Tell HN: Two YC companies in a row hired and then didn't take me on
113 comments
Hi Grustaf,
Ryan here at YC. I help build YC’s workatastartup.com, and also work with companies to help them find great people for their teams. Part of that includes teaching them to hire well -- communicating clear expectations, having fair/reasonable questions, paying for the interviewee's time, and hiring when they’re in a good position to do so.
What you experienced sounds incredibly frustrating. Sorry that you went through that. I don’t know the details on the company side, and the market is obviously pretty bad. But that still shouldn’t be a catch-all excuse for you having a bad experience.
If you’re open to it, would love to connect live and learn more about what happened. And I’m also happy to make intros to founders/companies that might be a better fit -- especially ones that are in a strong economic position to do so.
My email is ryan AT ycombinator.com if you’d like to connect. Hope to hear from you, and help if I can.
Ryan here at YC. I help build YC’s workatastartup.com, and also work with companies to help them find great people for their teams. Part of that includes teaching them to hire well -- communicating clear expectations, having fair/reasonable questions, paying for the interviewee's time, and hiring when they’re in a good position to do so.
What you experienced sounds incredibly frustrating. Sorry that you went through that. I don’t know the details on the company side, and the market is obviously pretty bad. But that still shouldn’t be a catch-all excuse for you having a bad experience.
If you’re open to it, would love to connect live and learn more about what happened. And I’m also happy to make intros to founders/companies that might be a better fit -- especially ones that are in a strong economic position to do so.
My email is ryan AT ycombinator.com if you’d like to connect. Hope to hear from you, and help if I can.
I got a chance to connect with OP -- thank you again for your thoughtfulness and balance.
While I (and YC) am trying to help founders create postive interview experiences for candidates, there's clearly more work to be done. As I mentioned previously, I give hiring/interview training for our founders. From our conversation (and this broader thread), I need to reiterate/add points to my training around:
- More education to founders around who should/shouldn't be hiring. This market is (and will continue to be) tricky to navigate, but that's not an excuse for rescinding an offer. (We actually do a lot of training -- and our partners repeatedly tell our founders not to overhire, but we can do more here, especially now.)
- Paid trials are good. From my conversation with job seekers -- and with OP -- this is a good practice to respect an interviewee for their time, and more founders should do this.
- Keep trial periods short. 1-2 weeks is a good amount of time; any longer and you risk wasting the candidate's time, which a founder/hiring team should be respectful of, always.
Again, there's more to do, and I'll try to work more closely with our startups to really dig into their hiring plans for 2023. I don't want job seekers to be experiencing this kind of thing (on workatastartup.com or otherwise), so we'll do what we can within our network to prevent it.
While I (and YC) am trying to help founders create postive interview experiences for candidates, there's clearly more work to be done. As I mentioned previously, I give hiring/interview training for our founders. From our conversation (and this broader thread), I need to reiterate/add points to my training around:
- More education to founders around who should/shouldn't be hiring. This market is (and will continue to be) tricky to navigate, but that's not an excuse for rescinding an offer. (We actually do a lot of training -- and our partners repeatedly tell our founders not to overhire, but we can do more here, especially now.)
- Paid trials are good. From my conversation with job seekers -- and with OP -- this is a good practice to respect an interviewee for their time, and more founders should do this.
- Keep trial periods short. 1-2 weeks is a good amount of time; any longer and you risk wasting the candidate's time, which a founder/hiring team should be respectful of, always.
Again, there's more to do, and I'll try to work more closely with our startups to really dig into their hiring plans for 2023. I don't want job seekers to be experiencing this kind of thing (on workatastartup.com or otherwise), so we'll do what we can within our network to prevent it.
Completely agree with the paid trials/projects point.
The typical hiring process is so broken and one sided, with the interviewers wasting candidate’s time with no consideration whatsoever that it’s utterly disgusting.
This is another incredible value that YC provides. In the same way YC helps prevent investor bad behavior, it also prevents company bad behavior on behalf of candidates. Not saying it was intentional from the companies, but just makes sure everyone keeps candidate experience top of mind.
I mean, it actually completely failed in this instance to prevent bad behavior, so...?
I think you are meaning to say that it can bring accountability to these companies, in which case I'd agree.
I think you are meaning to say that it can bring accountability to these companies, in which case I'd agree.
If you’re willing to give some inexperienced companies the benifit of the doubt, you can reasonably assume they just might not have it together yet. I doubt there was mal-intent, it sounds like budgets and headcount got yanked back, which sucks for both the candidate and the team that is trying to hire.
In a larger company I’ve worked at (and have hired for), they had a process where if the candidate passed the first 2 interviews, you basically get a formal “intent to hire” process started which reserves money for the position that cannot be withdrawn except for VP-level intervention.
In a larger company I’ve worked at (and have hired for), they had a process where if the candidate passed the first 2 interviews, you basically get a formal “intent to hire” process started which reserves money for the position that cannot be withdrawn except for VP-level intervention.
Does it work well if two YC companies failed OP in the same manner?
I think the parents point was along the line of, when YC companies do slip, there’s someone around willing to step up and take responsibility and likely behind the scenes push those companies to do better.
"hi, it's me. i'm the problem it's me."
but in seriousness, i'm one of the people here trying to uplevel hiring at YC startups, and at startups more broadly.
this thread is helpful for me to know what we can do to make startup hiring (and working at a startup) better. i'm appreciative for the comments/voices here so i can keep learning.
but in seriousness, i'm one of the people here trying to uplevel hiring at YC startups, and at startups more broadly.
this thread is helpful for me to know what we can do to make startup hiring (and working at a startup) better. i'm appreciative for the comments/voices here so i can keep learning.
> "hi, it's me. i'm the problem it's me."
thank you very nice PR man. u r doing a very good job of preventing founders from experiencing discomfort and making the meat feel cared for.
> but in seriousness, i'm one of the people here trying to uplevel hiring at YC startups, and at startups more broadly.
That's cool, but what pressure is there actually against practices like this if the companies aren't even named? Am I supposed to believe you call up a founder and go: 'uh hey, can you get your churn under control? We're getting complaints'.
What does this conversation sound like? Is it like: 'Oh, is negative word getting out publicly?' 'nah, they didn't name you, its under control' 'ah good. Well Ryan, we want the best, the absolute best and that requires trying lots of candidates I just don't see a problem, OP was nice person but just not a good fit for us' 'ok, makes sense, thanks founder, you guys are doing great, keep up the good work'
thank you very nice PR man. u r doing a very good job of preventing founders from experiencing discomfort and making the meat feel cared for.
> but in seriousness, i'm one of the people here trying to uplevel hiring at YC startups, and at startups more broadly.
That's cool, but what pressure is there actually against practices like this if the companies aren't even named? Am I supposed to believe you call up a founder and go: 'uh hey, can you get your churn under control? We're getting complaints'.
What does this conversation sound like? Is it like: 'Oh, is negative word getting out publicly?' 'nah, they didn't name you, its under control' 'ah good. Well Ryan, we want the best, the absolute best and that requires trying lots of candidates I just don't see a problem, OP was nice person but just not a good fit for us' 'ok, makes sense, thanks founder, you guys are doing great, keep up the good work'
I wonder if this would have been swept under the rug if it didn’t get to this point in public.
exactly this
My understanding is that YC is very opt-in to everything they offer. There is no requirement to seek them out for advice or recommendation.
Wasn't there a YC newsletter email where they told companies to tighten their belts so to speak? I feel like them not being able to hire due to money issues could be down to YC telling people to calm down with their spending.
