Hi Tara, I really loved this article, is it possible for me to translate it into portuguese so I can share it with my peers here in Brazil? We really lack this kind of vision with our recruitment people...
The only one I disagree with (ha) is the ‘Disagree and Commit’ — low ego yes, but I was never a huge fan of this as a codified operating principle; it can lead to some dissonance committing to something while unconvinced. Most high potential people I know wouldn’t pass this test.
As an aside, while reading your list, I did think of David Lieb — the underrated creator of Google Photos, who was able to push through Google’s corporate bureaucracy to launch a wildly successful follower product (almost getting fired twice in the process). It’s a fascinating story. His arc shows all the traits you’ve described here.
David Lieb (from what I hear from friends in YC, where he's a visiting partner) is awesome. I would love to hear about how he pushed through the bureaucracy to get stuff done.
I think "Disagreeing and Committing" is necessary because sometimes moving fast is more important than the right answer. In those cases, decide on something and commit to the path. If it turns out that you're wrong, you'll have learned something. If you're right, you'll not only get the validation in your thinking, but also earn more trust from your colleagues for the next decision (we're playing repeat games here!) It only makes sense to hold the horses and fight to the death if the decision in question is 1) irreversible and 2) important.
I will say this: if you don’t believe your company leaders are “right a lot” then you are either too high ego or you should leave. My bar for bosses is that I need to agree with them ~70% of the time and can disagree 30%. Of the 30% of the time, I'll assume that only half of that is worth fighting about because it's important -- for the other half, I'll bias on the side of moving with urgency to get shit done and "disagreeing and committing." If that "disagreement" amount doesn't go down over time I'll take it as a red flag. (It's a relationship red flag, fwiw: I might not be a good fit for the business OR they're genuinely wrong, in which case I should leave regardless.)
I resonate with everything you’ve mentioned there above.
Part of the reason I don’t personally love that principle as a mantra is actually pointed out in your comment -- when decisions are irreversible and/or important. For everything else , speed of decision making is the number one priority especially in fields like technology. In the exceptional case of high leverage decisions, I've heard of cases where ‘Disagree and commit’ is almost used as a cop out to gloss over this to move on. If that does happen to a high potential person, it’s following along with a plan with low enthusiasm, which isn’t a good cultural norm IME. Elon and his experience at Scotiabank is one such example.
If I had to summarize my viewpoint -- the best ideas should win (irrespective of hierarchy), and it’s fair to push back if it’s irreversible/important. For everything else, do whatever it takes to move fast, and make contact with reality ASAP.
I suspect you and I are not *too* far off in this particular point :)
I like the 70/30 split — certainly tracks my prior experiences with bosses.
One thing that I try to find is about the ability to work with other people as a team. This is not always obvious from an interview, and many people find it hard to communicate properly (either not communicating , or just find it very hard to collaborate). However, it is usually something that you’ll also find outside of work (e.g. doing university works together with friends, working on community projects (like OSS projects).
I've been working with underemployed people for 5-7 years and I have to imagine you are referring to some other group of people who are transitioning from one profession to another.
When you gave the example of you taking a chance on 'ex-Juilliard' candidates as an example of 'Finding diamonds in the rough', I am sitting here thinking to myself "You sure are gambling by considering to hire people who managed to compete and make it into one of the most prestigious schools in the world..." I have to imagine you have better stories with your 1k hours interviewing than people who could have easily gotten into Harvard if their passions differed. If you are only speaking on how to hire rich people with a lot of support who just don't have the 1-2 years experience required on resume, that's fine, but a little lacking.
Underemployment happens for a lot of reasons, most of which comes from poverty / lack of perspective / inability to believe that success is achievable / not knowing the steps to take to achieve success. Most of these issues deal with the candidates inability to understand their own work history and struggles and put these things in the right context for the interviewer to understand. You are asking these candidates to (Pulling these from your bullet points):
1. Be in a situation that was mission critical, understand that situation, accurately report it, and package that experience in an easy way for an interviewer to understand. Obviously someone who can do this is a top tier candidate because this is the skill of a top tier candidate, not someone who is 'rough'.
