What is Grit?

Thinking of some of successful people, one of the greatest attributes they hold is grit. It's an odd term and not main stream in most talk paths, more studies have come out on how grit contributes to over achievement.

I pulled this off Wikipedia as a reference and it has some interesting definitions, links and empirical data.

If you DISC or personality test your candidates, perhaps a "Grit" test would be a better gauge of future success, especially in sales.

Grit in psychology is a positive, non-cognitive trait, based on an individual’s passion for a particular long-term goal or endstate coupled with a powerful motivation to achieve their respective objective. This perseverance of effort promotes the overcoming of obstacles or challenges that lie within a gritty individual’s path to accomplishment and serves as a driving force in achievement realization. Commonly associated concepts within the field of psychology include "perseverance," "hardiness," "resilience,” “ambition,” “need for achievement” and conscientiousness. These constructs can be conceptualized as individual differences related to the accomplishment of work rather than latent ability.This distinction was brought into focus in 1907 when William James challenged the field to further investigate how certain individuals are capable of accessing richer trait reservoirs enabling them to accomplish more than the average person,^[1] but the construct dates back at least to Galton, and the ideals of persistence and tenacity have been understood as a virtue at least since Aristotle. Although the last decade has seen a noticeable increase in research focused on achievement-oriented traits, there continues to be difficulty in aligning specific traits and outcomes.

Definition of Grit

Grit is defined as “perseverance and passion for long-term goals.” ^[2] Building upon biographical collections of famous leaders in history, researchers and scientists have reached similar conclusions about high achieving individuals. Specifically, those individuals who were deemed more successful and influential than their contemporary counterparts typically possessed traits above and beyond that of normal ability.^[3][4][5] While ability was still critically important, these individuals also possessed “zeal” and “persistence of motive and effort.”^[2] Duckworth and colleagues (2007) believe this dual-component of Grit to be a crucial differentiator from similar constructs. Grit is conceptualized as a stable trait that does not require immediate positive feedback.^[2] Individuals high in Grit are able to maintain their determination and motivation over long periods of time despite experiences with failure and adversity. Their passion and commitment towards the long-term objective is the overriding factor that provides the stamina required to “stay the course” amid challenges and set-backs. Essentially, the Grittier person is focused on winning the marathon, not the sprint.

Literature Comparisons

Grit and Positive Psychology

Grit also ties in with positive psychology and in particular, with perseverance. As mentioned earlier, the ability to stick with and pursue a goal over a long period of time is an important aspect of Grit. This area of positive psychology has been interested in the process of perseverance as a positive indicator of long term success.^[6] Grit’s inclusion of the perseverance construct is perhaps unsurprising as Angela Duckworth was a doctoral candidate under Martin Seligman.

Grit and Intelligence

One of the best predictors of future achievement has been intelligence.^[7] This relationship has been found in scholastic achievement as well as in job performance.^[8] As such, one might expect that grit would be strongly correlated with intelligence. In fact, this prompted one of the early questions asked in Grit research, “Why do some individuals accomplish more than others of equal intelligence?”.^[2] Somewhat surprisingly, in four separate samples, Grit was found to be either orthogonal to or slightly inversely correlated with intelligence.^[9] This means that Grit, unlike many traditional measures of performance is not tied to intelligence. As the researchers have suggested, this helps explain why some very intelligent individuals do not consistently perform well over long periods of time.

[edit] Grit and Personality Measures

The Grit measure has been compared to the Big Five personality model, which are a group of broad personality dimensions consisting of openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism.^[10] In one study by Duckworth and Quinn, the Short Grit Scale (Grit–S) and 12-item self-report measure of Grit (Grit–O) measuring Grit was strongly correlated with conscientiousness (r = .77, p <.001 and r = .73, p <.001) (2009). While Grit is related to conscientiousness measures, it also differs from conscientiousness in important ways. For example, while both Grit and conscientiousness are often associated with short term accomplishments, Grit is also associated with longer term and multi-year goals.^[2] This long-term persistence and dependability are important aspects that make Grit distinct from conscientiousness. Another personality characteristic that is often linked to Grit is the need for achievement. One way in which Grit differs from the need for achievement is that individuals with high scores in Grit often set extremely long-term goals for themselves and pursue them deliberately even without positive feedback,^[2] while need for achievement lacks this long-term component.

Comparison with related psychological constructs

Traditional constructs in this area include perseverance, hardiness, resilience, ambition, and need for achievement. Grit has been argued to be distinguishable from each of these in the following ways. Perseverance is the steadfast pursuit of a task, mission, or journey in spite of obstacles, discouragement, or distraction. In contrast, Grit is argued to be trait to perseverance. Grit enables an individual to persevere in accomplishing a goal despite obstacles over an extended period of time.^[2] When compared with the construct of persistence, Grit adds a component of passion for the goal.^[11] This goal passion also contributes to the ability of the individual to sustain effort over the long term.

Maddi (2006) defines hardiness as a combination of attitudes that provide the courage and motivation to do the hard, strategic work of turning stressful circumstances from potential disasters into growth opportunities.^[12] While Grit is primarily a measure of an individual’s ability to persist in obtaining a specific goal over an extended time period (Duckworth et al., 2007), hardiness refers to an individual’s ability to persist through difficult circumstances and does not address the individual’s long term persistence toward a specific goal.^[2] Maddi (2006) developed a theoretical model of hardiness as a tool for developing resilience.^[12]

Resilience is a dynamic process in which an individual overcomes significant adversity, usually in the form of a life changing event or difficult personal circumstances. Resilience can be conceptualized as an adaptive response to a challenging situation.^[13] Grit involves maintaining goal focused effort for extended periods of time, often while facing adversity but does not require a critical incident. Importantly, Grit is conceptualized as a trait while resilience is a dynamic process. Finally, resilience has been almost exclusively studied in children (cf. Luther, Doernberger, & Zigler, 1993) who are born into “at-risk” situations.^[13] Although resilience researchers recognize that adults likely demonstrate resilience in a similar manner to children, the resilience process has not been studied in a mature population.^[14]

Ambition is broadly defined as the desire for attainment, power, or superiority. In contrast to ambitious individuals, Gritty individuals do not seek fame or external recognition for their achievements. Ambition is often associated with a desire for fame.^[15] Unlike ambitious individuals, gritty individuals do not seek to distinguish themselves from other people, but to obtain personal goals.

McClelland (1961) describes need for achievement as a drive to complete manageable goals that enable the individual to receive immediate feedback.^[16] In contrast to need for achievement, Gritty individuals consciously set long-term goals that are difficult to attain and do not waver from these difficult goals, regardless of the presence of feedback. Additionally, need for achievement has been studied for almost 50 years and has been found to positively correlate to self-efficacy and learning goal orientation.^[17][18] These links have not yet been tested in the Grit literature.

