?"
Like, literally? I could see a question like that being asked, but I have no idea what a possible answer would be for anyone. Perhaps "7.2" might be pretty ok, but otherwise I can't fathom a single answer that isn't sarcastic, snarking, or arrogant.
I'm plonking that alongside "when did you stop beating your wife"-style trap questions.
I'm plonking that alongside "when did you stop beating your wife"-style trap questions.
"Try me."
I can think of a dozen perfectly good answers.
"I'm the tech lead", "I was a developer for X years before moving into management", "Fully technical - I wrote/designed this blah", "I have a degree in X", etc.
I ask people how technical they are all the time - recruiters, project managers, designers, marketing people, product managers. It helps me communicate effectively. I won't describe a problem in the same way to a senior engineer as I would to a non-technical marketing person.
Depending on the parent commenter's job title, people may not have known whether she was a technical leader or a people manager upon first meeting, and asked the question without ever even giving a thought to gender.
"I'm the tech lead", "I was a developer for X years before moving into management", "Fully technical - I wrote/designed this blah", "I have a degree in X", etc.
I ask people how technical they are all the time - recruiters, project managers, designers, marketing people, product managers. It helps me communicate effectively. I won't describe a problem in the same way to a senior engineer as I would to a non-technical marketing person.
Depending on the parent commenter's job title, people may not have known whether she was a technical leader or a people manager upon first meeting, and asked the question without ever even giving a thought to gender.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Thank you for what you’ve built. Our app is backed by Parse, and you’ve made it possible to help real people in a critical time because of how well you executed on your vision. I’m sure you’ve heard the same from the myriad other companies you’ve enabled thanks to the mBaaS innovations that Parse pioneered. I’m dismayed as everyone else that Facebook’s bean counters missed this immense forest for the trees of immediate profitability. They won’t soon regain developers’ trust.
In my experience, the first thing to do is to build yourself a little fortress out of binders and printouts. If it looks like you're going to get fired, pretend to be mentally handicapped so that they are afraid of a discrimination lawsuit. Then switch to whatever team has the best donuts, and spend the rest of your time at BigCo playing bullshit bingo with the pointy-haired ones.
... and spend the rest of your time at BigCo playing bullshit
bingo with the pointy-haired ones.
It would be nice to find a solution that doesn't increase the pointy-haired entropy of the world.
Holy moly. I've been through an acquisition, and it was the complete opposite experience. But, I have a bad feeling this post is completely right and this is typical. Must really feel terrible. I'm glad this person shared, and I hope they don't get into any kind of trouble over it.
I have been through five as an employee of the acquired company.
My advice is to polish up your resume and dig your job search network out of the mothballs the instant you catch a whiff of one. If you're lucky, you will have approximately one year to find safe harbor before the storm hits.
I always ask leading questions about ownership structure and acquisitions at interviews now.
My advice is to polish up your resume and dig your job search network out of the mothballs the instant you catch a whiff of one. If you're lucky, you will have approximately one year to find safe harbor before the storm hits.
I always ask leading questions about ownership structure and acquisitions at interviews now.
Would you mind sharing some examples of good questions to ask in an interview? It seems particularly hard to evaluate companies as an interviewee when they're trying to be secretive.
I don't know about good questions, but here's one that I ask.
"I have been through a few acquisitions, and all of them ended badly for me. Can you tell me a bit about the ownership structure of your company and their exit strategy?"
You have to watch their facial expression as you ask it, as they will almost certainly tell you that the current owners have no plans to sell that they are aware of. (Your interviewers probably won't include any owner required for a majority bloc.) But they also might tell you some names, and you can check for yourself after the interview what generally happens to their peon-level employees.
"I have been through a few acquisitions, and all of them ended badly for me. Can you tell me a bit about the ownership structure of your company and their exit strategy?"
You have to watch their facial expression as you ask it, as they will almost certainly tell you that the current owners have no plans to sell that they are aware of. (Your interviewers probably won't include any owner required for a majority bloc.) But they also might tell you some names, and you can check for yourself after the interview what generally happens to their peon-level employees.
There is literally only one thing to do: get your resume together and get the hell out. If they offer you options that take 3 years to actually occur, ignore them. If you believe in your product, take a few weeks to get over the shock, then find something else to sink your teeth into!
I wish I would have followed this advice. I was part of a very large acquisition that netted me a measly $30k. The retention package was sizable (for me), but it took your quoted 3 years to even begin vesting.
I left at the end of year 2 and was miserable for almost a full year prior to leaving. I didn't even have any financial gain to show from it.
I left at the end of year 2 and was miserable for almost a full year prior to leaving. I didn't even have any financial gain to show from it.