2. Having had control over their life and pick things because they had the opportunity to pick their area of work / develop their expertise. A lot of people need to make choices out of convenience and not because they are a maverick. If your advice is to say to hiring managers "Look, I know you are looking to hire college -> advanced degree -> 1-2 years of relevant experience in a field..But actually if they took those 2 years of relevant experience and instead did something else difficult and hard, it might be worth hiring them.." then w/e. This is the smallest most obvious statement. But I feel you are looking through a field of gemstones at this point and deciding not the prettiest gemstone
3. I hope everyone is well adjusted in society, but turns out there are some negative experiences that are associated with being underemployed, expecting people to walk out unscathed is a bit rough. Obviously you have to work with the person, but pretending as if they are undamaged is unrealistic.
Actually, at this point in my writing, I saw you are looking for D1 footballers who are the top 99.79% in their field. You are only speaking to candidates who are the best in their field (Magic Card Artist, top puzzler..) and your article telling companies that they should consider hiring people who have already demonstrated being more competitive than anyone they choose to compete with.
I guess I just disagree with you that these "Top Nationally Recognized Achievers" are in any sense in the 'rough'.
You’re right that we’re focusing on different populations — I’m thinking of hiring fresh grads (college or high school, dropouts encouraged) who are looking to break into technology without connections, brand names, and specific skills/experience (coding, sales.) I imagine the prototypical potential hire is someone 18-27 who is enthusiastic and ambitious but still needs help to realize their potential. I’m mostly writing from the perspective of someone on the other end of this process— the hiring manager. The question I want to answer is the following: if I can afford 3-4 “junior” hires I can make per year at a fast growing yet nascent startup, who should I take a bet on? The default in most of these companies (that are also low on management bandwidth and skill) is hire the classic high achieving person that is legible to these processes. Some of the criteria I have here is based on the fact that they’ll get very little management motivation and guidance within the company, compared to what they might get in an entry level program at FAANG. My audience is really startup founders and managers.
You’re right that the person I might hire via a process like this still has a ton of privilege — to make choices in their life, to dream big, to feel secure in an unconventional path. I’m sure there are a lot of people who are still left behind by processes like this, and the work you do with underemployed people seems amazing.
I would love to read a post for startup founders about how to make hiring processes more fair for underemployed folks if you wanted to write one! I’d also be interested in your take on what startups would have to do to support people like this.
I think getting a foot in the door is about being relentless and taking on all the thinking to your side! While I was at Watershed, i had candidates sending me full on, produced YouTube videos as pitches for their candidacy — like, “here’s the role I’d imagine for myself, it would help do XYZ on these projects, and I’ve used the product and see these bugs.” If there’s a product/ company you like (and they are a smaller company) I would start by writing a really great product feedback Friction Log with a couple suggestions on things you can do to improve their business.
There are plenty of techniques to get into 'A' door, not necessarily any particular door.
Typically they involve:
0. Finding jobs in companies you want to apply for. (Look for smaller companies / startups if you have 0 experience)
1. Finding people in companies and stalking them on linkedin / whatever
2. Emailing them with a personalized message that involves asking about their company / statement to intend to apply
3. You'll get a response rate of 5-10%, you have a 'conversation' with the people you talk to and apply to the company with their recommendation which gives you a interview you might fall out of instead of being put on the stack.
Hi Tara, I really loved this article, is it possible for me to translate it into portuguese so I can share it with my peers here in Brazil? We really lack this kind of vision with our recruitment people...
Nepotism always wins.
Eh, I hope not, for my own sake. I usually go out of my way to ignore fancy status markers and nepo baby referrals.
A comprehensive list, love it!
