Poking through 14+ years of posts I find information that’s as useful now as when it was written.

Golden Oldies is a collection of the most relevant and timeless posts during that time.

First, Steve Wozniak’s comments from 2016 are even less true today than they were then. Secondly, money has become the all-consuming focus for most people regardless of profession, driven for some by necessity, but in tech more often by ego, stuff and an aspirational lifestyle. That said, startups as a source of wealth may be falling out of style, as you’ll see tomorrow.

Read other Golden Oldies here.

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

I only partly agree with Steve Wozniak’s recent comment.

“I think the money that’s been made has attracted a different kind of people looking at technology today and saying ‘Oh my gosh, I could maybe have a startup and make a bunch of money,’” Wozniak said. “And the ones that come out of business school, money’s the priority. For the ones that come out of engineering school, being able to accomplish and design things that didn’t exist before is their priority.”

 Woz gives too much credit to the engineers.

It’s not just the biz school crowd that’s focused on the bucks.

The money bug has bit a good number of techies, too.

Years ago, no matter their role, people joined startups because they craved the bleeding edge, whether software, hardware or services.

This was true of both tech and non tech. In the words of Star Treck, they wanted “to go where no man has gone before” — or at the least go there differently.

Today the journey is more about getting rich and/or making connections for the future.

For decades I’ve told clients, “The person who joins your company for money/stock/perks will leave in a heartbeat for more money/stock/perks.”

That hasn’t changed, if anything it’s just gotten more so.

Image credit: HikingArtist

I’ve always been a Dilbert fan, probably because in the course of my career first as a recruiter and then at my company, RampUp Solutions, coaching managers on culture, hiring, retention, etc.,

I’ve spent a lot of time with pointy-haired bosses.

Pointy-headed, actually.

I’ve sat and listened to some of the weirdest, silliest, and just plain stupidest reasons for a hiring decision than you can imagine.

Over the years I’ve shared these stories with KG and several years ago he sent me a Dilbert that summed it up nicely — except that pointy-hair’s reasoning was more valid than some of what I’ve heard from real bosses.

Maybe it will resonate the next time your normal reasoning slips, since it can happen to even the most well-balanced boss.

Poking through 11+ years of posts I find information that’s as useful now as when it was written.

Golden Oldies is a collection of the most relevant and timeless posts during that time.

People Like Me is probably one of the most important posts I ever wrote. Additionally, 12 years ago I said,

A workforce that homogenizes along any lines is a workforce that will either miss, ignore, or be unable to reach a part of their market.

And in 2007 I wrote,

Keep in mind that true diversity includes MAP and mental function, not just race and gender. I’ve known managers whose organizations were mini-UNs with equal numbers of males and females, but they might as well have been cloned from the boss, their thinking was so identical.

I call it “homogenizing,” which is the polar opposite of diversity, which includes race, gender, religion, ethnicity, and MAP. Research has proven that while diversity pays, homogenizing will kill you.

Read other Golden Oldies here.

A CEO (who wants to stay anonymous) called me today and said, “If charm causes bad hires, what causes “wrong hires?” He defined a wrong hire as one where a good person with good skills that seemed to fit the req was hired, but didn’t add the expected strength to the team. So I explained comfort zones and he said, “You should put that in the blog,” so I am.

I first wrote about comfort zones back around 1999 (Hiring in Your Comfort Zone) for msdn (Microsoft Developers Network, where I used to have a column) and the idea hasn’t changed a lot.

Our comfort zone is where we all prefer to do things. People want to spend their time with people like themselves. This isn’t about simple labels, such as race, religion or gender, which are more society’s labels. Our own subjective labels have more to do with schools (Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, etc.), specific professions (not fields), and especially companies (think McKinsey). It’s how we choose a way to connect, because, true or not, MIT grads believe they have more in common with MIT alums than with Cal or Columbia. Doctors hang out with doctors, usually those with the same, or similar, specialty or employer, but rarely with nurses or radiology techs. We like enough knowledge commonality so we don’t feel ignorant, but can still learn. It all boils down to, “people like me (PLM).”