In May 2022 [updated], YC did tell their startups to better control their spend. It wasn't intended for public consumption, but it did get on TC:
https://techcrunch.com/2022/05/19/yc-advises-founders-to-pla...
We did see a lot of our YC startups stop/slow down hiring at that time and throughout the summer. It has picked up since, as a function of 1.) a new batch of YC startups graduating, 2.) raising a healthy seed round and 3.) hiring a few early employees.
OP told me his experience was more recent, and that's a big time gap between the memo and now. I can't speak to any specifics, but I do think all startups (and definitely YC ones) are continually re-evaluating their business position: revenue, projected growth and corresponding headcount. And with a pull-back in industry spending during a downturn (and more expected going into 2023), vendors/sellers/startups will all have to re-adjust their 2023 plans pretty quickly.
Poor fiscal planning isn't an excuse for what happened to OP. It does shed light on how some companies (including YC startups) are continually trying to adapt during this downturn.
Note: The above comments about industry spend isn't from anything in particular I'm seeing from our YC startups, but rather from having worked at B2B startups twice previously during downturns -- and personally being on both sides of the equation (as seller and buyer of SaaS software).
https://techcrunch.com/2022/05/19/yc-advises-founders-to-pla...
We did see a lot of our YC startups stop/slow down hiring at that time and throughout the summer. It has picked up since, as a function of 1.) a new batch of YC startups graduating, 2.) raising a healthy seed round and 3.) hiring a few early employees.
OP told me his experience was more recent, and that's a big time gap between the memo and now. I can't speak to any specifics, but I do think all startups (and definitely YC ones) are continually re-evaluating their business position: revenue, projected growth and corresponding headcount. And with a pull-back in industry spending during a downturn (and more expected going into 2023), vendors/sellers/startups will all have to re-adjust their 2023 plans pretty quickly.
Poor fiscal planning isn't an excuse for what happened to OP. It does shed light on how some companies (including YC startups) are continually trying to adapt during this downturn.
Note: The above comments about industry spend isn't from anything in particular I'm seeing from our YC startups, but rather from having worked at B2B startups twice previously during downturns -- and personally being on both sides of the equation (as seller and buyer of SaaS software).
This May. It was 2022.
Yea, I'm pretty sure a bunch of investors changed their guidance on managing runway this summer to extend the runways as future rounds may be harder. Something like where guidance for many would be 2 years, now to target 4. Although at least one company I talked to earlier in the year didn't have this memo.
I think lots of companies are seeing a longer/harder sales cycle as well, so they're still growing, but at a reduced rate, which when combined with that investor advice can lead to reqs the company thought they had, not really being available when it comes to deciding on making an offer.
What I don't know about, is if there's a bit more slack in the job market, where a year ago if you completed the interview you would get an offer, instead companies now have the ability to select among multiple good candidates.
I think lots of companies are seeing a longer/harder sales cycle as well, so they're still growing, but at a reduced rate, which when combined with that investor advice can lead to reqs the company thought they had, not really being available when it comes to deciding on making an offer.
What I don't know about, is if there's a bit more slack in the job market, where a year ago if you completed the interview you would get an offer, instead companies now have the ability to select among multiple good candidates.
Maybe YC should take over The initial interviews. I’m not sure how to non technically evaluate candidates but I’m sure it would be on the basic stuff like dress, communication, and narrative on experience. This would give firms some assurance and less need for extensive multiple interview sessions. I mean you already took over the application portal. So maybe also take over the initial interview upon first selection by YC firm.
I don't think YCombinator is supposed to be a megacorp with that much control over the startups it's founded, and I don't think that a few slipups like what happend to OP warrant adding all that red tape in the long run
I was not thinking in terms of startups losing control but rather startups sharing and getting YC’s insights into candidates. Plus startups not being bogged down with terrible candidates if YC were to filter it for them. It’s Efficiency in scale all around honestly.
Could be very beneficial in hiring a founding engineer/team. YC could be a leader is busting the mold that is a broken tech hiring cycle.
Our hiring portal is a start, and we see lots of YC companies hire first employees/founding engineers on it. But any additional insights you have -- especially from the candidate's side -- is welcome. We'd love to get a better sense of what more we could do here.
Thanks for your reply, I just emailed you!
This is rough. I'm sorry you've experienced this. I had a similar experience a few months ago interviewing with a profitable YC company with a multi-billion dollar valuation.
I would encourage you to think of the YC investment (or any investor's "stamp of approval") as an indication of a potentially successful return of capital for investors. Not a good company for you as an employee to achieve your goals.
Inherently, labor and capital are in conflict with each other. The things which make a company successful for the investors are usually not aligned to what makes it a great experience and outcome for the employee.
I did a retrospective on my journey interviewing at this YC company and my key insight was to evaluate the leadership, not the investors. The hiring manager was great. But after retrospectively vetting the CEO and leadership team, I came to the conclusion that they were really struggling with building a healthy business in a really competitive space.
As part of my retrospective I tried to take an analytical view of the competitive dynamics. It's pretty clear in the near term that the LowCode space I was looking at is going to face pressure from incumbents amidst a general re-pricing —
https://blog.devnos.com/posts/2022-12-20-lowcode/
I would encourage you to think of the YC investment (or any investor's "stamp of approval") as an indication of a potentially successful return of capital for investors. Not a good company for you as an employee to achieve your goals.
Inherently, labor and capital are in conflict with each other. The things which make a company successful for the investors are usually not aligned to what makes it a great experience and outcome for the employee.
I did a retrospective on my journey interviewing at this YC company and my key insight was to evaluate the leadership, not the investors. The hiring manager was great. But after retrospectively vetting the CEO and leadership team, I came to the conclusion that they were really struggling with building a healthy business in a really competitive space.
As part of my retrospective I tried to take an analytical view of the competitive dynamics. It's pretty clear in the near term that the LowCode space I was looking at is going to face pressure from incumbents amidst a general re-pricing —
https://blog.devnos.com/posts/2022-12-20-lowcode/
> The things which make a company successful for the investors are usually not aligned to what makes it a great experience and outcome for the employee.
This is simply not true. Having happy employees is very good for business profitability.
The unions are always trying to recast the relationship as adversarial, which is a huge mistake.
This is simply not true. Having happy employees is very good for business profitability.
The unions are always trying to recast the relationship as adversarial, which is a huge mistake.
> This is simply not true. Having happy employees is very good for business profitability.
If it was true, then you'd think more companies would care about their employees. Amazon treats their warehouse and delivery people as disposable.
> The unions are always trying to recast the relationship as adversarial, which is a huge mistake.
If employers were treating their employees well, they wouldn't need a union.
If it was true, then you'd think more companies would care about their employees. Amazon treats their warehouse and delivery people as disposable.
> The unions are always trying to recast the relationship as adversarial, which is a huge mistake.
If employers were treating their employees well, they wouldn't need a union.
Starbucks treats their employees well.
https://www.starbucks.com/careers/working-at-starbucks/benef...
https://www.starbucks.com/careers/working-at-starbucks/benef...
In my opinion, the Barista makes or breaks the coffee place. It never made sense to me how some coffeeshops mis-hire for baristas/servers. Starbucks got this right, and they have (most times) highly qualified staff even in foreign countries.
This is not the same for Amazon. What you care about is delivery time and choice and they are doing well in that front.
This is not the same for Amazon. What you care about is delivery time and choice and they are doing well in that front.
To each his own. I'd rank Starbucks at the bottom, and I've never heard different in any country outside the US. I've also noticed that their foreign shops are strictly in American tourist traps, which seems like a very good strategy for expanding into countries that generally frown on their coffee, and their atmosphere.