Scientific Findings

The primary scientific findings on Grit come from Duckworth and colleagues’ examination of Grit as an individual difference trait capable of predicting long-term success.^[2] It was proposed that individuals who possess a drive to tirelessly work through challenges, failures, and adversity to achieve set goals and are uniquely positioned to reach higher achievements than others who lack similar stamina. In a series of six studies Duckworth et al. proposed, developed, and tested a two-factor Grit scale with notable results. In addition to validating their Grit scale, the authors also found support suggesting that Grit provided incremental predictive validity for education and age above and beyond the Big 5 personality traits (Study 2); that higher levels of Grit were more highly associated with cumulative grade point average (GPA) in an Ivy league sample when compared to those with lower Grit levels (r = .25, p < .01; Study 3); that Grit predicted retention after their first summer in two classes of cadets at the United States Military Academy (Study 4); and that participants in a National Spelling Bee with higher Grit scores typically work harder and longer than less Gritty peers, ultimately resulting in better performance. This series of studies provides empirical evidence that an individual difference conceptualized as Grit can account for significant variance in performance across a variety of settings. Grit predicts beyond the typical and unrelated cognitive construct of IQ and can account for variance over and above what is observed in the Big 5 personality construct of conscientiousness.

In 2009, Duckworth and Quinn found additional support for the Grit construct when they developed and validated a more condensed version of the Grit Scale (Grit-S) by removing four of the previous items and improving its psychometric properties. Using samples from the data collected in their 2007 studies, the authors were able to achieve complementary results that suggested the positive relationships between Grit and educational attainment, GPA, retention in college, and success in a national spelling bee competition.

Future Directions

Questions may surface relating to what additional cognitive and non-cognitive traits play complementary roles in the development of Grit. Of additional interest may be how the distinctive environmental conditions, specifically the interrelationships of emotional and cognitive load, might moderate and assist in explaining why some individuals succumb to significant challenges or struggle with obstacles that block their path to goal achievement, while others are able to overcome these barriers. The United States military believes that this and similar constructs may assist in explaining why some soldiers are better equipped to handle the psychological trauma of combat.^[19] Other on-going work includes investigations of the combined or multiplicative impacts of both cognitive and Grit-like predictors of achievement in leader adaptability situations.^[20]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grit_(personality_trait)

YESability: Driving Growth with Yes

In a world that is moving from a global economy driven by mass production to one driven by mass customization—a now economy—the demand for mass ingenuity, mass engagement, and mass action, has never been greater.

In Business at the Speed of Now, author John Bernard says that there must also be a shift in the way we manage our organizations. “Centralized innovation and decision-making, the mainstays of the Mass Production era, simply cannot get results in a world where unlimited choice demands real-time response.” What is required is leadership at all levels—“one that enables employees at all levels to solve problems and seize opportunities autonomously and instantaneously.”

To navigate this shift from mass production to mass customization people need the freedom to sieve every opportunity to solve problems quickly and efficiently. This requires a move from what Bernard calls “then” thinking to “now” thinking. “Then relies heavily on centralized control and specialization, whereas now relies heavily on decentralized autonomous action.” It requires a YES mindset. It means “ensuring that the people who first encounter customer problems possess the tools, skills, information, and authority they need to say yes now—YESability.

YESability doesn’t mean anarchy. Bernard explains, “Replacing no with yes does not mean that from now on you give everyone permission to do whatever they want. You draw clear boundaries to establish order, and you provide language and methods people can use to solve problems. You become an enabler of action rather than an unwitting obstacle to performance.”

Every employee must be provided with five crucial elements:

1. Context (“Where are we going?”)
2. Accountability (“What role do I play?”)
3. Skills (“What abilities do I possess?”)
4. Facts (“What data must I access to make decisions?”)
5. Authority (“Do I enjoy the freedom to act without fear of reprisal?”)

YESability is important for developing leaders at all levels. While Bernard’s focus is on customer relations, it is important to think of his approach in terms of interactions within the organization.

The 9 Rules of THEN	The 11 Rules of NOW
Follow orders even when they make no sense.	Listen to your customer carefully.
Keep your mouth shut and your opinions to yourself.	Keep the company goals in mind.
Please your boss because he/she controls your future.	Measure your performance.
Do not challenge management or you will be labeled a troublemaker.	Access the data you need.
Blame others when things go wrong.	Use data to make good and speedy decisions.
Do not waste company time on social media.	Understand what your decision costs.
Punch the clock and leave your work at the office.	Do not hide problems or they will go unsolved.
Never complain, never explain, except after work.	First please the customer, not your boss.
Say no to customers who demand an exception to company policy.	Do not be afraid because your boss has your back.
	Honor the process not the department.
	Strive always to say yes to customers.

All In: It’s Culture that Drives Results

In the New York Times, Stephen I. Sadove, chairman and chief executive of Saks Inc., explains that it is culture that drives results:

It starts with leadership at the top, which drives a culture. Culture drives innovation and whatever else you’re trying to drive within a company — innovation, execution, whatever it’s going to be. And that then drives results.

When I talk to Wall Street, people really want to know your results, what are your strategies, what are the issues, what it is that you’re doing to drive your business. They’re focused on the bottom line. Never do you get people asking about the culture, about leadership, about the people in the organization. Yet, it’s the reverse, because it’s the people, the leadership, the culture and the ideas that are ultimately driving the numbers and the results.

While we know that our most important resource is our people, it’s not so easy to get people “all in”—convincing people to “truly buy into their ideas and the strategy they’ve put forward, to give that extra push that leads to outstanding results.”

All In by Adrian Gostick and Chester Elton explains why some managers are able to get their employees to commit wholeheartedly to their culture and give that extra push that leads to outstanding results and how managers at any level, can build and sustain a profitable, vibrant work-group culture of their own. All In takes the principles found in their previous books—The Orange Revolution and The Carrot Principle—and expands on them and places them in a wider context.

They begin by explaining that it all rests on the “belief factor.” People want to believe, but given the fact that “failure could cost them their future security why shouldn’t they be at least a little dubious about your initiatives?” But belief is key. “As leaders we must first allow people on our teams to feel like valuable individuals, respecting their views and opening up to their ideas and inputs, even while sharing a better way forward. It’s a balancing act that requires some wisdom.”

To have a culture of belief employees must feel not only engaged, but enabled and energized. What’s more, “each element of E+E+E can be held hostage by an imbalance in the other two.”

The authors have created a 7 step guide to develop a culture where people buy-in:

Define your burning platform. “Your ability to identify and define the key “burning” issue you face and separate it from the routine challenges of the day is the first step in galvanizing your employees to believe in you and in your vision and strategy.”

Create a customer focus. “Your organization must evolve into one that not only rewards employees who spot customer trends or problems, but one that finds such challenges invigorating, one that empowers people at all levels to respond with alacrity and creativity.”

