[cookiecaper]

>1. "I have kids that I can use my vacation time for". If you think this way, you shouldn't apply for a job at a startup. You need to be prepared that there is a good chance for you to not spend a minute with your family, nor to have a vacation, over next months/years.

This is 100% a ridiculous belief that investors try to cram into founders' heads so they can get more free labor (on top of the already-depressed salaries many investors already mandate). It is not good for your company to overwork its employees, even when the company is a startup.

Some flexibility re: crunch time or emergency changes is reasonable, some expectation of working some evenings here or there, but this belief that someone should go weeks, months, or years with minimal family or vacation time is bonkers. Only the desperate fall for it, and only the naive manager tries to enforce it.

Investors may promote it because they're effectively running the equivalent of a shiny sweatshop. Neither founders nor employees should accept this type of abuse.

My advice is to never take a job that even hints these are the expected working conditions.

>2. From what I learned, startups don't necessarily hire the best technical person. The are looking for the best motivated one. From what you write, it may appear that you are not really motivated/interested.

Again, this is a red flag for an employer you don't want to work for. Not everyone hires strictly based on technical merit, and that's fine -- culture fit is important. But if that culture's demands are that you work 65 hours a week for them and smile while doing it, you must run. These guys are not attracting real technical talent. They are attracting desperate collegiates looking for lottery tickets. Once you're no longer a desperate collegiate, you don't want those people to be your colleagues.

> Got rejected by, probably, 100 companies, and got only two offers. And not because I am a jerk or technically incompetent. It's just in most cases I was not really interested, and I believe people saw that. So, it looked really strange and unfortunate to me, but I totally understand why it happened, and don't blame anyone except for myself.

That you went to 100 interviews and got only 2 offers is a big red flag also. My experience is that good help will get an offer on a much higher portion of their interviews than that, maybe something between 30-50%? As stated previously perhaps you're just targeting the wrong companies, but if you're a skilled developer and you have a 2% offer rate, you are doing something seriously wrong. Maybe it's asking for too much for your skill level, maybe it's not washing well enough before the interview, I don't know what it is, but that's way low.

I'm not trying to take away from the sentiment that job seekers be prepared, good candidates, but it sounds like there's a lot about your approach that could do with some tweaking.

[csbubbles]

I am not an investor, but a startup founder. Please don't take it the wrong way, but I would have never hired a person who thinks the way you write. I am sure you are a great person, skilled and experienced technically, and all that stuff. But when you are trying to get a new business off the ground, you basically risk your whole life. If you surround yourself with people who don't share your beliefs and goals, who you can't rely on, who care about other things more than about building a successful business, you are totally doomed from the beginning. There is nothing wrong, by the way, with the way you treat such things. Most people on Earth are not entrepreneurs, so it's expected. The point was that if you think that way, you should never even think about joining a startup (at least not at the initial stage).

Regarding the skills, the motivation is much more important (I believe, at least). Say, if you don't know a thing about software engineering, but you love the industry the product targets at, and you are willing to learn, I would be happy to hire you and reject all the experienced engineers from Google, Facebook and other fancy companies who don't give a damn about the product, regardless of how skilled they are.

[kafkaesq]

If you surround yourself with people who ... care about other things more than about building a successful business

I've worked with all kinds of laggards, attitude cases and/or bona fide sociopaths my time; most are difficult to spot up front.

But show me someone who genuinely cares more about their employer's or their own business than their spouse and their children, and who hasn't done the only honorable thing to do once they've reached that point -- namely, to file for no-fault divorce and unambiguously hand over custody of said children to said spouse; along with a hefty trust fund for each kid -- then at least I'll know they'll be impossible to work for or with in any capacity, and inevitably a poison pill to any effective, sustainable organization.

In other words -- you're bluffing. No one (who isn't single and without kids) genuinely believes that you shouldn't "care about other things more than about building a successful business". Everyone knows that it's a balancing act -- it's just a question of how you tune the parameters.

But if you genuinely, literally believe that -- then do the world a favor, and put the following disclaimer on each and every job description you put out: "Please be advised that this position is not suitable for persons entrusted with the care of young children (or minors). And in any case, such persons will not be hired."

[csbubbles]

I've been married since 2003, and my daughter is 9 years old. And I do care about my business more than about my family.

[cookiecaper]

This is horrifyingly sad. Please erase evidence of this before the HN edit deadline expires and seek therapy. They offer it online now: try http://talkspace.com.

