I would like to take this opportunity to ask to guest blog on our blog or write about it & we will link to it.

I do understand that even larger companies are sometimes able to look beyond experience when it comes to the growth prospects for an employee. But (based on my very limited exposure) I find this more to be an exception than the norm.

It’s not just experience that seems to matter a lot, it’s all kinds of labels: number of years you’ve worked for, the degree you’ve got, the college you’ve got that degree from and even where you come from*! It’s unfortunate that these tags are given importance over and above capabilities. It’s even more unfortunate when this happens even at a startup.

* I’ve heard way too often that people from the state of Bihar (in India) are supposed to be very intelligent! I’m not saying that they aren’t (I really don’t know) but it is too much of a generalisation based on too flimsy a premise and can lead to nothing but prejudice. But this is a topic for another blog post altogether.

@sids: Could you please clarify the post & mention that the quote is from our blog post, it would help

As for management hierarchy and so on, I was talking about roles and not necessarily titles.

Please remember that we are still talking about a relative young startup ecosystem here & hence the experiences that you have had might not be same as what could experience in mature startup environments.

I started my career with an American startup & spent about 5 years with them. My experiences are built on those & hence I bring those perspectives to Taazza. I didnt make a big $$$ bucks then but the experience came in real handy to make $$$ later

Either ways fellas, its been a good discussion & I hope you have gotten to know a bit more about Taazza asa company. I am taking the liberty to request you folks to recommend people to be hired

May be one of these days we can grab a drink! Cheers!

Not true that experience is the only driver at large companies. I’ve seen otherwise often, though its very very manager dependent.

Even in the extreme-job-posting you’ve quoted, its kinda nice they’re making it very very clear what their expectations are, and also stating whats on offer right upfront. I think thats the key, from both ends. That, and of course, following up on the other’s expectations once agreed upon. Someone who joins a renewable energy sratup at this juncture, for instance, is probably looking at building skills for the medium term future when this is big – and must make this need very clearly known to the folks they’re working with. My wife joined a startup like organization clearly stating her need for work that she finds satisfying, as well as flexibilty in terms of hours and the like. That dialogue is the most critical one for both the guys offering a position and the guys thinking of taking it up. No standard “assumptions” about startups etc should or do apply.

Thank you for stopping by to continue the discussion.

Like I mentioned in the postscript of the post, I am exaggerating here. Exaggeration is a great tool if the task at hand is driving a point. And I think this is a point worthy of such a treatment but one that I haven’t really seen being discussed.

I whole-heartedly agree with you about startups providing a better learning opportunity than larger companies. But this is true only for certain kinds of people — some people can learn better in the more structured environment of larger organisers; I personally know at least one such person (who is still working at a startup).

I disagree that startups can provide better mentorship. Most startups I have had the opportunity to interact with (as well as the one I’ve been working for over two and a half years) are in fact looking for people who are good at getting things done by themselves without anyone hand-holding them. This is not because they don’t want to have a culture of mentorship but because the required pace of execution demands that it be so. More power to you if you’re able to develop such a culture even in such an environment.

I have not been close enough to any startup that has survived long enough for such a thing as growing up the management ladder to kick in! And where a startup did survive long enough it didn’t have a heirarchy at all, thus eliminating even the possibility of such a growth. Of course, climbing up the management ladder is not the only form of growth and a startup does offer ample opportunity in almost every other possible way.

But ‘growth opportunities’ is a very important point that you’ve pulled up. Startups can definitely provide an amazing growth opportunity to young smart guys who cannot ascend the ladder at a larger company due to nothing but lack of experience. Large companies need to use the experience (in terms number of years the person has worked for) as a more important criteria than abilities for appraisals because that is how it is (truth be told I don’t know why it is that way). Startups are not bound by such things. But unfortunately I have seen that most of the startup management still gives as much, if not more, importance to experience. This is especially true if that management has hitherto worked only at larger companies.

I absolutely agree that startups are not for everyone. I’ve known someone who realised as much only after he joined one and then quit within six months; he wasted his own time as well as that of the startup.

Whether you want to be “a big fish in a small pond or a small fish in a big pond” is definitely an individual preference. But the question I am asking here is that if I do decide to be “a big fish in a small pond,” should I be doomed to hunger?

I’m not trying to slam all or even any startups here. I’m only trying to add a perspective that seems to be totally missing.