Mate, you live and learn. Whilst the experience might have been horrible, I'd say you've probably had positives come from it. For me, the positives were that I learned that I must commit 100% effort into any place I work, but I've got to be able to move on when necessary.
I'm afraid I'm still learning how to do this, but it has helped me get out of my last job before I completely burned out.
I'm afraid I'm still learning how to do this, but it has helped me get out of my last job before I completely burned out.
I hear you, and definitely did learn a lot. Sadly I've got a severe case of burn out at the moment.
It happens. Be kind to yourself and take it easy.
Since they covered up all the pages stating what parse is and does, can someone tell me here.
What is parse? And what is it used for?
Parse is a backend as a service provider -- originally for mobile apps, but eventually for all kinds of applications. You could store data, manage users, target and send push notifications, gather analytics, etc., all without having to build your own backend.
Nice, that sounds useful. I guess it's good that they're releasing some of it as open source then. :)
I've built a couple backend systems for mobile and other, I've used Kafka/zk for messaging primarily.
I'll have to check this out more in depth, thanks :)
Here is a feature list of current alternatives http://kinto.readthedocs.org/en/latest/overview.html#compari...
I think a good thing to assume is that when you work for someone, the product is not your product, but theirs, and the customers are not your customers, but theirs.
What an excellent article.
Absolutely disengage. What's past is past.
Trust (not quite) no one. I've only had people depending on me in one of the five acquisitions I've been through, and I simply told them exactly what I think will be the result.
Quintuple check the evaluation criteria and totally, ruthlessly overfocus on that. This is a test. Identify any Catch-22 early and escalate these quickly.
Then do what you can to reengage. But you will almost certainly be a redheaded stepchild. Look at it as an opportunity to reinvent yourself a bit. Chances are you have close to nothing to lose. IMO, relaxing is better than not relaxing.
Absolutely disengage. What's past is past.
Trust (not quite) no one. I've only had people depending on me in one of the five acquisitions I've been through, and I simply told them exactly what I think will be the result.
Quintuple check the evaluation criteria and totally, ruthlessly overfocus on that. This is a test. Identify any Catch-22 early and escalate these quickly.
Then do what you can to reengage. But you will almost certainly be a redheaded stepchild. Look at it as an opportunity to reinvent yourself a bit. Chances are you have close to nothing to lose. IMO, relaxing is better than not relaxing.
>In retrospect, I realize that a lot of tiny acquired startups don’t know what the fuck they’re doing and so the behemoth just gets used to assuming that everyone is like that. Just grit your teeth and take it.
This, I'm not sure if this should even be considered a negative. Too often start-ups and smaller tech companies try to reinvent the wheel and call themselves 'agile' or whatever. As a contractor I'd almost always rather deal with a large company - if for nothing other than a dedicated payroll dept.
This, I'm not sure if this should even be considered a negative. Too often start-ups and smaller tech companies try to reinvent the wheel and call themselves 'agile' or whatever. As a contractor I'd almost always rather deal with a large company - if for nothing other than a dedicated payroll dept.
Sad to hear the end of Parse :( so I put together a collection of its evolution over time:
http://www.startuptimelines.org/startup-timelines/Parse/
Wishing the team well in any future endeavours
Wishing the team well in any future endeavours
I love the domain.
> One of Facebook’s internal slogans is something like “always do what’s best for Facebook”.
Is that real? Like they really have this slogan that like comes straight out of a modern interpretation of Marx's theory of alienation shoved right into their employees faces?
http://i.imgur.com/oVb4J0b.png
Is that real? Like they really have this slogan that like comes straight out of a modern interpretation of Marx's theory of alienation shoved right into their employees faces?
http://i.imgur.com/oVb4J0b.png
It really does explain a lot though. This is why, when down the road Facebook needs to make revenue or suffer the wrath of investors, your personal life will become their cash machine. This is already true; just wait, it can get much worse than it is now.
That is also, if I recall correctly, remarkably similar to an internal slogan printed on a banner at Innitech, in Office Space.
I'm not certain that I would be able to suppress a fit of the giggles any time I saw it in an actual, real-life office.
I'm not certain that I would be able to suppress a fit of the giggles any time I saw it in an actual, real-life office.
a lot of tech-forward companies do it, and not ironically. search for the testing on the toilet series at google.
bobby_9x(1)
I have never heard of this as a slogan at Facebook and I have close ties there; this seems like someone venting emotionally.
I am absolutely venting emotionally, I thought that much was clear. :) But I heard a variant of this in dozens or hundreds of meetings, generally when a project was getting shut down or canned or reorg'd, so it's not true to say that it's not true.
It's not even a bad slogan. Company priorities should come before territorial interests. This is why it's important to work in a place that shares your values at a high level.
It's not even a bad slogan. Company priorities should come before territorial interests. This is why it's important to work in a place that shares your values at a high level.