YC companies are in the business of raising the next funding round. It creates different incentives and management styles.
It's not unions that have created an adversarial relationship between capital and labor. It's automation.
There's too much nuance in this discussion to toss out generalities. In some sectors, automation has played a huge role. Certainly not all. In some parts of tech the availability of abundant labor has played a role. Nuance is important.
I like nuance as much as the next guy. But the relationship between labor and capital is kind of like predator and prey.
Yes, sure, in the broad sense they're all part of the same ecosystem and if that ecosystem does well it can get to a happy stable state where each community prospers. That's certainly true.
But also on a day to day level one of the parties is literally trying to consume the other one.
Yes, sure, in the broad sense they're all part of the same ecosystem and if that ecosystem does well it can get to a happy stable state where each community prospers. That's certainly true.
But also on a day to day level one of the parties is literally trying to consume the other one.
> the relationship between labor and capital is kind of like predator and prey.
That is not inherent. Businesses have mutually beneficial relationships with suppliers and customers. Transactions are win-win. There's nothing fundamentally different between a business and its employees, and no reason why the relationship cannot be win-win.
But unions frame their negotiations in terms of win-lose. This is a sad state of affairs.
That is not inherent. Businesses have mutually beneficial relationships with suppliers and customers. Transactions are win-win. There's nothing fundamentally different between a business and its employees, and no reason why the relationship cannot be win-win.
But unions frame their negotiations in terms of win-lose. This is a sad state of affairs.
This point reminds me of Costco's Mission Statement and Code of Ethics. It's so simple and easy, but for reason it's really hard for companies to copy/paste into their organizations.
https://customerservice.costco.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/8...
I inherently agree that this is a good Code of Ethics. It comes down to whether the people at these organizations conduct themselves in a way that embodies these principles. In the OP and my specific cases it was not the case. My position is that these principles are difficult and not particularly well adopted.
https://customerservice.costco.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/8...
I inherently agree that this is a good Code of Ethics. It comes down to whether the people at these organizations conduct themselves in a way that embodies these principles. In the OP and my specific cases it was not the case. My position is that these principles are difficult and not particularly well adopted.
> no reason why the relationship cannot be win-win
Although it can be win-win in theory, it frequently isn't in practice. A well-known example of companies working against their own employees is the "anti-poaching" policy illegally agreed to by Google, Apple and others a few years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
There was no union here trying to create an adversarial situation. It was simply corporate greed (on the part of some of the most profitable companies in the world).
Although it can be win-win in theory, it frequently isn't in practice. A well-known example of companies working against their own employees is the "anti-poaching" policy illegally agreed to by Google, Apple and others a few years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
There was no union here trying to create an adversarial situation. It was simply corporate greed (on the part of some of the most profitable companies in the world).
I can't think of a union negotiation where the union ever offered something in exchange for increased benefits. It was always based on threats of strikes, "the company can afford to pay more", trashing the company in public, etc.
I.e. win-lose.
Is it any surprise that companies don't like being treated like that? Would you?
What if, instead, unions framed it as a partnership for improved success of the company. Like, for more benefits, we'll improve productivity to more than pay for it. Win-win! What a concept.
I.e. win-lose.
Is it any surprise that companies don't like being treated like that? Would you?
What if, instead, unions framed it as a partnership for improved success of the company. Like, for more benefits, we'll improve productivity to more than pay for it. Win-win! What a concept.
> I can't think of a union negotiation where the union ever offered something in exchange for increased benefits.
Its relatively uncommon if your baseline is status quo ante (though I’ve seen it in repeatedly in public sector unions in downturns, and I’ve heard of it happening in private sector unions when the employer is in particularly dire straits), but not at all uncommon if your baseline is the employer’s offer.
> Like, for more benefits, we'll improve productivity to more than pay for it.
Unions don't control productivity, so they can’t promise that. Of course, if employers want to give labor a stake in productivity by offering equity, they are free to do so.
Its relatively uncommon if your baseline is status quo ante (though I’ve seen it in repeatedly in public sector unions in downturns, and I’ve heard of it happening in private sector unions when the employer is in particularly dire straits), but not at all uncommon if your baseline is the employer’s offer.
> Like, for more benefits, we'll improve productivity to more than pay for it.
Unions don't control productivity, so they can’t promise that. Of course, if employers want to give labor a stake in productivity by offering equity, they are free to do so.
> Unions don't control productivity
Of course they do. They're not mindless automatons. They're in the position with the best view of where productivity choke points are, and how to fix them. They can also run seminars to improve the training, and can help find positions where the unproductive members can be productive.
I'm sad I even have to point this out.
> not at all uncommon
I've never heard of it. The Starbucks strike has been in the news in the last week, and the union offered nothing whatsoever but threats and demands.
Of course they do. They're not mindless automatons. They're in the position with the best view of where productivity choke points are, and how to fix them. They can also run seminars to improve the training, and can help find positions where the unproductive members can be productive.
I'm sad I even have to point this out.
> not at all uncommon
I've never heard of it. The Starbucks strike has been in the news in the last week, and the union offered nothing whatsoever but threats and demands.
> This is simply not true. Having happy employees is very good for business profitability.
That probably explains why most VC-funded businesses these days aren't profitable, even after they IPO :-)
Liquidation preference does not make for happy employees.
That probably explains why most VC-funded businesses these days aren't profitable, even after they IPO :-)
Liquidation preference does not make for happy employees.
Having happy employees is very good for business profitability.
It's what these companies pretend to believe, at least.
Whether they actually, in reality, act in a way that make their employees happy -- or in a manner that is even fair or rational, by any detached observation -- is an entirely different matter.
It's what these companies pretend to believe, at least.
Whether they actually, in reality, act in a way that make their employees happy -- or in a manner that is even fair or rational, by any detached observation -- is an entirely different matter.
Keep in mind that one cannot make everyone happy, ever.
I've suspected for a while that companies with long, drawn-out hiring processes are using the delay to see if someone better (for some definition of "better") will come along.
In the current market, you are probably right about the problem being the funding situation; most companies in general, and startups (I suppose) specifically, are desperately bad about foreseeing bad outcomes. There's a hefty bias there.
On the other hand, I guess you just have to keep looking for a job until you get an actual commitment---don't stop because you might have one.
In the current market, you are probably right about the problem being the funding situation; most companies in general, and startups (I suppose) specifically, are desperately bad about foreseeing bad outcomes. There's a hefty bias there.
On the other hand, I guess you just have to keep looking for a job until you get an actual commitment---don't stop because you might have one.
> I've suspected for a while that companies with long, drawn-out hiring processes are using the delay to see if someone better (for some definition of "better") will come along.
Ah, that's an interesting explanation, seems much more likely than a hustle to get (not even very cheap) short term labour. That could be the case at least for the second of the companies, for the first one I think it might be more down to inexperience or recklessness.
Ah, that's an interesting explanation, seems much more likely than a hustle to get (not even very cheap) short term labour. That could be the case at least for the second of the companies, for the first one I think it might be more down to inexperience or recklessness.
> I've suspected for a while that companies with long, drawn-out hiring processes are using the delay to see if someone better (for some definition of "better") will come along.
In a way, yes. Hiring isn’t a game of finding the first person who walks through the door who passes an arbitrary bar. It takes some time to collect candidates, interview multiple people, and choose which one to hire.
However, that process should stop after the offer letter is extended. A company that rescinds offers as part of their normal hiring process would be very unusual. I suspect in this case the companies’ explanations (financial situation changed) is honest.