Develop agility. “Employees are more insistent than ever that their managers see into the future and do a decent job of addressing the coming challenges and capitalizing on new opportunities.”

Share everything. “When we aren’t sure what’s happening around us, we become distrustful….In a dark work environment, where information is withheld or not communicated properly, employees tend to suspect the worst and rumors take the place of facts. It is openness that drives out the gray and helps employees regain trust in culture.”

Partner with your talent. “Your people have more energy and creativity to give. There are employees now in your organization walking around with brilliant ideas in their pocket. Some will never share them because they don’t have the platform to launch those ideas on their own. Most, however, will never reveal them because they don’t feel like a partner in the organization.”

Root for each other. “Our research shows incontrovertible evidence that employees respond best when they are recognized for things they are good at and for those actions where they had to stretch. It is this reinforcement that makes people want to grow to their full shape and stature.”

Establish clear accountability. “To grow a great culture, you need to cultivate a place where people have to do more than show up and fog a mirror; they have to fulfill promises—not only collectively but individually.” And this has to be a positive idea.

Gostick and Elton explain that the “modern leader provides the why, keeps an ear close to those they serve, is agile and open, treats their people with deference, and creates a place where every step forward is noted and applauded.”

The authors skillfully examine high-performing cultures and present the elements that produce them. A leader at any level can implement these ideas to drive results. A great learning tool.

To succeed, you need everyone on your team all in; you need a culture of belief. A high performing culture is characterized by people that are engaged, enabled and energized. http://www.leadershipnow.com/leadingblog/2012/04/all_in_its_culture_that_drives.html

Why Top Talent Leaves: Top 10 Reasons Boiled Down to 1

By: Erika Andersen, Forbes Contributor

Eric Jackson, a fellow Forbes blogger I follow and find both funny and astute, wrote a really spot-on post last month about why top talent leaves large corporations. He offered ten reasons, all of which I agreed with – and all of which I’ve seen played out again and again, over the course of 25 years of coaching and consulting. The post was wildly popular – over 1.5 million views at this writing.


So why do we find this topic so interesting? I suspect it’s because we’re genuinely curious: What would make a very senior executive – someone who most certainly has been courted by his or her organization and then paid huge sums of money to join – decide to pack it in? Is it greed (an even richer offer down the street)? Hubris? Short attention span? Or do 1%ers actually leave jobs for the same reasons as the average Joe or Josie?


According to Jackson (and, again, I agree with him) top talent does indeed leave for the same reasons everyone else does. If I were to distill his ‘top ten reasons’ down to one, it’s this:

Top talent leave an organization when they’re badly managed and the organization is confusing and uninspiring.

About half of Eric’s ten reasons are about poor people management – either systemically, as in poor performance feedback, or individually, as in, my boss sucks. And the other half are about organizational lameness: shifting priorities, no vision, close-mindedness.


It really is that simple. Not easy, mind you, but remarkably simple. If you want to keep your best people:

1) Create an organization where those who manage others are hired for their ability to manage well, supported to get even better at managing, and held accountable and rewarded for doing so.

2) Then be clear about what you’re trying to accomplish as an organization – not only in terms of financial goals, but in a more three-dimensional way. What’s your purpose; what do you aspire to bring to the world? What kind of a culture do you want to create in order to do that? What will the organization look, feel and sound like if you’re embodying that mission and culture? How will you measure success? And then, once you’ve clarified your hoped-for future, consistently focus on keeping that vision top of mind and working together to achieve it.

I’ve worked with client organizations that do those two things, and people stay and thrive. I’ve worked with and observed client organizations that don’t – and it’s a revolving door. And that’s true at all levels – not just for “top talent.”

Fire the Wrong People Today

By Eric Markowitz Inc.com

Kevin Ryan has hired--and fired--plenty of people in his day. Here, the Gilt CEO explains why not firing an employee can cause a bad situation to "fester."

"If you have a 100 person company, someone is No. 100," Kevin Ryan told the audience at the Inc. 500

5000 Conference recently. "If you have a 20 person division, someone is No. 20."
Six months ago, Ryan was tasked with hiring a new manager to oversee a division of Gilt. He gave the new manager three objectives, to be completed within the first few months. They were:


-Evaluate the people you have now and lay off the people that don't fit.

-Promote people internally.

-Maintain and retain your best people.

After six months, Ryan knew the manager hadn't built an effective team. Morale was low, and a couple of key employees left the company. Rather than giving the manager more time to solve the problem, Ryan let him go immediately.

"A bad situation will fester," he says. "It is your job as CEO to make sure those situations don't happen. You're ruining the DNA of that company…by letting it go."

9 Things That Motivate Employees More Than Money

By Ilya Pozin INC Magazine

Don't show 'em the money (even if you have it). Here are nine better ways to boost morale.

The ability to motivate employees is one of the greatest skills an entrepreneur can possess. Two years ago, I realized I didn’t have this skill. So I hired a CEO who did.


Josh had 12 years in the corporate world, which included running a major department at Comcast. I knew he was seasoned, but I was still skeptical at first. We were going through some tough growing pains, and I thought that a lack of cash would make it extremely difficult to improve the company morale.

I was wrong.

With his help and the help of the great team leaders he put in place, Josh not only rebuilt the culture, but also created a passionate, hard-working team that is as committed to growing and improving the company as I am.
Here are nine things I learned from him:
Be generous with praise. Everyone wants it and it’s one of the easiest things to give. Plus, praise from the CEO goes a lot farther than you might think. Praise every improvement that you see your team members make. Once you’re comfortable delivering praise one-on-one to an employee, try praising them in front of others.

Get rid of the managers. Projects without project managers? That doesn’t seem right! Try it. Removing the project lead or supervisor and empowering your staff to work together as a team rather then everyone reporting to one individual can do wonders. Think about it. What’s worse than letting your supervisor down? Letting your team down! Allowing people to work together as a team, on an equal level with their co-workers, will often produce better projects faster. People will come in early, stay late, and devote more of their energy to solving problems.

Make your ideas theirs. People hate being told what to do. Instead of telling people what you want done; ask them in a way that will make them feel like they came up with the idea. “I’d like you to do it this way” turns into “Do you think it’s a good idea if we do it this way?”

Never criticize or correct. No one, and I mean no one, wants to hear that they did something wrong. If you’re looking for a de-motivator, this is it. Try an indirect approach to get people to improve, learn from their mistakes, and fix them. Ask, “Was that the best way to approach the problem? Why not? Have any ideas on what you could have done differently?” Then you’re having a conversation and talking through solutions, not pointing a finger.

Make everyone a leader. Highlight your top performers’ strengths and let them know that because of their excellence, you want them to be the example for others. You’ll set the bar high and they’ll be motivated to live up to their reputation as a leader.

