Let’s Admit Why There Are So Many “Job Hoppers” In Startupland
on Apr 28, 2010 - 1:14 PM PSTThis is part of the behind-the-scenes section of Mixergy, which I call etc.
I don’t like flakes either, so when Mark Suster wrote, “Never Hire Job Hoppers. Never. They Make Terrible Employees,” I cheered him on. Then I thought about the private conversations I had with a few startup employees who changed jobs recently, and I realized there’s something else going on here.
If you look at where many of these guys go after quitting a job you’ll see that they’re usually not moving to more glamorous jobs. If you talk to them in private, you’ll hear that they’re often escaping a situation they were mislead about.
If we’re going to call out job hoppers, I think it’s only fair to also call out startup CEOs and VCs who mislead their employees. Here are few ways they do it.
A few ways employees are misled
“Stick with me and you’ll get rich kid.”
I’ve heard of CEOs who actually sat their employees down and showed them how rich they’d be based on what price the company is sold for. (“If we sell for a billion, I get a jet and you get a yacht.”) The truth is that most stock options that employees get are worthless. When someone who’s been worked like a slave realizes he’s getting blank paper, it’s hard to stay put.
(In my interview with Julia Angwin of the Wall Street Journal she explained how MySpace employees’ options became WORTHLESS even when the company had an exit to News Corp. Noah Kagan talked openly on Mixergy about how many options he got when he worked at Mint and how little they would have been worth if he stayed till after the company sold to Intuit.)
“I’ll mentor you. I’ll make you ready to be a CEO yourself!”
Most startup CEOs aren’t ready to mentor anyone. They’re still trying to figure things out for themselves. Even if they could, where would they find the time to mentor? Today’s bon vivant CEO blogs, and vlogs, and Tweets, and pontificates on stage at events, and can’t sit still long enough to give the new guy any guidance.
(Jessica Livingston said on Mixergy that the common thread throughout her interviews for Founders at Work and in her investments in 200+ startups is that much of startup’s success is unplanned.)
“We’ll change the world together. You’ll see.”
Really? That might be the goal on day one, but once a CEO takes funding, she has a fiduciary obligation to raise the value of her business. That’s when changing the world gives way to “just increase page views!” and the job becomes more about the mechanics of SEO and link-baiting.
Changing the world is something worth working 80-hour weeks for. Being the first to report Ricky Martin’s revelation that he’s gay, isn’t really worth waking up in the morning.
Why am I writing this?
Non-funded startups are damaged by these lies too. I remember trying to hire people who used to work for funded companies and hearing, “What about my options?” Employees are trained to make certain demands, to be showered in stock options, to rub elbows with powerful VC’s, and learn at the feet of the guy who’s “smart enough to raise millions of dollars from investors.” Non-funded companies are forced to deal with those false expectations.
What’s the solution?
- I’d like to see LinkedIn show the turnover rates for companies in their system. If we could call out the flakey companies where new hires keep rushing out the door, it’ll be enlightening. (Plus it’ll be fun to hear CEOs give their excuses for why so many people don’t want to work with them.)
- It might make sense to create a site like TheFunded.com for employees to *privately* rate their employers.
- If employers talk to past bosses before hiring an employee, I think employees should similarly contact a company’s former employees before taking a new job.
- Beyond that, I don’t know. What do you think?
View Comments to “Let’s Admit Why There Are So Many “Job Hoppers” In Startupland”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
April 28th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Interesting post. Another reason why many people job hop is because they're not getting the growth and learning experiences that they were promised/originally anticipated. Once you stop growing at a company, why stick around? Especially when you've voiced your concerns about growth and don't seem to be taken seriously or have a real voice. You'd only be doing yourself a disservice if you keep chugging on for loyalty's sake. Clearly the company doesn't see enough value in helping you grow, so why would you, out of complete selflessness for your own goals, stay put and help the company get further?
April 28th, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Seriously Andrew when you dont have much capital in the beginning and you are in need of talented people you have to believe in yourself and make them believe that their future is secure. This will attract talented bunch else it will be really hard to move from seed level. You were lucky since your own bro was a coder else how else could you have paid or learned in such short time?
April 28th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
I read Mark's article.
Loyalty is a two-way street. Otherwise it's called “servitude.”
If anything, a company may be legally barred from loyalty to employees, given the threat of shareholder lawsuits to maximize profit at any cost.
I could write for days on this topic, but I don't see any benefit to me. So I'll leave it here and get back to building my own business.