I always try to get candidates through the interview process as fast as possible, but recently it’s usually the candidates who are extending the process out. A lot of people like the idea of shopping around at different companies with your offer letter in hand, which can take weeks or months if you let them. At some point we have to thank the candidate for their time and inform them that we’re moving on to other candidates, because we need to hire someone.
In a way, yes. Hiring isn’t a game of finding the first person who walks through the door who passes an arbitrary bar. It takes some time to collect candidates, interview multiple people, and choose which one to hire.
However, that process should stop after the offer letter is extended. A company that rescinds offers as part of their normal hiring process would be very unusual. I suspect in this case the companies’ explanations (financial situation changed) is honest.
I always try to get candidates through the interview process as fast as possible, but recently it’s usually the candidates who are extending the process out. A lot of people like the idea of shopping around at different companies with your offer letter in hand, which can take weeks or months if you let them. At some point we have to thank the candidate for their time and inform them that we’re moving on to other candidates, because we need to hire someone.
Lots of good points here, on both sides of the hiring equation.
In a strong market, candidates have been able to shop around, get multiple offers (based on interest, comp, etc) and pick the best one for them. If for nothing else, it's useful to get multiple data points to understand the state of the market. Candidates should absolutely do this -- to make sure they're making the right decision based on the possible options out there.
We tell our founders that setting deadlines to accept an offer are not effective, especially given the above. It adds unnecessary stress to the situation, and it sets a bad tone for the relationship.
We also tell our founders to ask what timeline the candidate is looking at, and say when the company is hoping to make a decision. And if those don't align from the start, to note it upfront. (We also ask out founders to write one-pagers on their interview process, to communicate and set those expectations at the beginning of the process. That's fairly new, and taking some time to adopt, but we're working on it.)
In a strong market, candidates have been able to shop around, get multiple offers (based on interest, comp, etc) and pick the best one for them. If for nothing else, it's useful to get multiple data points to understand the state of the market. Candidates should absolutely do this -- to make sure they're making the right decision based on the possible options out there.
We tell our founders that setting deadlines to accept an offer are not effective, especially given the above. It adds unnecessary stress to the situation, and it sets a bad tone for the relationship.
We also tell our founders to ask what timeline the candidate is looking at, and say when the company is hoping to make a decision. And if those don't align from the start, to note it upfront. (We also ask out founders to write one-pagers on their interview process, to communicate and set those expectations at the beginning of the process. That's fairly new, and taking some time to adopt, but we're working on it.)
I have commented in the past that the longest hiring cycle was almost 10 months at RedHat back in 2005, and I've had it be as short as a week in the early 2010's for a TechStars backed company.
If a company doesn't have a hiring plan that doesn't end in 4-6 weeks, I'm not interested in even communicating with that company. I have no issues with trials or paid projects: I would actually prefer a trial or a paid project to starting somewhere only to find out that half the infrastructure including their MongoDB instances are running on Windows servers.
(Ironically enough, in the Medical field, it takes 12-18 months to get hired because of the due diligence involved: my significant other was shocked when I was able to go from looking to hired in less than 28 days back in 2017!)
If a company doesn't have a hiring plan that doesn't end in 4-6 weeks, I'm not interested in even communicating with that company. I have no issues with trials or paid projects: I would actually prefer a trial or a paid project to starting somewhere only to find out that half the infrastructure including their MongoDB instances are running on Windows servers.
(Ironically enough, in the Medical field, it takes 12-18 months to get hired because of the due diligence involved: my significant other was shocked when I was able to go from looking to hired in less than 28 days back in 2017!)
> I went through long recruitment processes
Sadly a lot of startups are still doing that. I was too, but I learned from my mistakes.
You're not freaking Google, good candidates (the ones you should hire) have multiple offers and are not going to wait until you make up your mind. Being able to send an offer fast might not guarantee a great hire, but being slow drastically increases chances of getting a mediocre one. You get 90% of the signals in the first interview anyway, and there's a lot of evidence that even the best hiring processes are not very far from coin flip.
Bundle all your interviews in a single day. Send offer in one day at most. After all, startups are about moving fast.
Sadly a lot of startups are still doing that. I was too, but I learned from my mistakes.
You're not freaking Google, good candidates (the ones you should hire) have multiple offers and are not going to wait until you make up your mind. Being able to send an offer fast might not guarantee a great hire, but being slow drastically increases chances of getting a mediocre one. You get 90% of the signals in the first interview anyway, and there's a lot of evidence that even the best hiring processes are not very far from coin flip.
Bundle all your interviews in a single day. Send offer in one day at most. After all, startups are about moving fast.
Most early stage companies are wildly optimistic about their future and are at constant risk of going belly up. As a candidate, it’s important to go into the process with your eyes wide open and to do your due diligence.
If you need or want stability, early stage companies probably aren’t worth your attention. Even if they hired you and even if you started, you’d be no less at risk of being let go. If you’d like stability, you’ll need to look for companies that are well capitalised and are executing on a long term strategy rather than fighting for survival (and even then, there’s still a risk — even FAANG’s are rescinding offers).
Although what happened isn’t ideal, I don’t think it reflects too badly on the startups in question because they did pay you — and likewise, it’s fair for you to be annoyed / disappointed / frustrated.
If you need or want stability, early stage companies probably aren’t worth your attention. Even if they hired you and even if you started, you’d be no less at risk of being let go. If you’d like stability, you’ll need to look for companies that are well capitalised and are executing on a long term strategy rather than fighting for survival (and even then, there’s still a risk — even FAANG’s are rescinding offers).
Although what happened isn’t ideal, I don’t think it reflects too badly on the startups in question because they did pay you — and likewise, it’s fair for you to be annoyed / disappointed / frustrated.
> Most early stage companies are wildly optimistic about their future and are at constant risk of going belly up.
Yeah, sure. Ideally I'd like to see them being super optimistic in their own mind, and perhaps with potential investors, media etc, but more realistic when communicating with people like prospective employees. I would still have gone through the trial work and all the interviews even if I had known that their finances were shaky, the only difference is that then I wouldn't have stopped my job seeking efforts, and it would also have been less of a shock.
Of course, pausing job seeking was my decision and my responsibility, but it wouldn't have cost them anything to be more forthcoming. If changing financial fortunes was indeed the true reason.
Yeah, sure. Ideally I'd like to see them being super optimistic in their own mind, and perhaps with potential investors, media etc, but more realistic when communicating with people like prospective employees. I would still have gone through the trial work and all the interviews even if I had known that their finances were shaky, the only difference is that then I wouldn't have stopped my job seeking efforts, and it would also have been less of a shock.
Of course, pausing job seeking was my decision and my responsibility, but it wouldn't have cost them anything to be more forthcoming. If changing financial fortunes was indeed the true reason.
There’s the need for a sort of… naive is probably the wrong word, but a type of optimism that is more than just being positive, a type of optimism that means you believe deep in your soul that your startup is going to succeed no matter what, and that optimism doesn’t allow for differentiating between internal and external presentation — there’s just optimism.
There are founders who will only accept defeat when they are physically unable to make payroll or even when payments to employees start bouncing: that’s bad behaviour but it’s the sort of behaviour that is closely related to the same type of behaviour required to succeed.
I completely agree that they would ideally be more open with prospects, people they’re interviewing etc. but I am not sure if that’s something we can expect to get. I spend a lot of time looking at the workatastartup website listings and (perhaps naively) I feel like I can identify which companies are flying by the seat of their pants (and therefore might one day wake up and realise “oh shit, we have to fire the new guy”) vs. the ones that I could expect to disclose to me a few months in advance when things are looking dicey.