The only one I disagree with (ha) is the ‘Disagree and Commit’ — low ego yes, but I was never a huge fan of this as a codified operating principle; it can lead to some dissonance committing to something while unconvinced. Most high potential people I know wouldn’t pass this test.
As an aside, while reading your list, I did think of David Lieb — the underrated creator of Google Photos, who was able to push through Google’s corporate bureaucracy to launch a wildly successful follower product (almost getting fired twice in the process). It’s a fascinating story. His arc shows all the traits you’ve described here.
David Lieb (from what I hear from friends in YC, where he's a visiting partner) is awesome. I would love to hear about how he pushed through the bureaucracy to get stuff done.
I think "Disagreeing and Committing" is necessary because sometimes moving fast is more important than the right answer. In those cases, decide on something and commit to the path. If it turns out that you're wrong, you'll have learned something. If you're right, you'll not only get the validation in your thinking, but also earn more trust from your colleagues for the next decision (we're playing repeat games here!) It only makes sense to hold the horses and fight to the death if the decision in question is 1) irreversible and 2) important.
I will say this: if you don’t believe your company leaders are “right a lot” then you are either too high ego or you should leave. My bar for bosses is that I need to agree with them ~70% of the time and can disagree 30%. Of the 30% of the time, I'll assume that only half of that is worth fighting about because it's important -- for the other half, I'll bias on the side of moving with urgency to get shit done and "disagreeing and committing." If that "disagreement" amount doesn't go down over time I'll take it as a red flag. (It's a relationship red flag, fwiw: I might not be a good fit for the business OR they're genuinely wrong, in which case I should leave regardless.)
The First Round podcast with David is a good one though it’s been a while since I listened to it:
https://review.firstround.com/podcast/episode-11
I resonate with everything you’ve mentioned there above.
Part of the reason I don’t personally love that principle as a mantra is actually pointed out in your comment -- when decisions are irreversible and/or important. For everything else , speed of decision making is the number one priority especially in fields like technology. In the exceptional case of high leverage decisions, I've heard of cases where ‘Disagree and commit’ is almost used as a cop out to gloss over this to move on. If that does happen to a high potential person, it’s following along with a plan with low enthusiasm, which isn’t a good cultural norm IME. Elon and his experience at Scotiabank is one such example.
If I had to summarize my viewpoint -- the best ideas should win (irrespective of hierarchy), and it’s fair to push back if it’s irreversible/important. For everything else, do whatever it takes to move fast, and make contact with reality ASAP.
I suspect you and I are not *too* far off in this particular point :)
I like the 70/30 split — certainly tracks my prior experiences with bosses.
An excellent article with great insights!
Great article. Loved reading it. Excellent advice.
Duco!! Thank you! 💚
This is great advice! I’m sharing with my SCORE clients.
Every Interviewer should read this before rejecting a good talent for the crazy 5-10+workex requirements. I hope the things to get normal soon.
One thing that I try to find is about the ability to work with other people as a team. This is not always obvious from an interview, and many people find it hard to communicate properly (either not communicating , or just find it very hard to collaborate). However, it is usually something that you’ll also find outside of work (e.g. doing university works together with friends, working on community projects (like OSS projects).
I've been working with underemployed people for 5-7 years and I have to imagine you are referring to some other group of people who are transitioning from one profession to another.
When you gave the example of you taking a chance on 'ex-Juilliard' candidates as an example of 'Finding diamonds in the rough', I am sitting here thinking to myself "You sure are gambling by considering to hire people who managed to compete and make it into one of the most prestigious schools in the world..." I have to imagine you have better stories with your 1k hours interviewing than people who could have easily gotten into Harvard if their passions differed. If you are only speaking on how to hire rich people with a lot of support who just don't have the 1-2 years experience required on resume, that's fine, but a little lacking.
