Category Archives: Startups

It Sucks to Not Be an Engineer…

1 Reply

It’s gotten pretty clear to me that if you’re not an engineer, then starting a new Internet startup becomes a difficult venture.
Consider the non-engineers out there with great ideas. You want to start a company but haven’t been able to convince someone that you have a great idea through Powerpoint alone. Everyone wants to see something working so they can wrap their brains around it and see if it is truly viable. But you can’t show them anything. So you go try to build it.
So far it becomes an expensive project…well, in Web 2.0 terms it’s expensive. In normal terms, it probably costs what it should cost. You go find some money, and you pay people what they need to get paid and whatever you build gets built.
But not so in the world of Web 2.0. It turns out that full on products can be built for so much less than normal. Well…less than normal if you are an engineer and program it up yourself. You are programmer, product manager, visionary, business development, designer all rolled up in one. You spend a few months coding at night after your day job and, poof, you have a working web site. The only expenses you may have are your own; nobody else needs to get paid.
For non-engineers, it’s a tough to build a Web 2.0 company without being an engineer, or having one as a partner. You could hire an outsourced engineering firm but that could run your costs up to $30k to $100k per month for many months. You could raise that but you’d need 6-12 months to build something. That would put your angel raise at the very high bounds of what is achievable with a Web 2.0 concept. And you’d have to do it without a working prototype. Makes it that much more difficult as investors know they should see something first and have gotten spoiled by all the other Web 2.0 companies who do come in to present a concept with working prototype in hand.
Best bet: Find an engineer or two and bring them on board with your concept. Without engineers, it’s a long hard road and I’ve already encountered several entrepreneurs who are trying to start something, as well as those who are well along the way. Those who have built something could only get money from friends and family, so having rich friends and family goes a long way. Very few have gotten money from a fund, and those were people who had track records in entrepreneurship, experienced and persuasive in the pitch, and had all the important questions answered.
Second best bet: buy Ruby on Rails for Dummies and start programming.

