While prior entrepreneurship research highlights strong preferences for autonomy among founders and early joiners of startups, little is known about how explicitly emphasizing autonomy in startup recruitment affects the composition of the applicant pool. We propose that such emphasis may inadvertently reduce applicant quality by disproportionately attracting lower-ability candidates while deterring higher-ability job seekers. This adverse selection may arise because individuals with varying cognitive abilities may interpret autonomy-related signals in systematically different ways. Specifically, lower-ability candidates may perceive autonomy at face value as desirable freedom from managerial oversight, whereas higher-ability individuals may infer potential organizational dysfunction, including ill-defined roles, insufficient managerial oversight, and unclear performance evaluation. Using large-scale job posting data, we first document that startups increasingly highlight autonomy in recruitment, particularly when targeting higher-ability talent. We then provide causal evidence for the proposed adverse selection through a field experiment conducted in partnership with a U.S.-based startup. Our findings reveal that, although autonomy is widely considered a desirable attribute that distinguishes new ventures from established firms, its explicit emphasis in startup recruitment may backfire—paradoxically deterring the high-ability candidates most critical to entrepreneurial success.