How does a startup out-recruit Google? Palantir cofounder Stephen Cohen explains.
In a conversation at Stanford with Peter Thiel and Max Levchin, my friend Stephen Cohen (cofounder of Palantir Technologies) says:
We tend to massively underestimate the compounding returns of intelligence. As humans, we need to solve big problems. If you graduate Stanford at 22 and Google recruits you, you’ll work a 9-to-5. It’s probably more like an 11-to-3 in terms of hard work. They’ll pay well. It’s relaxing. But what they are actually doing is paying you to accept a much lower intellectual growth rate. When you recognize that intelligence is compounding, the cost of that missing long-term compounding is enormous. They’re not giving you the best opportunity of your life. Then a scary thing can happen: You might realize one day that you’ve lost your competitive edge. You won’t be the best anymore. You won’t be able to fall in love with new stuff. Things are cushy where you are. You get complacent and stall. So, run your prospective engineering hires through that narrative. Then show them the alternative: working at your startup.
My friend and fellow Y Combinator partner Aaron Iba gives incredible lectures when we visit top CS schools on behalf of YC. He says the sense you get from college recruiters is that you get to write new code. Most great hackers love to do this. But that's not what you get from a software engineering position at the tech giants. You get to maintain old code. The job should really be called software technician.
So that's why starting a startup or working at a startup is so much more rewarding. You get to keep your edge.
19 responses
It is the combination of new code and the act of learning the process of selling that idea represented by code to a group of strangers..you need both to get that 'edge'.
stationstops -- The appropriate way to scale the tech of a startup happens to be the most efficient. Never prematurely optimize, because if you do, you'll waste time on doing things that don't matter. Startups die generally because they don't create something people want, not because they fail to manage their databases.