As applicants, we have to assume the worst and plan accordingly.
There are founders who will only accept defeat when they are physically unable to make payroll or even when payments to employees start bouncing: that’s bad behaviour but it’s the sort of behaviour that is closely related to the same type of behaviour required to succeed.
I completely agree that they would ideally be more open with prospects, people they’re interviewing etc. but I am not sure if that’s something we can expect to get. I spend a lot of time looking at the workatastartup website listings and (perhaps naively) I feel like I can identify which companies are flying by the seat of their pants (and therefore might one day wake up and realise “oh shit, we have to fire the new guy”) vs. the ones that I could expect to disclose to me a few months in advance when things are looking dicey.
As applicants, we have to assume the worst and plan accordingly.
Not at all surprised by this. I worked for a YC company. I've interviewed with over a dozen of them over the years. One thing that YC companies don't do very well is interview/hire. All but one (the one I worked for) went down the typical broken path of 6+ hours of total interview time, including multiple live coding sessions with pedantic exercises (the one's we've all come to know well - algorithm regurgitation), the ominous "culture fit" calls, and over-emphasis on equity. I've found it surprising that YC doesn't better coach founders/companies on how to be more efficient and more innovative with their hiring processes.
There have been a few YC companies to reinvent / optimize / improve the tech hiring process, such as Triplebyte.
In theory, they could be a better approach. In practice, my experience has been that many companies don't actively monitor and interests go unseen or trivially dismissed. I had companies like Dropbox mark my interest on Triplebyte as "no relevant experience" after viewing my profile for less than a minute and for which I've actually been doing and have 5+ years of relevant experience.
In theory, they could be a better approach. In practice, my experience has been that many companies don't actively monitor and interests go unseen or trivially dismissed. I had companies like Dropbox mark my interest on Triplebyte as "no relevant experience" after viewing my profile for less than a minute and for which I've actually been doing and have 5+ years of relevant experience.
I view the Triplebytes of the world as negative signal on companies. They aren't willing to spend time coding with candidates? The core thing I'm being hired to do? If they don't have the time due to number of candidates (common reason), _they have a screening/sourcing problem_ not a _technical exercise problem_.
For me, watching how someone solves a problem is just as important as the actual solution if I'm going to be working with them on a daily basis.
For me, watching how someone solves a problem is just as important as the actual solution if I'm going to be working with them on a daily basis.
> watching how someone solves a problem is just as important as the actual solution
I've seen this misnomer hundreds of times over the course of a 20 year career. It's a comfort-falacy. If someone interviews well they're going to give you a false sense of comfort and security in their ability. Interviewing well doesn't translate directly to working well. Interview processes in tech are overly hostile to the candidate - and I mean hostile in the sense that they apply unneeded pressure in condensed periods of time that don't reflect the majority of the work environment. Yes, we want people who can perform in crunch time, but that should not represent the bulk of work and if it does, there's another problem (I digress).
Another point that people seem all too eager to ignore is that how someone problem solves now is not as important as their potential or ability to improve and learn. A candidate that is excellent in interviews may not have the capacity for learning beyond what they're being run through in the interview. I've personally seen this happen at least a dozen times.
If one thinks a 30 minute coding exercise if giving them a good sense of a candidate's ability in both writing code and problem solving, they're part of the problem with hiring in tech.
I've seen this misnomer hundreds of times over the course of a 20 year career. It's a comfort-falacy. If someone interviews well they're going to give you a false sense of comfort and security in their ability. Interviewing well doesn't translate directly to working well. Interview processes in tech are overly hostile to the candidate - and I mean hostile in the sense that they apply unneeded pressure in condensed periods of time that don't reflect the majority of the work environment. Yes, we want people who can perform in crunch time, but that should not represent the bulk of work and if it does, there's another problem (I digress).
Another point that people seem all too eager to ignore is that how someone problem solves now is not as important as their potential or ability to improve and learn. A candidate that is excellent in interviews may not have the capacity for learning beyond what they're being run through in the interview. I've personally seen this happen at least a dozen times.
If one thinks a 30 minute coding exercise if giving them a good sense of a candidate's ability in both writing code and problem solving, they're part of the problem with hiring in tech.
A lot of Triplebyte's value as a candidate is in being able to skip past screener type calls / the very earliest stages. I don't think it is at the point where they entirely replace technical interviews.
Michael Seibel recommends that all hires raise the average IQ score of the company. Yet they also recommend that startups be run by outliers? It doesn't work logically. Regardless, many programmers (technical founders) believe that LeetCode performance is correlated with IQ Score (since Google started using DS&A).
It sounds comforting in theory but expensive in practice.
That advice has long been old startup lore even before Michael was at YC.
But wrt literal IQ (I recall the advice being "smarter" than the average person in the room, not IQ specifically), I think the intended meaning is more "cognitive ability" or i.e., ability to learn quickly.
I think this is why most early stage startups can do well with mostly strong junior engineers and a lesser percentage of seniors to oversee the cloud engineering concerns like scale, architecture, infrastructure, security, etc.
That advice has long been old startup lore even before Michael was at YC.
But wrt literal IQ (I recall the advice being "smarter" than the average person in the room, not IQ specifically), I think the intended meaning is more "cognitive ability" or i.e., ability to learn quickly.
I think this is why most early stage startups can do well with mostly strong junior engineers and a lesser percentage of seniors to oversee the cloud engineering concerns like scale, architecture, infrastructure, security, etc.
I score above average on IQ tests. Today, I would fail an algorithm interview. I have been building business apps. I can take an idea and make it a feature from 0 to database/api/web app.
I made a decision to just suck it up next year and practice algorithms. I have no problem getting offers from average companies. However, all the big dogs want data structures and algorithms. It doesn't feel right for me, but oh well.
I made a decision to just suck it up next year and practice algorithms. I have no problem getting offers from average companies. However, all the big dogs want data structures and algorithms. It doesn't feel right for me, but oh well.
I'd rather a real IQ test vs leetcode cramming games and having junior coders being the gatekeepers anyways.
Unsurprisingly since most of them are trying to figure it out as they go and don't realize how much of their time they should be devoting to this until much later.
From an employee point of view, YC companies have a weird correlated risk due to investor sentiment ... if YC and other vc's are nervous about the economy an email goes out that says "if you don't have two years of runway do what you can to get it" and a bunch of companies will start rescinding offers and/or doing layoffs.
Investor and CEO sentiment has been a roller coaster the last couple of years and very few ceo's have a steady hand on the tiller. I've seen companies go from hiring like crazy to laying off then back to hiring like crazy in way to short of a time period.
If interviewing right now I would flat out ask about runway, burn rates and hiring plans and be looking for a company that raised at the right time, has a decent amount of cash and has a pathway to being profitable. And make sure the founders seem to have a steady hand on the tiller.
I was an early employee at my last co and we figure out pretty fast the trial work / lengthy process thing doesn't scale at all. YC seems to push this (do things that don't scale) and it might make sense for your first couple of employees (when there is high risk of a bad hire and you suck at interviewing and are scared to fire people). But even short ~1 hour take home projects filter out too many good good candidates. Get good and comfortable at making a decision based on a normal day long interview and get good at firing people who aren't working out to mitigate risk.
Investor and CEO sentiment has been a roller coaster the last couple of years and very few ceo's have a steady hand on the tiller. I've seen companies go from hiring like crazy to laying off then back to hiring like crazy in way to short of a time period.