Investors and Entrepreneurs: Joining the Herd and Not Being Forgotten

Leave a reply

These last few weeks have been really hectic. For a while, it seemed like I wasn’t looking at any new deals whatsoever. I resigned myself to working on the companies I had signed up with but also could see that my work with them was starting to taper off in an expected fashion.
But then it changed. All of a sudden, a flurry of new opportunities came down and I found myself meeting with companies every week. It actually got fairly hectic, meeting up with entrepreneurs and actually going through some due diligence processes with a few companies. But one by one they dropped off my radar. As they dropped off my radar for a variety of reasons, some interesting observations came to light about the way startups and investors strategize with each other.
The Entrepreneurs’ Perspective
The most sought after entrepreneurs/startups get deluged by requests from angels to invest in them. Typically, they are also pursued by venture capitalists who also like what they see and want to participate. The availability of money to these entrepreneurs creates an situation where they can pick and choose the money they receive. I’ve seen them go in these directions:
1. They go directly for the big VC investment and skip angels altogether. Let’s face facts: raising money sucks. It’s time consuming, you get a lot of negativity from people who don’t believe in you, and you’d much rather be building something than begging for money. So why not skip all the nonsense and just take the big money and go back to building your business and hiring people you need.
2. They take the VC investment but only bring on some angels who are either high value or friends. Similar to 1., they get the big money but only bring on those people they like or those angels that can help them later.
3. They delay VC funding to push up their valuation, and only pick a handful from the crowd of angels wanting in. The most bold of entrepreneurs who are on to a good thing will press their advantage by not taking big money now, which could mean they have to give up more of their company at this point, and wait to build their business a bit more which raises valuation for later and, thus, gives them a larger advantage for not giving up so much of their company later in exchange for a large VC raise. They instead raise a smaller amount (ie. $500k – $1MM) which gives them the ability to run for enough time to build their business to a more valuable state.
4. They want angels who are active investors and can bring value to their company. More and more I speak to entrepreneurs who only want angels who can help them in their business versus just bringing money alone. It makes sense; angels who can help are more motivated to help because they have skin in the game. It does make for a tough environment for those angels with only money to give.
5. They are limiting the number of angels and/or investors. Managing a lot of investors can be troublesome to entrepreneurs. Simply cutting all the paperwork (ie. stock purchase agreements, stock certificates, etc.) can cost more money. Collecting the money can be tough for those angels who are dragging their heels in transferring the cash into your account. Dealing with nervous investors can be a draw on resources as you need to respond to their requests for information and calming their anxieties about whether or not you’re going to make money for them.
This all goes out the window for those entrepreneurs who don’t have something hot enough to attract lots of investors.
The Investors’ Perspective: Herd Mentality, Joining the Herd
As an investor, I want to get in on the great deals. Finding deals that are good but are hidden can be really tough. It’s more often that there is a common opinion about a startup and that everyone wants to get a piece of the action.
I try to do my own due diligence. I also try to form my own opinion about a startup. But I do find it difficult to ignore what others’ think about a company. Over these last few weeks, I’ve looked at bunch of deals where there was a large number of investors trying to get in. But I’ve somehow lost out on a number of them. Why was that? Some observations:
1. Herd mentality is inescapable. For some reason, when many people think you have a hot deal, then you tend to think so too. They must know something you don’t, or you bank on someone else’s expertise, or you just don’t have time to do all the due diligence yourself. Thus, I tend to look more seriously at deals with lots of interest, even when I tell myself I’m going to be disciplined enough to do all the due diligence on my own.
2. The investor herd piled in, wanting to invest into a startup. It’s a common scene around the valley. The hottest deals get shopped around the most popular and prominent angels who are all high value and high profile. They have lots of money and value to bear on a deal. But they also have their friends who come in on the deal. So a combination of being able to keep in an entrepreneur’s mindset and haivng the herd not forget about you, thus keeping you in the entrepreneur’s mindset, helps to get you into a deal…or not. I have not been really part of any investor herd before so it was literally impossible for me to stay in an entrepreneur’s list of investors as they get deluged by a huge number of people and can barely manage the flow of communication. I know I’ve been dropped off investor lists because of not being part of a herd.
3. Joining a herd became a worthy goal. As I thought about reasons why I missed out on deals over these last few weeks, I started thinking about how I could join a herd. I don’t like to bill myself as a guy who can do lots of investor intros now, but knew I could get there in a few years as I worked with more and more people. But now I think about the networking aspect more, and using entrepreneurs to introduce me to some prominent angels and VCs around the valley. Slowly but surely, I am starting to not be forgotten amongst the investor herds, which is a good thing. So far, I think a combination of personality and value has helped me stay in the mindshare of herds. I meet people and show them that I’m a cool guy and not a wonk, and that my experience can actually help a company that we may all be investing in, and things seem to be happening.
4. I am trying to standout in a herd. If you demonstrate that you can bring high value to the company, staying in the list of investors for a given entrepreneur becomes easy. I can sometimes stay in a deal where other investors with lesser or no value to a company beyond just cash get dropped. I have found a great variance in entrepreneurs in whether or not they find value in what I could bring to their companies. If entrepreneurs don’t find value in what I bring, then the probability becomes much greater that I will get dropped from their investor lists.
5. I need to constantly follow-up on deals I want in on. In the past, I’ve relied on entrepreneurs to contact me when they’re ready to talk investing. However, a number of them have dropped me simply because I didn’t do my part to stay in their mindshare. Shouting loud via email or phone works well and helps a lot.
Lots to keep track of in the ecosystem of investors and entrepreneurs in order to not be forgotten amongst the herds of investors roaming Silicon Valley.

