Summary: Working in a really bad start-up is less good than working in a really good corporate environment.
There are shitty, corrupt, nepotistic, lying corporations and there are also sterling start-ups. The world's not black and white.
There are shitty, corrupt, nepotistic, lying corporations and there are also sterling start-ups. The world's not black and white.
That said, the author of the post works only in the LA area, so I think all his experience has been with media-oriented startups. I have a feeling there's a higher degree of frat boy douchiness in that world. San Francisco startups tend to have a more placid, nerdy, bike-rack-in-the-lobby atmosphere, although they can ultimately be just as cruel.
Private company shares are very risky.
Also beware offers of significant amounts of stock in exchange for sticking around for an acquisition. The investors likely know the company won't reach its liquidation preference and thus whatever shares they give you are actually worthless.
When someone at a big company is conveniently let go before their green card is approved or that big bonus is paid out, it isn't a "firing," but a "layoff" as the company "right-sizes." Bad bosses abuse underlings when they think the job market lets them get away with it and will not hesitate to punish those who step out of line.
Come to think of it, I've seen everything you describe at some of the many Fortune 500 companies I've consulted at. Sadly, human nature defies corporate size, and bad behavior can even creep into very big companies.
Whether those checks function well or not, there's usually nothing you can do about an irrational or abusive CEO or VP/Eng at a startup.
That goes only for the USA. Sorry to touch that topic, but it's true.
Hmm, Oddly enough, I think that laws on sexism, racism and reasonable behavior by employers actually influences their behavior. There may still be sexist attitudes, say, at a large company but the norm is to make a serious effort prevent them. Believe it or not but laws actually matter... Laws don't prevent bad behavior but they certainly mitigate it. Also, I suspect that one sees bad behavior most often the very top of the large corporations, since those with the most power are naturally mostly likely see themselves as above anyone's else's laws. But the top of a large company is a small area compared to the vast middle.
You can't do that with a tiny startup because there's not enough to sue for.
In the USA you'd be right, in Europe or Asia much less so.
Sure, there is no guarantee this won't change, but there is no reason to believe you can't vet for founder or team quality at least initially.
And if/when the dynamic changes, quit. It is true that as an employee in a startup you don't usually have much control over how much you make from your options. But you do always have a choice - whether to continue working there or quit.
I've seen really nice people turn into absolute jerks as the success of their company went to their heads.
Yeah, shit happens. But what you want to vet for is what this guy experienced. Ethics, loyalty, temper, commitment, smarts, cooperation, etc. That doesn't guarantee that you won't have a bad experience, but it helps a lot.
If you go into ANY job knowing nothing about your employer/manager/leader other than what you read on their web site and heard about in the interview, you're doing yourself a disservice. Going into a startup like that is like a professional equivalent of a mail order bride.
Also, while there are shitty bigco's out there, you can switch bigco's with less career friction than you can switch startups. You have lots of choices, and a lot more information about company culture with bigco's; the founders of a startup probably can't reliably tell you what the culture's going to be like next year.
The pay can be lower in return for 'options', but whether or not those options are ever going to be worth anything depends on how the company is run and how ethical the management will be when vesting and/or buyout time comes around.
It's not rare for small time shareholders to be totally screwed in that case.
A good way to protect against such trouble is to make sure that a mid sized shareholder and your interests are suitably aligned.
That way you're not the only one fighting, and the other party has a lot more clout to make their point than you do. So if you're going to be in that position make sure your type of stock and conditions match that of a larger shareholder.