If interviewing right now I would flat out ask about runway, burn rates and hiring plans and be looking for a company that raised at the right time, has a decent amount of cash and has a pathway to being profitable. And make sure the founders seem to have a steady hand on the tiller.
I was an early employee at my last co and we figure out pretty fast the trial work / lengthy process thing doesn't scale at all. YC seems to push this (do things that don't scale) and it might make sense for your first couple of employees (when there is high risk of a bad hire and you suck at interviewing and are scared to fire people). But even short ~1 hour take home projects filter out too many good good candidates. Get good and comfortable at making a decision based on a normal day long interview and get good at firing people who aren't working out to mitigate risk.
> did a (paid) trial project,
Is the trial project something that could be used by the startup?
If so, there's a hazard that a startup could accidentally or intentionally use the carrot of a supposed/potential FTE hiring as a way to get contract work on better terms (more available, more committed, lower cost).
It could additionally be a way for the startup to fill their hiring funnel, and then (even bigger win) keep it in a holding pattern.
This would be a multiple win for a startup that isn't ready to hire, but needs work done relatively inexpensively and well on their schedule, and would like to have the option to hire when necessary (people it's keeping captive), with lower risk, and all while keeping more equity. The worker correspondingly loses multiple ways.
I doubt this was the intention this time, but I guess this could easily become a practice, especially if it ends up being wisdom quietly passed around in startup circles.
Is the trial project something that could be used by the startup?
If so, there's a hazard that a startup could accidentally or intentionally use the carrot of a supposed/potential FTE hiring as a way to get contract work on better terms (more available, more committed, lower cost).
It could additionally be a way for the startup to fill their hiring funnel, and then (even bigger win) keep it in a holding pattern.
This would be a multiple win for a startup that isn't ready to hire, but needs work done relatively inexpensively and well on their schedule, and would like to have the option to hire when necessary (people it's keeping captive), with lower risk, and all while keeping more equity. The worker correspondingly loses multiple ways.
I doubt this was the intention this time, but I guess this could easily become a practice, especially if it ends up being wisdom quietly passed around in startup circles.
Unlikely? In software, if you stay and work in the same project, you get a lot more productive as time goes by. Intentionally hiring people for weeks or a month, typically makes no sense. (Note that s/he got paid for the time)
I've definitely seen startups that are trying to do demos/PoCs/MVPs, where ramping up on the project isn't necessarily a factor for a task.
Say, you need to have a consumer iOS app or CRUD backend/site to show seed/angel investors, and it needs a high-skilled person to execute quickly. You might not yet be able to afford the hire to do that, and you might not want to give away that kind of equity that early contribution would rate. But you can have a highly-motivated experienced person do it for just an engagement fee they normally wouldn't take, if they think they're sealing a hiring deal.
Say, you need to have a consumer iOS app or CRUD backend/site to show seed/angel investors, and it needs a high-skilled person to execute quickly. You might not yet be able to afford the hire to do that, and you might not want to give away that kind of equity that early contribution would rate. But you can have a highly-motivated experienced person do it for just an engagement fee they normally wouldn't take, if they think they're sealing a hiring deal.
Ok, so if a startup wants one to develop their MVP as a one month long job application step, then that can be suspicious. Whilst if they have their product and software working already, then, less suspicious
I tend to agree.
The amount of time and effort they would have to spend on ramp-up and context sharing... seems it would be a nightmare. Unless its just some grunt work but even then, seems much more reliable to have a contracting partner in that case.
The amount of time and effort they would have to spend on ramp-up and context sharing... seems it would be a nightmare. Unless its just some grunt work but even then, seems much more reliable to have a contracting partner in that case.
> It's hard to imagine that it was some kind of ruse to get very short term work done
Who would do that if not than an YC-backed aspiring unicorn in an hustling environment ?
Also a month long ? For a startup without money ? How many more arguments do you want to see it for what it is ?
Who would do that if not than an YC-backed aspiring unicorn in an hustling environment ?
Also a month long ? For a startup without money ? How many more arguments do you want to see it for what it is ?
I meant more that it seems sort of pointless, they did pay for it, and at a reasonable rate - I would have done it as a 1-3 week project if they had asked, and they also invested a lot of time into the process so it seems very unlikely.
I have empathy here for the founders, going through all the overhead of finding a great candidate (you only saw the time invested in you, not the time invested in all the other candidates), then realizing you have to restructure your entire runway when conditions change or reality asserts.
> Perhaps they started hiring on the expectation of being able to raise money, but that seems unprofessional and disrespectful towards the candidates, no?
They were 100% doing this, and that's pretty much the base case for any VC-funded startup. If you believe this to be disrespectful than I advise you to stick with profitable/public employers.
If anything, appreciate that they didn't try to hire you in spite of their financial squeeze, then end up laying you off a few months later with minimal severance because they overran their runway.
> Perhaps they started hiring on the expectation of being able to raise money, but that seems unprofessional and disrespectful towards the candidates, no?
They were 100% doing this, and that's pretty much the base case for any VC-funded startup. If you believe this to be disrespectful than I advise you to stick with profitable/public employers.
If anything, appreciate that they didn't try to hire you in spite of their financial squeeze, then end up laying you off a few months later with minimal severance because they overran their runway.
If this was the case, then it would not hurt their chances to hire people much if they were open about it, saying that hiring was conditioned on closing the next round for example. But in both cases the message was clearly the opposite and that they had 18+ months of runway. In one case they had additionally signed a contract for a similar amount.
Makes me curious about their side of the decision. If they essentially told you, on the last day of your trial, that they aren't hiring you, that's not very respectful of your job search.
FWIW: Most startups fail. Most startups will evolve to be a place that you won't like. There is a reason why startups have such high turnover.
In my case, often when I ask a founder tough questions, I get rejected. It's okay, because I probably won't have the patience to work for someone who can't answer my tough questions.
But, getting back to you: I suspect "funding" is a convenient excuse, but I wouldn't read too much into it. Instead, I suggest being a lot more defensive in the process: Don't do 1-month contracts.
Instead, target ~6-month contracts with a ~1-week trial and a ~3 week severance. Explain that you've found that 1-month trials are impractical given how much time you spend interviewing. Point out that, just like the contracting status protects the company, you need severance to protect yourself too.
FWIW: Most startups fail. Most startups will evolve to be a place that you won't like. There is a reason why startups have such high turnover.
In my case, often when I ask a founder tough questions, I get rejected. It's okay, because I probably won't have the patience to work for someone who can't answer my tough questions.
But, getting back to you: I suspect "funding" is a convenient excuse, but I wouldn't read too much into it. Instead, I suggest being a lot more defensive in the process: Don't do 1-month contracts.
Instead, target ~6-month contracts with a ~1-week trial and a ~3 week severance. Explain that you've found that 1-month trials are impractical given how much time you spend interviewing. Point out that, just like the contracting status protects the company, you need severance to protect yourself too.
I understand where your frustration is coming from. As a founder, you do your best to prepare for the best and worst outcomes at the same time. It sounds like they ran a real recruitment process and paid you for your time, hoping to hire you.
However, the funding market is very poor. It's likely they realized that someone of your calibre, while useful to the org, wasn't absolutely, 100% needed to the survival of the company. That's not to say you weren't impressive. It's just that founders right now are in survival mode, not "Let's hire the best talent we can find" mode. Founders are trying to use the minimum resources possible to get to their next milestone.
It sounds like the YC founders made a tough call but one that protected their runway.