April 28th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Andrew, I think you might be right that employers mismanaging expectations could lead to job hopping. It's incorrect to assume, as Mark Suster did in his original piece, to assume that the blame lies squarely on the employee.
I have included a link to your article in my recent blog post Perhaps job hopping is a good thing?, in which I speculate on the possible positive repercussions of the job hopping phenomenon.
April 28th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Andrew, you point out yet another exception to Mark's hasty rule of never hiring a 'job hopper', just like he had to do in his follow up. It should be clear by now, that the rule can't be blindly followed. What sense would it make for a company to pass on hiring someone who is a perfect fit for them, just because that employee hasn't been able to find a good fit previously?
The employee may be desperately trying to find a company who will use their talents, let them be involved and not treat them like a replaceable machine. The real criteria for hiring someone should be their worth to your company, not how long they were able to endure being abused by other companies and managers who don't know how to treat their employees.
This “rule” reminds me of companies who only hire people with a college degree. Quite frankly, a company who has a set bunch of rules for blindly filtering people out, should be a yellow flag to prospective employee that the company may treat them like a number, and be unwilling to consider a person as an individual, taking into account both their strengths, weaknesses and past experiences, whether good or bad.
April 28th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Being a startup employee can be one of the hardest positions to be in. I now know this from experience. If you're a founder of a startup, it's your baby. The horrible obstacles that you run into and long hours are okay because you're taking care of your baby and watching something you started grow.
As an employee of early stage startups, you're expected to face all of hard times involved in building a company, without the passion aspect (it's not your baby) and with out the financial promise of wealth if the company succeeds.
April 28th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
Actually Linkedin has for each company “Former Employees” field. It is very useful checking turnover rate for smaller companies. If you see too many former employees in a short period , run away.
April 28th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Seems to be that the guy that wrote this never started anything. When these variables are possible it is not bad that a CEO mentions them to his employees which is not the same as to “promise”. The magic work promise is the differentiates a fake from a motivator.
April 28th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
My record of starting things is public.
I think many companies aren't just mentioning the possibilities, they're actively misleading.
They're like timeshare salesmen who over-pitch their product's possibilities.
April 28th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Good point. Thanks!
I'd like something more blatant. I'd want to something that shows very clearly that a company had 3 CTOs in 2 years. That's a powerful message for a new prospect to see.
April 28th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
What they're saying is, “work for me like a dog and you might (wink, wink) get super-rich like those guys who work for Google.
Then, when reality sets in, they say, “If you quit, you're a wimp and a flake.”
At the same time, I have to say to people who take these lottery-ticket jobs to stop being so freakin' gullible. After you quit 2 positions that promise a world of riches then force you to pump up page views all day, you're a fool if you take a 3rd position like that.
April 28th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
As a prospective employee you need to protect yourself. Joining a startup is a large time and emotional investment, and you need to properly estimate the future value of that investment. Obviously anyone recruiting you is gonna do the best they can to get you to join, and I hope most people don't simply believe false sales pitches… or at least try to figure things out for themselves first before taking the leap.
April 28th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
sms.ac or fanbox is the worst offender, read all the horror stories of this “startup” http://jobgrades.com/companies/sms-ac
April 28th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
I told Michael we could be broke if it didn't work. And he told me the same thing.
I'm not saying you don't get people fired up about your idea and possibilities. I'm saying these guys actively, knowing mislead people.
And I'm not talking about the guys who don't have much capital.
April 28th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
I told Michael we could be broke if it didn't work. And he told me the same thing.
I'm not saying you don't get people fired up about your idea and possibilities. I'm saying these guys actively, knowing mislead people.
And I'm not talking about the guys who don't have much capital.
April 28th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
[...] Andrew Warner argues that startup employers might simply be mismanaging expectations. [...]
April 28th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
Hi Andrew,
I think I understand what you're driving at: there's a certain class of Founder DoucheBags (FDBs) who knowingly mislead and lie to the people they hire. These people are bad and should be stopped. Totally agree.
However, the way you say it makes it come across a bit more broad-brush, like “anyone who's selling you hope or a dream is a lying dick.” Hopefully that is not actually what you mean…right?
Please clarify.
-Matt
April 28th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
Fantastic post, and spot on with the examples of misleading. I think the key thing here is that there's a thin line between loyalty and naivete. I was easily sucked in by those exact promises, for two reasons: 1) I loved the learning and the work and wanted a huge payoff, 2) I told myself that engineers should stick to engineering and leave business to the MBAs, who must know best.