I think people are juxtaposing "what's good for Facebook" not with "what's good for [territorial subunit]", but rather with "what's good for the lives of the people working at Facebook." A slogan like that is sensible in the first case and terrifying in the second case.
I think you're right, and I completely intended it in a practical, non-incendiary way. People would constantly say they weren't there to pursue personal, political agendas, they wanted to have maximum impact and do what was best for Facebook. It's like the #1 catchphrase you have to memorize to get ahead. It makes sense. In most cases, it's even true.
I may have a separate set of issues with Facebook People policies, but there are a ton of really passionate, amazing engineers working there who deeply believe in the mission (or at least their local specialty). I miss many of them very much and wish them all well.
I may have a separate set of issues with Facebook People policies, but there are a ton of really passionate, amazing engineers working there who deeply believe in the mission (or at least their local specialty). I miss many of them very much and wish them all well.
When I went into Facebook's bathroom, at eye level over each urinal was posted a weekly newsletter, which talked about changes to their PHP API.
It's not.
My response would be to put a personal spin on a trope that was being shoved down my and my coworkers throats circa 2005: "Mind the gap." (Yeah, some executive/consultant type went to London, heard the message, and wrote a book, I'm guessing.)
Mind the gap. When what's good for the company diverges increasingly from what is good for you...
Companies want you to "invest" in them, as a worker. If they aren't reciprocating, well, don't let yourself become co-dependent.
Beware, also, of when they may be offering something but it simply doesn't fit you. Your struggles will come across -- they will communicate themselves.
Mind the gap. When what's good for the company diverges increasingly from what is good for you...
Companies want you to "invest" in them, as a worker. If they aren't reciprocating, well, don't let yourself become co-dependent.
Beware, also, of when they may be offering something but it simply doesn't fit you. Your struggles will come across -- they will communicate themselves.
I never saw that. However, the "Stay Focused & Keep Shipping" signs always seemed dark to me.
I'm a former employee. Never saw this either.
Founder is so far from employee it's ridiculous you even comment.
It's sad that most founders don't care or don't understand that sometimes they managed to hire people that actually care about the business, and could have helped make it better.
When I see a founder sell his business, all I ever think is (as I'm sure most do), what a selfish asshole.
It's sad that most founders don't care or don't understand that sometimes they managed to hire people that actually care about the business, and could have helped make it better.
When I see a founder sell his business, all I ever think is (as I'm sure most do), what a selfish asshole.
I gotta admit, I've seen more cases of founders selling their business, taking the huge payouts (and screwing their employees at the same time) and simply leaving tech completely. It's not that they are burned out; they simply got what they wanted and moved on. The business, and the tech, was a means to an end, pure and simple.
A cash out to one of the big four must be exhilarating. Even if it wouldn't be your definition of success as founder, imagine the pressure from your own investors who invested in you exactly for this type of outcome.
This. But then again, when you join a VC funded start-up, end game should be pretty obvious.
Fair enough. I missed the part where this is an employees perspective.
WRT being selfish. It's often the last thing a founder wants. Boards, family members, and even sometimes employees - often pressure a founder into an acquisition the founder themselves isn't as keen on.
> When I see a founder sell his business, all I ever think is (as I'm sure most do), what a selfish asshole.
You must be new here. Some useful info:
http://ycombinator.com
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
You must be new here. Some useful info:
http://ycombinator.com
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I've been here a long time, and I frequently think the same thing.
It's not uncommon for founders to sell their company. Even Paul Graham (who created Hacker News) has done it:
In 1996, Graham and Robert Morris founded Viaweb, the first application service provider (ASP). Viaweb's software, originally written mostly in Common Lisp, allowed users to make their own Internet stores. In the summer of 1998 Viaweb was sold to Yahoo! for 455,000 shares of Yahoo! stock, valued at $49.6 million.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_%28computer_progra...
In 1996, Graham and Robert Morris founded Viaweb, the first application service provider (ASP). Viaweb's software, originally written mostly in Common Lisp, allowed users to make their own Internet stores. In the summer of 1998 Viaweb was sold to Yahoo! for 455,000 shares of Yahoo! stock, valued at $49.6 million.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_%28computer_progra...
Every time you take a job, have a plan for the end game. Plans are worthless but planning is everything.
If you don't, you have just said "but this time it's different."
If you don't, you have just said "but this time it's different."
I don't think you can paint with such broad strokes. While it is important to have a sense of the founder's vision for the business (run for life, IPO, sell eventually, etc.), I can't say I blame them for cashing out if the situation makes business sense and aligns with their goals. It is THEIR business after all.
