The settlers / pioneers thing is one of the oldest tropes in existence.<p>The truth is there is no formula for generations of employees anymore than there is a formula that makes sure startups are successful, <i>and</i> each type of startup requires different talent at different times and as their markets transition and they transition to meet them.<p>This is useful for building a framework that facilitates <i>making changes</i> which is beyond important in a startup.<p>Too often, one sees companies limited by the founding SVP of operations or whatever who was fantastic at 10 people, good at 25, but not scaling well at 100, but they are so locked in you can’t change things. Being able to change things as you discover customer and scaling needs is the real secret: <i>and</i> staying laser focused on serving that customer demand whatever “generations” are required of it no matter what arbitrary management theory you apply.<p>After all the main reasons companies fail is product market fit failure or a failure to adapt to a changing and maturing market, not whether they cycled through three generations of people or whatever on the way to get there.
I find that I'm becoming really averse to this sort of content. It's popular because it has a level of truth to it, but it's a tiny sliver of truth that leaves out a much larger picture. That's true of a lot of quippy, attention optimized content, and I don't think all of it is bad. But I read the responses to this post on X and I wonder what utility it actually provides. It seems like it's mainly acting as a vessel for peoples' feelings and past workplace traumas.
> Startups tend to have 3 generations of employees<p>> 1. The 1st batch: A random mix of talented and mediocre people.<p>> 2. The pioneers: The nights and weekends crew who believe in the mission.<p>> 3. The settlers: The 9 to 5 crew who are attracted by the success the pioneers created.<p>Why do the pioneers come after the first "random mix"? My experience has been the opposite.