The Three Faces of My Schizophrenia

Leave a reply

In working as advisor and angel investor to startups, I find that I can be schizophrenic at times. Three faces I wear, when dealing with entrepeneurs:
INVESTOR
Characterized by:
1. Paranoia about losing my money.
2. Saying “sell the company”; starts when my return crosses about 5x my investment, and becomes a yell when my investment hits 10x.
3. Motivated by what my terms say for Notes.
4. Recommending courses of action which generate a lot of cash for the company, which increases value of the company and thus my investment.
ADVISOR
Characterized by:
1. Recommending courses of action which build the company.
2. Seeking the best ways to create product and do business.
3. Balanced view towards generating revenue in the company versus building product, which can be at odds if, for example, we’re talking about advertising and internet users.
4. Might recommend against selling the company given what I have seen when bigger companies absorb smaller companies.
5. Seeks the best employees and resources to do the job. Pushes those resources to build the company bigger and faster to exclusion of other things like sleep.
DAVE SHEN HUMAN BEING
Characterized by:
1. Tends towards recommending humanistic approach to treating employees.
2. Wants to grow employees, sees them as learning over time, nuturing them to be better.
3. Coaches people to balance life, work, and family. Asks what makes people happy and what keeps them motivated, encourages people to find this in the company.
If you’ve been in the startup game for a while, you’ll know that these three faces I wear are often at odds with each other and conflict in goals. For example, how can I counsel people to balance work and life and go home at 5pm to make time for family when as advisor, I want these guys to work 24/7 because the startup needs it, and as investor, I want them to work so freakin’ hard so my money isn’t wasted?
When I start working with someone, one of the first things I tell people is that I can be schizophrenic. They always laugh and sometimes I can see that they don’t get what I mean; the more experienced ones snicker and thank me for being upfront!
It can disconcerting to have a guy like me advising you to do one thing and then tell you to do something else in opposition to what I just said a while ago. It’s because I do wear many different hats, and the forces within me struggle every day to push/pull me in several directions. It’s a challenge to find a balanced answer, and I like the challenge of finding a solution that satisfies all of my three “identities”. I just hope I do not drive any of my entrepreneurs nuts by my triple schizophrenic state…

Ycombinator Demo Day: Summer Class in Mountain View

Leave a reply

I went to my first Ycombinator Demo Day this last Thursday. I wasn’t sure what to expect, except for the fact that a whole bunch of startups created by near-college grads would be presenting their projects. I definitely wasn’t expecting any well-thought out business plans but was hoping to see some really cool stuff.
After the event, much has been written about the companies themselves, and you can read about them at VentureBeat: The Ycombinator List and at TechCrunch: Ycombinator Demo Day: The Summer Class. There has been enough coverage about the companies, so rather than do that I wanted to write about something else regarding the Demo Day.
Usually when you sit through pitches, they can be relatively dry. You see lots of graphs and how big the market opportunity is and it’s usually a more serious and professional presentation.
For Demo Day, I was pleasantly surprised that each presentation had a healthy dose of humor cleverly injected. I found myself chuckling at funny demos, laughing at jokes made at competitors’ expense, and smiling to see them laughing at themselves. During one of the breaks between presentations, I stopped to say hi to Paul Graham (co-founder of Ycombinator) and asked him about whether or not he encouraged humor to be part of the presentations. He said they were actually more humorous during the dry-runs and that he actually pulled them back from being too over the top. I shudder to think what they were like before he pulled them back…!
Sitting through 19 demos for 3+ hours could have been a truly grueling affair. I am glad that the young graduates of this summer’s Ycombinator class threw some humor into their demos and turning a potentially boring, lifeless afternoon into a more lively event.

