I'm the CEO of a 20-person startup and we've been on the brink of failure twice. Both times, our employees were never aware of it from the symptoms other people might expect (e.g., late payroll, some senior folks leaving); in fact, during such times we paid everyone ON TIME so that we wouldn't be on the hook later if things went to hell.
I would flip the question back to you:
(1) Do you trust your CEO?
(2) If you DO trust the CEO, then the only time your startup is failing is when the CEO tells you they're close to failure, running out of money.
If you DON'T trust your CEO, then your startup is also failing and #2 doesn't apply.
That's how I would think about it.
I think every startup employee has the right to ask me about runway, cash on hand, etc. I would be open with that info and have shared these metrics in the past with them.
I say this because we (a) hire MBAs, (b) hire less qualified developers for roles that do not require deep technical knowledge, (c) have motivational posters, etc... And as we grow, become profitable, and scale to 50+ people, we require these things simply to survive and thrive.
How could someone mistake that for a startup on the brink of failure is beyond me, but that's what some people seem to be writing in these comments.
> If you DO trust the CEO, then the only time your startup is failing is when the CEO tells you they're close to failure, running out of money.
The question is not really "how to know your startup is failing right now." I think it's pretty obvious when a startup is already failing.
The question is, instead, what the signs are that a startup is on the "wrong track" and will inevitably begin failing six months to a year down the line.
I've worked at several companies that were already in the "inevitably going to fail" category before I was even hired—retroactively, looking at when they took on the qualities that ended up killing them, they had those qualities for my entire tenure there (though they didn't previously had them; frequently I was hired as the replacement for the key cofounder whose departure, according to others there, signalled the beginning of the end.)
So, I don't want to know whether my startup is failing. I want to know whether a potential employer is failing, so I can avoid riding yet another startup into the ground and suffering through the inevitable cash-crunch and lay-offs. What are the warning signs, visible from the outside, that a startup is headed that way?
>I say this because we (a) hire MBAs, (b) hire less qualified developers for roles that do not require deep technical knowledge, (c) have motivational posters, etc...
I can't say this inspires very much confidence. Why does hiring MBAs mean you are successful? What exactly do they do to make you successful? On developers, if they have the knowledge for the job then they are qualified, not less qualified. This terminology is very worrisome. And motivational posters? That was a joke I guess?
And what does any of this have to do with being on the brink of failure or not? You can have a perfect team and still fail because of a bad product direction or market fit.
GP doesn't mean that those are signs of success; they mean just that those three things aren't signs the company is failing like some of the other comments suggest.
Yes. I find it amazing that people running startups apparently have a problem with this concept. How else are junior developers supposed to gain experience and be exposed to hard technical problems, get the benefit of mentorship, etc?
There is nothing wrong at all with less experienced devs working for a startup. It is one of the components for building a successful company. As your junior employees grow, they move into roles of greater responsibility.
I always see startups looking for experienced people as a company started by a couple of non-programmers, desperately seeking someone to make their products for them. It sounds like they'll be worked to death and expected to work long hours while the founder makes fluffy posts on hackernews :P
Seems accurate, though I think his point is that the overall team quality is decreasing instead of increasing. On the flipside, keeping a strong team probably means the team is always much smaller than it could be at any given stage. IMO this is well worth it and I strongly prefer a tiny team. But it could potentially decrease a valuation where company size/number of employees (especially engineers) is taken into account.
It also depends a lot on the company's strategy. If you are building a complex product then a small, highly qualified team makes sense. If your product is basic and requires a lot of customer success, you might want to hire junior devs or non-devs to do basic work (thus growing your team, but saving the senior dev time for more complex tasks).
This is a great answer. Trust is intangible, so maybe it's easy to overlook or forget.
Some of the other signals could just as easily reflect management's reading habits. It doesn't mean the other comments are wrong, but if you are looking for "early signals," be honest with yourself and hone your trust-dar.
I would flip the question back to you: (1) Do you trust your CEO? (2) If you DO trust the CEO, then the only time your startup is failing is when the CEO tells you they're close to failure, running out of money.
If you DON'T trust your CEO, then your startup is also failing and #2 doesn't apply.
That's how I would think about it.
I think every startup employee has the right to ask me about runway, cash on hand, etc. I would be open with that info and have shared these metrics in the past with them.
I say this because we (a) hire MBAs, (b) hire less qualified developers for roles that do not require deep technical knowledge, (c) have motivational posters, etc... And as we grow, become profitable, and scale to 50+ people, we require these things simply to survive and thrive.
How could someone mistake that for a startup on the brink of failure is beyond me, but that's what some people seem to be writing in these comments.