
Some Thoughts on Hiring at a New Startup - bdmac97
https://m.brianmcmanus.org/some-thoughts-on-hiring-be51f06f26a7
======
fecak
18 year agency recruiter here. The problem with most recruiters today is that
they are so concerned with controlling the process that they get in the way of
letting two adults have a dialogue, and the recruiting industry is inundated
with junior level people who don't know what they are doing.

The theory is that if the recruiter has a high level of control over both
candidate and client, the odds of a positive outcome for the recruiter (a fee)
increase. The client and candidate are both essentially 'buyers' in the sense
that they have to agree to accept the other, and the recruiter is 'selling' to
both parties.

But nobody wants to buy from someone who sells too hard, and that's what most
recruiters end up doing.

When I started in recruiting, I wanted to be involved in every stage of the
process to be sure I had some level of control. More recently I've realized
that if the candidate is mature (and not going to make rookie mistakes like
asking 3x market rate for salary just to 'test the waters') and the client has
a decent hiring process, I'll make the intro and then step away until (if) I'm
needed.

A recruiter can be quite helpful as a sounding board for both sides during
negotiations to help facilitate a deal or save a deal that is failing.

>I’ve had folks change their mind even after accepting an offer. Hell, to be
honest I’ve done it myself (and felt terrible about it).

A recruiter should also be helpful in providing guidance on situations like
these. For example, I usually offer my clients a handful of tips to try and
guarantee that someone who accepts the job will actually show up on day one.
Having lunch with the new team between acceptance and start date is probably
the most common.

But today's recruiter is far too interested in control. Make the intro, step
away, and step in when necessary - otherwise, let them talk.

~~~
user5994461
> the recruiting industry is inundated with junior level people who don't know
> what they are doing.

Agree. That's killing it for me.

The typical message from a new recruiter who dropped out of school or just
pivoted to that less than 2 months ago, trying to sell positions (s)he no clue
about at companies (s)he doesn't want to tell.

> A recruiter should also be helpful in providing guidance on situations like
> these.

Agree. I think recruiters should be

1) good middle men negotiations. To advise and prevent the rookie mistakes.
Most candidates have very little experience with that (Think, like guys who'll
message their dates 12 times in the day because she didn't answer yet.)

2) good contract and professional advisors. It can get really tricky to
arrange job offers and contracts, like arranging the start/leave date and
notice periods with whatever special stuff apply to your circumstances, at 3
simultaneous competing companies that you know you'll only stay at a single
one in the end.

------
jimduk
Thoughts on the final 'Offer' stage. If it's your startup, be brutally honest
with your first hires. Put yourself in their shoes when you make the offer.
Explain it like you would explain it to yourself.

\- Tell them, unprompted, key difficulties that may lie ahead (in an upbeat
manner)

\- Sell them on the goal, but don't sell them that they are the right person -
that's their choice

\- Do not make promises you can't keep. Let me repeat this. _Do not make
promises you can 't keep_

The reason for doing the above is a) You will have tough times together - this
is your team - you must start well b) If they can't handle these conversations
you probably don't want them c) You're human, behave well if you can

Context disclaimer - this is from a London, UK perspective while hiring senior
people. YMMV.

~~~
ptero
Very good points. Another point for being brutally honest:

The people we all want have no trouble finding work to pay their bills
somewhere. If they are working for larger companies, they likely receive the
key company info in HR-mandated newspeak. Hearing a direct, honest view from
the top can be instantly attractive.

------
tresante
Great advice. I was wondering if anyone out there has experience of sourcing
technical leads when what's primarily on offer is equity for a founding/lead
role at a bootstrapped startup with an early product. Clearly you need to have
a compelling vision, show potential and find people in the right frame of
mind/stage in their career but I'm wondering if I'm missing any important
channels? So far here are a few I've tried and my experience:

* AngelList - seem to mainly attract recent bootcamp grads

* Meetups and Networking Events - seems very inefficient and so far I've come across very few technical folks at these events, at least in digital health

* A lot of personal outreach using LinkedIn/email - probably the most successful so far..

* HN Who's Hiring - surprisingly few leads, but very high quality ones so far.

