I've turned down jobs that promote "monthly massages", "beer fridays", "gaming evenings", and other perks like the article mentions because when you step back and look at it they're trying to replace your life outside of work with excuses why you shouldn't leave work. Bind your job to your necessities and leaving becomes so much harder.

I own one T-shirt with my company logo (company uniform not counted) and I only have that because we got "sponsored" jerseys from the owner when we did a rec sport league. I don't wear it outside of the gym or doing laborious physical work, I feel a bit weird wearing it in public in a way; we are not a "brand", we do not need social marketing to be the multi-million dollar small business group that we are, hell the Joe standing behind me in the coffee lineup isn't interested in what we do anyway, he's not our market.

But it goes beyond that... Rule #3 raises alarm bells where having one person solely responsible for entire aspects of a business leaves you in a tight space should he hit the road, or fall ill. Heck even daily situations like ego or pride masking his greater vision can mean death for the company no? Even having a second individual sharing the load from those responsibilities allows for collaboration, brainstorming and are those not productive?

Perhaps I write a lot of these questions hypothetically. I'm not in the start-up biz, I don't really see an interest in it as you might be able to tell it clashes with my personality. Is life really seen as this dogmatic in the culture? I know its not universal but it certainly seems prevalent when I read the comments on HN and the like.

This isn't always the case, especially in larger companies. Sometimes perks are just perks.

I'm just trying to say that the fact that they thought going against the grain and being creative in an attempt to match the stories you hear out of Google or the like rubbed me the wrong way.

Having say a small fund to use for sporting activities can improve interpersonal relationships between employees and provide a way for new employees who might have relocated for the job a way to meet new people. The dividends this can pay can be well in excess of the costs.

Or you could just, you know, pay them more.

Consider that a gym membership might cost $50/month at a private gym because the gym needs to make a profit. There is also dead loss because of time travelling between work and the gym.

A company might well be able to provide on site gym services to employees at a much cheaper rate, especially if they already have space that is underutilised, they don't need it to be profitable and the facilities are so close that employees can just work out during their lunch break.

So with everything factored in you might be comparing $60/month to compensate an employee for a private gym vs $15-20/month with an employer provided gym.

The net result is healthier employees because more of them are likely to use the gym than if it was not provided and it's also a more efficient way to provide gym services if it is used by more than X% of employees.

A larger company would likely be able to negotiate a lower per-instance cost for a "perk" than an employee would be able to get themselves. Hence if you "just paid them more" with the idea that they would be going to get that same perk, it would cost some multiple more given that they don't have the same purchasing power as the company.

You can disagree that they would go and choose the same perk, but this line of reasoning assumes that there is no consistency of preferences eg. Gourmet coffee or good food is fungible as a perk regardless of the provider.

Every perk is a line on a balance sheet that someone is justifying. If that person wants to keep their job, that justification isn't "just perks".

The only place where perks are just perks is small companies that aren't startups.

There is a kind of "formula" that is thrown around in the startup world as the ingredients of successful startups before they really get huge:

- Small teams

- Very fast growth of user base

- Less than robust technical infrastructure

- Obsessive and arguably irrationally enthusiastic founders

Why all these? Because they are CHEAP to start and stop and feedback is immediate and focused on the team. They are also pretty fragile, hence why you need people who will persevere in the face of insane obstacles. In a startup it you will have too few people for all of the tasks that you need which requires a certain type of personality, someone super flexible, adaptable and dedicated to expanding your capabilities no matter what.

Thiel et al. are not describing work environments of people who want a comfortable life as a first goal. They are describing work environments of people who are rabidly pursuing a massive goal (hold aside for a moment judgements about what those goals should be).

I am unsure why this post almost always shows up on these types of discussions, considering that this forum is arguably for the rabidly focused founders, rather than just people who are technology focused.

That's definitely their choice, and if it makes them happy, then kudos to that. But if it's because they haven't tried other things, that's the part that's sad.

And so the blurring of personal and work lives begins. This is not a new phenomena - so-called "promoters" have been doing it forever, and it's given charismatic, attractive people with a penchant for parties, small talk, and manipulation a way to make a living that's borderline honest. Engineers especially resent the addition of a work responsibility that we didn't sign up for. We make it work; we don't market it.

Which segues into the third interesting convo, talk about the possibility that fractured public attention might try to ground and balance itself by paying more attention to people who know what they're talking about. For better or for worse, people who can write real software do in fact know how to do something hard and real, and so people will listen to us, perhaps more than we realize.

Demand interesting problems, reasonable autonomy, good pay (incl. equity), a real business plan (yeah I'm a dreamer), and a regular work schedule. The rest is details.

Life's too short to sell your social life to your employer.

