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

Do you like to impress people? Do you want to be seen as intelligent; a person who is going somewhere?

Then here’s a secret few people think about.

Successful people are usually great communicators and the hallmark of great communications is clarity of thought. What people don’t think about is that clarity applies to all communications—including insults.

Practice clarity in all your communications and if it’s necessary to insult someone, and at times it is—or at least it feels that way—your insults should be offered with the same clarity and a whole lot of class.

The need for clarity is obvious—you want the person you’re insulting, and anyone else who is cognizant of it, to not only know your opinion, but to be impressed with your elegance.

Any idiot can say, “She’s dumb” or “he’s a *%$# jerk,” but those insults have no real meaning.

In fact, the minute you resort to expletives to describe a person or action you prove yourself to be a person of small intellect and smaller vocabulary.

Clarity is the key—using the fewest words, while allowing no question as to meaning or intent, as is shown by these three historic figures.

Clarence Darrow: “I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure.”

Abraham Lincoln: “He can compress the most words into the smallest ideas of any man I know.”

Oscar Wilde: “He has no enemies but is intensely disliked by his friends.”

Additionally, when you’re insulted, especially by someone with clarity and class, you want to respond in kind as was done here.

George Bernard Shaw sent a note to Winston Churchill saying, “I am enclosing two tickets to the first night of my new play; bring a friend… if you have one.”

To which Churchill responded, “Cannot possibly attend first night, will attend second… if there is one.”

No question as to what either thought of the other.

Mark Twain was a master of perfectly barbed clarity, “I didn’t attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it.”

And before you think that the art or the clear and classy insult is a thing of the past, take a look at three modern examples,

“He has Van Gogh’s ear for music.” –Billy Wilder

“He has the attention span of a lightning bolt.” –Robert Redford

And I absolutely love this one,

“He had delusions of adequacy.” –Walter Kerr

Practice with a friend, it’s fun and you will acquire a skill that sets you apart.

Image credit: Collin Anderson on flickr

Yesterday I gave you an example of policy that was costing a company thousands of dollars at a time they can least afford it. That policy was seriously flawed and poorly communicated.

I frequently talk about the role of communications and why clarity is so important in management.

Think of it this way, operational communications provide people information on how to do their jobs, while management communications tell them what their jobs are and why they do them, giving form and purpose.

Problems often arise when managers are careless, sloppy or use jargon in an effort to sound sophisticated, knowledgeable and “with it.” This leads to poor or inaccurate communications and misunderstanding, because people hear those words through the filter of their own experiences and apply their own definitions.

When communicating with your team you can eliminate this by remembering why, how and the overall goal.

The WHY: to provide your people with all the information needed to understand how to perform their work as correctly, completely, simply, and efficiently as possible.

The HOW: by providing clear, concise, and complete communications at all times.

The GOAL: to make your company more successful, your employees happier and more productive and you a more effective manager with better reviews.

Companies need to establish the same three points—why, how and the overall goal—to their policy development.

The WHY: to provide your people with all the information needed to understand the principals and mechanics required for the company to run as correctly, completely, simply, and efficiently as possible.

The HOW: by providing clear, concise, and complete communications that provide both the policy and guidelines on its implementation at all times.

The GOAL: to make your company more successful, your employees happier and more productive and your investors/stakeholders more confident in your future.

You can change confusing to clarifying with just a little effort. Is it worth it?

Image credit: Dominik Gwarek on sxc.hu