The article misses another startup benefit: flexibility. As a single mom raising a special needs kid, I'm often looked at as crazy for getting involved with start-ups. People assume I'm really rolling the dice with regard to my child's care.
The reality is just the opposite: I like working with start-ups because BigCorp can't really handle anything different than the norm. StartupInc on the other hand, in order to recruit me (granted, for a lower base salary than BigCorp), will happily agree to my needing to leave early on Thursdays (time to be made up remotely on Thursday night) for supplemental speech therapy, or work remotely on days when my son is home sick, and so on.
You might find things have changed at a lot of big companies since you last looked. Many of my friends who are parents get a lot of flexibility with their jobs due to the workplace diversity programmes that urge managers to cater for people in different situations.
I had to turn down a job in the last 6 months because BigCorp couldn't allow me to take unpaid leave for the summer to take care of my son while he was out of school. So maybe not as much as you think.
I'm not sure I'd laud startups for 'career security'. Outside the valley echo-chamber, few companies have any respect for startup experience. ('startup' sounds a lot like 'small company' if you aren't a hacker...)
Also, for every startup where young employees get a chance to punch above their weight, there's another where the devs grind all day long on customer support issues and maintenance.
On the whole I'm personally more inclined toward startups than large companies, but I've been around long enough to be wary of mythologizing them. They have their own set of dysfunctions that can be as stressful as anything you'll find in a bigcorp.
Alternatively, working at a startup may not have the same cache when not in the Valley, but you might get a chance to work with some awesome tools that are ahead of the curve that would get you experience for a future job.
I think it totally depends on what you do there. I'd probably hire someone who has the full gamut of dev, sysadmin and customer interaction experience from a startup. Less so if they couldn't effectively describe how they'd helped get the business running.
> working at a startup might not have the same cache ...
I've co-founded companies in Boston, NYC and SF and I've also worked at large software companies. I've seen quite a bit of appreciation of startup talent in all cases.
I really wish we'd reframe this perennial question as "how do I detect crap startups?" That seems the biggest question for my friends in Bigco: they're afraid of finding out in a year that an enterprise was never going anywhere.
Right, that's the key question. I am writing the article on how to evaluate startups tomorrow. I'll put it in HN. If you don't want to miss the link, follow me at @simeons.
Can I describe to my mom, in one sentence, what it is they do?
What proportion of the company is people who do real, useful shit as opposed to "leadership" or other management? It's tiny, right?
Are they making something that can be genuinely useful or enjoyable for people?
Are they funded by a secretive billionaire or have you heard of their investors?
There are others, but this seems a good start. One or two no answers might not disqualify a company but no to all four would leave me deeply suspicious.
Yes those questions are a great start. But it takes some expertise to interpret the answers. If you're new to the space all investors are new to you. You get random hangers-on claiming to have invested in skype. 'useful for people' is also hard to check. A company's product may be useful to a niche you have no experience with. 'Describe to my mom' seems to bias people towards consumer startups - it's hard to explain companies that occupy a niche in a specialized eco-system. But many of those are very valuable.
In the end it's an arms race. Crap companies are out there improving their posturing everyday. Bullshit coevolves with bullshit detectors. Which is why this should be the perennial question to discuss every few months. "Ask HN: any crap companies out there?" "Ask HN: anybody fed you a new line of bullshit?" "Ask HN: new questions to ask startups?"
(I don't attribute malice to 'crap companies'. A company is crap if it mistakes the map for the territory, if it focuses on its 'positioning' without changing its product. Other such levels of incompetence.)
Joining a startup is tricky business. The nature of a startup is so dynamic that what you joined a startup for may not be what you end up doing at a startup. So if you joined a startup for something you felt passion of, particular tech or idea. Then be wary as this may change and you might find your self working on something totally different, especially if the control is not in your hands. More importantly make sure you have worked with people or a person you are about to start a startup with because if trust/chemistry is not there then nothing of much worth can be achieved.
Very true. Tons of change in a startup always and as a startup grows, it often requires different approaches to working as well as different types of work and, therefore, different people.
'Employees in a startup have a chance to make money when the company exits, i.e., gets acquired or goes public'
This attitude that a purchase or IPO is the only possible way for a startup to earn money for its employees would be laughable anywhere outside computerland.
Good point. Cash flow is king. I was trying to keep it simple. The fact that nowadays it's easier than ever to build a profitable small company in high-tech is another reason to go to startups.
The reality is just the opposite: I like working with start-ups because BigCorp can't really handle anything different than the norm. StartupInc on the other hand, in order to recruit me (granted, for a lower base salary than BigCorp), will happily agree to my needing to leave early on Thursdays (time to be made up remotely on Thursday night) for supplemental speech therapy, or work remotely on days when my son is home sick, and so on.