And that maybe fine in our personal life—but not so fine in our professional life, especially not for managers responsible for hiring. The broader the PLM definition the longer it takes to become noticeable, but it’s there if you look for it.

I’ve known the following (often more than one who fits the profile):

• Director of system development who came from a software background, hired hardware engineers with extremely strong software experience, although it wasn’t needed.
• VP of marketing with a Harvard MBA whose team were all “Ivy.”

Think of the articles you are constantly seeing of new CEOs who hire the majority or their team from their previous employer with the express purpose of getting the same mindset. Bob Nardelli, the new CEO of Home Depot is a great example of PLM hiring. And sometimes it works, at least for awhile.

But the long-term cost to companies can be high.

• When the choice is between the best applicant and PLM, PLM usually wins out, slowly lowering the quality of talent.
• PLM homogenizes the staff, reducing diversity of both thinking and thought (methodology and result) and it’s that diversity that supplies strength and creativity.
• PLM can wreak havoc on retention efforts and drive out legacy knowledge.
• PLM hiring can involve just one part of a company or create a ripple effect, e.g. slow product development, which delays delivery, crimping sales and keeping the company from achieving its revenue goals.

Yes, all of this and much more are a product of a PLM mindset.

Image credit: Jurgen Appelo

Yesterday we looked at some terrible management advice; today we’ll check out the unstated, totally ignored elephant in the room when it comes to hiring.

When AI tells you the success of your new hire, before you hire them is a typical misleading media headline.

While the experts talk about the enormous amount of candidate data available online that goes way beyond education, skills, experience and even background checks, and AI’s ability to correlate and to some extent, interpret it, they agree that it still requires human involvement.

But comprehending someone’s motivations and soft skills – attentiveness, nimbleness or assertiveness — requires a level of interpretation that some recruiters don’t believe machines have just yet. (…)

That type of intuition is already being built into machines. In the hiring process, the data to analyze is flooding in and it will require powerful and intelligent machines to digest it all; companies are realizing they need to be more precise about their hiring needs in order to get answers from machines; and already we’re seeing some machines conduct simple tasks, such as administrative matching.

Once again the elephant is ignored.

All focus is on candidates, while the elephants are completely ignored.

What are the elephants?

The manager and the culture they create in their individual domain all the way down to a team leader.

That’s why the person who soars as a star working for X can easily burn out and crash after going to work for Y and vice versa.

The elephants aren’t new; they’ve always been around and even occasionally written about, but rarely credited with candidate success or failure.

Will/can AI change that?

Unlikely, because, as seen in hundreds of examples, self-analysis is rarely accurate and how someone wants to be managed is not necessarily predictive of how they will manage others.

So, as long as the elephants continue to roam and thrive, it remains unlikely that AI will actually be able to predict hiring success.

Image credit: David Blackwell

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

I only partly agree with Steve Wozniak’s recent comment.

“I think the money that’s been made has attracted a different kind of people looking at technology today and saying ‘Oh my gosh, I could maybe have a startup and make a bunch of money,'” Wozniak said. “And the ones that come out of business school, money’s the priority. For the ones that come out of engineering school, being able to accomplish and design things that didn’t exist before is their priority.”

Woz gives too much credit to the engineers.

It’s not just the biz school crowd that’s focused on the bucks.

The money bug has bit a good number of techies, too.

Years ago, no matter their role, people joined startups because they craved the bleeding edge, whether software, hardware or services.

This was true of both tech and non tech. In the words of Star Treck, they wanted “to go where no man has gone before” — or at the least go there differently.

Today the journey is more about getting rich and/or making connections for the future.

For decades I’ve told clients, “The person who joins your company for money/stock/perks will leave in a heartbeat for more money/stock/perks.”

That hasn’t changed, if anything it’s just gotten more so.

