[mjolk]

edit: Wow, I've gotten some negative responses and I'm not sure why. This isn't a "how can I exploit people" question, it's about making sure my interview process doesn't accidentally result in people that will be unhappy. It takes a lot to compete with incumbents and agreeing to work for a startup is the algebra of pros/cons.

> I have had startups expect more then the typical 40 hours a week, and yep, I burned out pretty fast.

I'm the head of an early stage startup and have a favor to ask: can you give me advice on how to detect someone with your 40-hours-or-I'll-be-unhappy mindset? I've never heard a candidate employee express anything close to "I'm in at 9AM and expect to be out by 5:30", even if shortly down the road, it becomes clear that they feel their work/life balance is being infringed upon.

I don't mean this in any negative way and I envy people that aren't boolean in or out, but people that would feel burned out on 5x10h days (+ sometimes a quick Sunday Slack session) aren't good fits _right now_ for my team. Reliable "I do my 40, put in good work, and I'll be here for years" people are _great_ for much later stage (post-IPO, for instance), but it would deeply bother me if I found out one of my workers was feeling burned out/demotivated.

[alkonaut]

Seriously just hire 5 people instead of 4. You have 125% right there and the fact that you aren't burning out people means you'll have less employee turnover. THAT's what costing you. Not people working 40h. You'll get better people for your money by being clear that even though it's a young, growing startup, work/life balance is valued. A single key person burnt out or unhappy will cost you more productivty than those extra nights and evenings ever could.

> It it would deeply bother me if I found out one of my workers was feeling burned out/demotivated.

Then make sure people don't overwork. If something happens with a deploy that means people had to work late on thursday, then make sure they are compensated with time off.

> how to detect someone with your 40-hours-or-I'll-be-unhappy mindset

Yes. Here is how: if they aren't unhappy about working a lot then they are inexperienced. Another tell is if they have a family. In your situation, don't hire anyone with kids. Their kids will thank you. and those people don't want to work for you anyway.

The problem is you can't afford to make your company an evening pizza 27 year old bromance company because you likely can't cut out that much of the talent pool without it costing you.

Also: I don't mind people working a lot if compensated well. I could certainly have worked a ton of hours for a period of my life (before kids etc) but I would have been pretty annoyed had I accepted an offer at a company and later found out that the offer was for an expected 50h and not 40h. Don't have people come and waste time at your interview without knowing what the situation is.

[logfromblammo]

There was a time in my life when I was willing to go through the entire interview process only to reject the offer demanding 45h work weeks. There was even a time when I would ask about hours per week up front and walk away from answers I didn't like.

Now, I'll say point blank that if you're telling your salaried employees to work more than an average of 40 hours a week, you're just an asshole. Even more so than if you're just saying those who would otherwise be skilled wage laborers are salaried exempt as a dodge around relevant labor laws.

The only people who should be living at the office are those with an actual, significant equity stake in the success of the company.

Here's how you detect 40h-or-unhappy. First, check to see if the person has a normal, cocaine-free, methamphetamine-free pulse rate. Then, pat them down and check their pockets for fully vested stock in your company. If you find the first, and not the second, that person will be unhappy working extra-long hours for your benefit.

Parent is absolutely correct. Paying fewer people to work longer hours will absolutely cost you more in the long run. Just hire another person.

[laughfactory]

Yep, this is right on the money. Very few people actually want to work more than 40. Most who I know would kill to work less, even if paid proportionally less.

That said, I always try to get a sense of expectations in interviews. I don't care if it makes me look like a clock watcher (I'm not). I ask about how the hiring manager works and if they expect their employees to adopt a similar schedule. Or I ask about what the work life balance is like. That kind of thing.

I work to live, not the other way around. I don't want to be just another person who works their ass off until 65 or 70 and then finally gets to retire, only to be dead within a year or two.

[mjolk]

> Seriously just hire 5 people instead of 4.

That's actually a lot easier said then done at an early stage startup for reasons of talent and compensation.

> The problem is you can't afford to make your company an evening pizza 27 year old bromance company because you likely can't cut out that much of the talent pool without it costing you.

Wow, wait? We're not a "bromance company" and I'm not even sure how to respond to this and I think it's vaguely insulting.

> Also: I don't mind people working a lot if compensated well.

We're very clear with compensation and living wage and actual equity is something we make sure is on the table.

> I could certainly have worked a ton of hours for a period of my life (before kids etc) but I would have been pretty annoyed had I accepted an offer at a company and later found out that the offer was for an expected 50h and not 40h. Don't have people come and waste time at your interview without knowing what the situation is.

