Today I want to talk about my thoughts on career planning after leaving Alibaba, and the pitfalls I encountered. I also want to discuss the relationship between "employees" and "companies" and how we should choose a company. (Original Mirror article link: https://mirror.xyz/arthurwu.eth/qfsOhvYlJz1-mcO5Gjbfmdqrp5CYaKsQZfBg1yMjL10)
Choices after leaving Alibaba#
Based on my personal experiences (which I have written about before), when I decided to leave Alibaba in October 2022, I had three options:
- Switching tracks: Transitioning from the web2 field to web3.
- Medium-sized companies: Companies with a stable position in the market (e.g., Xiaohongshu, Ximalaya).
- Small-sized companies: Profitable companies, even if they are not well-known, with a certain market presence in niche fields.
These three options were primarily based on two indicators: stability and scalability (similar to the two indicators in the blockchain "impossible triangle," haha). I found and received offers from companies that fit each option, and I ranked them in the order of 1>3>2 based on my expectations for the future.
Switching tracks (web2→web3)#
By October 2022, the web3 track was already in a bear market (and had been for some time), but I still decided to prioritize it.
At that time, I didn't have much knowledge about this market (I hadn't been involved in any web3 projects at that time, only in cryptocurrency trading for over two years). However, I saw that this market was filled with two types of people: young people and people with ideas. From the bottom of my heart, I believed that "the future" = "youth" + "ideas" + "etc," and the combination of "youth" and "ideas" might account for 80% of future possibilities.
The changes in the bear and bull market environment are influenced by many factors, most likely unrelated to individuals. However, whether someone is "young" (ps: even if not young in age, having a young mindset and a young brain are also included in this definition) and whether they have "ideas" are strongly related to individuals. Based on this, I concluded that it was reasonable and correct for me to choose this path.
After deciding to pursue the web3 track, the next consideration was which specific category to choose. After all, web3 is a vast field.
At that time, considering the difficulty of switching tracks, I chose "exchanges." Essentially, this field is not web3, but it is the closest to web2 and closely related to crypto.
Unexpectedly, after I decided to join a certain exchange, FTX collapsed the following week, and the entire exchange market underwent a sudden change. As a precaution, I didn't directly enter this market.
Medium-sized companies#
This is probably the final destination for most web2 professionals.
Large and medium-sized internet companies in China are essentially no different from BAT and other large companies. The only differences are some subjective aspects (e.g., the level of intensity, the level of persuasion, the complexity of interpersonal relationships within the company), while other aspects such as hierarchy, structure, and business models are the same.
As people age and the pressure from family increases, the demand for financial stability and growth becomes greater. From the perspective of stability and growth, medium and large internet companies are the only way out. When you move from the top-tier companies to the next level, the brand effect still carries some persuasive power. They can not only meet your salary expectations but also provide stories of unlisted ventures for you to imagine, which is difficult to find in companies at the next level.
Therefore, there is not much analysis to be done for these types of companies. They are basically transparent, with clear prices and future prospects (depending on fate). In today's internet environment of a great depression, this may be the best choice.
Small-sized companies#
When choosing a small-sized company, there are two points to consider: your position and the company itself.
- The company must be profitable, which can avoid many problems. When it is not profitable, the company's expectations and demands on you will be higher (expecting you to be the "savior"), which is extremely risky. As for how much profit and whether you can choose, it depends on your personal abilities.
- Position refers not only to a higher position (e.g., director, VP), but also to the relationship between you and the company. Is it a purely one-sided employment relationship, or are you more like a small shareholder?
"Position" is very important. The best situation is to be in a company where you independently manage a business, request investment from the company headquarters based on the business performance, and receive a share of the business's profits in addition to your basic salary. I compare this approach to "internal incubation entrepreneurship" in large companies, except that in large companies, you are unlikely to have the right to share profits. At most, you may receive a slightly higher year-end bonus.
Pitfalls#
I have discussed my thought process for choosing after leaving Alibaba and the key considerations for each option. After the first option was cut off due to the FTX collapse, I chose the third option and joined a top 5 company in a niche field to lead their overseas business division.