I have very strong social circles both in and out of my company, and those circles even mix. I've been markedly less happy working at companies where I wouldn't consider going out for a beer with the people I work with.

Now, it's unclear if Thiel is actually advocating centering your entire social life around your company. If that's the case, I certainly disagree with that premise, but I would find it intolerable working just with people who I only cared to see during work hours.

I'm just deeply suspicious of the "work hard/play harder" culture that often springs up around startups, mostly because it de-emphasizes the need to leave work. It's good to have multiple social circles.

I've worked in a couple startups, and I doubt you could find a person who wasn't happy with my work, or ability to work with others.

I just don't socialize with colleagues. I already have friends.

And I'm not sure, but honestly, the couple of YC companies that took an interest in hiring me convinced me to stay far away. One of them expected me to build a demo project on a national holiday before interviewing me.

I mean, every startup I've worked with has behaved in some way like this. But there are extremes. I work for a large company now, and couldn't be happier. I work at least 2/3rds what I did at a startup, and I get paid more.

It's amazing. I never had a vacation that wasn't interrupted by tons of work while working at a startup. Never. Never had a vacation. Worked on Christmas multiple times.

I was shocked like hell I had my first vacation at big corp. Off for weeks, and no one emailed me once. I didn't even know what to do with myself.

Its doubly amazing because I told them I'd be busy that day in a previous email. :)

> I mean, every startup I've worked with has behaved in some way like this. But there are extremes. I work for a large company now, and couldn't be happier. I work at least 2/3rds what I did at a startup, and I get paid more.

I prefer small companies. Like, where I work now the IT team is about 10 people. So startups are always tempting. Its just a question of finding the right one.

Right now, I work 5 days a week and handle some backend stuff on Saturdays. I don't mind the hours, I mind my personal time being interrupted without cause. :)

I think this sounds intentional. They were screening you, looking for employees who wanted to work with them so bad they'd drop everything.

I actually give them some kudos for that in that they were being indirectly honest about their expectations. You got a quick sense that it was a poor fit and bowed out, which is in both parties' best interest.

It isn't healthy in personal or business relationships for one partner to expect you to break promises. I keep my agreements and I expect others to do the same. If you expect other people to break promises to indulge your whims, you are too selfish for me to tolerate you.

I would never, ever, ask people to fail to meet their obligations to other people unless it was an emergency. Anyone who does is someone to avoid at any reasonable cost.

> I think this sounds intentional.

I know it wasn't intentional because I had made it clear in the previous email that it was a line I wouldn't cross. The effort they went through after that email made it very, very illogical for them to have continued the conversation. They wasted at least 30 minutes of their time on the phone + whatever it took to setup the environment they wanted me to use.

The alternative is they didn't believe me, in which case they are stupid, given the weight I give to promises and clearly established boundaries. I'm assuming since they got into YC they aren't stupid.

The result? From what I've seen, this company is still doing well, but around a dozen employees I knew have left. Hopefully they make the compensation changes required to make employees feel respected for their time.

>My job is not my identity, I feel its healthy to generate a life outside your work that is entirely separate;

You've hit on an important point here. There are lots of way to express similar sentiments, and you state it in a very practically appealing way (i.e. wrapping our identity firmly around our jobs is a dangerous path). I agree, but will state it slightly differently

As active agents we _do_ things, but those things we do are separate from who we _are_ (IMO, of course). If what I _do_ is be a Google employee and all I _am_ is a Google employee, what room is there left to grow? Ask yourself the question: who is this I?

If I is what you do, perhaps consider the consequences of a future where that job opportunity is no longer available or you don't enjoy doing it anymore. So instead of building your self identity on something external to yourself (in this case, a job), identify with something that is more concrete in it's foundation (what that is is up to you).

Because it is itself the process of growing. It is an intermediate phase.

Using myself as an example I know where I want to be in the next 20 years, but I also know there are some intermediate steps to get there. All of those require my identity to be tied to the thing I am working on in order for me to

1. Truly dedicate the work needed to make it successful and

2. signaling to the world that I am tied to these successes and organizations.

You know that Elon musk (or insert person) was part of Paypal/SpaceX/Tesla/SolarCity (or insert company) because he ties his personality to it.

I think you missed what I was saying, you are conflating issues as well. I believe you can be tied to your successes and dedicate yourself to something without it consuming your identity.

I am not saying that what you do is not a part of who you are, of course it is. But I believe there is a greater whole being ignored when your identity is limited to what you do at any given time.

Said differently: I simply don't believe you can be something external to yourself. Certainly you can trick yourself into thinking that it is who you are (in whatever "phase" of life you are in), but again, IMO, that is a reductive line of thinking.

As for the Elon Musk example, you are flipping the conversation. You are attributing personality traits to a companies actions. Of course that will happen, a company is made up of people who make decisions. That does not mean the company makes the man.