Underemployment happens for a lot of reasons, most of which comes from poverty / lack of perspective / inability to believe that success is achievable / not knowing the steps to take to achieve success. Most of these issues deal with the candidates inability to understand their own work history and struggles and put these things in the right context for the interviewer to understand. You are asking these candidates to (Pulling these from your bullet points):
1. Be in a situation that was mission critical, understand that situation, accurately report it, and package that experience in an easy way for an interviewer to understand. Obviously someone who can do this is a top tier candidate because this is the skill of a top tier candidate, not someone who is 'rough'.
2. Having had control over their life and pick things because they had the opportunity to pick their area of work / develop their expertise. A lot of people need to make choices out of convenience and not because they are a maverick. If your advice is to say to hiring managers "Look, I know you are looking to hire college -> advanced degree -> 1-2 years of relevant experience in a field..But actually if they took those 2 years of relevant experience and instead did something else difficult and hard, it might be worth hiring them.." then w/e. This is the smallest most obvious statement. But I feel you are looking through a field of gemstones at this point and deciding not the prettiest gemstone
3. I hope everyone is well adjusted in society, but turns out there are some negative experiences that are associated with being underemployed, expecting people to walk out unscathed is a bit rough. Obviously you have to work with the person, but pretending as if they are undamaged is unrealistic.
Actually, at this point in my writing, I saw you are looking for D1 footballers who are the top 99.79% in their field. You are only speaking to candidates who are the best in their field (Magic Card Artist, top puzzler..) and your article telling companies that they should consider hiring people who have already demonstrated being more competitive than anyone they choose to compete with.
I guess I just disagree with you that these "Top Nationally Recognized Achievers" are in any sense in the 'rough'.
You’re right that we’re focusing on different populations — I’m thinking of hiring fresh grads (college or high school, dropouts encouraged) who are looking to break into technology without connections, brand names, and specific skills/experience (coding, sales.) I imagine the prototypical potential hire is someone 18-27 who is enthusiastic and ambitious but still needs help to realize their potential. I’m mostly writing from the perspective of someone on the other end of this process— the hiring manager. The question I want to answer is the following: if I can afford 3-4 “junior” hires I can make per year at a fast growing yet nascent startup, who should I take a bet on? The default in most of these companies (that are also low on management bandwidth and skill) is hire the classic high achieving person that is legible to these processes. Some of the criteria I have here is based on the fact that they’ll get very little management motivation and guidance within the company, compared to what they might get in an entry level program at FAANG. My audience is really startup founders and managers.
You’re right that the person I might hire via a process like this still has a ton of privilege — to make choices in their life, to dream big, to feel secure in an unconventional path. I’m sure there are a lot of people who are still left behind by processes like this, and the work you do with underemployed people seems amazing.
I would love to read a post for startup founders about how to make hiring processes more fair for underemployed folks if you wanted to write one! I’d also be interested in your take on what startups would have to do to support people like this.
Tara, would you have any advice for people who see themselves in the qualities you describe here, but struggle to get a foot in the door?
I think getting a foot in the door is about being relentless and taking on all the thinking to your side! While I was at Watershed, i had candidates sending me full on, produced YouTube videos as pitches for their candidacy — like, “here’s the role I’d imagine for myself, it would help do XYZ on these projects, and I’ve used the product and see these bugs.” If there’s a product/ company you like (and they are a smaller company) I would start by writing a really great product feedback Friction Log with a couple suggestions on things you can do to improve their business.
There are plenty of techniques to get into 'A' door, not necessarily any particular door.
Typically they involve:
0. Finding jobs in companies you want to apply for. (Look for smaller companies / startups if you have 0 experience)
1. Finding people in companies and stalking them on linkedin / whatever
2. Emailing them with a personalized message that involves asking about their company / statement to intend to apply
3. You'll get a response rate of 5-10%, you have a 'conversation' with the people you talk to and apply to the company with their recommendation which gives you a interview you might fall out of instead of being put on the stack.