Run Your Startup Like a Cult

http://www.wired.com/2014/09/run-startup-like-cult-heres/

by t23 • 12 years ago

44 72 12 years ago

themoonbus• 12 years ago

"Hire Employees Who Are Excited to Wear Your Logo on Their Hoodies"

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?

Karunamon• 12 years ago

I feel there's some truth in this:

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.

pessimizer• 12 years ago

Corollary: only hire employees who wear hoodies and wear logos.

AndyNemmity3• 12 years ago

I've never wore my company logo. Perhaps that means I'm not passionate at what I do, and a bad fit for startups.

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.

mattgreenrocks4• 12 years ago

I'm pretty cynical on the number of hard problems that SV faces. The preoccupation with growth and money-making precludes a lot of interesting problems.

R&D might be more up your alley.

AndrewKemendo7• 12 years ago

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?

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.

trhway• 12 years ago

"Hire Employees Who Are Excited to Wear Your Logo on Their Hoodies"

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 :)

spiffage• 12 years ago

I'm pretty sure employees at both Palantir and SpaceX wear company-branded clothes a lot. I know that's the case at Palantir for sure.

gamechangr2• 12 years ago

"Fanatic"

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

freshflowers• 12 years ago

Every headline in this article pissed me off.

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.

davesque2• 12 years ago

Well put.

psaintla3• 12 years ago

Please don't, I've worked at these kinds of companies. It's creepy as hell and will drive away good employees who just aren't willing to buy into the nonsense.

api3• 12 years ago

My first thought on reading the title was "so I should molest my employees' children while I appropriate their finances to offshore numbered bank accounts?"

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.

brd2• 12 years ago

From personal experience, the biggest downside to this advice is that it builds a culture of being in or out. You either tow the company line or you're not part of the team, it leaves little room for challenging the status quo when you see mistakes being made.

JonnieCache• 12 years ago

The idiom is "toe the line", to stand with ones toes exactly at the appointed spot.

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

JoeAltmaier• 12 years ago

"Toe the line" comes from the British house, where there were two lines drawn down the middle of the room. Each side was supposed to stay behind their line when debating, to avoid bloodshed, challenges to duel etc. The speaker would holler "Toe the line!" when anyone crossed over.

At least that's the legend I know.

brd2• 12 years ago

Wow, I cannot believe I've never been corrected on this until now. Thank you.

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

TheCapn2• 12 years ago

Articles like this make me believe that even if I managed to find my way into Silicon Valley I simply wouldn't fit in. My job is not my identity, I feel its healthy to generate a life outside your work that is entirely separate; heck I see it as a necessity for longevity in life to have such segregation.

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.

timjahn• 12 years ago

Amen. There's so much more the life than work. I think I probably realized this more after I had a kid, but it saddens me when people work and that's it.

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.

opendais3• 12 years ago

I agree 1000%.

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.

AndyNemmity3• 12 years ago

It's amazing they asked, because you got a clear indication that they will have no respect for your life. Good to know that early.

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.

AndyNemmity3• 12 years ago

I am the same way, my job is not my identity. I don't want any work perks, I just want to work. It doesn't say anything about my passion, or desire to succeed. It just means I have a full life outside of work, and don't desire someone replacing my activities with theirs.

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.

jiggy20113• 12 years ago

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

marcocampos• 12 years ago

Companies are in the business of making money. They only provide perks because they believe that it makes you a happier employee and that way you will work better and/or more hours. Perks aren't just perks. They are an incentive that either complements or replaces higher pay/better conditions. Never believe that they are giving you free drinks, lunch, gym membership and laundry services because, well, why not?

TheCapn2• 12 years ago

I shouldn't make it sound like I dislike creative perks, but I definitely have a problem when the company tried using those as selling points in lieu of more traditional job perks that I was looking for. Perks that I like are spending accounts, flexible hours, pension, additional work holidays. The company I moved to after turning down those types had ones like: 1 paid day off per year to use volunteering; 0% interest loan on tech purchases (with certain stipulations), 1% yearly salary towards a spending account of my choice. 1 year into the company and I had 30 days of paid time off to use whenever I wanted (within reason... I couldn't go jet away mid launch for 5 weeks)

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.

artisanalbacon• 12 years ago

I'd say perks are never just perks, especially in larger companies.

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.

mattgreenrocks4• 12 years ago

The fact that this sets off alarm bells means you're well-adjusted, not weird. This is institutionalized conformity at it's best. It smacks of immature college grads trying fruitlessly to fill the social void that emerges from both workaholism and leaving college.

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.

kelnos3• 12 years ago

I'm puzzled as to why there's so much negativity toward the idea of having a social life that involves your co-workers. There was a line in the article that really rang a bell with me, about how you spend a large amount of your waking life at work, so why not try to work with people you'd like to hang out with otherwise.

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.

javajosh• 12 years ago

What if you founded the company - would you wear the company logo more often? I think the common sense and entirely reasonable answer would be "Yes, of course I would". And therein lies the beginning of a productive conversation pinning down the real difference between owning a company and just working there. In fact, it might also be the start of a good convo regarding how workplaces, and our relationships to them, have changed over the years - wearing the company logo uniform might have been required in our factory-driven past, but with the fracturing of market attention, companies making small, virtual services need all the help they can get to reach their market, including things like social media mentions from every employee.