The impact you can have on the world through children is much bigger than the impact you can have through Yet-Another-Music-Startup. A typical child is going to influence generations. It will be hundreds of years before their significance fades, whether their influence is positive or negative. That is true for anyone who has kids. Be a positive influence.

I've personally heard of maybe 3 music startups and I know the names of 0 music-related founders. Most of these companies will exist for a few years and then dissipate, and that's fine. They will serve a function for a limited time and make some users happier, and perhaps provide a good living for their investors, founders, and employees. Then no one will remember them, and that is as it should be. Please come back down to earth.

While it's true that you won't become famous by raising good kids, the net effect is far superior for everyone than any corporate effort could be. Family support and encouragement at all levels (parents, spouses, siblings, children) is a pre-requisite, not a drain, that enables the world's visionaries to succeed. Successful relationships with a spouse and a child are (usually) maturing, perspective-broadening things that make people better workers, not worse ones.

I'm sure your investors would be very put off if they found these comments, not to mention your wife and daughter should they ever stumble across it. Please do yourself and the innocent people in your family a favor and fix not only these posts, but the attitude that birthed them.

[csbubbles]

I am afraid you are still not getting what I've been trying to explain. There might exist completely different perspectives and things can work differently for different people, different relationships, etc.

Not spending a lot of time with your family doesn't necessarily mean having bad relationship or having troubles with your relatives. Moreover, if your partners accept what you do and how it affects them (sometimes maybe in an unfortunate way), it actually can make your relationships much stronger.

What will happen with the next generations - no one knows. I think it's a bit irrelevant and idealistic. I live my own life. I want to make the best out of it. For myself, for my family, and for all the other people. What will happen after my life ends won't really matter for me (I am an atheist/agnostic). I am not saying we shouldn't invest our resources in the next generations, but instead of hoping on our kids and putting all the burden on them, I firmly believe we first should do whatever we can ourselves.

I am afraid your examples actually play against you. Steve Jobs (just off the top of my head) completely abandoned his family and built one of the greatest company of all times.

Please just try to get a bit out of your personal mindset and try to think and look at these things from a different angle. If something seems to be bad or wrong for you doesn't really mean that it's bad or wrong for everybody.

[kafkaesq]

Steve Jobs (just off the top of my head) completely abandoned his family and built one of the greatest company of all times.

Which he later came to regret, most profoundly:

Years later, after Jobs left Apple, he acknowledged Lisa and attempted to reconcile with her. Chrisann Brennan wrote that "he apologized many times over for his behavior" to her and Lisa and "said that he never took responsibility when he should have, and that he was sorry."[2]†

In general, you may want to re-visit the implicit principle on which you're operating: namely "Someone incredibly famous and widely admired for their achievements did highly contemptible thing X, that was plainly and unnecessarily hurtful to other people; therefore, it's OK if I do it."

As if it was ever necessary for Jobs to have turned his boak on his family in the flagrantly callous manner that he did in order for us to have the shiny gizmos that we hold in our hands today, in the first place. If anything, all it amounted to was a distraction and impediment towards those ends.

† https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Brennan-Jobs

[cookiecaper]

First, I want to commend you for remaining civil and calm on this very personal topic and recognizing that I'm not trying to attack your fundamental character. That does show that you have a lot of restraint and that you are good at processing the data before you critically and carefully. Most people aren't able to keep it together after a reply like mine.

I understand that you don't have to spend "a lot of" time with your family to have a good relationship with them. One of the most important roles to play in a family is that of breadwinner, which necessarily means that you will have to spend a lot of time out winning the bread. Though this prevents you from spending time with your family, it's an act of love for and in behalf of your family, and it's a good thing to do. So it's not just about not spending "a lot of" time with them.

You should spend some time with them, and they should be higher priority than a business venture. It is fine that you and your wife have an understanding, but I think your phraseology may be cockeyed. A family should never be second-best. It is always worth the time. When you say your family is less important, it evokes images of letting your wife die alone in the ER after an accident so that you can keep making cold calls. Your family should be top priority, which doesn't mean you have to spend every waking hour physically with them -- it just means everything you do should be first and foremost in their service. That includes commercial endeavors, but is not limited to them. Balance must be achieved.

I finished reading Ed Catmull's Creativity Inc. last night. The book ends with an afterword in which Catmull, who spent a quarter-century working closely with Steve Jobs at Pixar, discusses the unfair treatment that Steve receives in the media. He lamented that everyone wants to immortalize Steve in his early, immature days, the days when he was a hothead and would behave questionably. That's the Steve we always hear about, but according to Catmull, Steve matured hugely between the start of their relationship and his death. Catmull explicitly ascribes that maturity, the maturity that allowed him to do his best work and revitalize Apple, to Steve's family. Once he started caring about his family and paying more attention to his 3 kids, they helped him learn how to be a better leader, a better manager. How to be kinder and more mindful.