Bare minimum, startup employees should strive to understand the simplest equation: money in – money out = how long we can keep paying you. And employers would do well to facilitate that knowledge by being transparent and not forcing employees to ferret out the truth when the paychecks stop and options become the only salary.
April 28th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
Dead on. But you missed the most blatant thing: people who hire developers by lying to them about what they'll be doing. It happens all the time. It includes people who tell you that you'll be a director and make you a code monkey, and people who post about a job using some exotic technology because it gets them better resumes. Bait and switch recruiting.
April 28th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Fantastic post Andrew. Like it or not – hiring people is a skill of persuasion. You have to first persuade them to join you and then persuade them to work on what you need them too. Persuasion is on a spectrum that is bookended by manipulation and education.
In short, it is the reason I haven't worked for anyone else for 10 years. i love people – and I love hanging out with them. I just can't stand being manipulated by them – and that is largely what happens on a daily basis in many companies. It is not a problem limited to startups. Your standard line manage, complete with cheesy jokes and drinks after work – if they were really honest – doesn't really care about you as much as he lets on. It is a pantomime that demeans all involved.
April 28th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Glassdoor.com already does that and also reveals about how much a position makes or is making but also employer ratings as well.
April 28th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
I know several people who use LinkedIn to fine former employees of a company specifically to contact them about the company conditions and management. And I know of at least one case where the person ran away in fear based on what they learned… smart research if you ask me.
April 28th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
There is a difference between having a dream and selling others on your dream, and actually misleading people. The latter can be done actively (your example was taking advantage of naivete about equity) or passively by withholding information. The latter happened to me with a company backed by two primo VC firms back in mid-90's. Another friend of mine recently got recruited to a company and only once starting did she discover that the CEO was under investigation, etc. Companies can hide their baggage very well if they want to. It's what I think of when I hear the phrase “success theater.” There's often only so much you can discover on your own unless you are very well connected.
April 28th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
[...] full post on Hacker News If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it! Tagged with: Admit • [...]
April 28th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
If you don't hire a job hopper the only experienced people you will ever get are people who have been laid off from their jobs, the best people would never be on the job market. This is a foolish idea that small startups tend to have because they can't afford/aren't willing to pay market rates to workers and tend to have horrible working conditions that lead to burnout.
April 28th, 2010 at 6:18 pm
“There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on……………shame on you………..Fool me……..you can't get fooled again.” George W Bush
April 28th, 2010 at 6:53 pm
I think if anyone accepts a job at a startup to get rich, they are extremely foolish. The reason I took my job is to learn. The experience you get in such an environment is invaluable. The long term (and often short term) financial benefits…not so much.
April 28th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
interesting post. i'm confused what you mean about options being “blank paper.” especially this:
“Noah Kagan talked openly on Mixergy about how many options he got when he worked at Mint and how little they would have been worth if he stayed till after the company sold to Intuit.”
is this because of subsequent dilution? why are these options “worthless”? thanks for your insight.
April 29th, 2010 at 12:04 am
I don't disagree with anything you've said here, but the original article was strictly from the employers perspective. If we want to look at it from the employee's perspective, the notion that loyalty is at all expected is complete bullshit. The corporate world burnt this house to the ground decades ago. The ethical issue at hand is how hard the employee works while they're there, not that they make some open-ended commitment, which is NEVER reciprocated by businesses in this day and age.
However the original premise of the article was a pure ROI discussion of hiring job hoppers from the employers perspective. This argument can be poked full of holes even without discussing bring in ethics or loyalty at all. The bottom line is that loyalty is not measurable in any sense, as I mentioned before, the corporate world shattered the social contract a long time ago. Today people stay in jobs for one of two reasons: either they love the job, or they are scared of leaving. If you just hire people who stick around, you're going to get a lot of the second category. The other thing is that hiring and training has a high cost, but it is not infinite by any means. If you can get an uber dev to work on your project for one year, you will probably reap more benefit from that than if you hire 5 average developers who are willing to stick around til you drive the company into the ground. As a CEO, I know you feel a lot of pain when a great employee leaves (which probably led to the original rant in the first place), but you can't let an emotional moment today get in the way of solid cost-benefit analysis later. Otherwise your next hires are going to be a bunch of talentless schlubs who have no skills because hey they only ever had one job before and it was at a big corporation.
All else being equal I'll take the guy whose had a different job every year from 20 to 30. Chances are he knows a few ways to get shit done.