However, the funding market is very poor. It's likely they realized that someone of your calibre, while useful to the org, wasn't absolutely, 100% needed to the survival of the company. That's not to say you weren't impressive. It's just that founders right now are in survival mode, not "Let's hire the best talent we can find" mode. Founders are trying to use the minimum resources possible to get to their next milestone.
It sounds like the YC founders made a tough call but one that protected their runway.
I agree this feels like a sign of the times and the greater macroeconomic environment has forced many startups to choose between going into survival mode or going bankrupt by running out of runway too soon.
I've always been frustrated by startups that hire over-optimistically. I worked for one that doubled headcount twice from 15 to 30 to 60 in just a few months (with a heavy emphasis on engineering) pre-PMF only to turn around just a few months later and layoff half of the company, then a few months after that, half again. That obliterated the culture and morale, and then also follow-on effects of more people leaving that made it even worse.
They are a rare success story that went on to eventually re-raise a "seed" round two more times (!), rebuild and eventually achieve unicorn status. However, in the process it required changing virtually the entire company (90+%) including all new C suite, the founders being demoted, etc.
I can't help but wonder in a parallel universe what could have happened had we not hired excessively to begin with.
I think too many founders today expose themselves to being overly dependent on venture capital by growing headcount too fast.
I've always been frustrated by startups that hire over-optimistically. I worked for one that doubled headcount twice from 15 to 30 to 60 in just a few months (with a heavy emphasis on engineering) pre-PMF only to turn around just a few months later and layoff half of the company, then a few months after that, half again. That obliterated the culture and morale, and then also follow-on effects of more people leaving that made it even worse.
They are a rare success story that went on to eventually re-raise a "seed" round two more times (!), rebuild and eventually achieve unicorn status. However, in the process it required changing virtually the entire company (90+%) including all new C suite, the founders being demoted, etc.
I can't help but wonder in a parallel universe what could have happened had we not hired excessively to begin with.
I think too many founders today expose themselves to being overly dependent on venture capital by growing headcount too fast.
Honestly doesn't sound like anything YC specific. Everyone is tightening their belts and employees are very expensive and represent ongoing liabilities on balance sheets.
The only thing I would fault you on is going after trial positions in this economic situation. Think of the opportunity cost of not going after positions that could be for sure, while you are working on a trial position.
>that seems unprofessional and disrespectful towards the candidates, no?
Nobody can predict the future. You don't know what investor will suddenly come up short on cash or what economic factor will clobber your balance sheet. It sounds like the whole process (interview + trial) lasted nearly a quarter and that's definitely on cycle for major financial changes.
The only thing I would fault you on is going after trial positions in this economic situation. Think of the opportunity cost of not going after positions that could be for sure, while you are working on a trial position.
>that seems unprofessional and disrespectful towards the candidates, no?
Nobody can predict the future. You don't know what investor will suddenly come up short on cash or what economic factor will clobber your balance sheet. It sounds like the whole process (interview + trial) lasted nearly a quarter and that's definitely on cycle for major financial changes.
> The only thing I would fault you on is going after trial positions in this economic situation
I would be surprised if this were something the candidate suggested — it was probably a part of the company's recruiting process. It may have been optional, or it may have been mandatory.
> Honestly doesn't sound like anything YC specific
Possibly, though they are big on "hire slow, fire fast".
I would be surprised if this were something the candidate suggested — it was probably a part of the company's recruiting process. It may have been optional, or it may have been mandatory.
> Honestly doesn't sound like anything YC specific
Possibly, though they are big on "hire slow, fire fast".
Yeah the trial work was not my suggestion, it was part of the process. But I don't think it's a bad idea in itself, I've always been a proponent of it, as long as it's handled well.
Similar experience - had a very good initial call, returned the programming exercise within the time frame, no response. Followed up a week later, nothing.
Honestly if that's how a co-founder treats potential employees and their working relationships, that to me is a reflection on who they are as a person and the culture they'll end up building, which isn't one I'd want to be a part of.
Same role (iOS), I'm coming from another YC company. I wouldn't be surprised we applied for the same role and had the same experience.
Honestly if that's how a co-founder treats potential employees and their working relationships, that to me is a reflection on who they are as a person and the culture they'll end up building, which isn't one I'd want to be a part of.
Same role (iOS), I'm coming from another YC company. I wouldn't be surprised we applied for the same role and had the same experience.
[deleted]
Did they give you a confirmed offer letter and then revoke it, or was it just a failure to give you an offer letter?
In the current rapidly-worsening economy, I probably wouldn't consider it obviously improper (just unfortunate) for a company to not make an offer even when it had previously planned to do so. At some level it would depend on exactly how specific they'd been (and whether it was reasonable to take decisions like giving notice to current employer based on that).
In the current rapidly-worsening economy, I probably wouldn't consider it obviously improper (just unfortunate) for a company to not make an offer even when it had previously planned to do so. At some level it would depend on exactly how specific they'd been (and whether it was reasonable to take decisions like giving notice to current employer based on that).
I feel like you are just experiencing work at risky startups. Look up DreamWorld. YC invested in that is one of the most absurd frauds (or insert whatever word makes you comfortable) in the industry. The hucksters were even lauded as disrupters. Presumably you don’t work for peanuts and you are having bad experiences with startups related to finances. I think this is why people use the phrase “par for the course”.
While what you went through is definitely not cool, I think this was a mistake:
> since I didn't seek any other jobs while trial working for them
IMO a trial project is just another step in the interviewing process so you should have continued to interview with others. You might have even gotten another offer in the meantime and forced their hand to make a decision before the trial period is over.
> since I didn't seek any other jobs while trial working for them
IMO a trial project is just another step in the interviewing process so you should have continued to interview with others. You might have even gotten another offer in the meantime and forced their hand to make a decision before the trial period is over.
Where do people get all the time to do trial projects and then also interviewing constantly ? I really don’t get it.
For me specifically, interviewing was a full-time job -- and not one where you can phone it in.
I was given a trial project by one company and I told them I'm still interviewing and I could commit only 10 hours a week (if I'm not mistaken). Two weeks in, I had gotten another offer and told them that they had to make a decision now.
I was given a trial project by one company and I told them I'm still interviewing and I could commit only 10 hours a week (if I'm not mistaken). Two weeks in, I had gotten another offer and told them that they had to make a decision now.
This post already fell off the front page.
While there are posts that have lower points and were posted longer ago that are still on the front page.
This post is potentially very relevant to HN's startup founders and workers, for what OP mentions, and my comment about the risk of a hazard becoming a practice.
While there are posts that have lower points and were posted longer ago that are still on the front page.
This post is potentially very relevant to HN's startup founders and workers, for what OP mentions, and my comment about the risk of a hazard becoming a practice.
I had similar experience. I had interviewed with HR. Took technical test and interviewed with team lead of company. Then interviewed the CTO of the company. All of them were positive. No one called after that. I call them back but no result as you may guess. It was painful. I liked the company a lot.
What do hiring companies do if they have 1 position open, but find 2 candidates that are essentially a tie, and can't choose between them? Would they have both of them do a trial project? Could that have happened here?
I think this is the most probable explanation.
And the candidates needn't even be a tie. Maybe they have one candidate that's less experienced or a significantly less expensive hire but that is sufficient enough for what the role requires.
It can be really difficult to make a call like that, but at the end of the day, the smaller the company is, the more tightly controlling runway and burn rate could increase chances of survival.
I think this matters less once a company passes a sufficient headcount threshold. It's hard to draw a specific line in the sand, but perhaps ~75–100 people.
And the candidates needn't even be a tie. Maybe they have one candidate that's less experienced or a significantly less expensive hire but that is sufficient enough for what the role requires.