Here is some basic information about this company:
The company had an early advantage in a certain field, made quick profits, but fell behind after facing increasing competition in the market (although it still made money due to its early size). After struggling for 1-2 years and realizing that they couldn't reverse the situation, the management team turned their attention to overseas markets, hoping to replicate their previous success in China. However, they found that it didn't work.
When an internet business faces a decline, the typical response from most bosses is to "grow taller" first.
Vertically, they add more detailed features on the product side and further refine operations on the business side. If they have more money, they may concentrate on advertising. After these three steps, there may be some positive fluctuations in the data, but when they stop or reduce some investments, the data immediately returns to its original state, or even regresses (because the strong external intervention has a negative effect).
If the first step fails (which is highly likely), they immediately switch to the second step: "get fatter."
Getting fatter means expanding horizontally, either by expanding within the current business category or by expanding into other business lines to generate new sources of income.
This step is more difficult than the previous one because the company most likely lacks the ability to do so. The more they struggle, the faster they die.
Ironically, cutting off some of their own businesses, which may require a few cuts, may keep them alive (this is worth writing another article about).
Returning to this company, the decision to shift focus to overseas markets was not a problem for several reasons:
- First, the market space was indeed larger.
- Second, the major players were still focused on the domestic market, with limited overseas presence.
- Third, there was an opportunity to establish a foothold in the overseas market before the domestic giants entered, making it more difficult to conquer and take the lead compared to the competition in the domestic market at that time.
The problem arose when everyone wanted to directly "replicate" their previous experience and attempted to validate the market at a faster pace. However, they eventually realized that because the initial path was wrong, the faster they ran, the further off track they went. When they wanted to turn back, there was no "direct path to the top" arrow for them. They had to detour or retrace their steps and make a new choice. After going back and forth several times, the entire company lost confidence and missed the time window.
In this context, I joined the company for the following reasons:
- Position: They gave me the power to recruit and manage employees in the business unit, and I had control over the pricing of the employees. In addition to the basic salary, I could receive a share of the business unit's overall profits. This aligns with the relationship between me and the company in a small company.
- Business:
- As mentioned earlier, the company had some underlying accumulation in the domestic business. The process of expanding overseas was not starting from scratch.
- The current state of the overseas business was not great, so achieving some results could overcome the initial cold start (which is crucial for someone who joined a new company, as they need to quickly show results, and they won't have much time).
- In addition to this business, I could propose and develop other business lines (similar to internal entrepreneurship, based on market and data, with company investment).
Based on the current situation and business considerations, I believed that my decision was well-considered. Even if I couldn't consider some aspects due to lack of personal experience, it wouldn't be a major problem. However, it turned out to be my Waterloo.
I realized that with my background, the company's plans for the overseas business, and the reward system, I could attract some people that the company previously couldn't attract. However, the CEO would find various reasons to block them, and after being blocked by 4 or 5 reasons (e.g., high price, lack of industry experience, not being a startup talent, etc.), I finally understood one thing: he hired you with the expectation that you can do the work of 10 people, and everything else should be done with the cheapest labor.
He realized that the company's current capabilities were not enough to do well in the overseas market, so he wanted to find someone with overseas experience to take charge. However, because the company had always been profitable and had never raised funds or had any investor constraints, even though he knew he should delegate power and let others do the work, he still wanted strong control when it came to actual implementation.
He placed all his expectations on one person, which became a problem because the expectations were high, meaning you couldn't make any mistakes and had to show results quickly. However, because it was a completely new company and a completely new business, and it wasn't starting from scratch but rather optimizing and iterating on a business that had been running for over a year, it was unrealistic to expect one person to quickly turn the tide in such a large undertaking.
Thus, I learned a valuable lesson: in small companies, the boss > the business > everything else. The boss is the ceiling of the company. When you rationalize and consider the business, the environment, etc., the consideration of the boss as an individual is often overlooked, which can lead to problems.
Conclusion#
There are some things that you can't see clearly without experiencing them. Only through experience, reflection, and contemplation can they become part of your understanding.
Whether you are in web2 or web3, whether you choose a large company or a small company, I hope everyone considers one thing: what is your relationship with the company?
A one-sided employment relationship is not a healthy and sustainable way. We must have a reverse constraint on the company so that we can persist and go further in the process of environmental changes.
I hope everyone can find a job they love and find their position accurately.