A Friday series exploring Startups and the people who make them go. Read all If the Shoe Fits posts here

Bosses hiring for startups (or existing companies) wax lyrical on the benefits of hiring “stars” and are willing to jump through almost any hoop to get one.

Those of you who crave stars would do well to read the story of Jeremy Lin, who plays for the NY Knicks in the NBA.

Nobody considered Lin a star or even a potential star.

He was cut in December by the Golden State Warriors, his hometown team, after one season in which he rarely left the bench. The Warriors were intrigued enough to sign him but not enough to keep him. The Houston Rockets gave Lin a quick look and cut him.

Of course, his coaches didn’t play him, so they never learned what he could do.

The Knicks almost made the same mistake.

Lin started with two strikes against him; he is Chinese-American and graduated from Harvard—he doesn’t fit “the profile.”

In spite of superb high school playing he received no scholarship offers.

Similar scenarios play out every day in hiring decisions across industries and around the country.

In doing so managers walk by some of the best talent available.

How many Jeremy Lins have you missed?

How many of them now work for your competition?

Option Sanity™ recognizes stars-to-be

Come visit Option Sanity for an easy-to-understand, simple-to-implement stock allocation process.  So easy a CEO can do it.

Warning.

Do not attempt to use Option Sanity™ without a strong commitment to business planning, financial controls, honesty, ethics, and “doing the right thing.”
Use only as directed.
Users of Option Sanity may experience sudden increases in team cohesion and worker satisfaction. In cases where team productivity, retention and company success is greater than typical, expect media interest and invitations as keynote speaker.

Flickr image credit: HikingArtist

Northern California startup land is once again the Golden State for new grads—especially those with a strong sense of entitlement.

And I do mean golden.

Lattice Engines, a small San Mateo startup, where she makes “near the top” of the company’s $80,000 to $130,000 range for an entry level product manager, plus equity.

Notice that the young woman is not a techie, so her salary isn’t pay for (supposedly) hard to find programming skills.

Granted I’m no longer in the front lines of hiring, but I’m still going to stick my neck out and say that no new grad is worth that kind of money—not even programmers.

Why?

Because there is so much more to working than what was learned in class. Stuff like

• you may not know as much as you think, let alone everything;
• experience matters;
• understanding that while screwing up your own work is bad it can wreck the project and damage not just your team, but even the company;
• not only being present, but also productive five days a week, 12 months a year;
• being engaged every day all day—no cramming just before evaluations;
• no spring or winter break or summer vacation (it’s a different rhythm); and
• many other mundane things

In other words, it’s a different world, with different rules and different measures.

Further, new research is showing that entitlement kills innovation and for a new grad to believe they are worth a six figure salary plus equity compensation package is definitely entitlement.

I’m not saying that they aren’t assets or that they won’t contribute significantly, just that it wouldn’t hurt if they proved themselves first.

Can you imagine the impact on their productivity and creativity if their annual raise is meager, let alone justifying that salary if they change jobs?

There is a world of difference in the skills of someone with one year of experience, let alone five or more.

The problem is that by the time that truth is learned they are no longer entry level.

Flickr image credit: Jeff Wilcox

As hiring has picked up I’m getting the same questions from a variety of managers at different levels and in different industries.

Boiled down they all want to know if there is a way to avoid bad hires, i.e., the ones that happen in spite of a rigorous interviewing process.

The answer is yes and I’ve written about them at various times over the years; rather than compose yet another post discussing them I thought I would just link back to them (getting lazy in my old blogging age).

The most persistent reason for bad hires is unconscious.

The first is charm (or charisma, if you prefer), which it makes us want to be around the person. You combat charm using RampUp Solutions four hiring rules.

On the flip side, attractiveness, which we are actually hard wired to prefer, is the biggest reason for missing good hires. But that, too, is preventable.