This is really important to me and I make sure the candidate actually knows what he/she is getting into.

This is exactly why I wrote:

"I've never heard a candidate employee express anything close to "I'm in at 9AM and expect to be out by 5:30", even if shortly down the road, it becomes clear that they feel their work/life balance is being infringed upon."

The problem isn't that I'm trying to hustle people, it's that people tend to agree to situations they don't actually want when interviewing.

[alkonaut]

> Wow, wait? We're not a "bromance company" and I'm not even sure how to respond to this and I think it's vaguely insulting.

Sorry, no offense intended - I was reading between the lines. Basically if you expect people to be able to always stay after hours, then you are excluding pretty much everyone with a family for example.

It risks creating the typical monoculture of guys (yes unfortunately) between 25 and 35.

People have different ambitions and different needs. The time when I could stay at an office to 6PM is over. I might be willing to do it again in 15 years but now I'm expected to put dinner on the table at 6. A ton of people are in this situation, much too many to ignore even for a startup. They might not seem like a good fit for your phase of startup but I think that mode of thought is counterproductive. A varied set of people will be best. That also means you'll have people with different needs. Cater to those needs and be open with expectations.

Needing people to occasionally work more is normal. Even having an emergency meeting on a Sunday is normal. Just be clear with what the situation is, what is expected, and make sure that the plan is to never have 50h weeks or weekend meetings. The problem is having the "constant crunch time" culture.

> I've never heard a candidate employee express anything close to "I'm in at 9AM and expect to be out by 5:30"

Not sure I understood the problem here, was it that you would have preferred that to surface in the interview, but it didn't, which caused friction down the line when someone turned out to not want to work more than 40h weeks?

[mjolk]

> It risks creating the typical monoculture of guys (yes unfortunately) between 25 and 35.

Oh yeah, totally. My motivation for asking was to make sure we don't end up in a monoculture of people that stick around after being surprised by the startup grind. That won't work for our business as we _need_ a mix of people, backgrounds, interests to really make it work (opposed to say, a hft/fintech platform, where diversity of thought/life experience isn't crucial).

> A ton of people are in this situation, much too many to ignore even for a startup. They might not seem like a good fit for your phase of startup but I think that mode of thought is counterproductive.

Yeah, it's definitely hard. Funding is limited and early stage is about maximizing the value of capital and speed of validating assumptions, and unfortunately, that often means preclusive criteria for people that need to leave "on time" regularly. Not saying it's right, but that's the reality of most startups.

I want to actively combat the bias of just short circuiting to people that are 22-30 and probably without kids, which means being able to have the conversation of "hey, please don't say this expectation is fine if it's not" and knowing how to tell if someone says it's fine for the sake of getting an offer, but it's actually not.

> Needing people to occasionally work more is normal. Even having an emergency meeting on a Sunday is normal. Just be clear with what the situation is, what is expected, and make sure that the plan is to never have 50h weeks or weekend meetings. The problem is having the "constant crunch time" culture.

The first 5 you hire are basically hopping into constant crunch with you, which is why their equity should be the carrot to make the stick worthwhile.

I think I rubbed people the wrong way or reminded them of a negative employer, but a weekend meeting for us is a few lines on Slack that essentially serves the purpose of "hey, so I decompressed and reflected, and here's where I'm thinking for this week. is this reasonable?"

I don't call meetings without a purpose and I _definitely_ don't want this to be the norm after we grow.

> Not sure I understood the problem here, was it that you would have preferred that to surface in the interview, but it didn't, which caused friction down the line when someone turned out to not want to work more than 40h weeks?

This is exactly it. If a candidate expressed this, I would say "okay, thank you for your time, I hope you're available when we know we can respect this."

[El_Oso]

I think this has a bit to do with the song-and-dance ritualization of the hiring process. Employers and employees can both get caught up in saying things they think the other side wants to hear, and when one side presents a question that the other side receives as signalling--you may say "We expect you to work as long as necessary to meet deadlines, even if that's until 10pm or later" and they may hear the stock "Are you a hard worker"--they do what they always have done: signal back the appropriate response.

I think it's appropriate to be very explicit. Call out the issue. Tell them you aren't signalling. Tell them you really mean what you say, and that if they're going to get burned out from that, then your shop isn't the place for them.

I think based on your responses you have the right attitude.

[alkonaut]

> We expect you to work as long as necessary to meet deadlines, even if that's until 10pm or later"

I think the song-and-dance is very much the problem. Just be explicit. If you want a company that has 50h weeks as norm, then say that (It's insane though). But saying "we expect you to work as long as it takes to meet deadline" is terrible. I'd certainly agree to work more at crunch time - but when is crunch time? how often? The problem is the culture of permanent crunch time.

