I saw a LinkedIn post recently where a founder complained “The best developers are either at Google, work for themselves, or too expensive.” Two thirds of that represent a common misconception that Big Tech and startupland are the same hiring market. They’re not. To the extent it was ever true, that was yet another zero interest rate phenomenon.
Mostly the subjective intangibles, I think: impact, engagement, not feeling like a cog in a machine, a greater diversity of work, higher intensity, and a job that is likely to evolve significantly.
That is an interesting take on how to filter out unsuitable candidates for a startup!
Also, the statement "The best developers are either at Google, work for themselves, or too expensive" has a couple of clues in it.
1. You do not need all your developers to be best. For example, in early stages of an idea, it could be beneficial to have a developer who can execute fast by making suboptimal choices, consciously or otherwise, learn from the usage patterns and iterate - than someone who can deliberate for days and aim for perfection.
2. You are not Google. And you cannot afford expensive engineers. So provide opportunity to 'work for themselves'. Granting and vesting equity like Google does not work. I think a nuance here is 'work for themselves' vs 'work for their own idea'. I would reckon such 'best' engineers would be willing to work on an interesting idea not their own, if they are shared sufficient ownership in it.
One step further, what can startups offer besides equity to attract the right candidates?
Mostly the subjective intangibles, I think: impact, engagement, not feeling like a cog in a machine, a greater diversity of work, higher intensity, and a job that is likely to evolve significantly.
That is an interesting take on how to filter out unsuitable candidates for a startup!
Also, the statement "The best developers are either at Google, work for themselves, or too expensive" has a couple of clues in it.
1. You do not need all your developers to be best. For example, in early stages of an idea, it could be beneficial to have a developer who can execute fast by making suboptimal choices, consciously or otherwise, learn from the usage patterns and iterate - than someone who can deliberate for days and aim for perfection.
2. You are not Google. And you cannot afford expensive engineers. So provide opportunity to 'work for themselves'. Granting and vesting equity like Google does not work. I think a nuance here is 'work for themselves' vs 'work for their own idea'. I would reckon such 'best' engineers would be willing to work on an interesting idea not their own, if they are shared sufficient ownership in it.
"Best" is a highly suspect notion in the first place.