* Personal network - although similar to the author's I'm relatively new to the Bay Area

~~~
throwawasiudy
You're missing probably the biggest one of them all - free postings on indeed.
They aren't as visible as the paid ones but the traffic is massive. We got a
lot of low quality leads through them, but the pure volume still made it our
best recruiting tool by far.

also, Ads on stackoverflow tend to get us high q leads as well

------
georgespencer
I'm absolutely amazed that there isn't a single mention of referencing in
here. It's by far the most important thing we do in our hiring cycle.

Here's what we do, which is a little different:

1/ We'll spend in the order of 5-6 hours with a mid-to-senior hire before we
recruit them. We pick one topic from their CV (the project they're proudest of
or happiest with), and dive into it in huge detail: everything from the people
involved to the outcomes and recognition of success. It helps to illustrate
what the person is truly like.

2/ Where it's possible, we'll pay the person a pro rata salary equivalent to
spend a day with us actually working in the role. I know a couple of other
companies doing this and it's really great.

3/ If we like the person we immediately throw out whatever references they
provide and spend a few hours dredging up people they worked with from our
networks. We also look at the people they named in the project example. Once
we've got a list of 6-10 people, we ask the candidate if we can reference
using those people.

4/ Typically at this point we've decided that on paper we want to make an
offer. Referencing is the last opportunity we have to really assess the
person's ability to cope under pressure, how quickly they drop their "new job"
act and get into being themselves, and crucially what "themselves" is like. I
nearly always only ask questions which could be perceived as negative at this
point -- what makes them throw their laptop across the room? What stresses
them out? How do they communicate when under pressure? What are the things you
told them they need to work on in their last review?

Referencing probably only accounts for 10-20% of the time I spend on a
candidate, but the weighting I give it is huge when it comes to working with
and managing that candidate when they're on the team.

A million different ways of doing things -- but referencing is so often
overlooked and I've never understood why.

~~~
avitzurel
Because most people worth a dime interviewing for you are actively working for
a different company. By asking and calling references you're "flushing them
out".

This _does not_ mean I disagree with you. We had someone working for us, we're
connected on LinkedIn. That person since then switched multiple jobs and I
know for a hard fact that he'd never get a job if the company just called
people working with him. No way.

~~~
georgespencer
> Because most people worth a dime interviewing for you are actively working
> for a different company. By asking and calling references you're "flushing
> them out".

I totally used to think that too, but whenever I've asked people about our
process they say - "sure when you're making an offer, make it contingent on
references and do a bunch of them."

I never revoke an offer unless we find out something truly bad at reference
stage. Everyone has their foibles, and it's just useful to have more
information about how to work with them.

~~~
ptero
So, is the reference checking goal to look for truly bad things that would
disqualify a candidate? If so, are you trying to see if the candidate is an
ass who was not acting this way during the interviews? This, to me, is the
only way that could in principle be caught during referencing, but I wonder if
it actually does.

I thought someone (a reference) who would badmouth a colleague to a
prospective employer would not be a reliable source of the information. This
is an honest question -- I do wonder when you find disqualifying things what
do they look like?

~~~
avitzurel
To me, references are like a polygraph. It's a nice thing to have but in a
politically driven world, it can also be vindictive.

I listened to a podcast a while back about bankers that were given horrible
references by vindictive bosses because they didn't cooperate with some loan
policy or something like that.

------
tokenadult
Most hiring by most companies is not based on research. There is a huge body
of research on how to hire effectively, part of the filed called industrial
and organizational psychology, that goes back a full century all over the
world. There is also a lot of legal regulation about what can be done and what
cannot be done in hiring procedures. I wrote a FAQ about this issue a few
years ago that lives on as a well liked Hacker News comment[1] that I welcome
you to check. The FAQ links out to a lot of useful online resources about the
research and law on hiring procedures.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4613413#4613543](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4613413#4613543)

------
geoelectric
Mentioned in a comment or two, but want to highlight. Be up front with salary
ranges, especially if you want people to come in and pair, etc.

I had a great initial process with a promising startup who wanted to graduate
to a "we'll pay you contract rates to work with us a couple of days" sort of
evaluation.

Since I was a FTE elsewhere and would have had to take PTO, I asked for a comp
talk first. While I had no expectation to make the same salary I already was,
I discovered their high end was way under what I'd calculated as a max pay cut
I could take and still pay bills. It probably would've gone above water a
round or two of funding later, but I would potentially have drained my savings
waiting around. Unless I were founding, that would've been unacceptable.

I'm glad I forced the talk first or else that would've been a frustrating end
to the process. My basic take is the more you ask as part of your evaluation
process, the more you need to make sure it's even a possibility for both
sides.

------
erikpukinskis
My sense of every recruiter I've interacted with is that they have made a few
deals with specific companies and they are just trying to sell me on them.
Like a travel agent who only sells trips to a handful of specific resorts.

~~~
barleymash
Well, that is literally exactly what is happening. Recruiters generally don't
contact you about a position/company unless they have a requisition (request
from the company to fill an open position) with that company, which also
requires a Master Services Agreement (general contract that allows the agency
to work with the client company). A much smaller percentage of good recruiters
will sometimes find a great candidate, and "market" that candidate to
companies that they do not currently work with, as a way to get their foot in
the door. But when they do that, hopefully they are up front about it, and not
lead you to believe they have an actual MSA and open req with that company
yet.

