Ask HN: Startup wants me to join in 3 months?
I'm interviewing at a startup in SF. They say they really like me but they want to bring me to start at the beginning of April. Their reasoning is that they "don't want to grow the team yet".
Is that really what it sounds like or are there other things I should be aware of? They haven't launched yet but I think they will in a couple months time. The option % they've offered me would only rise in value until then so I don't think that that's the reason. I'm still quite inexperienced so maybe they want me to do some unpaid preparation beforehand (they actually recommended I do Rails freelancing in the meantime).
What should I be aware of?
17 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 55.1 ms ] threadThe only shady explanation I can imagine is that they don't have the money to pay you, but they hope to raise it between now and April.
Startup founders are optimistic creatures, and 3 months seems to many like plenty of time to launch, get traction, and finish a raise. All 3 startups that have tried to hire me have wanted to do in two-three months, and upon prodding, had to admit that was because they were still in the middle of a raise that wasn't going as well as expected.
That's how I conclude that the information you give in great grandparent does not apply in the current situation :)
It sounds to me like they might be delaying based-on raising new funds, as mentioned in other comments. However, I don't see why they wouldn't just say so. Unless, they think you might go elsewhere. If that is the case, you should know that there is a huge difference between raising a round and money in the bank. Which means, that in 3 months, they may not have the money then either.
It sounds like they aren't being transparent. But, in all fairness, when raising a round, they have a lot of vulnerability just by circulating that they are looking for money. Be careful.
or whatever phrasing you like.
This sounds a lot less like "contract signed and PO for pre-payment cut" and more like "strong interest in resuming discussions with you several months from now." That isn't a no-op in terms of negotiations, but you're well aware (and I learned the hard way, multiple times) that there is a very-much-nonzero probability that the discussion in April begins with "Well, startups move fast. Conditions have changed and we can't bring you on. [Optional: But we're really really interested in talking to you in July. (+)]"
+ Newbie consultant mistake which I'll confess to: this basically happened exactly when a potential client slow-rolled actually getting a contract signed for three months -- I need CEO approval for this, your point-of-contact turns out to be swamped in the engagement month so let's defer for a month and so we'll defer signing for a month, hang on the contract will be signed any week now but the CEO is busy, hang on we just hired someone and need to get him to speed on this before bringing you on, etc etc -- and only then expressed negative interest in an engagement, after the date had slipped multiple times. This, naturally, has downsides for the business, both because it consumed a lot of my time in stressful will-they-won't-they admin and because I blew several weeks of availability on the "Sorry, can't work with you in $YOUR_DESIRED_TIMEFRAME, it's already committed" basis.
Older-and-wiser me would have a) been more aggressive about getting them to commit to a contract (rather than a weekly or semi-weekly ping which practically oozed with "I don't really need you to take immediate action on this."), b) released the optimistic lock on the schedule the first time the client had any issue, and c) if that particular client were to contact me again, they'd get a two line email with a contract and wiring instructions for their 100% deposit attached, to assist them in efficiently administering their vendor relations.