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.

left_a_cult• 12 years ago

I used to work for a startup that took Peter Thiel's cult culture advice to heart. They paid employees 60-80% of market salary in exchange for the chance to participate in their mission to change an industry. Free food abounded, and there was a cultural expectation to stay at work through dinner.

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.

AndrewKemendo7• 12 years ago

Almost exactly this comment comes up in every thread that talks about start-up culture, or one that discusses internal dynamics in successful high growth start-ups.

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.

jedunnigan3• 12 years ago

The fourth point in the article raises some red flags for me. I agree with the Capn:

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).

AndrewKemendo7• 12 years ago

If what I _do_ is be a Google employee and all I _am_ is a Google employee, what room is there left to grow?

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.

14113• 12 years ago

I think you're looking at #3 the wrong way - it's not a bijection, it's meant to be surjective. Every person is meant to be responsible for one thing, but many people may be responsible for the same thing. The aim of that is to reduce the task switching overhead from people frequently changing foci, and allow them to focus all their resources on improving one core competency.

dfraser992• 12 years ago

He fails to mention the fact that people who run cults are the ones who benefit the most. The startup I was with in Hayward got bought by Peoplesoft back in 2002, and so 90%+ of the employees transistioned over (the CEO spread some rumor about signing bonuses if people stayed on...)

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.

SickOfVCBS• 12 years ago

Translation: hire only people who are willing to eat your shit and take almost as much risk as you, but for pennies on the dollar because they believe so strongly in your "mission."

linker3000• 12 years ago

Rule 2: Giving People a Chance to “Change the World” Is a Lousy Way to Recruit Employees

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"

RankingMember• 12 years ago

If you haven't already, watch Silicon Valley (the Mike Judge TV show). There's a whole episode where you see startups trotting out these "Changing the world through [buzzword buzzword buzzword]" mission statements. It's so accurate it's scarily funny.

HillRat• 12 years ago

While at least some of the advice is solid ("give each employee just one job" is really just a special case of "make it clear who is responsible for the outcome, not just the process"), Thiel is either making a truly trivial argument -- your employees should be more than mere clock-punchers -- or is recommending a dangerous path for most companies. In my experience -- and, like many in tech, I have more experience with this than I or portfolio care to remember -- highly-insular, self-regarding companies are usually total failures, for the usual Kool-Aid-related reasons.

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.

trustfundbaby• 12 years ago

Poor article IMO. This is the kind of stuff that parody movies are made of.

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.

csolares23• 12 years ago

I wanted the title to be a joke also.. Sad it's not. I just moved to SV and I feel like I get these types of pitches all the time. I would rather happily work on interesting stuff and go home to my personal life to unwind without having the pressure to stay at work for "pleasure". Maybe I just don't fit in with what the VCs pump out?

api3• 12 years ago

This post from JWZ's awesomely hoary old web site is relevant: http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/11/watch-a-vc-use-my-name-to-se...

soneca• 12 years ago

I would like to know more about WhatsApp culture. Small team, incredible talent, unbelievable outcome. Pretty sure even Peter Thiel would consider them to be among the "best startups". I think they give signs not to be this kind of cult, but they don't do lots of interviews, so it is hard to know.

Anyone have a more privileged view on this?

gooseus• 12 years ago

Why not just adapt these 7 steps?

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!

davesque2• 12 years ago

This article is classic. The thing that strikes me most is the author's assertion that hiring should not be based on the classic indicators like talent and professionalism, but on some kind of subtle chemistry that a person either does or doesn't have as you perceive it. As he puts it, "Why work with a group of people who don’t even like each other?"

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.

AndrewKemendo7• 12 years ago

Well, in the adult world, you hire mature, professional people who learn to work with each other and overcome their differences.

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?

psaintla3• 12 years ago

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.

zaccus2• 12 years ago

I don't think finding a way to get along with your coworkers despite personality differences is a specific personality trait. It's something any grown adult, or at least anyone worth hiring, should be able to do.

dsugarman• 12 years ago

it can be very dangerous to run your startup like a cult, most notably because you will be building an enormous, ever-increasing blind spot. people will try so hard to fit in that they will not want to speak against the group, a cult most would expect to be very harsh to opposing opinions.

bluesnowmonkey• 12 years ago

Here are some bad answers: “Your stock options will be worth more here than elsewhere.” “You’ll get to work with the smartest people in the world.” “You can help solve the world’s most challenging problems.” Every company makes these same claims, so they won’t help you stand out.

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?

gmarx• 12 years ago

"... promise what no others can: the opportunity to do irreplaceable work on a unique problem alongside great people."

So, step one- be a great person.

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

arjie• 12 years ago

Interesting article. The people who'd be convinced by it don't need it because they already follow it. The people who aren't are unlikely to be big participants in the startup world.

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

inscrutablemike• 12 years ago

This is the kind of advice you give to people you want to compete against.

gamechangr2• 12 years ago

# 2 "Giving people a chance to Changing the world is a lousy way to recruit.

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

Run Your Startup Like a Cult

Related Stories