“The Business Opportunity” and the Epiphany

2 Replies

I was just recommended this excellent book called The Four Steps to the Epiphany by Steven Blank. It describes a particular problem I’ve encountered with some of the startups I’ve met with.
Some of the entrepreneurs I’ve met with lead with the business opportunity. They say that the market is this big. They have charts and research to back that up. They show millions upon millions, if not billions of dollars spent in this market alone.
Then they present this product that fits into this market. They go on to say that we can attack this market opportunity by building a product to gather all these eyeballs, users, consumers, whatever and then sell this market to advertisers and marketers.
It always worries me when they lead with business opportunity.
Most likely what I discover after is:
1. The entrepreneur is not a model customer of this market. They have come upon this opportunity through research.
2. The entrepreneur has researched business opportunity but has not researched what customers want. While it may be true that marketers spend millions and billions of dollars trying to reach these consumers, the entrepreneur has not asked consumers whether they want the product he is building.
3. I often get a defensive response when I tell them this is an issue.
Which brings me back to The Four Steps to the Epiphany. Author, Steve Blank describes the Customer Development Model, which is an iterative method of figuring out what customers actually want, versus driving a business with financial projections and product development and assumptions that the product will be accepted by consumers. He argues that every successful startup runs by this model, and that running it by traditional product development models brings a huge amount of risk into whether the business will be successful or not.
Reading about the Customer Development Model brought me back to those meetings with entrepreneurs who are trying to build companies using traditional methods. Those meetings left me feeling uncomfortable and ultimately, following my instinct on these matters, I would often let the opportunity go. I am glad to be reading this book, because now it frames my uncomfortable feelings into a way of articulating them better.
As an angel investor, I want to reduce risk whenever possible. I find that when entrepreneurs resonate with the market and are building a product that they are target markets for, then it minimizes risk. This also means that you get extra passion for the product because the entrepreneur wants the product for himself, and you may reduce the need for external research to figure out what customers want, which reduces cost and time which could be used in building the product.
That’s not to say that someone couldn’t be successful if they don’t fully or completely resonate with the product and are the target market. Success is a probability game and when entrepreneurs are themselves the target market and they resonate with the customers, then you stack the odds in your favor by a great deal.

Allocation of Shares at Company Formation

2 Replies

A new entrepreneur recently asked me about how to allocate shares at the company formation stage. I asked around and here are some highlights on what I found:
In talking with my lawyer and some entrepreneurs, you could start with 10MM total but it’s not uncommon to create more upon formation, like 20 or 30MM. The reason for doing this is to not have to file additional paperwork (and incur legal fees) in creating more shares when you need them.
Also, you don’t usually allocate the whole bunch of shares at the outset. Note that the existence of shares does not mean ownership, but only those you allocate. So if you have 3 founders and each has 1MM shares out of a total pool of unallocated 30MM shares, you have officially created 3MM shares but still hold 27MM in reserve. Thus, the 3 people officially own the company at 33% a piece; the additional 27MM does not come into play until they get allocated.
As for allocating a bunch for additional employees, people have allocated about 10-20% of the total for employees and the options pool. As for sheer number, that could be upwards of 4MM set aside for employees, advisors, and board of directors, which is pretty large for an early stage company.
So if you go with 10MM total shares and you want 20% of total for the options/employee pool and let’s say you have 2 founders who want to own the company at 50/50, then you would have 10 MM shares allocated, 4 MM goes to both founders for 50/50 ownership split at 8MM shares total, and then the rest at 2MM (20%) reserved for hiring key people.
FYI – advisors jumping in at this stage typically get .1% to 1 or even 2-3% as options depending on their level of involvement.
Early employees coming in really early stage could get multiple-100s of thousands of options, which rachets down dramatically as the product gets built and time goes on. Certainly this balances with whether or not they get market rate salary or not.
Still, the message is “don’t be greedy”. Incent your employees to get the job done and reward them. Don’t try to hold on to too much or else you may run into trouble later. Same goes for the financing stage. Be prepared to give up part of the company for monies received, but don’t try to hold on to too much or else you may never get funded. On the flip side, be realistic and don’t give away the farm, which could land you in trouble the other way.

Why and How Do Startups Move So Fast?