Image credit: HikingArtist

FANTASTIC! An absolutely fantastic, no-frills conference that went to the core of what any startup CEO needs to know about starting and scaling sales, how to align with marketing and what types of people to hire and how.

AA-ISP stands for the American Association of Inside Sales Professionals and is an international association dedicated exclusively to advancing the profession of Inside Sales. The association engages in research studies, organizational benchmarking and leadership round tables to better understand and analyze the trends, challenges, and key components of the growth and development of the Inside Sales industry.

When I arrived I was exhausted after pulling an all-nighter and having had only 1.5 hours of sleep. I was sitting in the parking lot before to going into the conference (of course I was an hour late for the start) and kept nodding off as I was collecting my thoughts prior to going into registration. Eventually I did go in, registered and went to my first session, which I mostly dozed through.

However, by my second session called “The Uberization of Sales”, I was perky and awake, and the subject matter held my total attention. It continued this way until I left the conference at about 8:30 pm, elated that I’d had lucked out in this manner.

In fact, I had been dubious about whether I should attend at all, as I had slept so little and my impression was that it would be of only limited interest or relevance to Quarrio and me personally. I was embarrassingly wrong.

This conference is among the best I’ve attended as a startup CEO and addressed a number of issues I’ve struggled with throughout my career in startups.

After creating a product, the most challenging aspect of making the company successful is not continuous rounds of funding, but rather building the sales organization, getting the product out to customers and driving revenue.

The AA-ISP conference was wholly devoted to this. In fact, it’s the first conference I’ve attended with this focus.

In my experience, sales is the most under-emphasized area of knowledge for the startup CEO.

For some strange reason, we are just supposed to understand the process, how to build the team, how to hire reps and managers and how to manage them.

We are supposed to be able to know how to hire people whose profession it is to sell, while being immune to their ability to make us like them and make us oblivious to their weaknesses.

They are professional sales people — this is what they do every day, and most of us just have no defenses or ability to properly identify a good sales person from a bad one.

I know this has certainly been one of my areas of failure in the past.

This conference should be attended by every B2B startup CEO – other than creating the product, this is the best way to learn and network with people who are in the business of selling, building sales teams and getting new products into the market.

This is the place to learn how they think and how to hire and collaborate with them. I’d say that this is a must attend conference for anyone who hasn’t built several B2B companies.

I highly recommend joining the AA-ISP to gain knowledge and save yourself a ton of pain.

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

Yesterday we looked at the bootstrapped success of Tuft & Needle and before that at bootstrapping serial entrepreneur Andrew Wilkinson.

All very successful sans venture money.

Sure, thousands of bootstrapped companies fail, as do hundreds of funded companies; some go with a bang and others with barely a whimper.

But a few provide a cautionary tale for both founders and investors.

Lucas Duplan’s Clinkle is one such tale

Clinkle was supposed to be what Apple Pay is today.

In what is termed a “party round” 22 year-old Duplan raised $25 million dollars, mostly in convertible notes, from high profile investors, including Richard Branson, Peter Thiel and Marc Benioff, as well as VCs Accel Partners, Index Ventures and Andreessen Horowitz.

“In a typical party round, no single investor cares enough to think about the company multiple times a day,” wrote Y Combinator President Sam Altman in a June 2013 blog post. “Each investor assumes that at least 1 of the N other investors will be closely involved, but in fact no one is, and the companies sometimes wander off into a very unfocused wilderness.”

However, in the 5 years since founding, 3 since funding, the company has done nothing, gone nowhere and in an almost unheard of action investors are asking for their money back.

Clinkle had a polished demo that came before things like Apple Pay, said one former employee, who declined to be named. But most importantly that person added, Duplan “was charismatic when he wanted to be” and could “raise money in absurd abundance.”

“It was his one skill,” they said. (Emphasis mine.)

The takeaway is beware of great stories, charm and party rounds where the person at the helm has never sailed a boat.

Knowing the correct names of the equipment doesn’t mean a person knows how to use it in the real world or in what order.

Image credit: HikingArtist