------
pklausler
There _are_ recruiters out there that concentrate on very specific technical
areas, keep in touch with senior people, and still fulfill a necessary
function pairing up qualified people with new opportunities. These folks can
save all kinds of time and risk when you're looking for somebody with very
specific skills. Some are pretty well known in the industry (e.g., you call
Julia when you need a compiler writer) but I wonder whether they're eventually
going to go the way of the professional high-end travel agent.

------
GoToRO
Some things that are missing and I do want to know: the exact location of the
office, pictures inside the office so I can see the chair and desk I'll be
using.

~~~
jon-wood
And the other side of the coin. Do you actually require me to be in the
office. I only work remote, possibly with a visit or two a month to the office
if needed.

------
avitzurel
Here's my perspective.

(I am writing in a snarky way to convey a message)

1\. If you're using recruiters, you're already losing. Especially if those are
recruiting agencies that "hide" the name of the companies.

The cold emails are just ridiculously hideous.

2\. Use as little hyped up words as you possibly can. You might change the
world, but everyone else is saying the same thing and people are getting
sensitive about it.

3\. Impact - Emphasize what is the impact of the role. Why do you need _my_
skills, Not just an _engineer_ skills, why do you need _me_. If you don't need
me I don't care what you need, post on LinkedIn for all I care.

4\. The mail needs to come from the CTO with as many details as possible about
the company. Not how much money you raised and from which VCs, everybody
raised money and everybody as VCs behind them. I could care less. What are the
technical challenges, what's the roadmap, what challenges are you facing that
you need me to solve and help with.

5\. Compensation - "Competitive salary" means nothing. I don't think it's
relevant to me at all. You need to be specific about the compensation levels.
If you wanna give a range, that's also fine. If your range stops at X and I am
making X+50%, I know we are too far apart, we could save each other the
trouble.

6\. Interview - If the interview requires more than a single day, I don't
care. If it requires whiteboard, I don't care, If it requires multiple
processes and screens, I don't care.

It's all about managing friction. Just like acquiring a customer on Google or
Facebook. If the process has too much friction, I don't want to go through it.
I just don't. I'm happy where I am and it's not worth my trouble.

All of these may sound elitist, I get that. I really do. But if you want
really senior engineers the targeting is different than people that just
finished bootcamp or have 2-3 years of experience.

~~~
adwww
I've had conversations with recruiters where I've initially sounded
interested, then changed my mind because it just sounds like too much hassle.

They simply can't understand that I would give up when I realised there were
three interviews, or that I needed to spend a day doing a test.

Sure if I did well in one interview the other two would likely be fine too,
but equally... I could just go to another company that says "OK" after a
conversation in a bar and save myself a lot of friction.

~~~
Clubber
I'm the same way. A full day interview is just silly, multiple day interviews,
no way. Look at my resume, meet me, decide, make an offer. If it doesn't work
out, fire me, but don't play this silly game of multiple interviews with
multiple people that don't really talk to each other or coordinate. It makes
the company look like they don't know what they are doing and/or are
indecisive. You can keep that.

~~~
jiaweihli
I strongly disagree with this. I've been on the other side of the fence,
trying to hire people for an early-mid startup (5-40 people) as an early
employee.

There are more people than you'd expect who can talk the talk but can't code
at the same level. In the majority of companies, I'd bet there aren't too many
openings for engineers in such a narrow role. If you don't want to work with
an 'idea person', would you want to work with an 'idea engineer'?

Multi-day interviews are likely overkill, but a full day interview is
completely fair. There's no need to do 4 back-to-back algorithm whiteboarding
sessions, but testing other aspects such as data modelling, general
architecture, and coding style/ability are all high-signal.

~~~
ryandrake
Look at it from the candidate's point of view. Depending on what company I'm
working for, I get 10, maybe 15 crappy days of paid time off that I have to
split between vacation, sickness, and YOUR interview. If you take an entire
day of my time, I can only do that max 10-15 times in the year, and that's if
I don't get sick and have no vacation. I'm going to highly favor a company
that does not make me blow one of those days entirely.

Multiple days? Not a chance.

~~~
Clubber
I agree. If it's between two companies that pay "competitive rates," and one
company wants me to interview for an hour and one company wants me to
interview for a day, I'm not going to waste a day.

If you were paying 2x rates or real equity, ya I'd slog through a day long
interview, but I bet you aren't.

