|
Does startup experience weigh more than other programming experience? This is mostly aimed at those who do the hiring. I've been working at a startup for 6 months, got promoted, and have a project that I created from scratch. My team tells me that companies look fondly at startup experience. Opinions? (This is purely out of curiosity.)
|
|
|
|
|
Hard question to answer. Personally, would say it is very much dependent on the skill and experience of the individual. The one thing you will lack is domain experience which can be very important.
I do not look fondly on startups (I think your co-workers are telling you what you want to hear): they appear to be mostly cowboy affairs, run by hopeful amateurs and using the cheapest (free) technology they can get their hands on: this does not translate well to the corporate world.
In any case, the value of the type of experience you have is entirely subjective. Is, say, 2 years of startup better than 2 years of corporate? That would entirely depend upon the perspective and needs of the hiring manager.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting. It's hard to tell whether they are telling me what I want to hear when the conversation came from no where. We were talking about potential acquisition and finding jobs afterwards. They were talking about the level of stress and commitment associated with startups plays favorably in the hiring process; especially in the case of a successful startup. Do you disagree with this statement? Maybe they meant the combination of 6 months at a startup coupled with the 2 year commitment at a publicly traded company (after acquisition) would look favorably. But again, it could all be fluff.
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Dycus wrote: They were talking about the level of stress and commitment associated with startups
Clearly, they have not worked at a large investment bank. I've done my share of seven-day weeks, overnighters, 'emergency' flights to fix someone else's sh*t and months without a real break. Try working on a trading desk or a trading floor or when a crap manager is trying to make brownie points by giving his team an unrealistic goal or deadline. You think you know stress? Pah: you know nothing.
So, yes, the statement is silly, at best. Shows a complete lack of experience and understanding of survival and working in the corporate world. Take it as fluff and steer your own course. Good luck.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
Our lead programmer worked at Fidelity, so I trust he wasn't just blowing hot air. XD
I'm sure it can be stressful anywhere. I programmed for 6 hours in a car ride the weekend before launch, which was unpleasant to say the least (it gave me motion sickness and a bad headache). I'm sure others have worse stories.
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Dycus wrote: Our lead programmer worked at Fidelity, so I trust he wasn't just blowing hot air
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
If the startup fails to stay up, it'll hurt you.
Seriously, though, it's usually a plus - start ups mean you're willing to put in more hours for less pay, or was my experience unless they are really well funded. It usually means you're willing to invest fully in something you believe in, more so than chasing a buck, or so has been my experience.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. - George Carlin
|
|
|
|
|
Right, but does this actually come to mind in the hiring process or does HR just see X years of experience. I'm curious as to whether anyone has treated a candidate differently based off of the type of company he/she worked for.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree 100% with Mark on this. Having worked in both a start up environment and a corporate environment I can say they both have their advantages and disadvantages. A lot of the time people that come out of a start up environment have a hard time dealing with all of the procedures and practices in a corporate environment. The start up employee usually wants to just get it done and cut through all the red tap. This can cause a lot of frustration for the employee and employer.
I try to keep my teams with both types of programmers. We have the start up programmer around to push the team to get things done at a quicker pace. And the corporate programmers to pull the reins back to make sure we are doing things correctly. But that is just my opinion and how I like to set up my teams.
|
|
|
|
|
So in your case, do you actively try to keep your team balanced? Say you feel your team is slowing down, so you decide to hire someone new. If you had two identical candidates, one with startup experience and one with corporate experience, would you be more inclined to hire the startup candidate to benefit your team's speed, or does it not really come to mind?
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry to butt in but, all things being equal, I'd hire the corporate developer: he's more likely to fit the culture.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
It would depend on what both of the candidates skills are. It would also depend on what our deadlines are. The team maybe slowing down because they just came off a big project.
It also depends on how the team feels about the candidates. If they have bad feelings about one or both of them I won't hire. One of the most important things to me and my team is that everyone works well together. So I won't hire any one the whole team doesn't like.
If we were slowing down and didn't just get off a big project I would probably go with the start up person. Hope that helps answer your question.
|
|
|
|
|
So it seems that the fact that one candidate comes from a corporate background and one comes from a startup background is largely unimportant to you; you care more about how the individual fits into the team. But what about that initial step, before you meet the individuals. How do you weed out potential applicants? Do you take into account the type of company a person has worked for during this process?
|
|
|
|
|
There isn't just one thing that we go by when hiring. Yes how the individual fits into the team is one of the biggest factors. But where they worked and what experience they have is also a very big factor as well. It also depends on what role we are trying to fill. If a senior developer has just gotten done and we really need to replace them we wouldn't hire some one with out a lot of experience. But if the need wasn't immediate we would probably take some one with no experience and train them.
I guess what I am saying is that there are a varying degree of what people look at when hiring. You can't just blindly say oh this person worked at a start up so they must be a good developer that is passionate about it. Or this person worked at a corporation so they must not be passionate about development.
So when your coworkers tell you that companies look fondly at people that have worked at start ups I would say they are full of it. Some places might do that but it isn't a place that I would want to work at. I would want them to take a much broader look at the candidates and much sure they are getting the right fit for the job.
|
|
|
|
|
Fair enough. Thank you for your input. ^^
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