There are additional links and trackbacks in each post that you will find useful.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As I said New Year’s Day, I’m looking for guests who want to share their own experiences whether as a boss or a worker. Areas of interest are culture, management, motivation, people acquisition and retention and startups in all their gory glory.

And if you always wanted to draw a comic based on your experiences in the workplace, but aren’t much of an artist, give me call at 360.335.8054 or write me; I care more about your sense of humor, irony and irreverence than your drawing skill!

Flickr image credit: bgottsab

What extracurricular activities do you look for in your entry level candidates?

Too many mangers chess team means a thinker/problem solver, debate team assumes good verbal and written skills, captain of anything indicates a leader.

How impressed would you be if you saw FAA, i.e., Future Farmers of America on the resume?

Many managers would write that off as irrelevant at best and valueless at the least, unless it was an agriculture-related position.

Not so fast.

Consider Gamaliel Rizzo, an apartment dweller from Brooklyn who is studying to become a doctor. He says he spent more time honing skills like public speaking and developing business budgets than learning about farming.

“What amazes me is the degree to which they have made themselves relevant when by all expectations they should have simply ceased to exist.” –Pamela Riney-Kehrberg, historian at Iowa State University.

And it’s not just in the heartland that the FAA is thriving.

About 70 percent of its members live in rural areas, and 19 percent live in small towns. The fastest growing segment, however, is in urban and suburban areas, now making up 10 percent of the membership.

So what’s the take away on this?

If you want the unusual, look for the unusual.

If you want to hire people who think outside the norm then you should look for those who did things outside the norm.

If you need talent that will challenge conventional thinking and not cave to the nay-sayers look for the ones who went against the tide and persevered in spite of the cardinal sin of “not fitting in.”

It’s not that conventional activities, such as chess, debate and sports, aren’t good, but looking further, even if it’s not on the resume, will help you uncover the hidden gems that others miss.

Flickr image credit: Bush Library

I apologize if this insults any of you, but I find a good deal of humor in the idea that the best answers come from peers.

Peers who most often have similar backgrounds and experiences as the person asking the question—here’s a great example.

Without much effort I can think of dozens of places to ask about working in a startup that would offer better information than peers who not only haven’t worked in a startup, but are lacking much, if any, post-school work experience.

It’s a classic case of the blind leading the blind.

New entrepreneurs often indulge in this kind of behavior.

Although they reach out and listen to highly successful entrepreneurs and investors, their actions frequently follow the advice they get from peers.

Quick story, short version. I’d been acting as an occasional sounding board for “Jerrod.” He called last summer in a quandary; several experienced entrepreneurs and investors had suggested that he pivot his company in a different direction, not a total change, but different from what he originally envisioned.

Jerrod was loathe to change and when he discussed it with other entrepreneurs several encouraged him to stay with his original vision and said his passion would carry him though, while a few felt that the advisory types probably had good reason for what they said.

Jerrod asked what I thought and after hearing everything I agreed with the need for a pivot.

That wasn’t the answer he wanted and he informed me that none of us really understood his vision and he was sticking with the original plan.

I haven’t heard from Jerrod since, but I’ve heard from others that his company is struggling.

I’ve also seen that two companies occupying his “pivot space” were recently funded and knowing the investment community there may be others.

Why? Especially with all the solid information and help available do some entrepreneurs put themselves and their babies, I mean companies, in harms way by following the advice of entrepreneurs with a similar depth of experience and knowledge, while others listen, process, and act on the advice of people whose knowledge was hard-won and who carry the startup scars to prove it.

Flickr image credit: gerbisson

A Friday series exploring Startups and the people who make them go. Read all If the Shoe Fits posts here

Yesterday I wrote abut new approaches to recruiting, a la online puzzles, to find tech talent from non-traditional sources, as well as advice from a successful entrepreneur who says that the most important traits to look for are behavioral and can only be identified through good interviewing, which requires time.