Resist that for your own sake. You cannot reinvent yourself if you've cast your identity in stone.

That's the crux of it and I think is wrong with lot's of examples to prove otherwise.

Look at any U.S. Marine. They ARE Marines, or any Olympic athlete, they are whatever their sporting role is.

Of course setting up the idea as though the only way to do it is to "trick yourself" makes it impossible to refute so I will just leave it at this:

Common startup wisdom seems to believe that if you want to be the founder of a billion dollar company, you probably need to "trick yourself," or however you want to say it, into believing you are your company.

I guess I'll just use an old saying to put it one other way: 'the river is separate from the bed on which it flows'.

I was hoping this article wasn't as ridiculous as the headline, and some of the advice is good... but it's stuff like this, Silicon Valley.

Is it possible anymore to just want to work hard on an interesting problem, or do I really have to be a "fanatic" about it?

>Taking a merely professional view of the workplace, in which free agents check in and out on a transactional basis, is worse than cold: It’s not even rational. Since time is your most valuable asset, it’s odd to spend it working with people who don’t envision any long‑term future together.

Given the choice of an absolute top performer who takes the view mentioned above, vs a some degrees worse performer who is excited and passionate, I'd prefer to work with the second person every time.

I'm not a part of SV or its culture, either.

Not if you want to create a billion dollar company as a founder - which is basically the point of VC backed startups.

If you want to just work at one, then sure, but that is not what this article is about.

R&D might be more up your alley.

how about building a company that would make it employees excited to wear its logo on their hoodies. Compare for example wearing "Palantir" vs. "SpaceX" on your hoodie :)

Or it could mean that I separate my job from my life, and consider them two different things. Perhaps it has no impact on the quality of my work, or my willingness to work with others.

When dealing with people, making grand statements about how to make the right decision feels wrong. We're all our own world, filled with our own opinions, thoughts, and desires.

I think the sooner you recognize the inherent differences in people, the better you can make quality decisions based around how they will fit in.

Unless it's very unlikely that others are working on solving your problem as hard as you are.

Well, in the adult world, you hire mature, professional people who learn to work with each other and overcome their differences. It's fine if they aren't all buddies outside of work. In the startup "Real World" (a la MTV), you artificially craft a group of people who seem to "mesh" and then suffer the consequences later when the latent adolescent dynamics emerge.

I remember interviewing at a certain prominent software agency. I won't say who they are, but will only say that you've probably heard of them. Things went great, as far as I could see. I represented myself as someone who was technically competent and could get the job done. Great, right? They ended up passing and not taking me on. It took me a long time to extract the reasons why, but eventually they revealed that it was because of a perceived "culture issue."

Startup geeks don't seem to realize how frustrating an experience like this is. You go in, having done all your homework, having all the right experience, then you're turned down over something that you have absolutely no control. Something that is completely un-actionable and basically equates to saying "we just don't like you."

This cannot and should not be the way that people conduct business in the tech world.

You just described a specific personality trait - that of someone who can moderate their desires in order to get along with the broader group. This is exactly the same reasoning that people are looking for with "culture fit" - they are looking for a very specific personality trait.

This cannot and should not be the way that people conduct business in the tech world.

Why? The tech world, like any other business place, is a mixture of people with different attitudes and personalities. If you clearly would have a personality clash with someone, why would it be worth hiring them?

Easy, because they have the knowledge and experience you need for the job. If you're a professional you'll find a way to work with anyone. Yes, you'll have personality clashes from time to time but I have yet to work at a place where that didn't happen.

Right but there are tons of people who have that - it's worth waiting for someone with both that and the cultural fit. As was mentioned in one of the lectures on "How to start a startup" Airbnb took 5 months to find their first hire for exactly this purpose.

Every paragraph in this article actually contained solid advice, even though I don't agree with all of it.

So I would like to add rule #5: Don't talk in ludicrous hyperbole. Smart people won't take you seriously, and you'll actually attract the kind of feeble minded people that would join a real cult.

A "cult" is not a good model for anything. Not only does it refer to a form of abusive relationship, but it also refers to a mindless follower dynamic. If I am founding a company to do innovative knowledge work, I do not want mindless followers. I want employees who are smarter than me in various ways, especially in areas that are my weaknesses, and I want them to apply themselves fully which means I need to pay them well or cut them in on ownership. Sure, maybe I could get a "bargain" on labor by hoodwinking people with image, but people wise up fast and I will have high turnover.

It's good to have a sense of mission and purpose, but that doesn't make something a "cult." The article contains some solid advice if you ditch the hyperbole.

