My top priority is working with great people. Everything else is secondary to that.
Here’s my framework for how I think about making career decisions, arguably one of the most important decisions we make in our lives.
I break it down into four categories, ranked by how important each is to me:
- Would you work with that person again?
- How did they resolve disagreements?
- How much did they care?
Second on my list is the mission. Because I only get to take 1 bet at a time on a company working for them, it’s important that I’m working on something I can get behind.
If the people and mission check out, it’s probably important to start thinking about if the role is a good fit.
A good sign the role is a good fit is if it overlaps with your zone of genius.
If a role doesn’t compound on the skills I’ve grown throughout my career, probably not a good fit. I like to reflect on the things I’m good at and not so good at and double down.
Not everything has to or should be a money driven decision, but it’s important. Everyone’s financial needs are different.
For some that could be $1m in net worth, for others $100m.
Stage of company drives some of this thinking. An earlier stage company can have a 100x growth ($5m -> $500m) but its also possible that a public company does too ($5b -> $500b)
More from Tech
On Wednesday, The New York Times published a blockbuster report on the failures of Facebook’s management team during the past three years. It's.... not flattering, to say the least. Here are six follow-up questions that merit more investigation. 1/
1) During the past year, most of the anger at Facebook has been directed at Mark Zuckerberg. The question now is whether Sheryl Sandberg, the executive charged with solving Facebook’s hardest problems, has caused a few too many of her own. 2/ https://t.co/DTsc3g0hQf
2) One of the juiciest sentences in @nytimes’ piece involves a research group called Definers Public Affairs, which Facebook hired to look into the funding of the company’s opposition. What other tech company was paying Definers to smear Apple? 3/ https://t.co/DTsc3g0hQf
3) The leadership of the Democratic Party has, generally, supported Facebook over the years. But as public opinion turns against the company, prominent Democrats have started to turn, too. What will that relationship look like now? 4/
4) According to the @nytimes, Facebook worked to paint its critics as anti-Semitic, while simultaneously working to spread the idea that George Soros was supporting its critics—a classic tactic of anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists. What exactly were they trying to do there? 5/
1) During the past year, most of the anger at Facebook has been directed at Mark Zuckerberg. The question now is whether Sheryl Sandberg, the executive charged with solving Facebook’s hardest problems, has caused a few too many of her own. 2/ https://t.co/DTsc3g0hQf
2) One of the juiciest sentences in @nytimes’ piece involves a research group called Definers Public Affairs, which Facebook hired to look into the funding of the company’s opposition. What other tech company was paying Definers to smear Apple? 3/ https://t.co/DTsc3g0hQf
3) The leadership of the Democratic Party has, generally, supported Facebook over the years. But as public opinion turns against the company, prominent Democrats have started to turn, too. What will that relationship look like now? 4/
4) According to the @nytimes, Facebook worked to paint its critics as anti-Semitic, while simultaneously working to spread the idea that George Soros was supporting its critics—a classic tactic of anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists. What exactly were they trying to do there? 5/