April 29th, 2010 at 4:23 am
“Stick with me and you'll get rich kid.” is the one which employers use here most often
April 29th, 2010 at 6:31 am
Dave,
I agree with you 100%. In writing about “loyalty” I never meant to imply that startup founders or CEO's didn't also have a responsibility. Actually, it's interesting. I worked in Europe for 11 years. In Germany the system actually says that companies have DUAL responsibilities to both shareholders AND employees.
Anyway, in the US we know it's about profits. But building a long-term, sustainable and high-growth business these days often requires leaders who treat employees well. An obvious example is Zappos.
The point I wanted to make was that people who never stick around in any company long enough to really learn are cheating themselves in the long run. Not advocating staying with a bad employer – just find some company where you can be around long enough to learn. Too many young employees I see have never been anywhere longer than 18 months.
That's all.
Mark
April 29th, 2010 at 6:46 am
Andrew,
Nice post. I agree with much of what you say. Couple of points:
1. I am not an apologist for bad employers. It is inexcusable to treat employees poorly. If you work somewhere like this – leave. Employment is definitely a two-way street
2. I also believe that there is too much overselling of the value of startup options. Post 2000 I always told people, “work here if you think you'll learn a lot, get more responsibility every year, be treated with respect and like it's a meritocracy and that you'll enjoy yourself. If you ever wake up one year and feel differently you can move on with our help. But don't work here to become rich. You'll always be able to earn more somewhere else. And consider any options you get as 'icing on the cake' and not some 'get rich quick' scheme.” I wrote about this publicly in my post: http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2009/11/04/i…
3. The biggest thing the I think employees need to consider is that while it's OK to quit a job where you're not happy – there IS a long-term benefit of finding a job where you can stay 3+ years. I believe that this will pay huge long-term dividends in terms of career growth and earning potential. I wrote about that here: http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2010/04/27/t…
Andrew, I'm a big fan of Mixergy and of you. You tell entrepreneurs things straight and I appreciate that. You call BS when it is right to do so and you've done that directly to my face. I appreciate you and everything you do. Thank you.
Mark
April 29th, 2010 at 11:55 am
Guess the solution is to judge the applicant on their individual merits and not look too much at past employers etc.
If you think the person can do a good job for you, hire them, if not don't!
April 29th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
[...] Let’s Admit Why There Are So Many “Job Hoppers” In Startupland (tags: business career debate entrepreneurship hiring startups startup) [...]
April 29th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Great post. Thanks for writing and posting it.
I've had some amazing bosses, and I've had some not-so-great ones too. I had one that sounds like what you describe above, Andrew. And, to tell ya the truth, I should have known exactly what I was getting into. I felt it in my gut before I even added my first Firefox plug-ins on my new shiny iMac.
April 30th, 2010 at 5:25 am
The reality of it is that it's all a matter of common sense: fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
How many times are you going to get suckered by, to borrow Matt's expression, founder douchebags who are selling you pie-in-the-sky dreams for fame and fortune?
Why does it have to be spelled out for you to reach out to existing employees and evaluate who you're going to work for?
Why are you not asking the right questions of the interviewers, and more importantly, why are you not paying attention to the red flags and sirens going off in your head in the first and second round of interviews?
If you keep getting your lunch money taken by bullies, at some point you have need to adjust your route, strategy, or whatever, otherwise when it's too late you'll just be looked at as a) someone disloyal, or in my opinion, b) someone who is naive and hasn't developed a mature sense of foresight yet.
– from a 'job hopper'
April 30th, 2010 at 6:36 am
I'm lucky… I'm fortunate enough to work for a company, that's doing great things, and a founder who has a proven track record.
But I'll tell you…. this combination is not easy to find. I spent many months prior to finding my current opportunity with founders and companies that were either :
1) Not good Mentors or 2) Not scalable businesses or 3) Playing in a hyper competitive marketplace with not a lot of differentiation.
With the passion that these founders have however, it's difficult not to believe the “hype”, but alas, you need to do you homework on the market, the founder and team (if they have one) to see if it's worth putting in 3 years of your life. IMHO, if you're working @ start-up where any of the 3 conditions exist : bounce. Don't worry about being a “job hopper” just investigate your next opportunity more thoroughly. I think everyone deserves at least one pass in their career, especially with the burgeoning number of startups these days.
Like I said, I'm one of the lucky ones, great mentor, great product, great market but it's not always easy to find.
Try Fliptop for yourself @ fliptop.com
April 30th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
[...] mother-of-all-flamewars between employers and employees, and has resulted in numerous rebuttals, meta-rebuttals and counter-rebuttals. Rather than re-hash what’s been said, I’d like to offer up a new [...]