What does your company have to offer that would compel me to spend 8 hours
interviewing that another company doesn't?

~~~
user5994461
You need to charge more if you get two competitors for you.

Maybe they'll be only one company willing to pay then, maybe that will be the
one with the one day interview :D

------
throwawasiudy
The author doesn't mention much about how to position yourself to be
attractive to your candidates. Here's what I look for - and what I learned
when we were hiring people of our own(not a startup but a dev shop of
two...now seven). If you want good candidates to pick you, you have to show
them (much like investors) that you know what the hell you're doing, otherwise
the smartest will walk away.

1) Look legit, as much as possible without spending mass $. Marketing is key
for startups, again try look like you know what the hell you're doing.

Most people will walk away if you don't have a solid website. Have a company
Linkedin, Facebook, and GMaps listing as well.

The more results in google search the better, try to fill the front page for
your name with random things like an actual company would. As long as your
name isn't stupid this is much easier than it sounds, you can make a lot of
noise on the interest for free.

Have a working phone number with a phone tree, best if it's an 800 # but local
area code is better than nothing.

A few company shirts helps even if you only wear them while interviewing. If
you have an office on top of it you're set.

Whatever you do try to avoid meeting at public places like coffee shops, a lot
of scams are doing this nowadays and candidates will be weary. If you don't
have an office your home is probably best.

Another thing, use something like Workable to manage candidates and have a
real financing and benefits system setup like zenefits + freshbooks. These
things will be visible to prospects and new employees quickly and again shows
that you know how to run a real company.

2) Cut all the buzz and BS in job listings. Don't try to make it sound like a
difficult job to land. Make interviews easy and fast to get, LOWER the bar.
Emphasize lax rules and freedom. These are your only advantages.

Remember who you're competing against. Good candidates will have many choices
of where to work and you don't have anything against their brand appeal, pay,
benefits, and overall attractiveness. Don't pretend that you do, your selling
points are as follows: Be your own boss, loose rules and freedom to build
something as they see fit will be the main drivers for most of your early
hires. You may get wannabe CEO types, and don't be afraid, these are the
people you want. Be afraid of the ones in it solely for money. There's much
better ways of making money than joining a startup...these people are probably
stupid or naive.

Most good candidates will end up with more than one offer. You need to make
the process faster than any other company so that you can short circuit some
of these people before other companies have a chance. You're small enough to
be quicker to the draw than larger companies, use that to your advantage. To
make the process faster, you need to do more thorough initial screenings so
that you hire more people that come in the doors. Bigger companies don't want
to waste the time but you can afford to. Most companies have an "offer lag" of
about 1.5-3 weeks from initial contact, so you should be hiring people by
Friday if you meet them Monday.

The "culture fit" is really important in super small companies. Try to make
friends with the person you're interviewing. Is it someone you would chill
with? Look at your current employees. Do they like to go out an party on the
weekends? Play sports? Video game nerds? Try to hire the same at first. People
not getting along at huge companies doesn't matter much, but when you're
forced to work together all day it's important

~~~
stemuk
Very good points! However I feel like if you speed the hireing process up too
much many candidates will walk home without the impression of having to
achieved something bigger. Shure, you should not waste too much time, but
greater upfront effort will make the candidate feel like he has actually
achieved something if he gets the offer. And this in return may increase the
likelyhood of him or her accepting the job. The point I am telling you may be
hard to explain, but in a nutshell I just want to say that you should try to
increase the value of getting an offer by increasing the time frame between
first contact and final offer just a little, for instance by having an extra
meeting/screening/etc. in between.

~~~
79d697i6fdif
We made a big deal of making candidates feel wanted, but not necessarily
congratulatory. Same goal of raising the mental value of an offer but a
different way. I get what you're saying, something perceived as difficult to
get usually has a higher value placed on it. However, I disagree that this
helps in a (pre-funding) startup :). The "we only hire the best" moniker has
been beaten to death by silicon valley and people that have worked at startups
before know this just isn't true. Candidates know that getting an offer from
google etc.. is a big deal. If you try to sell them hard on your value they'll
either think you're a bunch of used car salesmen or delusional.

Our approach is to meticulously research anyone we're serious about and bring
these things up during their interview. In my own interview experience it's
extremely rare for someone to take any interest in your personal projects and
achievements, or even in your "story". We lived in the same state? You came
from a place I'de like to visit? We both know some obscure language? Worked at
the same company? Interesting/crazy projects on github? I'll star you. The end
goal is to make it hard to say no, and making as much of a personal connection
as possible has worked wonders for us. Make sure not to go too far and lie...
if you can't find anything that interests you about a candidate why consider
them in the first place?

Whenever I've been looking for a job a quick turnaround is a sign of
competence. These guys are on top of their game type thing, as in they know
I'm good and want to hire me right away. I just don't see waiting being a
positive especially in a startup when you're supposed to be doing everything
fast and efficently.

It's me btw, can't remember my throwaway pw :).

