When Start Ups Aren't Really Start Ups

As the economy lurches slowly down a path to recovery, it seems many in my network are considering leaving their current 'safe haven' jobs. Maybe they put up with a sub-ideal job for a few more years than they might have in the past, sticking with the devil they knew, for the sake of security. Perhaps their formerly ideal company didn't weather the downturn terribly well, and the environment has gone toxic. Maybe, they are just a few more years experienced and ready to put their skills to work for a greater challenge (and possibly: reward). What's interesting to me is the number of companies in the current hiring market that seem to be using the phrases, "start up", "reboot", "re-set", etc., when they engage with my friends in hiring discussions.

While some of these organizations in my new geography (Bay Area, California) are truly start ups, in the sense that they didn't exist a couple of  years ago, and/or they are currently in active venture funding rounds, many of these employers my friends are meeting with are what used to be considered "established" businesses- in operation for 10, 15 years or more.  Some may be truly rebuilding; like storm survivors on the Gulf Coast after Katrina. But many of these employers don't seem to be doing much that's materially different. So, what, I have to wonder, is the deal?  Why are so many companies choosing to identify as start ups when dealing with job candidates?

Is it just branding?
Have recruiting companies figured out that 'traditional' employees want the some of the glamor of start ups, without the actual risk of an unproven business model? What does that really mean, then? Lower salaries, beefed up with equity offers? More cubicles (vs. private offices)? Keeping costs low to feel 'boot strappy' while doing things more or less the same way they always have?  

Maybe it's legit.
Maybe these employers are really willing to take more risky positions, be nimbler, more innovative. There's a logic to leveraging an experienced team and established infrastructure, and if you have been through some 'pruning' in the last few years, the right strategy would likely pay off well.

How could a candidate tell the difference?  And, how much does it really matter?
My observation is that a true start up will have a very consistent message around their status as a start up.  Everyone the candidate meets will bring this up; the employee that recruits you, the hiring manager, any additional team members you interview with will express at least some evangelical zeal about their collective efforts to do something audacious.  They will direct you to press releases about their product or their funding successes. 

And that's another 'tell' that a company is truly a start up with potential.  That there IS some press, and it's not all generated by their own marketing department.  Financial reports, industry news- someone should have taken notice of what is going on in this company.  If job seekers are not getting a consistent start up message from everyone they engage with, and if no one outside the company has noticed anything new or different, then this prospective employer has a potentially dangerous inner narrative problem.  Not a deal breaker, necessarily, but candidates should try to determine the source of the disconnect.  Is it a recruiter who is having problems getting people to talk to him about a staid or unknown brand name?  Is it a hiring manager who not-so-secretly wishes she was at a start up, and is trying to inject some hyper ambition into her team?  Neither of these are bad motives, if the candidate realizes what is going on, and makes an informed decision before signing on. 

If a job seeker cannot determine the source of the inconsistency, then one possibility is that the leadership team is motivated to attract hard working talent at a lower salary, take extreme advantage of their contributions and then sell the enterprise, reaping significant benefits to the Leadership team while leaving the same hard-working talent back on the job market.  This is simply how Capitalism works, and everyone has an opportunity to succeed in this model, just as they have an opportunity to be very unpleasantly surprised by it.  Even in this scenario, job seekers don't have to walk away.  If the work is something that brings you joy, or gives you experience in something directly related to your career goals, there's no reason not to go along for the ride.  Just be aware it could be short, or bumpy, and have your parachute packed.  There will come a time you'll need to exit the craft.  If you negotiated for some equity shares to offset that start up salary, you will be in the right position for the next career adventure.

Knowing You Are In the Right Room....

I have had the opportunity to change employers four times over the last ten years. Twice by choice; twice following layoffs. I can't quite figure out how to put "experienced job changer" into my resume, but I am beginning to feel like an expert. Consistent with my commitment to Open Source Leadership*, I'd like to share some thoughts on how to know you are at the right (or wrong) company. I wonder what other "serial job changers" have experienced?

The first few weeks on the job can feel like your first day as a college freshman. You know you are probably prepared for the task ahead, but you are not completely comfortable you have made the right decision. We've all walked into the wrong classroom or meeting room at some point. You assume you are in the right place; you think perhaps not, then perhaps so, and finally you realize: this is Econ 101; you're supposed to be in Civics. The "new" phase of the job can feel just like those first few seconds in an unfamilar place, only it lasts for weeks.
I have decided this period of disorientation and fleeting doubts on a new job can be reduced by learning to look for certain clues. Obviously, if it turns out you are really with the wrong company, it's too late to change that, but at least you can focus on your search for your next company, once you conclude you are in the wrong room. And if you are in the right place, you can relax and focus on how to make a positive difference for your new employer.

At most companies, there will be some kind of orientation. At the right company, this process will give you some idea of what is important to company leadership in some personal way, as in, "Bill, the Founder and CEO, hosts quarterly town hall meetings so that employees can ask questions." At the wrong company, you will be handed some booklets or given a web address by an HR representative who brings your attention to the dress code, the attendance policy, and the deadlines for returning paper work. You may see some literature or posters about corporate values or company mission statement, but no one takes the time to 'evangelize' to you about what is great about the company.

At the wrong company, you will be left to fend for yourself, trying to figure out the expectations of the role you are filling. You will be told that the information you need is on the corporate internet, but if you can locate it, it's obviously dated or inaccurate. When you ask your manager about the situation, she'll get a little flustered. She's a victim of the bad company, too. Top leadership announced "we all need to do a better job of communicating!" a few years ago. Someone knew how to set up internal web pages. But no one owned the message. HR did not shoulder the responsibility for ensuring the right information was maintained.

At the right company, the sharing of information may be imperfect, a little disorganized, but there is a good faith effort to share knowledge. Surveys will be distributed fairly regularly. Managers hear out the vocally negative, but they don't get defensive. There is a reason for anything that happens, if you just ask.

Those are some very consistent indicators to me. What have you experienced in your travels?

*not my idea - check out my good friends at Lead Change http://leadchangegroup.com, for more on being an Open Source Leader.

No, Really: You've GOT to Accentuate the Positive...

I was recently asked, by someone I trust and respect very much, to do something I was VERY uncomfortable with - attend an industry event on his behalf, and make connections with people who could be useful in our shared business venture. I don't think of myself as someone who can walk into a room full of strangers and "politic". But this was an important favor, so I said I would do it. And then was instantly sorry. I had only an hour or so to get to the event, so I rushed around to get ready, then had some time on my drive to think about strategy.

It occurred to me that I do have a few other useful skills. Like being well-read enough to contribute to a lot of different conversations. Like knowing when to listen, and how to do that well enough that people KNOW I'm paying attention. Like being involved in a great organization with an innovative and valuable product that I very much believe in.

Long story short: once I decided to work from my strengths, I was able to compensate for my alleged weaknesses (ignore them, really), and accomplish the mission. As a bonus - I had a great time, and will probably benefit from this task for a long time to come.

It was a good reminder that when under stress, it's more useful to focus on what you have at hand that CAN enable you to succeed, instead of running inventory on the reasons why you're likely to fail. If I'm ever stranded in the jungle, this will be a useful policy, but it's come in handy in more ordinary scenarios, too....

lm


How Full Is Your Bucket? Positive Strategies for Work and Life