Take an employee to lunch once a week. Surprise them. Don’t make an announcement that you’re establishing a new policy. Literally walk up to one of your employees, and invite them to lunch with you. It’s an easy way to remind them that you notice and appreciate their work.

Give recognition and small rewards. These two things come in many forms: Give a shout out to someone in a company meeting for what she has accomplished. Run contests or internal games and keep track of the results on a whiteboard that everyone can see. Tangible awards that don’t break the bank can work too. Try things like dinner, trophies, spa services, and plaques.

Throw company parties. Doing things as a group can go a long way. Have a company picnic. Organize birthday parties. Hold a happy hour. Don’t just wait until the holidays to do a company activity; organize events throughout the year to remind your staff that you’re all in it together.

Share the rewards—and the pain. When your company does well, celebrate. This is the best time to let everyone know that you’re thankful for their hard work. Go out of your way to show how far you will go when people help your company succeed. If there are disappointments, share those too. If you expect high performance, your team deserves to know where the company stands. Be honest and transparent.

Talent for Tech: Hiring A-Players, at a minimal salary

Provided all goes well, you may reach that point in your venture when you receive funding. In order to grow, the next step is to expand the team by hiring “A-players.” These are people who can wear multiple hats, fit with the company culture and communicate well. While they are not part of the founding team, they are crucial to advancing your startup to that next level.
Chris De Sousa, of headhunting firm Hireglyphics, has a high volume of clients seeking A-players. “It’s a challenge finding these high-quality candidates because they know they are good. As a result, they are just as picky as the companies.” De Sousa believes we are seeing a “candidate market” right now, since many companies are looking for the same type of talent.
Where to look

Wondering how to find an A-player? Start with the obvious: tap into your own networks and those of your fellow founders. Make use of local innovation centres and see if any advisors can provide referrals. And don’t hesitate to pursue candidates not formally in the job market, because they may be willing to take on a new challenge.
Your next option is the tried-and-true tactic of posting your job on as many websites as you can. Alex Norman, co-founder of HomeSav, said he found LinkedIn to be the best channel through which to hire for sales, marketing and HR positions. “It was not especially good for seeking out developers.”

Another option is to engage a recruiting agency―one that specializes in technology companies would be ideal. These agencies know the trends in the market, they can help you with HR activities such as writing job descriptions, and they can promote your company and its positions on your behalf. But the agency route does not work for everyone. In Norman’s experience, “the recruiting agencies had a solid candidate pool, but were only able to pull people that wanted high salaries. This is not as effective when you’re looking to bring a $40K/year developer on board. Plus, agencies often take a 20% commission so it ends up being quite expensive if you’re at an early stage.”

To find developers who were willing to take a lower salary, Norman had the best luck with classified websites Kijiji and Craigslist.

How to entice them
Think about location

If you still haven’t picked a location for your company’s headquarters, give it some thought based on the type of people you wish to hire. For example, where is your talent located now? De Sousa says, “office space may be cheaper in suburbia, but does your talent want to commute there?”
Derek Webb, a recent computer science graduate now working with Xtreme Labs, says “location wasn’t a huge concern to me when I was looking for a job. I didn’t want to base my job around where I wanted to live.” However, with Xtreme Labs based in downtown Toronto, Webb adds “being in the heart of Toronto is definitely a nice perk!”
Build a compelling website

Phil Noelting, founder of hiring platform Qwalify, has spent a lot of time speaking with job seekers in Ontario. Through his research, he’s found that a Gen Y job seeker tends to look first at a company’s website in order to learn more about them, and then will continue to search for job postings there. “This is different from Gen X, who tend to search for jobs locally.” Noelting sees a website as being a company’s main identity, and advises startups to keep their sites fresh, relevant and interesting in order to entice talent. In his own experience with recruiting, Noelting found “there was a lot of traction around our website―people were visiting it and sending us emails saying they were interested in working for us.”
Compete like a startup, not a tech giant

Let’s face it. Tech startups do not have the means to compete with giant tech companies on salary, nor on benefits or reputation. Says Webb, “many of the Valley firms come up to Waterloo to hire―including Facebook, Apple and Google. A lot of students apply to these!” What makes the situation for startups even harder is that companies like Google have created an entrepreneurial environment, where engineers and product managers get to own entire products. So what can startups offer a candidate?

When hiring technical staff, it’s a lot better to try and sell the potential of who that person can become moving forward. For example, emphasize what languages that developer will learn, and who they will learn it from. Says Noelting, “Facebook can’t give developers as much breadth of learning because their technologies are established, so a developer is limited by what languages he/she will code in.”
Suneel Acharya, formerly with startup TalentBin, was attracted to the company based on their promise of responsibility, growth, on-the-job learning, a broad variety of work, and direct involvement in the success of the organization. Helen Robert from TechEdge, a firm that advises technology companies on compensation, feels “this is surprisingly important to people. It’s important that employees feel connected to the organization and that what they do directly helps with the company’s success.”
Lastly, stay flexible. Offer some leeway in time and location so that your employees can work on their own schedule. Says Robert, “flexibility doesn’t cost an organization anything, but it can really set apart a small company from a big one.”
Provide equity

Experts in the tech industry often advise startups to treat their early staff like late founders, by giving them a stake in the company. It comes down to the cash vs. king mentality, where you shouldn’t be afraid of giving up ownership if your end goal is to raise money and continue growing the pie. And providing equity is a great way to get your employees dedicated, and feeling like an integral part of the team.

Webb remembers the lacklustre attitude his classmates had about joining smaller startups. “They weren’t a part of the inception, so it wasn’t really their company. It’s more exciting when you help to create it.”
Of course, many startups fear that employees will take equity and leave a few months later. One way to mitigate this is to bring new hires in on a “trial” basis. Acharya was brought on board his Silicon Valley startup with a six-month contract, with a potential for hire. “Contracting is a big thing in the Valley―it provides a safety net for companies.”
And Acharya recommends advancing new hires slowly vis-à-vis their equity amounts, so that startups remain protected from employee turnover. Acharya shared with us how a common contract in the Valley reads:
No equity for one year

25% of your end-state equity share after the first year

A pro-rated amount of equity every month thereafter

Another common practice that Acharya shared is to align incentives by writing contracts based around milestones. “If you’re targeting a major milestone in three years and need a technical lead for that, structure their contract around the three-year mark. Arrange the contract so that once the milestone has been met or the three-year mark is up, they receive their equity.”
Be honest about salary

Media outlets report that Google is paying new computer science graduates $90,000–$105,0001, a figure that most startups simply cannot match. But do young workers really prioritize salary when seeking a job? Robert from TechEdge feels “they want to be treated fairly in relation to their peers. Salary may not be driving their decision, but it will become an issue if their salary dips below what they perceive to be fair.”
Norman of HomeSav, however, had a different experience. “Although we were offering many of our candidates Options to join us, they were more interested in salary and benefits. We had a hard time convincing them to forgo higher salaries at a firm like Google or Microsoft and to work for us instead.”
What did recent graduate Webb have to say about this? “Salary was always at the back of my mind, whether I said it or not. Then again, if I’m going to get paid a lot but not enjoy the work, then it’s not worth being there. I need to care about the work and be passionate about what I’m doing.”

