
Startup Hiring Advice - rubinelli
http://blog.asmartbear.com/startup-hiring-advice.html
======
tptacek
_On the other hand, if during the interview she asks how often you do
performance reviews, that means she doesn't understand the startup culture_

Or she doesn't want to work at "employee #1" wages forever, and is being up
front about the fact that she expects her compensation reviewed down the road.
I agree with everything Peopleware (and Spolsky) say about performance-based
compensation, but even tiny startups need some kind of plan for promoting and
improving compensation.

"Always be hiring" is a principle we've had hammered into us over the past 4
years, and people don't say it enough.

~~~
mmt
_even tiny startups need some kind of plan for promoting and improving
compensation_

I would think that a plan for something like this at the "tiny" stage is
premature optimization.

Even at a dozen employees, that this plan would include some kind of formal
review process at a defined interval is, I agree (with the OP), contrary to
startup culture.

Edit: I've only ever been an employee, never a hiring manager or founder. From
this perspective, I can't imagine asking such a question if interviewing at a
startup.

~~~
tptacek
It feels premature to you, because you aren't seeing things from an employee's
perspective. But whether you're 2 people or 100, people who aren't founders
are employees, and what they're thinking about is "how will I be compensated
for my work".

And I don't care, I'm just saying, asking how performance reviews work is
_not_ a hiring red flag. Just be honest with them, and if they flip out, make
that your red flag.

~~~
smartbear
I can certainly see your point here, and I agree that it's only a true problem
if they're hung up on it.

It's really an attitude determination. If they're focussed on reviews instead
of making the business work best, that's the problem.

Of course in the context of the blog it would be too wordy to get into all
this there, so thanks for bringing it up here!

------
mmt
_Instead, prepare an email template that asks the applicant to write a few
paragraphs on a few topics_

I've routinely filtered this sort of thing out as arrogance on the part of the
employer and a waste of my time.

To whit, the respect in the hiring process must always be a two-way street. If
you want me to engage my brain and write something customized to your posting,
say so up front.

I'll gladly write a few sentences, but requiring a few paragraphs filters out
candidates who don't want their time wasted. These are very likely the very
ones you'd want in a startup.

~~~
smartbear
Like another commenter in the blog itself, I think you're confusing "filtering
out 100 resumes from Craig's List" with "How you should hire everyone."

If you're sending generic copies of your resume and cover letter to a company,
you cannot expect them to treat you specially.

On the other hand, I did say in the post that if the cover letter shows this
is a real person, additional questions are not necessary.

Presumably if you're that qualified you wouldn't send a generic cover letter,
right?

~~~
mmt
_Like another commenter in the blog itself, I think you're confusing
"filtering out 100 resumes from Craig's List" with "How you should hire
everyone."_

I'm not confusing them: I'm suggesting they should be the same.

 _On the other hand, I did say in the post that if the cover letter shows this
is a real person, additional questions are not necessary._

If the proposed additional questions are anything like what it takes in a
cover letter to show one is a real person, my point stands.

If not, then what's the point of the double standard? If anyone worthwhile
would have send a good enough cover letter or would otherwise be turned off by
such essay questions, isn't it easier to send out a rejection letter?

------
dnaquin
I already do not want to work for the OP.

------
Scott_MacGregor
Nice article, and some good advice. Hiring the right people is a very
important function for any business.

One area in the article that makes a lot of sense is to find a way to screen
candidates with e-mail mini-essay questions. Although I believe Jason Cohen’s
example screening questions could be improved by focusing more on the job
functions needed for the position.

For instance:

Jason’s question 1. "Why do you want to work at [company]?"

This will get a BS answer, for everyone it boils down to having to work for
money to live on. I would not screen or hire (or not hire) someone based on
his or her ability (or inability) to come up with a clever or cunning response
to this type of question.

I believe in hiring the type of people "that I can motivate to be their best",
and who have the skills that the company needs to get the job done. I also
believe in giving someone a chance to prove himself or herself as far as job
performance goes, and question 1 will tend to favor a clever or cunning writer
and possibly screen out a superior candidate who I might want to hire. So I
would never ask this type of question.

A better-quality first screening e-mail question might include a statement
related to the job and be more mission critical and function specific such as:

"This job requires long hours coding in PHP in the Zend Studio coding
environment. In one paragraph please describe your experience using Zend
Studio to code PHP, including how long you have been coding PHP and how long
you have been using Zend."

This type of question will let me sort candidates quickly based on the
required skill set.

Jason’s question 2. "Describe a situation in your work-life where you failed."

I don’t know about you, but I certainly don’t want to spend my day reading
through 100 e-mails about peoples failures in life. This type of question
gives the reader absolutely nothing to sort candidates on. Johnny A. failed at
getting his MCSE certification 3 times because his laptop kept breaking. Sally
Q. failed to get promoted to Engineer Level II because her boss secretly hated
her, ect, etc, etc...

I don’t hire failures! Sure everyone has setbacks but having someone highlight
their setbacks in an e-mail won’t tell me what I want to know to sort
candidates on. It would be much more useful to have the candidate explain
their fit regarding another mission critical job function such as:

"This position is in a small start-up company that we intend to grow quickly.
To help the company reach its goals will require long hours and a lot of
dedication on your part. One thing we look for when hiring is a little
something extra in the candidates skill set because multi-tasking will
probably be required of whomever we hire.

In addition to your PHP skills please describe in one paragraph any knowledge
or experience you may have regarding administrating in an MS Server 2003 (or
2008) domain environment and/or experience with server or client backups and
restores."

With this type of question I can tell at a glance if I’m going to get more for
my hiring dollars. More efficient use of the company’s human recourses.

Jason’s question 3. "Describe a time when you accomplished something you
thought was impossible. (Can be work-related or personal)"

Again no information to sort potential candidates on. Simply another who has
the more cunning writing skills question.

I would not even bother with a third question because I don’t want to read 100
extra e-mail paragraphs.

I would simply state, "We will reply to those we think are the top 10
candidates via e-mail by next Monday to schedule an in person meeting. Please
attach your resume in Word or pdf format for consideration. Thank You.".

This is a much more simple and useful approach to screening candidates, and it
will not favor those who have more clever writing skills or exclude those who
really should be given a chance to perform highly at your company.

Working for a good startup is a great opportunity to grow rich from your
efforts. You don’t want to exclude "the best people" just because they failed
to come up with witty answers to unimportant questions.

~~~
smartbear
Your criticism is great as are your alternate ideas, but I think you might be
missing the point of these questions.

For "why do you want to work," you can detect immediately any BS answers. What
it really does is show whether the person LOOKED AT YOUR WEBSITE or whether
they're spamming their resume.

(Although I agree that something more functional WOULD give you more
information!)

On the second one about failure, of course it's NOT about failure! It's about
what you learned, whether you were introspective. And you'd be surprised how
many people say they've never failed.

Same on the third -- it's about them as a person rather than their technical
prowess.

In fact, my main argument against your technical questions is that it's hard
to know anything about that in writing. You have to ask them questions on the
phone where they don't have a chance to research or ask a friend.

Finally, you don't get 100 responses as you keep saying. The point is to take
the 100 resumes and whittle down to 10, which is about the rate I get.

BUT STILL, again I do like your points and perhaps you're right that your
questions give you more information than mine. I suppose it depends whether
you're trying to ascertain technical aptitude or personal attitude.