Leave a reply

The question of how do startups move so fast comes up surprisingly often. I finally gave it some thought, after the question came up again in a recent meeting with one of my companies. Over the last year or so of working with startups, I came up with some observations:
1. Small teams, 1-3 people. Makes sense right? Less time lost, less arguing, etc. Less meetings.
2. Everybody resonates with the idea and generally agrees with direction. Since everyone is either a participant or expert in the field in which the site is created for, then everyone does not need to learn but knows instinctively what to do. Nobody is working on a product that they do not use themselves. It’s a great way to find people like yourselves, when you recruit from the level of common interest in a certain product area.
NOTE: It’s really hard sometimes to get someone to resonate with your idea. You may hire them for their intrinsic talent, but it may be really difficult to get them to feel the instinctive bond with your product area.
Sometimes it’s impossible. Doesn’t mean that great work can’t get done, but it does mean a level of independence can’t be achieved, as non-resonating employees need more directional advice than those who do resonate.
3. Along with 1, the teams usually only consist of engineers cranking away. Most of them are multi-talented to a point, so they play multiple roles of programmer, GUI, html/css, product manager, product visionary.
4. Strangely enough, I have not found location to be a common factor for moving fast. Certainly it enhances the process, but a lot of teams are working with people remotely, since engrs are so hard to find and many just don’t want to move. Somehow, they have found ways of working together and can still make progress. Lots of travel involved and constant communication are two of many key points in making it work. If I get a chance, I’ll dig into it more with some of the startups I work with as to how it’s working and how it’s not. In my startups, 6 out of the 8 companies have resources external to their main location, mostly engineers who are working in remote locations. I have not seen any dramatic slowdowns with their teams.
5. People are generally just cranking. They see something needs to get done and then they just do it. There is less the asking for permission. Everybody needs to get on the same page and just keep moving forward in a very independent way. Early on at Yahoo!, many of our engineers would just do stuff and we would rarely ask them to do some particular thing. The product would constantly evolve while we worried about other stuff. Although when we asked them to actually do something and if they did not agree, it never got done which was frustrating from another viewpoint. So it worked until they got to a point when their initial sensibilities finally turned out to be wrong. Sometimes they could be convinced that they were wrong, but sometimes not…
While speed may be intuitive to some, I think it’s harder to achieve than you think, unless you have the right people with the right sensibilities and right alignment in thinking.
One of the hardest things I’ve seen is when a non-engineer comes up with an idea and tries to get it done. Because they can’t write code themselves, they need to find someone who can. But more often than not, they find only someone who can code but not become resonant with the idea to just work on it and take vague direction and execute on it.
It’s the magic bullet that everyone searches for:
“Dang it, I just want to describe my idea to someone and that someone just deals with the details and makes it happen!”
Unfortunately, it’s the details that often count…you want something done right, you better sweat the details!