Robert advises that “it’s better to be upfront with your staff from the onset, and let them know if you can’t pay the market average at the moment. But commit to increasing their salary once the business hits a certain revenue point―a point you will need their help getting to.”
Support their development

A recent article in The New York Times shared the story of Valley-based startups that lure talent by providing weekly lessons on how to start a business and how to find venture capitalists to finance it. Redfin, an online real-estate brokerage, is one of these companies. They set up meetings between recruits and venture capitalists so that new hires can start talking about their own companies. Redfin also runs classes twice a month on entrepreneurship.
As the war for talent in Silicon Valley continues, companies are using these strategies to lure in good candidates―candidates that are eager to start their own ventures, but may not yet have the experience or connections to succeed.

On the whole, remember that championing the development of your employees will yield benefits. While they may not stay with you for the long run, if you create a good rapport they will be more likely to refer other talent to you, or help out later on a part-time basis.

http://www.marsdd.com/news-insights/talent-tech-hiring-a-players-minimal-salary/

How to Give New Hires a Great Start

Some small businesses go beyond the standard orientation, raising retention and productivity.

BY Marcus Erb

A number of small businesses focus on providing new hires with only the basic information and skills needed to perform their job. However, going beyond the standard orientation process can enable new hires to become successful in the workplace more quickly, and help ensure that the new partnership will be long and advantageous. The key is offering employees a chance to learn the organization's customs and jargon and connect personally with new colleagues.

A new hire's attitude about your business generally takes shape quickly, and can affect their long-term outlook and commitment to the company. Many employees typically make their decision to stay or quit within their first six months on the job.

So, how can your small business turn employees' first impressions into a lasting and prosperous relationship? Here are examples of how three small businesses are going beyond the basic employee orientation.

1. Connect with them early and personally.

When candidates accept an offer to work at SnagAJob.com, an hourly job site based in Glen Valley, Va., chief executive Shawn Boyer mails them a handwritten congratulatory note and a $100 American Express gift card as a token of thanks to celebrate their new job.

On their first day, new hires are assigned a department "buddy" who gives them a tour of the office, introduces them to their colleagues and serves as a mentor during the first few weeks. New "Snaggers," as employees there are called, also complete an office scavenger hunt and a "Confessions of a New Snagger" questionnaire. This Q&A covers personal trivia about the new hire, such as pets, children, hobbies, and other interests. Once completed, the answers are emailed to all employees and also posted on the company's intranet, along with the employee's photo. Snaggers are then quizzed on the bits of personal information shared in these questionnaires during weekly staff meetings. Correct answers are rewarded with candy.

While fun, these activities make an impression on new hires. "I never felt like the 'new person,'" says one new Snagger. "I didn't have to go out of my way to prove myself to anyone. There was the implicit assumption that since I was hired I must be good enough to handle the job. That level of trust is refreshing and made my transition to SnagAJob.com easier."

2. Make the introduction about more than just the handbook.

Some employee orientations include a strong dose of organizational culture and history, as well as participation from senior leaders. At RadioFlyer, the Chicago-based maker of children's toys, new Flyers join "chief wagon officer" Robert Pasin for breakfast. Pasin shares the history of the company as well as his personal stories of mistakes, successes and lessons learned. He answers questions and covers his expectations for team members to help RadioFlyer continue its success.

New employees also hear more about the company's values over lunch with members of the company's Vision, Mission and Values Committee, Its members are people who have been recognized by peers for living the company values every day.

New Flyers also get a first-hand look at the company's products. New hires complete an audit of customers' retail experiences and assemble RadioFlyer products. These practices help new employees learn about the products as well as their customers. Employees even get to keep a few of the products they assemble.

3. Treat new hires like equals.

At some companies, new employees wait through a probationary period before gaining full benefits and status. Pinnacol Assurance, a Denver-based provider of workers compensation insurance with about 630 employees, treats new hires as equals immediately, speeding their assimilation into the business. For instance, new hires are eligible to begin using their paid days off as early as their first day. Employees get up to 20 days off during their first full year.

A great welcome can make a lasting impact. Efforts to bring new hires into the culture, and not just the job, can reap benefits of shorter learning curves, stronger employee commitment, and reduced turnover. Leaders who take the opportunity to make new hires feel welcome can make a lasting impression that turns into a long-term advantage.

The High Cost of Sales Team Turnover

BY Katherine Graham-Leviss


Even during a time of high unemployment, top salespeople are always in demand, and their skills are easily portable from one sales environment to the next. Losing them to a higher bidder or a more lucrative sales opportunity is too easy to be taken lightly.

The cost of hiring a new employee for any position is significant, whether an employee is fired or laid off or leaves voluntarily. The many formulas that calculate such costs vary widely, but can range upward of 200 percent of an employee's annual salary. That includes not only the obvious tangible costs of severance pay, vacation accrual, and job advertising and recruiting fees, but also indirect costs such as the staff time needed for paperwork, recruiting, resume reviews and interviews, and then new-hire orientation and training. Other hard to quantify costs can include customer dissatisfaction, poor employee morale and loss of revenue during transitions.

Let's assume the average salary in a given company is $50,000 per year. If the cost of turnover is 150 percent of salary, then the cost would be $75,000 per departing employee. For a company of 100 employees with a 10 percent annual rate of turnover, the annual cost of turnover would be an estimated $750,000.

Once you realize what it's costing, in both dollars and people assets, you'll want to seriously consider how to reduce your turnover rate. A first step for reducing turnover is understanding your turnover numbers and issues. Start by answering these four questions.

What is your year-over-year average turnover rate?

Can you tie significant changes in the rate to the workplace's physical environment?

What is your turnover rate compared to your competition?

Are there times during the year when people leave more frequently?

Answering these questions will help you to begin to understand some aspects of turnover within your sales force and you can start to find ways to reduce turnover in your organization.

Another important knowledge-gathering step is to conduct exit interviews and ask why your salespeople leave. While it can be difficult to get candid answers -- employees often realize there's nothing to be gained by saying anything negative -- asking exiting employees to rate factors on a scale of 1 to 5 can point to the problems in a more objective and equally productive manner. You can ask them, for example, to rate the level of sales support, management support, fairness of sales goals and fairness of compensation. Design your questions to determine whether you are creating an environment that salespeople can thrive in.

If you find those leaving feel that sales quotas are unattainable, that they can't live on their compensation between sales, or that they simply think they can make more money someplace else, you'll have a better understanding of what you can do to change the environment.

