[kypro]

Imo no. Early stage startups should to be ruthless and should demand employees that are obsessive perfectionists in addition to being excellent executers. They also need to be capable of handling high levels of workplace stress and adapting to new situations.

Lots of people like the idea of working for a startup, but very few are well suited for it. It's why I think probation periods for employees in startups are essential and if an employee underperforms in the first month they should be cut.

The place I'm working at right now is about as far as you can get from a startup, but simply managing crappy devs on our team takes up about half of my day. It's fine given what I'm doing, but I wouldn't personally be okay with wasting time like that at a startup, and I'd probably quit myself if it wasn't addressed.

But there are no hard rules here. The startup might be fine if the business plan is solid and rest of the team can compensate for the under performers. But either way you'd still be better off without them.

You'll have to decide if prioritising the success of the company is more important than being nice. I personally I wouldn't like the odds of a startup that's aware half of its employees are underperforming but can't do what's needed. And if you're building the company with other people's money I'd argue you're also being negligent with your investors' capital.

[quickthrower2]

What is in it for early starters working at a start up? Lower pay, more demands, more stress, probably get shafted on options terms, and they have to be the kinds of people who can probably be the founders of their own thing?

[kypro]

If you're in it for the pay and work-life balance then nothing generally speaking. Working for a very early stage startup should be difficult. You'd be silly to expect job security and you should assume hard and long hours.

The reason I sometimes join them is because I personally find it far more interesting than a corporate gig. The reason I'm here writing this comment and the reason I work in tech is because I've always been interested in tech startups.

The way I've always saw it is that typically within a year (or maybe two) the company will likely have failed and you can move on to something else, or if you're lucky the company will have found its market fit and you should then perhaps expect to be move fairly compensated for your work, and if you're not you'll have a lot of bargaining power within the company.

If you're very lucky, then you'll get to ride the coattails of the success of the company, both in terms of having a likely leadership position in the company and in terms of stock options.

It's high risk / high reward. Take it or leave it.

[quickthrower2]

Thanks. I get that. I think that is why I prefer smaller companies. I find bigger companies usually can’t keep the work interesting but there are some exceptions where teams are carved out.

[gtirloni]

> You'll have to decide if prioritising the success of the company is more important than being nice

There's nothing to decide. OP said they are not in a position of power to fire those employees.

I've been in this situation and no amount of taking to founders helped. Maybe OP is in a different position but unless they were brought in to fix something urgent, I doubt the founders actually think there's a problem at all.

In my situation, I realized I was fighting up and down with people that didn't see the problem or didn't care so I just stopped. There's no point in trying to "fix" something nobody sees as a problem. Either you compromise your quality and get with the program or you just quit.

[asilia]

Thank you both for your input.

@gtirloni can you share more about your experiences talking to founders? Did they just disagree with you that there was a problem at all?