Be open as a candidate too. I might say

"I'm fine with working a 50h week when required, unless it is the norm. Is it usually OK to do a 30h week the week after such a week?"

The response to that might indicate whether the employer was hoping to see me there for permanent crunch time or not.

[mjolk]

> Employers and employees can both get caught up in saying things they think the other side wants to hear.. I think it's appropriate to be very explicit. Call out the issue. Tell them you aren't signalling. Tell them you really mean what you say, and that if they're going to get burned out from that, then your shop isn't the place for them.

You nailed it. The problem is that even when being explicit in expectations, candidates will still try to get that offer, even if it's not the right fit at that time. It's really hard to tell if someone means it when they say "oh, that's fine." I think startups have a certain glamour that masks the reality and people see interviews as tests, not conversations.

Further, I'd love to keep that person in the pipeline -- employee happiness and feeling valued is huge for me, so if that person needs to come in at 10 because they need to drop a kid off at school, I can respect that, and hope he/she is available when we can accommodate it.

> I think based on your responses you have the right attitude.

I really appreciate you saying this.

[ThrowawayR2]

> I'm the head of an early stage startup and have a favor to ask: can you give me advice on how to detect someone with your 40-hours-or-I'll-be-unhappy mindset?

-Anyone over the age of 25

-Anyone with a spouse or family or has normal non-work hobbies or interests

-Anyone with pre-existing health or stress issues

-Anyone who thinks that getting burned-out is a bad idea

Hope this helps. /s

[crgt]

I have 3 kids, survived cancer 2x, am almost 40 and work 50 hrs+/week. I enjoy the work..

[laughfactory]

How are you going to feel if the third time isn't the charm, and you're laying on your death bed thinking about all that work you were doing rather than spending time with your family. Work won't miss you, but your kids will.

[crgt]

It's interesting the assumptions you make about when I see my kids, how much I see my kids and how I balance that with a job I deeply enjoy. Also interesting to see the assumptions made about what kind of people are passionate enough to work more than 40 hours a week. My only point in commenting was to help people challenge their false assumptions. Trust me, I've stared death in the eye, and had a tube hanging out of me for weeks. I am at peace with my priorities - and I spend lots of quality time with my children, thanks for your concern.

[mjolk]

I don't know why you're being sarcastic, but I actually wanted to make sure I don't bring someone on to be unhappy.

People over 25 can work more than 40 hours and not get burned out. I feel that you just want to make me out to be a bad guy, so I'm not sure it's worth writing a longer response.

[jressey]

These people who like to work as little as possible are called human beings. Sorry, but you have unreasonable expectations for your team.

Think about it. You are asking human beings to make personal sacrifices for no personal gain, but for the sole purpose of making your dream a reality.

Honestly, I think you need to find people who find emotional shelter at work, so you could ask if there is any personal trauma they are trying to avoid.

You could also consider hiring hourly.

[phil21]

> Honestly, I think you need to find people who find emotional shelter at work, so you could ask if there is any personal trauma they are trying to avoid.

This is actually great insight I've never heard before. When I threw myself into 18 hour days 7 days a week it absolutely was an attempt to avoid personal trauma.

Better than a drug addiction I suppose in that it got me places, but probably damaging in many of the same ways.

[mjolk]

I'm considering what you say, but it doesn't ring true to my interpersonal experiences at all.

> Think about it. You are asking human beings to make personal sacrifices for no personal gain, but for the sole purpose of making your dream a reality.

My team has (real) equity and I like to believe they see the worth of the product. What attracted me to startups when I entered the game was the sense of ownership and agency in projects. That and work can/should come with a sense of reward.

> so you could ask if there is any personal trauma they are trying to avoid.

I think this would be somewhat inappropriate to ask "hey, so do you put in extra hours because you don't feel whole?". Everyone I work with knows they can come to me, even if he/she needs to take his/her house keys and to go to a second location to chat.

> You could also consider hiring hourly.

There's room for hourly consultants, but that hardly makes a team.

[sgt101]

>There's room for hourly consultants, but that hardly makes a team.

nor does 5*10 + Sunday.

[jressey]

You may be an exceptional case. I do know people that are unreasonably driven, but it's always been for their own success.

> My team has (real) equity and I like to believe they see the worth of the product.

Hey, if you're 'paying' them for their time and they believe their equity is valuable, whether it is or not, sounds like everybody wins.

> What attracted me to startups when I entered the game was the sense of ownership and agency in projects. That and work can/should come with a sense of reward.