All this says that younger entrepreneurs are willing to try radically new, as well as mastering old, approaches to finding talent.

The one thing I’ve found that many are not willing to do is hire outside their peers.

An old attitude that dates back decades (if not centuries) and which can be boiled down to five words—“people like me,” which defines your “comfort zone.”

It doesn’t matter that it’s illegal to say it involves age, but it does.

The bias is dangerous, especially when hiring more senior people as you grow. Consider these points,

• Can that brilliant developer you hired lead?
• Does the Twitter whiz kid understand creating and implementing a complete marketing strategy?

What exactly does a twenty-something a year or few out of school know about employment law, strategy, team-building, managing, conflict resolution, contract negotiation, the list goes on and on.

Whatever gave people the idea that creativity and innovation dropped off as experience increased?

One of these days in the not-too-distant future you are going to lose out on an opportunity because you are outside the company’s/manager’s comfort zone and the company is going to lose out on the richness of your experience.

How do you hire? What have you missed out on recently?

Option Sanity™ rewards performance.

Come visit Option Sanity for an easy-to-understand, simple-to-implement stock process.  It’s so easy a CEO can do it.

Warning.

Do not attempt to use Option Sanity™ without a strong commitment to business planning, financial controls, honesty, ethics, and “doing the right thing.” Use only as directed.
Users of Option Sanity may experience sudden increases in team cohesion and worker satisfaction. In cases where team productivity, retention and company success is greater than typical, expect media interest and invitations as keynote speaker.

Image credit: kevinspencer

In 2007 Google developed an algorithm to improve their hiring. In a post citing that I wrote, “Google’s known for only hiring grads with a 3.7+ GPA, double 800 SAT scores and world-class interviewing skills—none of which are viable predictors of creativity or working success.”

Considering the story related by George Anders in his new book The Rare Find: Reinventing Recruiting it must not have worked.

These days the hot recruiting strategy for Google, Facebook and others are puzzles—at least for tech types, since the puzzles are focused on technical issues involving software and coding.

The great point about the puzzles is that they are open to anyone who wants to solve them, no matter their education or experience.

That’s right, no-name school or no school, iffy or rotten GPA; what’s important is how they think and how creative they are, but if you’re in the very early stages of hiring, even brilliant puzzle solving isn’t enough.

Your first hires are so critical, not just to traditional success, but because of the impact they have on determining the course of your culture, which can impact hiring forever.

Cezary Pietrzak, co-founder and director of business development at Wanderfly offers excellent insights on identifying your own gold-plated hires.

He assumes the candidates are “smart, talented, and, generally speaking, a rock star” and talks about the characteristics for which you should look.

Most of these are behavioral in nature; you’ll likely not find them on a resume, and traditional interview questions won’t uncover them, either. Yet their importance cannot be overstated, as often times they’re the difference between a great and poor working relationship.

Identifying these assets requires real work and a lot of it; ideally you’ll make interviewing a core competency for yourself and your entire company.

It requires committing time ungrudgingly, because you recognize the stratospheric ROI of good hiring.

After all, you are betting your company on those you hire.

Flickr image credit: {Guerrilla Futures | Jason Tester}

A Friday series exploring Startups and the people who make them go. Read all If the Shoe Fits posts here

A young programming whiz called me after reading this post and requested some help.

“Jim” had job offers from two strong startups and wasn’t sure which to accept.

I discussed which technology he found most interesting, which position he thought would be the most challenging, where he thought he would learn the most, which people he felt most comfortable with, which company seemed to have values/culture that was most synergistic to his own.

I asked if there was anything about either one that bothered him and Jim said that was the problem, he wasn’t sure.

In both cases, his final interview had been with the respective founders. Both shared their vision and seemed open when responding to his questions. He left each feeling excited and enthralled with the opportunities.

Jim said the problem surfaced when he was telling his parents about the companies (call them A and B).