Even tech's best-known example of a deadbeat dad wasn't able to achieve his dreams until his family issues were fixed. Remember, despite young Steve's obvious talent and vision, he was forced out because he was brash and off-balance. After 15 years of additional maturity and growth, which, again, Catmull attributes directly to Steve's improved relationships with his wife and children, he was able to come back to Apple and finally make the lasting impact he envisioned.

After finishing Creativity, Inc. I went to Pixar's web site and clicked around. The only video I watched was from director Brad Bird. He was talking about how hard it is to be a director and how there are many conflicting demands. And he said, "I'm a much better director since having kids; they teach you how to stay calm". First and only video I watched. Not searching it out in any way. No indication that children would be mentioned before I clicked. And here again, just in one night, the second substantial evidence I encountered that caring for children makes workers better.

You have to get this right. Whatever you think you're going to do in the commercial world, it can't be second fiddle to your deep-seated psychological and biological needs for family, belonging, and so forth. I understand you are probably going to say that some people just don't need that kind of thing, to which I say, baloney. Surely some people end up not having that kind of thing, but the evidence is clear: a healthy family life (which includes prioritizing family as the 1st priority) makes workers better, not worse. Family is a pre-requisite to doing one's best work, not an afterthought.

Companies come and go. Maybe you'll get sued into bankruptcy, or maybe you won't (as a music startup, you probably will). Your family is permanent. It is static. It is stable. The economy can't change it. What you do or don't do is going to affect your wife and your children not only for the rest of their natural lives, but for the lives of tens of thousands of their descendants over the next few hundred years. You need to get your head on right and acknowledge that fame and accreditation are fleeting and stupid, and they don't make a real impact. They can't outdo biology.

Your family needs to come first.

[kafkaesq]

While it's true that you won't become famous by raising good kids, the net effect is far superior for everyone than any corporate effort could be.

One of the key lessons of our time, one should hope.

[cookiecaper]

I'm an entrepreneur too. I'm indicating that the philosophy you're sharing serves only the investors, and that's why they try to ingrain it into naive or inexperienced founders.

There is a problem when you allow your work to consume everything. Things are out of balance. That's true no matter how small or big the company is. It's not healthy for the founders or the employees to behave that way.

This isn't to say that one shouldn't spend a lot of time working on stuff or that strict insistence on a 40-hour week is always appropriate, but there is more to life than work, even when you're trying to get a startup off the ground!

Some equilibrium must be maintained, for the sanity of all. Specifically, delaying important familial developments like marriage and children or spending so much time engrossed in work that you become negligent of your familial responsibilities is absolutely an unfair trade, no matter how rich you get from the startup lottery (and realistically, you'll probably get 0 rich, which makes neglecting permanent, irrevocable relationships like family even less intelligent).

I understand that you disagree and would avoid hiring someone who is interested in work-life balance, and that's fine, but my belief is that this attitude is not good and you're not going to get good people with it. It artificially constrains your selection of talent to the naive and/or the desperate, neither of which make a good foundation for a company.

[csbubbles]

There are some valid points in what you are saying. But they all depend very much on tons of personal things. E.g., on your relationship with your spouse and kids. I probably got lucky, and my wife understands what I am doing and why, and why I don't spend a lot of time with her. She just accepts it, and we've been together for 13 years already. Or, say, if you enjoy doing whatever you are doing more than anything else.

I am not saying that all people should follow that. Again, my point was that there are people who try starting/running a business, who are in love with what they are doing, whom you may even call insane to a certain extent, and who expect to find (at least at early stages) people who completely share their goals, vision and beliefs. And who won't hire a person who thinks that there are things more important, regardless of whether it's their family or a weekend hiking.

I've read while ago that founders of some startup (AirBnb?) had spent about half a year to hire their first employee, and the question they typically asked the candidates was "Would you take the job if you knew you would die in a year?", or something like that. So, I personally understand and share that approach completely. As you can see, at least I am not the only person who treat these things that way.

And, again, I am not saying that it's for everyone, but people should keep in mind that it can totally be the case when they apply for a job at a startup. People are different. I agree that most of them feel about life same way you do - treating their families or some personal hobbies as higher priorities. But not all of them. Some people approach their lives differently.