Ask YC: startup or traditional work experience?

There are a lot of variables involved here.

Hiring Managers == Humans == Emotional Logic

There will never be a 100% case, the closest you might get is that a hiring manager who is startup oriented could see that year as valuable productive time. A hiring manager who feels that only time spent in the ranks at BigCo is worthwhile might see that as a wasted year.

The reality though is that there are all kinds of companies, all kinds of hiring managers, and all kinds of opportunities out there.

Taking a shot at your own idea for year will open some doors and close others if you suddenly decide to go the "traditional" route. It is my personal opinion that working for a halfway decent organization for a year will open more net doors for you than working on your own in solitude for a year (assuming that after that year you are likely to seek different employment). So, if you don't have formal experience I would guide you down that path first, unless your idea is a really-super-killer-1-person-can-build it sort of thing.

<ResumeEntry>

April, 2007 to March, 2008. XYZ Company. Web Progammer.

One of 2 on development team that analyzed, designed, developed, tested, and deployed XYZ's primary web application. Grew application to 10,000 uniques per day in 8 months. Used <abc> framework, <def> language, and <ghi> testing facility. Wrote 450 original <def> programs and maintained several thousand <pqr> programs. Excellent references upon request.

Reason for leaving: Business failed.

</ResumeEntry>

So, what's the problem?

I would assume you'd get both kinds of reactions. I think a better question might be, which kind of manager/company would you prefer to work with in the future?

I've seen a number of resumes which significantly over-stated the experience someone had gained while self-employed, but it's difficult to verify what the person accomplished without being able to contact clients and/or coworkers.

Just don't over-state what you did, and try to stay in touch with any collaborators or clients who could serve as references, and I see no reason why a startup can't be a great piece of experience to put on your resume.

Why not do both? I work for a large internet company during the day. When I get home at home, the coding continues on my personal projects.

I think that's what Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft mean when they are looking for people with "self-started" projects.

I asked some managers this once, and they all said that startup experience was at least as good as big co experience. It's in an essay I wrote; I forget which.

I have an entry about a startup I co-founded that failed on my resume. I also explicitly put in the description: "I learned a lot...from the business' failure."

I've been doing a lot of interviews lately, and most people are impressed that 1) I tried to start a company at all and 2) that I'm willing to admit that it failed

I would definitely keep it on there, as long as it was a good learning experience for you.

At my last employer, there was one former founder that I ended up giving a "No hire" recommendation to my boss on. During the interview, it came out that his idea of founding a company was that he had this wildly ambitious, game-changing idea, and then he outsourced it to a bunch of Russian programmers to write, using his parents' money. And then he blamed them for not delivering when I asked him what he'd learned from the experience.

Let's think of the red flags there: 1) Doesn't have a clear conception of what he's capable of. 2) Unwilling to get hands dirty and code. 3) Because of this, didn't learn any technical skills that'll be useful in the job. 4) Won't take responsibility for his own failures.

In almost any other situation I can think of, doing your own startup would put you way ahead of the pack. I was actually pretty excited about the above candidate when I saw "founder" on his resume, 'till he blew it in the interview.

I won't say it's "as good as big co experience" (pg), but it is valuable. A lot of how someone interprets your year depends on who's looking at your resume (they're not obsolete, no matter what anyone says). If on one hand you're applying to JP Morgan, there's a chance a hiring manager might not like the fact that your history isn't driven by credentialed companies. On the other, if you're applying to a Valley firm--another startup or someone like Google or Yahoo, they're likely to think your experience was valuable and showed initiative and guts.

Depending on the company, I would simply adapt the resume to reflect what you think they want to hear.

For the larger (possibly non-technical) companies, I would list the experiences and qualifications relating only to the directly applicable work you did (Developed this product, worked with that other thing, etc...). I would drop the title of "founder" and substitute it with "Lead Developer" or something similar.

For either a smaller company (where you may be expected to wear multiple hats) or a technological company (Google), I would put that "Founder" title right up there where it can be seen.

In the end, the resume is for getting an interview. There is nothing wrong with adapting it to reflect what the companies want to hear, provided that there is no stretch of the truth.

I always viewed someone with startup experience as having better management potential and as someone likely to be able to better see the "big picture." Whereas someone with more low-level big company experience as being more of a "good employee." With that in mind, you can see that the type of job in question will determine whether that experience is a positive or negative.

Startup hiring manager: big positive

BigCo hiring manager: mild negative

People who hire generally look for the candidate that "fits" overall before passing the candidate on to more specific people. At a startup that's probably a bigger issue than at a large company, just because the culture is more malleable.