May 3rd, 2010 at 9:56 am
Excellent points. Love the idea of LinkedIn including turnover rates.
May 3rd, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Good article on the ins and outs of start-up life for one's career #in
May 3rd, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Awesome Andrew. Nice extension to Mark Suster's post.
Remember, this doesn't only apply to online companies. I've fallen into this trap not once, but twice. Even one of the bosses was close to signing the deal of actually relinquishing shares to me and coworker (product manager). He backed off at eleventh hour. Two months later the company fell apart. If he had only allowed us to do things our way, who knows…?
The other just kept on preaching about ESOP (Employee Stock Option Plans). His promise was always that if we help him generate great revenues, he will eventually turn the company over to us, since he was getting old and had no heirs to leave the company too. Come to find out. He's been preaching this for ages. It was his method of “motivation”. I eventually left the company. Things weren't going anywhere.
May 3rd, 2010 at 10:46 pm
There's apparently an over-supply of coders if in fact there are people willing to work long hours for “options” or “founders' stock.” The entrepreneurs *I've* talked to have been – *every* one of them – up front about the business model and the risks, and they've all been willing to pay *some* cash for talent.
I'm sure there are deluded folk like those you've described here, but *I* haven't met one yet. Maybe we just have a better class of entrepreneur here in Portland! ;-)
May 4th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
The only way to address loyalty IMHO today is to look at people who have remained loyal and determine the quality of the relationship that makes it so. Some employee's are guilty of resume padding, some employers are guilty of treating recruitment like a meat market. There is nothing more psychologically staining than a person who has felt they have been disused or misused or abused. What can we learn however from those who don't understand loyalty other than that they exist.
The question for me is taking a leaf out Clay Shirky's book and look at this world through filters such as loyalty. Instead of engaging what Shirky calls “filter failure”, I want to determine for myself what loyalty is at a personal level, whether I genetic disposition towards it and what can I learn from people who are “loyal”. I also weave into Shirky's view of filter failure, attitudes about respect, respect is an earned experience but loyalty is learned experience.
The irony about looking for loyalty is that it automatically opens one's eyes to disloyalty. It is difficult to pay attention to what works because what isn't working or that which has imploded catches our attention. This is no different to rubber necking on a highway at a traffic accident instead of wondering what it makes excellent drivers excellent. A great driver has loyalty to awareness, a terrible one is a picture postcard of “filter failure”.
Startups are caught up in the universal notions of success and the acute reality of failure. Success guru's abound but what makes startups unique is the reality of failure. When was our culture of personal branding ever about declaring personal truth? If culture eats strategy for breakfast (as Mark Hurd was once quoted as saying), then IMHO employment loyalty eats culture as junk food.
Loyalty isn't a startup condition, it is a human condition, as such one first pays respect to the peculiar environment that is a startup but human beings are not startups, they are human beings, so treat people as people not engines. One can startup software or a car but the human condition is biological and psychological, I think that is what accounts for disloyalty.
While the startup is an environment where one must deal with their fear quotient it is also an environment that promises freedom, at least freedom from the really stupid things organizations do when they take on a life of their own. So as I think about this, I can see that there is a mosaic of realities about loyalty, but what is the point of addressing this dynamic view of loyalty when it is viewed like programming code. Of course we can call people on the crapolla they do, but that has nothing to do with loyalty, much more to do with toxic existence.
So here my takeaway is for others to show me what loyalty looks like not to learn what loyalty isn't, but to see for myself the long-term competitive advantages of loyalty and the short-term collaborative disadvantages of disloyalty.
[Em]
May 10th, 2010 at 10:42 am
I think that the EEOC would be very interested in Mark Suster's age-based criteria (from the original article):
>>Are you 25 and worked for 3 companies – each 18 months? You’re on the borderline. If they are Google, Facebook and then a startup – you’re fine. That’s less than 1%. If you’re 42 and the longest you’ve EVER worked at a company is 3 years – TOAST. That means you’ve likely had 7 short-term jobs since college.<<
Linking employment to age is considered age discrimination under federal, California and local law, and can be very, very costly for employers. Of course, that doesn't dissuade the “startup gurus” whose 80 to 100 hour work weeks, subpar wages, and collusion with each other to “not swipe talent” has transformed the valley from a hub of innovation to a massive island of unemployment with an office vacancy rate higher than that of downtown Detroit.