A great deal of employee turnover can be attributed to mistakes made during the hiring process. The problem lies in the employee selection process. Simply put, when you hire people for the wrong job, they leave.

Tere are hiring practices you can implement that will help reduce your turnover and increase retention of your best people. Here are a few:

Make attracting high-performers part of your ongoing business practices so you are always "hire ready."

Define your hiring criteria, including the job description, so that you hire the right people for the job.

Learn how to screen resumes for top performers.

Give your hiring managers the skills they need to do the job right.

Gather the right kind of data to ensure your candidates have the requisite skills.

Create a consistent and thorough interview and selection process.

Hire salespeople by looking at three areas: experience, technical skills, and communication skills and problem-solving skills.

Too often hiring managers glean valuable insights into employee preferences, strengths and weaknesses during the hiring process and then fail to use the information as a resource to help develop and retain the employee. So rather than focusing exclusively on hiring, you should also begin to think about how to develop sales staff immediately. All that you learn during hiring can be used to continually improve the job-person fit.

Creating a development plan for your salespeople helps show them what they can do to grow and develop, to advance, to become more valued, and to be more satisfied in their work. Development plans also point out what kind of support and assistance they will need to get where they are going faster.

You and your employee will work on the development plan together, but the more involved the employee is in determining the areas to work on, the more committed that individual will be to accomplishing the goals. The objective is to create an environment that encourages continuing feedback from managers, which will help employees advance more quickly, achieve more, avoid unnecessary problems and setbacks -- and stay with your company.

Seven Personality Traits of Top Salespeople

By: Steve Martin

If you ask an extremely successful salesperson, "What makes you different from the average sales rep?" you will most likely get a less-than-accurate answer, if any answer at all. Frankly, the person may not even know the real answer because most successful salespeople are simply doing what comes naturally.

Over the past decade, I have had the privilege of interviewing thousands of top business-to-business salespeople who sell for some of the world's leading companies. I've also administered personality tests to 1,000 of them. My goal was to measure their five main personality traits (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and negative emotionality) to better understand the characteristics that separate them their peers.

The personality tests were given to high technology and business services salespeople as part of sales strategy workshops I was conducting. In addition, tests were administered at Presidents Club meetings (the incentive trip that top salespeople are awarded by their company for their outstanding performance). The responses were then categorized by percentage of annual quota attainment and classified into top performers, average performers, and below average performers categories.

The test results from top performers were then compared against average and below average performers. The findings indicate that key personality traits directly influence top performers' selling style and ultimately their success. Below, you will find the main key personality attributes of top salespeople and the impact of the trait on their selling style.

1. Modesty. Contrary to conventional stereotypes that successful salespeople are pushy and egotistical, 91 percent of top salespeople had medium to high scores of modesty and humility. Furthermore, the results suggest that ostentatious salespeople who are full of bravado alienate far more customers than they win over.

Selling Style Impact: Team Orientation. As opposed to establishing themselves as the focal point of the purchase decision, top salespeople position the team (presales technical engineers, consulting, and management) that will help them win the account as the centerpiece.

2. Conscientiousness. Eighty-five percent of top salespeople had high levels of conscientiousness, whereby they could be described as having a strong sense of duty and being responsible and reliable. These salespeople take their jobs very seriously and feel deeply responsible for the results.

Selling Style Impact: Account Control. The worst position for salespeople to be in is to have relinquished account control and to be operating at the direction of the customer, or worse yet, a competitor. Conversely, top salespeople take command of the sales cycle process in order to control their own destiny.

3. Achievement Orientation. Eighty-four percent of the top performers tested scored very high in achievement orientation. They are fixated on achieving goals and continuously measure their performance in comparison to their goals.

Selling Style Impact: Political Orientation. During sales cycles, top sales, performers seek to understand the politics of customer decision-making. Their goal orientation instinctively drives them to meet with key decision-makers. Therefore, they strategize about the people they are selling to and how the products they're selling fit into the organization instead of focusing on the functionality of the products themselves.

4. Curiosity. Curiosity can be described as a person's hunger for knowledge and information. Eighty-two percent of top salespeople scored extremely high curiosity levels. Top salespeople are naturally more curious than their lesser performing counterparts.

Selling Style Impact: Inquisitiveness. A high level of inquisitiveness correlates to an active presence during sales calls. An active presence drives the salesperson to ask customers difficult and uncomfortable questions in order to close gaps in information. Top salespeople want to know if they can win the business, and they want to know the truth as soon as possible.

5. Lack of Gregariousness. One of the most surprising differences between top salespeople and those ranking in the bottom one-third of performance is their level of gregariousness (preference for being with people and friendliness). Overall, top performers averaged 30 percent lower gregariousness than below average performers.

Selling Style Impact: Dominance. Dominance is the ability to gain the willing obedience of customers such that the salesperson's recommendations and advice are followed. The results indicate that overly friendly salespeople are too close to their customers and have difficulty establishing dominance.

6. Lack of Discouragement. Less than 10 percent of top salespeople were classified as having high levels of discouragement and being frequently overwhelmed with sadness. Conversely, 90 percent were categorized as experiencing infrequent or only occasional sadness.

Selling Style Impact: Competitiveness. In casual surveys I have conducted throughout the years, I have found that a very high percentage of top performers played organized sports in high school. There seems to be a correlation between sports and sales success as top performers are able to handle emotional disappointments, bounce back from losses, and mentally prepare themselves for the next opportunity to compete.

7. Lack of Self-Consciousness. Self-consciousness is the measurement of how easily someone is embarrassed. The byproduct of a high level of self-consciousness is bashfulness and inhibition. Less than five percent of top performers had high levels of self-consciousness.

Selling Style Impact: Aggressiveness. Top salespeople are comfortable fighting for their cause and are not afraid of rankling customers in the process. They are action-oriented and unafraid to call high in their accounts or courageously cold call new prospects.

Not all salespeople are successful. Given the same sales tools, level of education, and propensity to work, why do some salespeople succeed where others fail? Is one better suited to sell the product because of his or her background? Is one more charming or just luckier? The evidence suggests that the personalities of these truly great salespeople play a critical role in determining their success.

The dreaded "Just checking in"

Craig Rosenberg insights on the flailing attempts of sales people to move the cycle forward is worth the read. Don't be that guy! That "guy" who is just "checking in". 

Tell your sales people they are forbidden to do a  "check in" with their prospects or clients. e.g. "HI ___; just "checking in". Honestly, it has zero value to the buyer and is frankly, embarrassing.  People rarely "check in" in their personal life unless someone is sick.  The sales person is implying they have nothing to offer or they think they have the right to start the conversation off with this so the buyer can update him/her.  No thanks.

Want to know why you aren't getting a response  or moving a deal along? "Checking in" is one reason.

