Startup Hiring: Why You Should Date Before Getting Married

About This Blog

This site is for  entrepreneurs.  A full RSS feed to the articles is available.  Please subscribe so we know you're out there.  If you need more convincing, learn more about the site.



And, you can find me on Google+

Connect on Twitter

Get Articles By Email

Your email:


Blog Navigator

Navigate By : 
[Article Index]

Questions about startups?

If you have questions about startups, you can find me and a bunch of other startup fanatics on the free Q&A website:

Subscribe to Updates


30,000+ subscribers can't all be wrong.  Subscribe to the RSS feed.

Follow me on LinkedIn


Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

Startup Hiring: Why You Should Date Before Getting Married


Most entrepreneurs, when asked, will tell you that hiring the “right people” is one of the most important things they do for their companies.  However, what many entrepreneurs won’t tell you is that despite their best efforts, they suck at picking the best people during the recruitment process.  I definitely fall into this camp.


This doesn’t just apply to hiring in the management ranks and technical staff, it applies to everyone.  During most of the years I’ve run startups, I’ve always considered myself pretty good at detecting startup talent.  But, the empirical data suggests that I’m almost as likely to screw it up completely as I am to get it right.  Over time, as a startup founder, you learn not to rely on all the conventional proxies for trying to predict the probability of success of any given hire.  Things like interviews (however intense), tests, grades, top universities, etc. are all only somewhat effective in raising your odds of making the right decision.  After all is said and done, you’re likely to screw it up more often than you realize – or are likely willing to admit.  And, the problem is not just limited to you – others on the team are not that much better at it.


That is why I think you should make it a practice to have people work for the company before you hire them.  Though hiring an employee you don’t know is not quite as big a commitment as getting married, it can often be almost as risky from a startup’s perspective.  (Apologies for the metaphor, it is almost 2:00 a.m. here in Boston and I can’t think of anything better).


In this model, potential employees (especially those in the technical ranks) are considered to be in a “probationary” period (what I would call the “dating” period) for some length of time.  During this period (which was usually 60-90 days in my case), either party has the ability to declare that the relationship is just not working out and move on – with no misgivings on either side.  This is made clear very early in the process.  The potential recruit is paid “fair market value” during the trial period (but generally as a consultant and not a full-time employee).  We’re not trying to take advantage of the employee or get free work – far from it.  Other than the fact that they’re not on payroll, they pretty much are treated as a new hire.  They learn real things, do real work and (hopefully) create real value.


At the end of the period (from the company’s perspective), here’s what you should look for:  One or more people on your existing team should be passionate about keeping the recruit on board.  They should be storming into your office making a desperate plea for you to make an employment offer to the recruit.  If in 2-3 months this has not happened, then the recruit is likely not a good fit.  To be clear on this, the “default” decision is to pass on the hire unless someone on the team provides compelling evidence and/or testimony of why the new recruit should be brought on board. 


Though this may sound a bit draconian, it has worked out well for me (I did it in the last several years of my first startup after I had screwed up enough times).


I expect there to be some resistance to this model.  The common arguments are the following:


  1. It is a really tight labor market, can you really expect the best people to join under these conditions?  In short, yes.  In fact, the best people often like having the ability to test out the company (as much as you want to test them out).  This gives them a way to do that without locking themselves in after hearing what amounts to the CEO/founder’s sales pitch on why the company is such a great place to work.  They get a chance to find out for themselves.  As an added advantage, the more astute candidates will also recognize that this process works to their advantage too (if they do end up joining the company).  It keeps a higher percentage of bozos out.  Nobody wants to work with bozos.


  1. Is this really legal?  Though I’m not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice -- yes.  In fact, it is much simpler to do this than try to hire a person full-time, be added to the payroll (and insurance, and 401k, etc.) and then fire them later if things don’t work out.  


  1. How about people that already have a job?  In this case, I’d advise that the new recruit work with you off-hours (chances are, your startup is working nights and weekends anyway).  This still gives you the opportunity to see if they “fit” without them having to risk their existing job.  Even in this case, you should still compensate the employee for their time.