The only person more foolish than Mr. Suster (and his ignorance of basic employment law) is the poor fool who would want to work for him. Life is too short to be subject to the whims of an out-of-touch “CEO” who demands “loyalty” and six or more years of your life in slave-labor conditions — regardless of your own economic self interest — who nonetheless would not hesitate to lay you off in the blink of an eye if he decides it's in his best interest.
May 10th, 2010 at 10:49 am
Loyalty is earned, and reciprocal.
If Mr. Suster provides generous severance payments for staff he lays off, and goes out of his way to ensure above-average wages for his employees in the expensive Bay Area — plus a decent work-life balance — then he can expect a bit of loyalty.
But chances are high that he's just another Valley CEO who demands 100 hour work weeks from employees making $70K a year, and will lay off people at the blink of an eye — perhaps with a couple weeks' severance (if they're lucky). Everyone who has worked in the valley is familiar with the douchey CEOs who drive down from Nob Hill or Central Palo Alto in their $90,000 European sedans to complain about “lack of work ethic” from their indentured servants (oops, I mean employees) and who spend large amounts of time attending “networking events” to hear themselves talk. Where's the loyalty in that?
Mixing that ridiculous hubris into things and considering that the vast majority of startups fail within 36 months, the demands of “loyalty” amidst such uncertainty are even more hilarious.
The Valley has only itself to blame for the employment mercenary economy. If Mr. Suster won't hire the smart employees constantly focused on their own ROI, and instead insists on the mediocre or scaredy-cat ones who will cleave to him until he discards them, he cannot complain when his companies don't do all that well. Most of the “job hoppers” have unbeatable skills and will do well regardless of what some mediocre, likely-to-fail startup thinks of them — that's why they're able to find new opportunities at the drop of a hat.
Meanwhile, the mind-set he espouses isn't working all that well in the Silly Con Valley. A quick drive through it shows huge amounts of vacant office space, dismal employment rates, high taxes and living costs, and very little real wealth creation. The average “job hopper” would be better off going mercenary and selling his services for top dollar in the free market, rather than participating in one of the fool's errand startups. The market is speaking, and it's not endorsing one-way employee “loyalty.”
May 10th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Brian, I read your writing on my email because you replied to my post and clearly you are not one who is afraid to speak his mind. What I have generally found is that when I vent feelings it usually ends up attracting the wrong kind of people, those kind who will give us a pat on our back, gee us up only because it isn't themselves who they would be putting on the firing line and these are are one the same empty vessels that run a million miles in the opposite direction when they themselves have to stand up for something. You are not an empty vessel, you have something to say and you have said it, but linking to me means I will spell out what I mean by “loyalty”.
A primary reason the sport of boxing exists is because people seem to love blood sports (rather than the heart and skills of a great boxer). It is the dregs of life who love watching people destroying each other in the ring. What I do know is, that the worst place to be in any kind of boxing is the guy who is throwing the punches in the ring. Cus D'amato came as close to anyone to creating loyalty in the boxing fraternity – because he housed a whole bunch of under-privileged kids. He was a great man because he took those with no future and taught them character, taught them an alternative way to face this sometimes G-d awful world. He once helped a guy called Tyson.
http://www.tysontalk.com/article594.html
There was Mike Tyson before he met Cus D'amato, which is the same Mike Tyson that he reverted to when he lost the guiding hand of Cus D'amato. What Cus D'amato taught Tyson in between that turned him into such an incredible force in boxing was to channel his aggression and street rage into a discipline that turned him into an intelligent boxer rather than a wild fighting machine, and for a time he became a student of what to do whenever disciplined man meets any form of brute force.
I note what my impulse used to be when things felt unjust, but there is no way that I could ever compare it with the kind of injustice that Tyson himself put up with. Mike Tyson himself lost over 500 million dollars simply because he lost his way as well as the critical and chief life lessons of Cus D'amato. Tyson as I see it, allowed his rage to burn him down, ending up in the wrong places, spitting blood with the wrong people and not be clear minded enough to know that sometimes even more force only burns us up more.
There is something good about standing in the fire. That heat is a good heat, because it is about learning how to become resilient, how to handle injustice or what life throws at us and how to think when emotion begins to burn up reason. Cus D'amato taught Tyson reason but Tyson himself educated himself on how it was the best fighters in the usually sordid boxing world handled themselves. Tyson spent his time watching hours and hours of tape of what the best boxers in the world did.
That D'amato died a year before Tyson had realized himself as the world's youngest boxing champion is a great and terrible tragedy, but there is lessons their for me even when we have no Cus D'amato in our own world. Tyson has acknowledged this man who became a father figure to him in a world where there usually is none.
