I don't like this kind of article that presumes that their readers have a choice in this matter. Reminds me of a friend of mine who once naively advised me to only take a job at a company that I would invest my own money in. I said are you kidding me? I've been grinding for months and failing interviews left and right just to get this job and you're telling me don't do it because it's not Google or something?<p>A huge portion of humans don't have the luxury to say "hmmmm, this startup is ok but myyyeehhh, I kinda like this one better, err idk maybe i'll just go to GiantCorp". I took jobs because they paid me to write code. The story is probably the same for 90% of humans who are doing the best they can in their own situations.<p>Oh yeah, and the crappy companies I wrote code for years ago? Those are the places that gave me a foundation for a successful career as a programmer. I absolutely could not have done it without them because they were actually willing to invest a little bit in me-- which (in my experience) might not have happened, even at megacorps or unicorn startups.
As controversial as his points are, I feel like Michael O. Church really nails this hypothesis. Startup CEOs are not CEOs in any meaningful sense. Startup CEOs are our equivalent of what division vice-presidents were in the '50s and '60s. They're executives with a certain level of autonomy, to be sure, but they're hardly the independent mavericks that the rhetoric around startups would have you believe. Just like VPs in the old corporate conglomerates were ultimately answerable to the CEO, now our startup "CEOs" are answerable to the VC-appointed boards of directors.<p>In fact, if you squint your eyes a little, a modern Silicon Valley VC firm looks an awful lot like a corporate conglomerate from the '60s (e.g. 3M).
I think the author raises some important and valuable advice that applies to anyone/everyone. It certainly has me wondering about my motives for building a company.<p>But, equally I feel the author is speaking of the go-big-or-go-home model of "startups", not the slow-growth or lifestyle approaches that one could alternatively take. When you don't have to impress investors, you can approach things differently. Deadlines are more up to you, and customers are more supportive as long as you're taking care of them.<p>Customers want a product that solves their problems and requires as little thought as possible to use(at least in Software). VC's want a significant return on their investment. Both have money, but only one of them will continually give you money. Which would you rather aim for?<p>Anyway, I think its worth reflecting on how the startup will fit into your life, and what kinda time you will put into it. It doesn't HAVE to be 80 hours a week. Doesn't even need to be 40. Success is up to you to define; unless you're playing with someone else's money.<p>Personally, my goal is rent. If I can build something that can earn me enough money to always cover my monthly rent, that's success for me. Anything beyond that is icing on the cake.
<i>There was no mention of what his hypothetical company would do, what problem it would solve for people. His goal was business for the sake of business. </i><p>I think it's perfectly valid to want to get into business for its own sake, and not because you have a 'passion' for a specific area. It worked for Richard Branson.<p>The 'find what you love/do what you love' mantra is an invention of our time.
If a startup insists that it will play by existing rules, it usually does not stand much of a chance, even though there are a few notable exceptions. So, the way to go about things, is to do something that clearly breaks the rules, but that is also virtually impossible to shut down. Something like Napster well done. Young people should even be more willing to do that. Furthermore, there are 200+ countries, most of which are powerless to do anything at all. If nobody is going to be pissed off with your startup, it will probably not be a home run.
I still believe that for recent graduates looking to begin their career, there is no better option than to join an early-stage startup. Admittedly, it's like buying a lottery ticket, but if you win you can win very big and give your career a massive boost. On the other hand, if you lose you have still gained valuable career experience equal to or greater than what you could have gained at "GiantCorp". More importantly, early stage startups offer employees a broad but shallow understanding of businesses, versus GiantCorp's narrow but deep understanding. This is important for young employees who may not be 100% sure what they would like to specialize in yet.