Here are ways to avoid the "check in":

1.  Sales Intelligence -- there is a lot of information about your clients.  Doing 5 minutes of research will provide clues into what your approach should be.  The sales reps who emailed to congratulate me when they read I won an award -- memorable.

2.  Sales Intelligence Part II: Trigger Events -- this is Tibor Shanto and Craig Elias rallying cry and it makes sense.  There are events that happen in a decision maker's business life that are reasons to not just "check in" but go sell.  Here is an example: decision maker just announced that they need to double revenue this year. 

3.  Content -- there is an un-named sales person who "checks in" with me by sending me relevant content offerings.  By the way, she sends blog posts from people unrelated to her company! She is trying to check in by offering me something that makes a difference in my life.  She is creating a trusting, memorable relationship with me.  Oh and by the way, I will sometimes write back (unlike the "check in" emails I receive).

Now, some may say "But there is a reason to 'check in' during the sales cycle".  Typically, the sales person who "checks in" has lost control of a deal.  They don't know what is going on and need to find out more. 

1.  Always mutually agree on a next step or deliverable -- if you leave a call without some type of agreement, you will be FORCED to "check in".  I have heard stories in the old days of enterprise sales reps bringing calendars into sales meetings to create a time line with the prospect.  I like that, you know have something the prospect has agreed to allow you to ask for.  If you "check in", I don't have to get back to you.  If I owe you something, then I owe you a response.

2.  Don't be such a wimp -- this is a business relationship, don't use the "check-in" as a way to be passive-aggressive. Ask for what you want. If someone is supposed to send you their requirements, ask for that. 

Why Everyone Should Work in Sales — at Least for a While

By Jeff Haden

Everyone should work in sales at some point in their career — the earlier the better.

My first post-college job was with a Fortune 500 company. In terms of workload, we only experienced two conditions: Busy and busier. So I never thought about the task of drumming up sales. Why would I? Work magically appeared.

Many people, especially those who work for large companies, are not exposed to the difficulties and challenges faced by sales teams. But we all should be. Why?
Sales skills are incredibly useful — in every field.

To many people the word “selling” implies manipulating, pressuring, cajoling… all the used car salesman stereotypes. If you think of selling as explaining the logic and benefits of a decision, then every job requires sales skills: Convincing coworkers your idea makes sense, showing your boss how a project will pay off, helping employees understand the benefits of a new process, etc. Communication is critical in any career; you’ll learn more about communication by working in sales than you will almost anywhere else.

Here are more reasons everyone should work in sales, at least for a period of time:

You’ll learn to negotiate. Every job involves negotiating: With peers, with other departments, even with your boss. Salespeople learn to listen, evaluate variables, identify key drivers, overcome objections, and find ways to reach agreement — without burning bridges.

You’ll learn to close. Asking for what you want is difficult for a lot of people. Closing a sale is part art, part science. Getting others to agree with you, and follow your direction, is also part art and part science. If you aspire to a leadership position, you must be able to close. Great salespeople know how to close. Great supervisors and managers do too.

You’ll learn persistence. Salespeople hear the word “no” all the time. Over time you’ll start to see “no” as a challenge, not rejection.

You’ll learn self discipline. If you work for a big company, sometimes you can sleepwalk your way through a day and still get paid. When you work on commission, “If it is to be, it’s up to me,” is your credo. Sales is a great way to permanently connect the mental dots between performance and reward.

You’ll learn to work well with a wide range of people at all levels. Plus, working in sales is the perfect cure for shyness. Learn to step forward with confidence, especially under duress or in a crisis, and you can take on any role in an organization.

If you want to own a business, you’ll always be in sales. Every business is an extension of its owner. Even if they have a sales team, a business owner is always involved in sales. (In many companies the owner still handles the major sales personally — or at the very least is brought into the process to help close the deal.) An entrepreneur who can’t sell faces a major challenge. Gaining sales skills will help you win financing, bring in investors, line up distribution deals, land customers — in the early stages of starting a company, everything involves sales.

Understanding the sales process and how to build customer relationships is incredibly important, regardless of the industry or career you choose. Spending one or two years in a sales role is an investment that will pay dividends forever.

Think of it this way: The more intimidating or scary a position in sales sounds, the more you need to take one. You’ll gain confidence and self-assurance, and the skills you gain will serve you well for the rest of your business — and personal — life.

10 pitfalls of rookie management teams

This is an interesting article that has some merits. Where mistakes happen to every manager new or old dogs, the ability to learn, adapt and keep energy levels high are important factors. I hope you enjoy this article from Steve Tobak

Inexperienced execs may make mistakes — but the smart ones will learn from those mistakes and pick up sound strategies from seasoned leaders. Here’s some advice to get you on the right track.

I’ve worked with and consulted for hundreds of startups, entrepreneurs, and relatively inexperienced management teams. I also was an inexperienced executive myself, once upon a time. Lots of water under the bridge, I can tell you that.

Now, I wouldn’t begrudge anyone the unique growth experience of learning from his own mistakes, especially the wisdom and humility that only failure can impart on the executive ego.

That said, savvy managers listen to the voice of experience. They may choose to ignore the advice, but they still listen. Information is power, forewarned is forearmed, and all that.

When asked in a CNBC interview what keeps her up at night, Christine Day, CEO of fast-growing, high-flying athletic apparel maker Lululemon Athletica, said, “Scaling the growth. Our growth has been phenomenal, and that puts a lot of pressure on a young management team.”

Day, who spent 20 years at Starbucks, most recently as president of the Asia Pacific Group, knows her stuff. Scaling the business is on my list of novice management pitfalls, along with nine other rookie mistakes.


1: Thinking you’ve got it all figured out

Or thinking that the answers are self-contained within your four walls. One of the biggest differences between mature execs and novices is the understanding that the management team and the board do not have all the answers. Source far and wide, debate, then make decisions.

2: Failing to say no to opportunities

One of the biggest pitfalls is taking on too much, starting too many projects, spreading resources too thin, and failing to focus on what’s most important: execution and growing the core business.

3: Staying the course too long

Entrepreneurs often stay the course when there are clear signs that they’re pointed in the wrong direction — for instance, customers want B instead of A, customer traction isn’t happening as planned, or the market isn’t materializing.

4: Hiring other inexperienced executives

If you’re scratching your head and wondering how dumb is that?, you’re not alone. I can never figure out why entrepreneurs do this, but they do, and their boards, VCs and all, let them. It happens all the time. The result: the blind leading the blind.

5: Hiring executives just for their experience

All too often, entrepreneurs know they need to complement their relative inexperience with executives who’ve been around, so they hire people with big corporate backgrounds and overlook key qualities, like how well they’ll do in a fast-paced, collaborative, entrepreneurial environment.