I don't know you from Adam, Brian. I wish you the best going forward and it is none of my business who did what to who, when or why. Yet you chose to reply to my post maybe it resonated with you, expressed what you felt and since you seem like a good bloke who is speaking from his heart, so I take it upon myself to respond to you with as much as common sense I can muster and as much life wisdom as one stranger can pass onto another, if only to make it clear what I mean by “loyalty”. Nothing more, nothing less.
It is easy for me to suggest that one should move on from this, to leave it behind you but I don't like people telling me what to do so I certainly not here to tell you what to do – but I sure would take a leaf out of Cus D'amato, so that one takes that energy of a particular life experience and to it channel it where it may one day to where it might help. This letting go is a loyalty to my own heart, not to you, not to anyone else.
There are good people in the world, I happen to be one of them but there way more of us any of us care to see each in our darkest hour. It isn't as hard to find good people but knowing them and enjoying their loyalty, that is what loyalty means to me – family, long-time friends, my own village, and the only loyalty that matters, which is whatever it is we are doing to make the best of life when life itself becomes difficult. In reading about the life story of Cus D'amato I learn about the kind of loyalty that matters most to me – it is that kind of Bruce Springsteen kind of loyalty – “My Hometown”.
http://www.brucespringsteen.net/songs/index.html
This world is ugly enough as it is if I choose to turn it into a blood covered boxing ring, but my loyalty is to people that have always known me and that very small world I live in, one of traditional values and old time sense of belonging. My loyalty is my backyard and to my private life and not to that growing and gigantic echo chamber that represents the rest of the world.
[Em]
May 10th, 2010 at 5:42 pm
I think that the EEOC would be very interested in Mark Suster's age-based criteria (from the original article):
>>Are you 25 and worked for 3 companies – each 18 months? You’re on the borderline. If they are Google, Facebook and then a startup – you’re fine. That’s less than 1%. If you’re 42 and the longest you’ve EVER worked at a company is 3 years – TOAST. That means you’ve likely had 7 short-term jobs since college.<<
Linking employment to age is considered age discrimination under federal, California and local law, and can be very, very costly for employers. Of course, that doesn't dissuade the “startup gurus” whose 80 to 100 hour work weeks, subpar wages, and collusion with each other to “not swipe talent” has transformed the valley from a hub of innovation to a massive island of unemployment with an office vacancy rate higher than that of downtown Detroit.
The only person more foolish than Mr. Suster (and his ignorance of basic employment law) is the poor fool who would want to work for him. Life is too short to be subject to the whims of an out-of-touch “CEO” who demands “loyalty” and six or more years of your life in slave-labor conditions — regardless of your own economic self interest — who nonetheless would not hesitate to lay you off in the blink of an eye if he decides it's in his best interest.
May 10th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
Loyalty is earned, and reciprocal.
If Mr. Suster provides generous severance payments for staff he lays off, and goes out of his way to ensure above-average wages for his employees in the expensive Bay Area — plus a decent work-life balance — then he can expect a bit of loyalty.
But chances are high that he's just another Valley CEO who demands 100 hour work weeks from employees making $70K a year, and will lay off people at the blink of an eye — perhaps with a couple weeks' severance (if they're lucky). Everyone who has worked in the valley is familiar with the douchey CEOs who drive down from Nob Hill or Central Palo Alto in their $90,000 European sedans to complain about “lack of work ethic” from their indentured servants (oops, I mean employees) and who spend large amounts of time attending “networking events” to hear themselves talk. Where's the loyalty in that?
Mixing that ridiculous hubris into things and considering that the vast majority of startups fail within 36 months, the demands of “loyalty” amidst such uncertainty are even more hilarious.
The Valley has only itself to blame for the employment mercenary economy. If Mr. Suster won't hire the smart employees constantly focused on their own ROI, and instead insists on the mediocre or scaredy-cat ones who will cleave to him until he discards them, he cannot complain when his companies don't do all that well. Most of the “job hoppers” have unbeatable skills and will do well regardless of what some mediocre, likely-to-fail startup thinks of them — that's why they're able to find new opportunities at the drop of a hat.
Meanwhile, the mind-set he espouses isn't working all that well in the Silly Con Valley. A quick drive through it shows huge amounts of vacant office space, dismal employment rates, high taxes and living costs, and very little real wealth creation. The average “job hopper” would be better off going mercenary and selling his services for top dollar in the free market, rather than participating in one of the fool's errand startups. The market is speaking, and it's not endorsing one-way employee “loyalty.”