That to me sounds like someone who's been had by a capitalistic culture. Unless you're a winner, then good for you.

[bitwize]

> My team has (real) equity and I like to believe they see the worth of the product.

You're paying your team in Bison Dollars: their compensation has value if and only if the world-domination scheme goes off without a hitch. But that's a big if. The value of the product won't be clear until it goes to market, but the value of the time they put in is lost forever irrespective of the market value of your finished product. Meanwhile, your team's landlords won't accept that equity as rent payment.

[halbritt]

Unless they're a founder, the amount of equity you're giving them, no matter how much, is insufficient to ask someone to regularly work more than 40 hours a week.

Sorry man, it just doesn't work. People will do it, mostly young people. You can take advantage of that, but guess what, that makes you an asshole.

If my employees can't get their work done in 40 hours, then they aren't planning their work effectively. If, as a manager and a leader, I have a duty and a responsibility for the success of my team, then I must make them have a reasonable work/life balance.

I've known a ton of people happy to work until they were quickly burned out, but their output was usually a bunch of sound and fury representing nothing.

[st3v3r]

"My team has (real) equity"

So does every other startup. Most of the time it either amounts to nothing, or is dilluted away.

"What attracted me to startups when I entered the game was the sense of ownership and agency in projects. That and work can/should come with a sense of reward."

How do I pay my rent with a sense of reward?

[gerbilly]

> How do I pay my rent with a sense of reward?

Reminds me of trying to pay rent with Exposure!

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/exposure

[lr4444lr]

Try this - start from the end: assume "40 hours or I'll be unhappy" is everybody, and consider realistically if your company IPO-ed and this person cashed in the options you'll give him, would the rest of his life be materially better, risk adjusted for that IPO ever becoming a reality, for every day of the week you make him unhappy as a fraction of the total days in a year?

[gerbilly]

So to paraphrase, you are asking HN: "How can I detect which workers are easiest to exploit?"

I don't know your exact situation, but extrapolating from experiences at early stage startups I worked at:

1) Hire more people. Instead of asking people to give 110%, hire 1.10⨉ the number of people.

2) Give employees the same stock (in the same class as the founders) not some second class options.

3) Get organized. A lot of crunch time occurs because tasks are not well defined, dependencies not identified etc... And write things down, that way you can read a document instead of bothering someone on vacation to ask a question.

[mr_tristan]

Just let them know early on in clear terms: "This is an early stage startup, and we're very likely going to need everyone to work beyond traditional hours."

It really is that simple.

But you have to understand that some people don't honestly know if they want to work those kinds of hours until they do it. So you will have turnover because of burnout.

FYI, I did have prior experience in a startup. I thought it would be fun to do another one. I guess age just got me turned off to the bullshit. I was not excited to have to respond to silly questions like "what are some alternative ways of using gradle for automating builds" over the weekend. If we're working 60+ hour workweeks taking time off from dating to answer questions related to development process, not the core product direction, is not the sort of shit that's going to keep many people involved.

So, a lot of experienced people will probably be turned off by being asked to work a lot, because, hey, the older you get, the more of a life you probably have. You can probably tell by the amount of down votes you've received, the "we're going to need to work overtime" message is not an easy one to stomach. So, if you need experienced people, be prepared to spend big, and make sure they've got real autonomy. Someone who's been around the block is not going to care as much about your equity, and will lose confidence in you much faster as things don't take off.

[kojeovo]

>This isn't a "how can I exploit people" question, it's about making sure my interview process doesn't accidentally result in people that will be unhappy.

Have you considered that even those people that think they are game to work a lot will end up unhappy because of biology? We aren't made to put in 10 hour days with a Sunday slack session before getting back into it on Monday.

[fwefwwfe]

You mean doing nothing but chatting on Sunday for 30 mins if they don't have any conflicting plans? I bet most people would be fine with that for an otherwise great job. A quick chat that's not so quick and also involves doing work before or after it, not so much. So how honest are you being here?

[VLM]

He's buying those peoples creative juices which only recharge away from work and he wants to cut down production by 50% LOL.

[mjolk]

> So how honest are you being here?

Dead honest. I mean a quick async-okay-if-from-phone "hey, here's what I have lined up for this week, can you tell me if this is unreasonable from your perspective" exchange.

[laughfactory]

On Sunday? Not happening. Ever. Weekends are off limits, particularly since having kids. Man, I hate meetings enough during the work week, and you wanna have one on the weekend? Even if it's short, or over the phone, or via email, or slack, or whatever, it's still a work intrusion. I personally think the weekend should be four days a week, and damn near sacred.