Avoiding Blur

Leave a reply

I was just talking to a startup about their website and we were strategizing what it could become. We noodled, talked, brainstormed, argued, and finally agreed for over 5 hours and developed a sense for what we want the future site would be like.
At the end of the session, I was still feeling uneasy about what we came up with. The main reason was that it was merely a combination of what other sites were doing in part. One site would have this feature, but not the main direction for the site. Another site had people doing the activity, but in a different way. Some of the bigger sites out there also had the ability to do what we were doing, but of course their missions were much more broader and not focused like ours. Could we do better by simply having a niche, focused mission but having many of the same tools as other sites, and also competing against the fact that users were already using our competitors for that same mission we wanted them to focus on with our site?
This was the source of my unease. If there are competitors or near competitors, or even non-competitors, who allow users to accomplish the same thing on their sites, whether it is their main mission or not, AND these competitors exist already, this is a danger point. I call it “blur”.
The blur occurs in users minds when they hear about what you want them to do, but can’t figure out where to do it. They may already be doing it on some other site, by either using some existing functionality, or jacking some other functionality to get the job done.
Blur is heavily related to product differentiation. You want something to cut through the blur. When they think of something they want or need to do, you want them to think of you. Whatever functions you have must be cool, creative, and original enough to attract them to you despite being in a similar place with other existing sites.
Here is an example. Suppose you want to build a site to allow users to connect with friends. Let’s say your main interface is email, as a possible differentiator. However, as a user who hears about your offering, “connect with friends via this new way, but with email”, they’ll think all sorts of things like:
Hmm I’m already on Facebook and that works for me.
I have my address book on Outlook and email people just fine.
All my friends are on MySpace. Why switch?
I don’t have time to try something new, let alone learning it and THEN getting all my friends on it.
The problem here is that when you express your mission to users, they get caught in the blur of other competitors being able to do pretty much the same thing and you don’t have something to justify the switching cost of going to your service to do something they can do already somewhere else.
You need to find that one (or more) things that people can do on your site that no one else offers, AND is cool enough to get them to come over and learn something new.
It’s always a danger point for me when I hear of entrepreneurs who design something supposedly really cool but then I point out that people are already doing these things on other sites. I ALWAYS get pushback because they think their creation is the best out there, and nobody has mashed up the functions in such a focused manner.
It might actually be great. I’m just talking about risk here and the realities of getting users attention in a crowded space. You might actually have something that is a ton better at doing something, than for them to do it on some existing site.
I’m into risk reduction. Why try to fight with through user blur with something that isn’t shouting “Come here and try me because I’m different” loud enough? You could run out of resources and funding trying to bulldoze your way into users’ attentions. If you had several million dollars in the bank, yeah potentially you could market your way to success in a certain category.
Or you could spend a little more creative time and figure out something to build that is actually cooler and hasn’t done before, and that users will want to spend time with. Enough to get past the switching cost and try your service.
WIth that previous startup I mentioned, after 5 hours of discussion, we spent another 20 minutes talking about something that wasn’t mentioned and was something very unique in their offering. I think that 20 minutes is going to turn out to be most valuable part of that day. Because I think we added back something that would cut through the blur and thus reduce our potential risk in attracting users to our site, to do something that they could do somewhere else in general, but being able to do that one thing that they CAN’T anywhere else.
We could have gone home after 5 hours. But spending that little bit of extra time and effort to find something to avoid the blur was worthwhile and I believe, critical for the success of the company.

Are You Startup Material?