May 10th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
Brian, I read your writing on my email because you replied to my post and clearly you are not one who is afraid to speak his mind. What I have generally found is that when I vent feelings it usually ends up attracting the wrong kind of people, those kind who will give us a pat on our back, gee us up only because it isn't themselves who they would be putting on the firing line and these are are one the same empty vessels that run a million miles in the opposite direction when they themselves have to stand up for something. You are not an empty vessel, you have something to say and you have said it, but linking to me means I will spell out what I mean by “loyalty”.
A primary reason the sport of boxing exists is because people seem to love blood sports (rather than the heart and skills of a great boxer). It is the dregs of life who love watching people destroying each other in the ring. What I do know is, that the worst place to be in any kind of boxing is the guy who is throwing the punches in the ring. Cus D'amato came as close to anyone to creating loyalty in the boxing fraternity – because he housed a whole bunch of under-privileged kids. He was a great man because he took those with no future and taught them character, taught them an alternative way to face this sometimes G-d awful world. He once helped a guy called Tyson.
http://www.tysontalk.com/article594.html
There was Mike Tyson before he met Cus D'amato, which is the same Mike Tyson that he reverted to when he lost the guiding hand of Cus D'amato. What Cus D'amato taught Tyson in between that turned him into such an incredible force in boxing was to channel his aggression and street rage into a discipline that turned him into an intelligent boxer rather than a wild fighting machine, and for a time he became a student of what to do whenever disciplined man meets any form of brute force.
I note what my impulse used to be when things felt unjust, but there is no way that I could ever compare it with the kind of injustice that Tyson himself put up with. Mike Tyson himself lost over 500 million dollars simply because he lost his way as well as the critical and chief life lessons of Cus D'amato. Tyson as I see it, allowed his rage to burn him down, ending up in the wrong places, spitting blood with the wrong people and not be clear minded enough to know that sometimes even more force only burns us up more.
There is something good about standing in the fire. That heat is a good heat, because it is about learning how to become resilient, how to handle injustice or what life throws at us and how to think when emotion begins to burn up reason. Cus D'amato taught Tyson reason but Tyson himself educated himself on how it was the best fighters in the usually sordid boxing world handled themselves. Tyson spent his time watching hours and hours of tape of what the best boxers in the world did.
That D'amato died a year before Tyson had realized himself as the world's youngest boxing champion is a great and terrible tragedy, but there is lessons their for me even when we have no Cus D'amato in our own world. Tyson has acknowledged this man who became a father figure to him in a world where there usually is none.
I don't know you from Adam, Brian. I wish you the best going forward and it is none of my business who did what to who, when or why. Yet you chose to reply to my post maybe it resonated with you, expressed what you felt and since you seem like a good bloke who is speaking from his heart, so I take it upon myself to respond to you with as much as common sense I can muster and as much life wisdom as one stranger can pass onto another, if only to make it clear what I mean by “loyalty”. Nothing more, nothing less.
It is easy for me to suggest that one should move on from this, to leave it behind you but I don't like people telling me what to do so I certainly not here to tell you what to do – but I sure would take a leaf out of Cus D'amato, so that one takes that energy of a particular life experience and to it channel it where it may one day to where it might help. This letting go is a loyalty to my own heart, not to you, not to anyone else.
There are good people in the world, I happen to be one of them but there way more of us any of us care to see each in our darkest hour. It isn't as hard to find good people but knowing them and enjoying their loyalty, that is what loyalty means to me – family, long-time friends, my own village, and the only loyalty that matters, which is whatever it is we are doing to make the best of life when life itself becomes difficult. In reading about the life story of Cus D'amato I learn about the kind of loyalty that matters most to me – it is that kind of Bruce Springsteen kind of loyalty – “My Hometown”.
http://www.brucespringsteen.net/songs/index.html
This world is ugly enough as it is if I choose to turn it into a blood covered boxing ring, but my loyalty is to people that have always known me and that very small world I live in, one of traditional values and old time sense of belonging. My loyalty is my backyard and to my private life and not to that growing and gigantic echo chamber that represents the rest of the world.
[Em]
September 19th, 2010 at 1:32 am
Under what circumstances can an employee’s stock options become worthless even after an exit that values the company above the employee’s strike price?…
This article alludes to the possibility of employee stock or options becoming worthless after an exit: http://mixergy.com/lets-admit-why-there-are-so-many-job-hoppers-in-startupland/…