I'm not sure how this applies to 2-10 people startups. And, honestly, once a startup reaches the scale where it has multiple hierarchies of management and engineering organization that requires formal training, it's not a startup anymore. It's a different kinda beast... small business perhaps.
Not saying informal training isn't useful, it's just not something you'd formalize at a small startup.
One of the defining qualities of a Startup is that it's small. The implication there is that everybody on the team needs to be running at full speed right out of the gate, and if anybody is not pulling their weight the entire venture will probably fail.
I don't see where training would fit into a team like that. It seems that there is no room in a startup for employees that need training to do their job. Nor is there much in the way of slack time to train people to do things that aren't their core.
Case 1. You hired me for my engg. skills, but I suck at managing my time. Spending an hour teaching me time management is going to give far more returns than anything else you can do.
Case 2. You hired me as a junior sales-person. I've done product sales, but I don't understand solution selling. Training on solution selling is going to pay off.
Case 3. You hired me for sw devel. I can do some design, but I'm not as good as you are, and you can see that I'm not that good. Spend time coaching me on design, instead of criticizing my design work.
You don't hire a person for just one thing. Anyone you hire is likely to be strong in some things, and weak in others. Training is what's going to plug their gaps and make your team stronger.
We've started doing some pair programming. In addition to making the code better, we've also found that it serves as a form of training, helping us to learn coding techniques from each other.
For small startups where you need people to fill multiple roles and new people to get up to speed quickly, it's best to teach as much as possible.
Finally, training is also a great source of team-building and motivation. When people leave the perks of a big company to join your fledging startup, you can offer them the satisfaction of learning new skills and taking on new responsibilities.
All that makes sense in the context of a company. Startups don't really have time for it. If you're going to burn into the ground inside of 6 months, there's simply no room for training.
I don't think a startup is defined as having a life of 6 months or less. The large majority of startups must have a few dozen employees - which is exactly where training would help.
depends. Your runway can usually be extended quite a lot by hiring (dramatically cheaper) inexperienced people and training. This is what I did; I paid people at a level where I could pay them out of what I made as a consultant. Obviously, this meant I had to start with people who had no experience. But that's okay. I trained, and I think I have excellent people now. (well, they leave every two years or so and I have to start over, but if you can keep two part timers, you can usually keep one pretty good person and one newbie) On the other hand... I'm not sure you can call me a startup any more.
Of course, if you have a 6 month runway due to something other than running out of money (Say, for example, it's a market where the first mover takes all, and you have 6 months until someone else takes it.) you have something of a point. But even then, I think reality intrudes.
The thing is, most startups I've seen /can't/ attract top talent. The job is stressful and unstable and usually pays poorly when you consider the hours.
Sure, you can get good people as founders, but a good founder is /very different/ from a good Engineer. Some people have both those skillsets, but it is extremely rare. (well, really, in an Engineering startup, the founder _must_ be at least an adequate engineer, or you are sunk. But the founder must also be an adequate business guy, or else you are also sunk. If the founder is the best Engineer at the company, well, you are probably doing something wrong. If you trade away the 'business guy' qualities, you can usually get a /much better/ Engineer for the same money. Hell, if I don't think I can make you a better Engineer than I am in two years, I won't hire you, no matter how cheap you are.)
So, while optimally, yeah, you are working with god-like mental athletes who can work 16 hours a day for 6 months straight and need no training, the reality of the matter is that usually you are stuck with young, inexperienced but enthusiastic and intelligent individuals. I'd argue that those people (intelligent, inexperienced and enthusiastic) are the sort who will get the most out of a good training program.
"Good product managers send their status reports in on time every week, because they are disciplined. Bad product managers forget to send in their status
reports on time, because they don't value discipline."
Warning: This document was written 15 years ago and is probably not relevant for today’s product managers. I present it here merely as an example of a useful training document.
Not saying informal training isn't useful, it's just not something you'd formalize at a small startup.