But I think that just means there is more responsibility on the part of the founder to be transparent and forthright with his employees, particularly those who have equity. It is one thing to sell in a backroom. It is another to sell with the full knowledge and support of the company with the goal of getting as fair an outcome for all parties (including the employees that helped get them there). Believe it or not, there have been plenty of instances where the latter has happened. It isn't always like the founder makes bank and no employees get anything.
But I think that just means there is more responsibility on the part of the founder to be transparent and forthright with his employees, particularly those who have equity. It is one thing to sell in a backroom. It is another to sell with the full knowledge and support of the company with the goal of getting as fair an outcome for all parties (including the employees that helped get them there). Believe it or not, there have been plenty of instances where the latter has happened. It isn't always like the founder makes bank and no employees get anything.
What a nasty thing to say—as if founders never cared about their business or the people they worked with. Please don't post such malicious things here.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11029639 and marked it off-topic.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11029639 and marked it off-topic.
"Surviving," "Trauma," "Shock","Dismay" ?
I've founded a company through an acquisition and led mobile for another. Life was definitely much much better before the acquisitions. But the perception that it's anything but a first world first world problem ... is a bit misleading and entitled.
I've founded a company through an acquisition and led mobile for another. Life was definitely much much better before the acquisitions. But the perception that it's anything but a first world first world problem ... is a bit misleading and entitled.
That's a very dismissive attitude toward real emotional attachments. The loss of something you've poured your life into can genuinely be traumatic, shocking, and dismaying.
I don't like the notion of applying the "first-world problem" dismissal to things that aren't trivialities. It's one thing to laugh about how you have to get up from the couch to get a remote. It's another thing entirely to talk about major changes to one's career, wiping away years of their work, or the loss of something they care deeply about as a "first-world problem".
Sure, getting acquired might be a "good problem to have", but it doesn't make its toll any less real.
I don't like the notion of applying the "first-world problem" dismissal to things that aren't trivialities. It's one thing to laugh about how you have to get up from the couch to get a remote. It's another thing entirely to talk about major changes to one's career, wiping away years of their work, or the loss of something they care deeply about as a "first-world problem".
Sure, getting acquired might be a "good problem to have", but it doesn't make its toll any less real.
I mean nothing ... violent or otherwise unpleasant by this, but it's really important to learn to let go. You pushed the rock up the hill for a while and now maybe it's somebody else's turn.
IMO, it's important to retain the capacity for grace in these things. Not least for your own sake, much less you're career.
I would read the parts of Shelby Foote's "Civil War" surrounding Lee's surrender at Appomattox Courthouse. It helped. Whatever else may be said of Lee, he was a master of grace under pressure.
IMO, it's important to retain the capacity for grace in these things. Not least for your own sake, much less you're career.
I would read the parts of Shelby Foote's "Civil War" surrounding Lee's surrender at Appomattox Courthouse. It helped. Whatever else may be said of Lee, he was a master of grace under pressure.
Fair enough. There are real and powerful emotions at play.
But it's a bit of a stretch to suggest an employee at a company founded 5 years ago has "poured their life into."
Personally, I'll reserve evocative language of loss for things beyond a strategic shift at the office - but I shouldn't judge others who view things differently.
But it's a bit of a stretch to suggest an employee at a company founded 5 years ago has "poured their life into."
Personally, I'll reserve evocative language of loss for things beyond a strategic shift at the office - but I shouldn't judge others who view things differently.
Consider, briefly, that the relevant question is what it meant to the OP, and clearly for her it had that impact. Having been through many of the same experiences (I, too, was an early Parse engineer, though I left about a year after the acquisition), I can tell you those feelings are real, and that it's definitely possible to form that kind of attachment to your work in well under 5 years.
There's a major difference between being in leadership and being on the line. You signed up for an acquisition -- the employee worked for you partially because you weren't <insert big company here>.
yes, Surviving, Trauma, Shock, and Dismay.
I'll add Anger, Confusion, Fear, and Depression.
That's my experience at least. Not all acquisitions are rosy experiences for the employees. Sometimes employees get blindsided when they show up to work one day to be told the company has been sold.
I'll add Anger, Confusion, Fear, and Depression.
That's my experience at least. Not all acquisitions are rosy experiences for the employees. Sometimes employees get blindsided when they show up to work one day to be told the company has been sold.
Always be willing to move on. Never, ever take your job for granted!
What bunk.
We cannot ask for employees that are engaged, purposeful, passionate, and committed without also expecting negative feelings to happen when things don't work out. If you ask people to care about their company and their colleagues, fucking own it when they actually do.
We cannot ask for employees that are engaged, purposeful, passionate, and committed without also expecting negative feelings to happen when things don't work out. If you ask people to care about their company and their colleagues, fucking own it when they actually do.
I mean, that'll happen anyway, but at least you have the option of staving it off long enough to get your team safely out of there.