Leave a reply

It all started with my recruiting woes. I dutifully plowed through my contacts every time one of my startups was looking for new hires. I talked to many of them but almost all of them refused to leave where they were to go take the leap to a startup. After many conversations, I figured out that startups aren’t for everyone. It was a frustrating but interesting learning experience into the changing lives and minds of our workforce, and what was appropriate for one person would be inappropriate for another, and that which could change over time.
Are YOU startup material? Looking now at who you are, what motivates you, and where your life is – would you want to make the leap to join a startup? Some questions to ask yourself (and some discussion on each):
How young/old are you?
Startup people are typically young. At least from a physiological standpoint.
Young people have lots of energy and stamina to stay up late for nights on end. They still have the ability built up from pulling constant all-nighters from college so they still retain this ability even after they graduate. Their youthful bodies still have strong hearts bolstered by endless, sleepless nights partying on beer and chicken wings. Their brains are quick and agile and not dulled by age. The older you get, the more your body has reduced stamina to stay up all night and hack. Old brains just don’t work so fast without proper sleep.
And it really sucks that as you grow older, your chances of entering a startup diminish greatly. This is a shame because the most experienced people you want tend to be older.
Can you go for a long time with a reduced salary? With no salary?
Once you enter a startup, you’re entering a place where reward is typically bound to options and stock, not weekly salary. This reward can be long in coming, ranging from months to years. How long can you survive with reduced salary, given your dependents and lifestyle? Are you willing to risk that? Do you have enough saved up to last for a long amount of time, say months or even years?
Startups can’t pay market salaries. If you need immediate cash, startups aren’t for you. Go find a job at a stable, growing company.
After a startup raises money, they can pay you more, but it can still be reduced from market levels. After all, the money is a great motivator for you to work long hours for the big win; if you get it all upfront, then where’s the motivation? You’re not hungry.
How many attachments do you have? Are you married and have family or dependents? Do you have a lifestyle that requires attention and/or capital?
As for age, young people have little or no attachments like spouses or children or possessions, which is another reason why you find young people in startups. Starting from almost nothing, they have nothing to worry about except themselves. It is very easy to throw your life into a startup when your life is not occupied already.
But perhaps you have other interests which take time. You may like to volunteer at a non-profit and gain lots of satisfaction from that, or train for Ironman. You like these so much that you are unwilling to give them up for something else which will undoubtedly be all-consuming.
Owning expensive things like houses and boats take up resources. You need immediate cash to pay for mortgages and bills. Do you race cars for a hobby?
Are you married? A spouse and family will put demands on your energy and time. Are they willing to give up their time so that you can pursue your interests in a startup? Are they truly OK with not seeing you at home for dinner many nights? Be warned: those that have not experienced the startup world may think they know what it’s like time-wise, but I will guarantee you that they may have zero concept of what it’s REALLY like. Make sure you sit down with them and talk it through in excruciating detail and get their support and buy-in. More than one family has been wrecked because of too much time spent at a startup. Make sure YOU know you’re joining the startup for the right reasons and with the right familial support.
Are you comfortable where you are in life, job, family, etc. or are you hungry?
If you’re comfortable, you may not be willing to give up your current job with nice high salary and which supports your current lifestyle. You may not want to stay up all night working for little pay and for a risky return some unknown time in the future.
If you’re hungry, then perhaps you could be right for a startup. You may want more out of life, more money, more fame. Whatever it is, it’s more than now and you want it fast and not wait decades. The only way you can get this faster is if you take more risk at a startup which could vault you to whatever it is you’re lacking.
Which leads to the next point….
Are you conservative or a risk taker?
If you are a conservative person, STAY AWAY FROM STARTUPS. If you cannot risk your entire career, fortune, whatever, at all, you shouldn’t consider a startup. You’ll drive yourself nuts and everyone else around you.
Can you deal with ambiguity, adapt well to change, be ok with constant chaos?
A startup is not known for stability. Things don’t work as smoothly as you want and you have to be OK when things aren’t perfect, or forgotten, or done in haphazard ways. If you require order in the way you do things and need that around you, a startup is probably not for you.
Do you like to learn and do everything? Do you not mind taking up tasks outside your areas of expertise?
Startups are typically short staffed. Everyone typically pitches in and does a little of everything. Marketing people code HTML pages, Business Development folks take out the trash, Engineers open up photoshop and crank out graphics for the site. If you like to learn and either want to become or are a jack of all trades, startups are the perfect environment to grow your ADD.
If you just like to do your thing and pass the buck on everything else, I am certain you will be shunned by everyone on the team.
Lastly, are you passionate about the startup you may join?
Passion drives humans to do amazing things. If the startup you’re joining seems cool but your heart really isn’t in it, I would highly recommend not joining it. Wait until you find something that you can really get behind. Passion will give you strength and stamina to work long hours, to really resonate with what you’re working on, and give you extra motivation to keep working even when you’ve been not sleeping for days.
Startups can give you the experience of a lifetime. I would not have given up my experience at Yahoo! for anything and it taught me a lot about passion, the thrill of working together with a whole bunch of smart, motivated folks, and a lot about myself and what I am made of. But like it or not, we’re not all startup material. It’s something we need to be realistic about, and also, for us on the other side trying to recruit for startups, it’s frustrating but we understand.