It's also okay to have a company that demands a lot from its employees as long as its up front about that. An example would be SpaceX: apparently they are tough as hell to get into and they tell you up front that basically you'll have no life, etc., but lots of people want to work there because they believe in the mission. If I were in a different life phase / circumstance, I would work there knowing going in that I'm sorta gonna be joining the army for a while. (I'd also do it for the resume and the experience.) But I don't consider that a cult either, since the mission is real. They're actually building real spaceships that fly and stuff. To me "cult" means the mission is bullshit.

Such companies, whether startups or established firms, inevitably end up focusing on aspects of their business (prestige, culture, a particular product mix, a particular technology or implementation, internal politics) that are irrelevant or actively-damaging to their profitability and external relations. In short, they end up believing their own press, and stop falsifying their assumptions. SWOT analyses become elaborate exercises in self-justification, failures to hit revenue or profit targets are handwaved away, and exogenous causes for short-term improvements are taken as proof that the company is run by brilliant minds who are no less than the weltgeist on horseback.

I exaggerate, but only slightly. Survivorship bias is a powerful fallacy, and far more organizations starve from narcissistic self-regard than feast out on their good looks. Rather than cultic insularity, successful companies should constantly have their antennae out, alert for unexpected opportunities and dangers, especially if they clash with the company's stated "culture" or mission. (This sounds trivial, but it's very difficult in practice -- CEOs tend to be very psychologically invested in their cultures; lower-level employees are frequently unwilling to bring concerns up the line; managers often have political incentives to hide, mitigate, or redirect bad news; and it can be hard to separate the usual employee grousing from objectively-genuine concerns.)

Cults that try to adapt reality to themselves are suicide pacts; cults that adapt themselves to reality become religions.

I like the idea of towing the company line though, it takes on a nautical meaning.

At least that's the legend I know.

P.S. I liked the imagery of my version better.

These HN comments seem to indicate that too. Lots of people talking like long term employees. Few actual startup participants.

This kind of attitude is what gives rise to mono cultural companies where everyone looks, thinks and acts the same. The cultures seem okay but they're brittle in that as soon as someone shows up who doesn't think exactly like everyone else, the whole thing falls apart or the additions are become "problems".

I've worked at a startup and I've resolved that if I do ever build a one, I want a company that is heavily resilient to diversity of thought and where everybody doesn't have to be best pals with everyone else because that is just fucking annoying after a while.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-mason/start-your-own-cul...

I'll give it a shot:

How to make a Cult Startup in 7 Steps:

1) Begin with the Vision. It must be capitalized and either already be validated by pillars of an industry or actively opposed by them (because it's so disruptive).

2) Setup your inner management circle, make sure it includes big name advisors, partners that ensure immediate market penetration and investors that are always about to drop millions in the next round. It's not required that any employees ever see or speak to these people beyond a single meeting, which should also be a party to distract from any deep inquiry or feedback.

3) Make sure your employees are chasing a moving target and are under continually increasing external pressure. If they get close to a product, change the requirements... then say an important demo is only a week away to ensure they work day and night. Start small and soon your employees will be sleeping in the office and giving up holidays and weekends for your Vision.

4) Always have stories of the last meeting you or other members of the elite group attended. Make sure anecdotes are exciting and perfectly validate the Vision and it's end goals. Your employees are already familiar with stories of billion dollar buyouts and paradigm shifting applications.

5) Hire from the friends of your employees. This has the double advantage of rapidly growing your startup (from 4 to 16 employees in just 2 months!) while allowing you to mix your employees loyalties to each other with their loyalty to the Vision.

6) Keep everyone busy and excited. Always have an upcoming investor demo that is very important and leave no room for downtime which could be used to question product viability, technology decisions, or anything related to the Vision. Stock the fridge and cabinets with caffeine, junk food and alcohol to keep energy level high and overall cognition low.

7) Always talk about the Vision related to the eventual payoff. Changing an industry/the world for idealists or billion dollar buyouts for the more materially minded. It doesn't matter, you're doing what Google and Facebook and Uber and Amazon have done; and they should expect to enter the same paradise when their time comes.

That was fun, hooray satire! Enjoy the rest of your day everyone!

The first day of orientation at Peoplesoft involved listening to a HR person constantly attach "People" as a suffix to key terms - i.e. PeoplePeople. It was brainwashing 101 and quite annoying if you were a hard-bittern veteran of the startup ecosystem. Capitalism is just as much a cult as religions are.

Just cover the basics and then promise what no others can: the opportunity to do irreplaceable work on a unique problem alongside great people.

Isn't that a contradiction?

Anyone have a more privileged view on this?

Have to say that I roll my eyes every time I see an HN article titled "X is hiring: Help change the face of Y forever"

So, step one- be a great person.

In the words of Maxwell Smart "missed it by that much"

Totally agree! Ironic that "Changing the World" has become a meaningless phrase.