It can be really difficult to make a call like that, but at the end of the day, the smaller the company is, the more tightly controlling runway and burn rate could increase chances of survival.
I think this matters less once a company passes a sufficient headcount threshold. It's hard to draw a specific line in the sand, but perhaps ~75–100 people.
Back in the day we did in-person interviews around the floor, and would make an offer before the interviewee left the building (or say sorry no).
But that was a long time ago. Still, in a competitive market it seems a sensible approach.
But that was a long time ago. Still, in a competitive market it seems a sensible approach.
There has been talk of recession for quite some time. There is obviously belt tightening going on. It also sounds like you are rather experienced - maybe a bit older - i.e. more expensive.
Hang in there.
Hang in there.
Really reminds me of around 2000-2002 or so.
The days of considering YC startups reputable are long gone. Still in this case you’re the sucker doing “take home” projects. FAANG? More like noob city.
Did you use your FAANG status to negotiate an unusually high salary? Perhaps they acquiesced to your demands under the condition they would evaluate your performance to see if you were worth the high price.
That is, the founders may have said something to each other along the lines of "well, he's really expensive but maybe he's worth the price if he performs equivalently to 2-3 engineers. Let's hire him for a month or two and see how it goes."
Did you ask for an outsized salary and then perform poorly (or even "averagely") during the trial period? This might explain it.
That is, the founders may have said something to each other along the lines of "well, he's really expensive but maybe he's worth the price if he performs equivalently to 2-3 engineers. Let's hire him for a month or two and see how it goes."
Did you ask for an outsized salary and then perform poorly (or even "averagely") during the trial period? This might explain it.
Once you sign the employment agreement, if they change their mind they should at least pay you your notice period.
Just learn from these lessons. Don't blame them for dishonesty, even if they are not truthful to you. A bird in hand is worth two in the bush.
>I didn't seek any other jobs while trial working for them.
Here is the problem! Always have backup job or gig to fall back on.
Here is the problem! Always have backup job or gig to fall back on.
It sounds like they were unsure of you, took you on for a trial period to prove yourself, and then you didn't meet expectations. They then made up an excuse about the economy to avoid confrontation. Not blaming you or anything. Just letting you know the most likely explanation in case that helps you in the future.
I seriously doubt that... to me it's becoming very familiar and probably to anyone who was in software development around 1999-2002 timeframe. A lot of companies at that time rolled over with little to no notice. Promised offers were revoked, on a few occasions after expensive relocation. There was a whole "recession club" movement even as the jobs were completely dried out in the west coast for software devs. Hit the Phoenix area about a year following, post-911 was when a lot of companies just cut projects that were stalled or further from done.
If you're in a position, hold on to it... if you are looking, look for company+industry stability first and foremost. If it's like a couple decades ago, it could last a year or three.
If you're in a position, hold on to it... if you are looking, look for company+industry stability first and foremost. If it's like a couple decades ago, it could last a year or three.
These companies did not freeze hiring. They took on OP with a trial work period. We are not talking about a take home project during the interview stage. This only happens when a company in unsure about a candidate and wants to give them a chance. It's clear what has actually happened here and everyone telling the OP it's just the economy is not doing them any favors in the long run.
I don't know which companies they were, and didn't see a mention of hiring continuing or not in the OP.
Hey, why not start your own company?
I bet if they wanted to hire you, but circumstances disrupted that, they saw value that others would see.
I bet if they wanted to hire you, but circumstances disrupted that, they saw value that others would see.
(I don't think this comment deserved to get blocked)
"Been there done that." I'm an excellent developer, and I tried to start my own company. The workload when starting your own company is very different than merely developing software.
Although I won't go so far as to say it takes a special someone to start their own company; many of us know what we want to do with our careers and know the where we want to stretch our comfort zones and where we want to stay in them. Joining an early stage company is often a stretch in itself, especially if someone just wants to spend most of their day programming.
"Been there done that." I'm an excellent developer, and I tried to start my own company. The workload when starting your own company is very different than merely developing software.
Although I won't go so far as to say it takes a special someone to start their own company; many of us know what we want to do with our careers and know the where we want to stretch our comfort zones and where we want to stay in them. Joining an early stage company is often a stretch in itself, especially if someone just wants to spend most of their day programming.
> (I don't think this comment deserved to get blocked)
I do. It's a shitty suggestion that makes the assumption that the OP has enough money in their bank account to go without a paycheck for several months.
Also, starting a company is an entirely different skillset from software engineering. Just because someone is excellent at writing code doesn't mean they'd be a good leader.
I do. It's a shitty suggestion that makes the assumption that the OP has enough money in their bank account to go without a paycheck for several months.
Also, starting a company is an entirely different skillset from software engineering. Just because someone is excellent at writing code doesn't mean they'd be a good leader.
I think the discussion we're having is much more valuable than blocking a bad comment. The insight that we're providing hopefully rubs off on the "it worked for me, so it should work for you" fallacy.
I didn’t make any assumption.
I asked a question.
The rationale behind the question is that perhaps the person would want to try running a tiny consultancy.
I’ve known many who have done that successfully with similar experience level.
I asked a question.
The rationale behind the question is that perhaps the person would want to try running a tiny consultancy.
I’ve known many who have done that successfully with similar experience level.
I think you should re-read the phrase "Also, starting a company is an entirely different skillset from software engineering. Just because someone is excellent at writing code doesn't mean they'd be a good leader"
Not everyone can be the person in charge; and it's counter productive to force people into leadership roles that they really don't want.
Not everyone can be the person in charge; and it's counter productive to force people into leadership roles that they really don't want.
It seems the nonsense below overlooked the huge number of very profitable sole proprietorships on the iOS App Store.
It also made assumptions about assumptions the question never made, which is self-referentially amusing.
There have been numerous posts over the years with sole proprietors citing that they clearly started profitable iOS businesses as side projects while working other jobs.
It also made assumptions about assumptions the question never made, which is self-referentially amusing.
There have been numerous posts over the years with sole proprietors citing that they clearly started profitable iOS businesses as side projects while working other jobs.
>Hey, why not start your own company?
Dude's looking for a job as a senior iOS dev and the advice is to start his own company?
Dude's looking for a job as a senior iOS dev and the advice is to start his own company?
Well the rationale for my question is that the app store is full of senior iOS dev people who started sole proprietorships
It's in the phrasing, then. Telling someone to "start a company" implies something larger than a sole proprietorship. At least that's why I would assume people took umbridge with your comment.
Maybe, "You're an iOS dev, have you ever considered making and releasing your own app?" would've had a different impact.
Maybe, "You're an iOS dev, have you ever considered making and releasing your own app?" would've had a different impact.
That makes sense. I believe that iOS devs are wrapped in a company per app store rules,& did not clarify.
HE COULD BUILD THE NEXT AMAZON OR FABECOOK!
/s obviously
/s obviously
In both cases I went through long recruitment processes, spoke at length with the founders and technical staff, did a (paid) trial project, in one case this lasted for almost a month. In both companies everyone I talk to was extremely positive, even gushing, so I was not surprised to be hired.
I was very surprised though that in both cases they changed their minds before the formal employment had begun, due to their financial situation.
They were never rude, and they did pay me for the hours I had worked, but it still wasted a lot of my time since I didn't seek any other jobs while trial working for them.
It's hard to imagine that it was some kind of ruse to get very short term work done, but it's also hard to see how they couldn't plan better. Perhaps they started hiring on the expectation of being able to raise money, but that seems unprofessional and disrespectful towards the candidates, no?