Thanks a lot for this. I eagerly read it last year and found several valuable takeaways. Looking forward to reading the foundation handbook!
Just inserting a high-level description for other readers: I expected that their perspective would be too rigid (e.g., overly reliant on rigorous research on average effects and generalizing too strongly), cynical (as opposed to humanistic and altruistic), and overly focused on intelligence. Fortunately, my expectations were off. In fact, they were highly nuanced (emphasizing the importance of judgment and context), considerate (e.g., devoting a full chapter to women and minorities), and deemphasized intelligence (taking a multiplicative model of success—although, to be clear, they still claim that intelligence is very important). That said, their theory of change is quite distinct from ours (e.g., innovation and creativity are emphasized substantially more than morality and doing the most good).
I also appreciated their discussion of the evidence around intelligence, role models, and talent search in sports.
Founder talent or employee talent? What stage of the company? I found that they are different people in many cases.
These are quick thoughts, I hope they are helpful.
In general for early stage founders: - If they founded before that’s great, first time founders make many mistakes that second time founders don’t - Ask for prior work, which is a much better predictor than an interview. Were they succesful in getting 1 million followers, securing 10 contracts for another startup etc.? - Do a one month trial project and make expectations clear. If their output is amazing they might be a founder, if it’s anything less they are not - I think it helps if they complement you, if you agree on everything that’s probably not going to be good and if you have the same skills that’s probably not going to be good either.
Common mistakes in for-profit (impact) startups vetting: - Hiring big company talent. Someone who managed a large team in a slow organization is not going to do well in a fast and small organization. There are many exceptions though. If someone applies who’s currently at Google, that’s a yellow flag for me, even though that seems counterintuitive. - Hiring based on study background. I have found zero correlation to the quality output of an employee and where they studied for roles like marketing, sales, strategy etc. This will be different for some tech or engineering roles, but I believe to be true for roles that aren’t taught well in school like entrepreneurship, management, sales, marketing, etc. I have stopped looking at study background because it biased me and makes hiring less inclusive (99% of global people can’t get into “good” universities). - Hiring based on experience that’s unrelated to what you’re doing. You should count highly relevant experience only and nothing else. - Hiring someone who you don’t get along with, especially if it’s a founder. You’re working a lot and you might see your founder more than your spouse, so if you can’t get along it’s not going to work. - Hiring someone without a strong why, founders without a strong why can’t put in the work needed.
Thanks for this! We’ll soon be vetting talent—are there any resources you’d recommend for understanding and selecting talent?
Not a ton of writing I love on the topic, but this book is one of the better ones I have read on it: https://www.amazon.com/Talent-Identify-Energizers-Creatives-Winners/dp/1250275814. We will also be publishing our foundation handbook in approximately 3 months, and that has a pretty large section on vetting.
Thanks a lot for this. I eagerly read it last year and found several valuable takeaways. Looking forward to reading the foundation handbook!
Just inserting a high-level description for other readers:
I expected that their perspective would be too rigid (e.g., overly reliant on rigorous research on average effects and generalizing too strongly), cynical (as opposed to humanistic and altruistic), and overly focused on intelligence. Fortunately, my expectations were off. In fact, they were highly nuanced (emphasizing the importance of judgment and context), considerate (e.g., devoting a full chapter to women and minorities), and deemphasized intelligence (taking a multiplicative model of success—although, to be clear, they still claim that intelligence is very important). That said, their theory of change is quite distinct from ours (e.g., innovation and creativity are emphasized substantially more than morality and doing the most good).
I also appreciated their discussion of the evidence around intelligence, role models, and talent search in sports.
Founder talent or employee talent? What stage of the company? I found that they are different people in many cases.
These are quick thoughts, I hope they are helpful.
In general for early stage founders:
- If they founded before that’s great, first time founders make many mistakes that second time founders don’t
- Ask for prior work, which is a much better predictor than an interview. Were they succesful in getting 1 million followers, securing 10 contracts for another startup etc.?
- Do a one month trial project and make expectations clear. If their output is amazing they might be a founder, if it’s anything less they are not
- I think it helps if they complement you, if you agree on everything that’s probably not going to be good and if you have the same skills that’s probably not going to be good either.
Common mistakes in for-profit (impact) startups vetting:
- Hiring big company talent. Someone who managed a large team in a slow organization is not going to do well in a fast and small organization. There are many exceptions though. If someone applies who’s currently at Google, that’s a yellow flag for me, even though that seems counterintuitive.
- Hiring based on study background. I have found zero correlation to the quality output of an employee and where they studied for roles like marketing, sales, strategy etc. This will be different for some tech or engineering roles, but I believe to be true for roles that aren’t taught well in school like entrepreneurship, management, sales, marketing, etc. I have stopped looking at study background because it biased me and makes hiring less inclusive (99% of global people can’t get into “good” universities).
- Hiring based on experience that’s unrelated to what you’re doing. You should count highly relevant experience only and nothing else.
- Hiring someone who you don’t get along with, especially if it’s a founder. You’re working a lot and you might see your founder more than your spouse, so if you can’t get along it’s not going to work.
- Hiring someone without a strong why, founders without a strong why can’t put in the work needed.