He said he was easily able to explain B’s vision, market, opportunity and even culture, but when he tried to describe A’s vision and the founder’s answers to his questions he couldn’t.

What seemed so clear when they were talking wasn’t when he used his own words to explain it to his folks.

When he replayed the founder’s actual sentences and even wrote them out and re-read it they didn’t make as much sense—worse, some didn’t make any sense at all.

What happened to Jim made me think of a recent post by Steve Roesler about keeping things simple.

Truth comes in sentences. B_ llS_it comes in paragraphs. If you can’t say it with a noun, verb, and object, you aren’t clear about your thought.

I suggested he read it and also yesterday’s post and apply the information to the problem.

Jim just emailed me to thank me for the time we spent and the links; he also said that he had accepted B’s offer.

Which do you remind your candidates of, A or B?

Option Sanity™ makes ISO allocation transparent.
Come visit Option Sanity for an easy-to-understand, simple-to-implement stock process.  It’s so easy a CEO can do it.

Warning!

Do not attempt to use Option Sanity™ without a strong commitment to business planning, financial controls, honesty, ethics, and “doing the right thing.” Use only as directed.

Users of Option Sanity may experience sudden increases in team cohesion and worker satisfaction. In cases where team productivity, retention and company success is greater than typical, expect media interest and invitations as keynote speaker.

Image credit: Bun in a Can

Two weeks ago I posted interview questions from a discussion among entrepreneurs, asked how you would address them and said I would share the intel from the group’s further discussions. Of course, it took a week longer than expected because everyone was busy, but here is, to the best of my ability, an unbiased summary of their thoughts.

Although not black and white, the group seemed to generally fall into one of two camps—one opting for being open and candid and the other more focused on expediency, based on company needs and the position’s urgency.

• Camp Open and Candid: Several attitudes seemed to be at work here. There was the general feeling that candidate’s deserved to know the negatives along with the positives; the feeling was that if negatives were glossed over the candidate was more likely to leave when they did surface and that in both the short and long run turnover was more detrimental to product development as well as team morale.

  Several focused on the issue of trust, with the most adamant saying that omitting or avoiding was the same as an outright lie.

  Regarding the difference between candidates who are available vs. those currently working, this group felt it was very important to “level” regarding any difficulties the company was facing. A few said that this was more important for candidates with greater financial responsibilities, i.e., mortgages, kids, non-working spouse, etc., but all agreed that they would want to know if positions were reversed.

  All agreed that there were sensitive areas couldn’t be shared, but that it was wrong to use that as an excuse to avoid answering questions.

  The general feeling regarding compensation (equity or money) was one of being as open as legally possible.

• Camp Expediency: The general attitude in this group was one of extreme focus on moving the company forward. It was felt that first loyalty had to be to investors and making the vision a reality or there wouldn’t be a company.

  Some felt that candidates applying to startups understood this and therefore wouldn’t expect anything else, while others said that is was naïve to hold startups to a different level of openness than was expected from established companies.

  None felt that a candidate’s personal situation, currently employed, responsibilities, etc., should have any impact on the discussions and they assumed that anyone applying to a startup was familiar with the risks and working requirements.

  On the subject of compensation, especially equity and funding, they were almost universally adamant that the information was confidential and should be kept so, with the exception of certain executive and critical hires.

Both sides offered solid reasons for their approach and none came over as advocates of the lie/cheat/steal school of thought.

My subjective reaction was that the first group took a longer term view of their current startup, as well as future efforts, and were concerned about damaging their personal brand by not walking their talk, while the second was more focused on the immediate situation.

What do you think?

Flickr image credit: Valerie Everett

Over the years I’ve heard variations of this rule from the best managers I’ve worked with in every field and across all disciplines and levels.

It’s the wise boss who understands that the only thing more important than hiring someone new is retaining someone you already have.

One would think it’s both simple and obvious, but you can walk into any company of any size and find more managers who don’t practice it than do.

Which are you?