6: Underscoping the challenges of scaling the business

This is huge for high-growth companies where it’s critical to scale the operation — human capital, IT infrastructure, processes, facilities, equipment — in sync with growing demand. It’s a real tightrope to simultaneously maintain growth, quality, and profits.

7: Failing to moderate risk-taking

In an effort to maintain the entrepreneurial spirit that got them where they are, inexperienced executives will oftentimes shy away from organizational processes and systems that are needed to facilitate growth. That often results in a shoot from the hip mentality or, even worse, a constantly shifting strategy du jour.

8: Suddenly becoming overly risk averse

Clamping down on calculated risk-taking based on sound risk-reward analysis is just as bad an idea as playing it fast and loose. In today’s highly competitive global market, playing it safe won’t help you maintain market share. Quite the opposite is true.

9: Lacking marketing competence

All too often, especially in the technology industry, marketing competence is an afterthought. Executing on the product or service and customer traction are the keys for startup success, no doubt, but marketing intelligence will improve the odds. Finding competent marketers seems to be the rub.

10: Going public too soon

There are benefits to an IPO — primarily as a source of capital and currency for acquisitions. But the downside — SEC and public scrutiny, Sarbanes Oxley, and most important, management team distraction — can negatively affect a company’s ability to execute when it needs to be firing on all cylinders.

The flip side

In light of all that, you’d almost be tempted to avoid inexperienced entrepreneurs and executives. But that, my friend, would be a mistake. Anecdotally speaking, those with experience don’t necessarily do any better than their novice counterparts. I guess experience has its own pitfalls. Hmm … sounds like a subject for another blog post.

Why sales should stop "checking in" and five tips to avoid it

Let's work backwards from this: Tell your sales people they are forbidden to do a "check in" with their prospects or clients. e.g. "HI ___; just "checking in". Honestly, it has zero value to the buyer and is frankly, embarassing. People rarely "check in" in their personal life unless someone is sick. The sales person is implying they have nothing to offer or they think they have the right to start the conversation off with this so the buyer can update him/her. No thanks.

Want to know why you aren't getting a response or moving a deal along? " Checking in" is one reason.

Here are ways to avoid the "check in":

1. Sales Intelligence -- there is a lot of information about your clients. Doing 5 minutes of research will provide clues into what your approach should be. The sales reps who emailed to congratulate me when they read I won an award -- memorable.

2. Sales Intelligence Part II: Trigger Events -- this is Tibor Shanto and Craig Elias rallying cry and it makes sense. There are events that happen in a decision maker's business life that are reasons to not just "check in" but go sell. Here is an example: decision maker just announced that they need to double revenue this year.

3. Content -- there is an un-named sales person who "checks in" with me by sending me relevant content offerings. By the way, she sends blog posts from people unrelated to her company! She is trying to check in by offering me something that makes a difference in my life. She is creating a trusting, memorable relationship with me. Oh and by the way, I will sometimes write back (unlike the "check in" emails I receive).

Now, some may say "But there is a reason to 'check in' during the sales cycle". Typically, the sales person who "checks in" has lost control of a deal. They don't know what is going on and need to find out more.

1. Always mutually agree on a next step or deliverable -- if you leave a call without some type of agreement, you will be FORCED to "check in". I have heard stories in the old days of enterprise sales reps bringing calendars into sales meetings to create a time line with the prospect. I like that, you know have something the prospect has agreed to allow you to ask for. If you "check in", I don't have to get back to you. If I owe you something, then I owe you a response.

2. Don't be such a wimp -- this is a business relationship, don't use the "check-in" as a way to be passive-aggressive. Ask for what you want. If someone is supposed to send you their requirements, ask for that.


Thanks to Craig Rosenberg for this article!

Everyone sucks at interviewing. Everyone.

Just. Don't. Interview.

Jason Freedman's lessons learned...and relearned.

Interviewing is broken. Has been for years. This rigid commitment everyone seems to have to the standard resume/cover letter/interview system of hiring is just plain insane.

I've been fascinated by hiring processes for years. Hiring great talent is such a massively tough challenge, and I see so few companies that do it well. Even the best companies hide a deep dark secret: their hiring processes don't predict success accurately. It's long been whispered that Google's sophisticated HR scoring system has little correlation with an employee's success at the company. One management consultant for a top firm told me recently that, despite incredible efforts to improve hiring analytics, the best predictor of success for junior employees was still just their SAT scores.

Paul English, one of the absolute best said this about his style of hiring at Kayak:

"At times, I've fired maybe one out of every three people I've hired. That might make people think I'm bad at hiring, but I think I'm quite good at hiring."

So, Paul English, one of the most respected out there, gets 1 out of 3 wrong? Shit. This stuff is hard. But Kayak is at a stage of development where the organization can sustain the disruption of people leaving. Most startups I know have such difficulty firing because everything is already so unstable. Can't fire during a product launch. Can't fire during a funding round. Let's give him 3 more months and see if things improve...

I don't claim to be good at hiring, but I do have a particular style that I learned from some advisors.

I never actually interview people. Ever.

I think of hiring as mutual courting. The only way to court in a work setting is to spend time working together. Whenever I'm thinking of hiring someone, whether entry-level or senior, we do a project together. I pay them a reasonable contractor fee for the work, and I make sure it's the type of work that's easily definable, has clear deliverables, and lasts a few weeks.

Sometimes we do this process and the project goes outstandingly well, and we make a full-time offer. Our ability at this point to define a job description and compensation package is remarkably easy. We know what we're getting. The employee is also motivated at this point because we've all proven ourselves to each other. He's learned the real strengths and weaknesses of the business and of working with the team. A decision to accept a full-time offer at this point is a well-informed one.

Sometimes, the project turns out only so-so, at which point we wish the very best to the applicant and do whatever we can to help him find a role that is perfectly suited for him. There's no termination paperwork, no 6 months of trying to make it work, no awkward conversations about his progress behind closed doors.

Sometimes, a talented person can't, for whatever reason, commit to a 3 week project. But maybe there's a smaller project he can do over nights and weekends. Maybe there's an open source project of mutual interest. Maybe he can take 3 days off his oyher job and work half a week and a weekend with us. If it's a student, maybe he can join us for part of spring break. And if none of that works, then well, we can't hire him. And we wish him well and do our best to refer him to a company that will work.

But what we don't ever do is engage in some interview/code puzzle/awkward question process that has nothing to do with what it's really like to work with us.

Courting great people, working together temporarily as contractors, and then only engaging in full employment when everything proves out as hoped--that's the way to go. This method is spreading throughout the startup world, and I think it's good for everyone involved. Most of the BigCo business world doesn't work this way. Most larger companies have HR departments that hire through a more formal process. I would guess that BigCo Inc. could actually be far more flexible than it currently is, but that's out of my scope of expertise. I know for certain that startups can be more creative (and less insane) in their hiring practices...and they should.