[Peroni]

5. Be clear about wanting to work for someone else

I think this particular point requires a bit more emphasis. I work for a large development company that requires me to source the top technical talent in the UK. A significant number of highly talented individuals are currently running their own start-ups which is understandable. Regardless of how brilliant a developer may be, that's not a guarantee of success and there will come a point where some of those startups fail and the founders will have to go find a 'regular job'.

The number one concern I have when I'm in discussions with a failed startup founder is how long they will stick with us before coming up with another brilliant idea and leaving us to go give it another shot.

I'm more likely to relax when a potential employee tells me that for the next couple of years they simply want to focus on a 'regular job' and maybe revisit the startup idea further down the line. Unfortunately the onus is almost entirely on the developer/start-up founder to place the employers mind at ease.

[sjtgraham]

Steve, does it really matter? Even if a super-talented developer only stays with you for say 6-12 months surely they would deliver enough value in that time to not make it a huge concern? Also, let's flip the question on its head, if a company can't hold on to talented, entrepreneurial staff, is it indicative of a problem with the staff or with the company? What's the common denominator here?

What is better? Being fortunate enough to have a super smart person come on board, deliver a large amount of value, and then leave after a short period; or a less talented developer delivering lower quality work, at a lower velocity over a longer period?

I'm not sure talented but flighty people are a problem. Once they're in the door, it's the company's job to make sure their staff are happy and want to stay rather than moan about it.

[Peroni]

6-12 months is plenty of time for a talented dev to have a big impact but I'd much rather hire them on a contract basis than a permanent basis in that circumstance.

Regardless of how adept a company is at retaining their best talent, you will never be able to compete with the appeal of running your own business and being your own boss.

[modoc]

That depends greatly on how deep the domain knowledge at your company is, and the level of investment you make in your employees. If it takes 3 months for a new hire to even start being mostly productive (more than 50% productive and less than 50% drain on mentors' time) and 6+ months before they're really productive (90+/10-%), then the equation is very different. If you invest $10,000/year in employee training and development, you don't really want people leaving after 6-12 months, etc...

yes a company should provide a good atmosphere and have employees who want to stay, but if you're coming in the door with the plan to get paid for 6 months and then quit and try another startup.... then you'd be a net loss for me to hire

[jmaskell]

I got this a lot. I think it was the cause of me not getting a few job offers. It's good to pre-empt the concern and be clear about wanting to take what you learnt on to another project.

What I found hardest was trying to explain that I also didn't want the stress and emotional ride of running a company for a while - without coming across as lazy or unmotivated.

[Peroni]

Your last point is a great litmus test. Startups are stressful and emotional by nature, not to mention the ridiculous time commitment required.

Any company that fails to empathise with that is a company worth avoiding.

[SatvikBeri]

I found it helpful to say I wanted to spend at least 50% of my more time focusing on (programming/statistics/marketing/whatever the role was for), as compared to the very generalist role you have to play when owning your own business.

The emotional roller coaster is somewhat implicit in this, as some roles (e.g. customer-facing ones) are much more emotionally demanding than others.