TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Ask HN: Founders whose startups failed, do you experience bias in interviews?

19 点作者 massung超过 10 年前
Over the past few years I&#x27;ve been seeing a steady increase in the number of resumes that pass in front of my eyes that have the last job experience at 1-2 years with the title &quot;CEO&quot; or &quot;President&quot; and this very much signals &quot;failed startup&quot;.<p>Several of us who are part of the hiring process (note: we&#x27;re all programmers) find ourselves having to try and ignore certain biases we&#x27;ve been noticing:<p>&quot;Oh, failed company, they must not be very good...&quot;<p>&quot;Is someone who&#x27;s used to being boss of the company going to handle taking orders?&quot;<p>etc. And the bias appears to be worse the older the applicant is (that&#x27;s just a gut feel, I have no data to back that up).<p>Obviously these are false, and we take time to stop and remind each other of the many quality traits a startup founder brings (and the experiences a failed one brings as well!).<p>But, I&#x27;m curious if many of you have personally experienced these biases? Is this common? If you could tell someone in a hiring position something - with respect to this - outside of an interview setting, what would it be?

6 条评论

vicbrooker超过 10 年前
Steve Blank was recently in Melbourne and said that his opinion was that &#x27;experienced&#x27; was a better adjective than &#x27;failed&#x27; for founders who have stopped working on a startup. It&#x27;s a nice perspective.<p>Personally I agree, but would add a single caveat. I consider a founder &#x27;experienced&#x27; when they have made a good faith effort to attempt solving a difficult&#x2F;worthwhile problem. Someone who succeeds at someone pedestrian isn&#x27;t terribly interesting and neither is someone who tried to build the hyperloop with paper mache for a week.<p>So, my advice is to ignore the title and give weight to the particular characteristics of their startup. The presence or absence of success is far less relevant than what they were trying to achieve and how they executed. I would pick someone who got to 80% of a home run over anyone who succeeded at hitting to first base. Ask questions about how they executed, the unique problems they faced and why they picked their vertical - this will tell you more about them than a snap judgement based on whether they were a CEO or a President.<p>On a side note, I would generally consider managing to found a company that survives for 1-2 years (full time) while tackling a hard problem as a demonstration of above average&#x2F;high capacity. I would definitely look into them.<p>Again, depends on the context of your workplace, and the context of what they actually worked on.<p>Hope this helps.
NateDad超过 10 年前
Hopefully most people are aware that only one in ten startups succeed. That and often times a &quot;startup&quot; is really &quot;me and my buddy hacking on some stuff on the weekends&quot;. It&#x27;s actually the latter that bugs me more... calling one&#x27;s self a CEO when you never had any employees (other than your buddy, who worked for fun &amp; free beer)... it feels like it cheapens the title. Sure, call yourself a founder, absolutely... but CEO is a bit different.
staunch超过 10 年前
These people should have the good sense use titles that are subsets of their full roles.<p><pre><code> s&#x2F;CEO&#x2F;Sr. Product Manager&#x2F;g s&#x2F;CTO&#x2F;Sr. Software Engineer&#x2F;g</code></pre>
评论 #8579394 未加载
acjohnson55超过 10 年前
I&#x27;ve only held two jobs since my startup, and my first job directly led to my second job. I know for sure that my failed startup experience was considered an asset in that first job because the company was very entrepreneurial minded. It was a very natural fit.<p>Before I ran a failed startup, I was a grad student who never actually graduated (albeit, a very good one who opted to start a startup rather than write a thesis), and before that, I was a failing high school teacher teacher. So I have a bit of a history of not achieving unambiguous success.<p>Honestly, it really comes down to how you sell your experience. If the interview has behavioral questions, your running a startup should give you plenty of good fodder to pull from. Know the role you&#x27;re applying for and be able to succinctly explain how your skills and experience will allow you to excel. Ideally, have some quantitative evidence of your capabilities. Don&#x27;t be a know-it-all; come in with great questions and be a listener. And hopefully you can frame your startup, and especially its downfall, in a positive light.<p>One last thing, my personal opinion, based purely on my instincts, is that although I was technically President and CTO, I feel most natural identifying my former role as &quot;Founder&quot; (with responsibilities and accomplishments outlined), because we never quite reached a stage where we truly had executive responsibilities that would translate to an established company.
gwbas1c超过 10 年前
I was one of those 18-month CTOs. I just made sure to get past it very quickly in the phone screening and get to why I was looking for a job, the kind of role that I was best suited for, ect, ect.<p>IMO, the approach to take with such a candidate is to see if this is someone who needed to &quot;sow wild oats,&quot; or someone who keeps making the same life mistakes over and over again.<p>I understand your bias that older candidates are the worst ones. They&#x27;re the slow learners.
wojt_eu超过 10 年前
Comments so far focused on bias in judging capability based on past startup results. I&#x27;d really wish see the other angle explored: &quot;Is someone who&#x27;s used to being boss of the company going to handle taking orders?&quot;<p>When reviewing resumes do you expect the founder to just want to recover for a year before founding another startup?