  1. Doesn’t this really limit the number of people you can hire?  Absolutely.  However, just about everyone I’ve ever talked to and every book I’ve ever read suggests that you are much, much better off not hiring a person at all than getting someone on board that’s not a good fit.  It is often very difficult (emotionally and otherwise) to let people go if they are just “slightly below expectations” .  This is particularly true if you are concerned that part of the reason the employee didn’t work out is the company’s fault (it usually always is).  This still doesn’t change the fact that things are not working out.


  1. What about recruits that are “referred” by existing employees?  Same rules apply.  Though I would still allow the person that referred the recruit to be the “passionate advocate” after the probationary period.  (Interestingly, there are cases where the same person that refers a potential candidate will learn enough about the candidate during the trial period that they can’t bring themselves to be a passionate advocate at the end of it).


Moral of the story:  Whenever possible, when it comes to hiring people for your startup, you should “try before you buy”.


If you’ve been running a startup (or even worked for one), ask yourself how many bad hiring decisions could have been avoided if you had the opportunity to “walk away” in the first 2-3 months?  I’m guessing quite a few.  If on the other hand, you’ve got this whole process down cold, please share your secrets.  





Posted by Dharmesh Shah on Mon, Apr 24, 2006


This should be standard protocol for startups -- I hope a lot of people read and implement it.

posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 at 7:21 AM by Yoav Shapira

As someone that has to do a lot of hiring (especially recently), I like this idea a lot. Another benefit is that you get someone else in the company to feel "responsible" for the hire, not just the hiring manager. Often times, too much blame is put on the hiring manager for a bad hire. It needs to be the responsibility of the whole team/company.

posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 at 10:05 AM by Robbie Allen

More than anything this says about your company
"we dont know how to interview and hire" and we dont want to be responsible for hiring the right person.

posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 at 10:35 AM by Moses

Lots of misgivings. I'd blog, but it's off-topic for me. So here goes.

First and simplest:

The words "fair market value" in this scenario implies that you are paying your contractor ~30-35% more gross to account for FICA and health insurance (someone working full-time hours for you, but without benefits, is almost certainly paying ~600-900/mo in COBRA to cover a low-deductable insurance plan). So how do you gracefully handle the transition from contractor comp to FTE comp? My guess is, you don't, and you're simply (if inadvertantly) screwing someone for 3 months.

Second: you are clearly not a lawyer, and you should be aware that you don't necessarilly get to "declare" someone a contractor just because it suits you. In particular, for the purposes of FICA & payroll taxes, if you control the hours, location, and processes used by an employee, they may be an employee whether you say so or not.

On a similar note: startups work nights and weekends. Contractors get paid for nights and weekends. Paid extra, in fact.

Third: I don't know about your startups, but mine have IP and competition issues, and without declaring myself a Friend of the Noncompete Clause, how do you allow someone to do critically important work for you for 3 months without an employment contract?

Oh, you're going to GIVE them an employment contract? With an IP clause, a noncompete, and a nonsolicit? But you're not going to give them health insurance? Or start their vesting?

How do I feel about this process morally? Obviously, I think it's a cop-out. In the "employment-at-will" US market, you already had the ability to fire an employee that didn't work out. What you're describing is a short-cut that allows you to exercise this option without any of the troublesome "overhead" (like getting someone in and out of COBRA, or honoring the terms of your employment contract) of actually hiring someone.

The decision to hire someone has consequences. I've been involved in bad hiring decisions too, and I agree that they are extremely toxic, and I agree that they are cumbersome to escape. But I don't think making a practice of drastically complicating your new-hire process and potentially stiffing every new hire is a great solution to the problem.

posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 at 12:03 PM by Thomas Ptacek


Some very cogent arguments. Can't speak to the tax and legal issues, but will say that in my experience there is a degree of "self-selection" that happens. This particular recruitment model does not appeal to all people. However, there are people that are just fine with it (just like there are people willing to go through a barrage of interviews and other things).

In any case, you make some good points. Obviously, this model is not for everyone.

posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 at 12:10 PM by

I can't get this out of my head. Some more reasons this is a bad idea:

Problem N: forget about relocating anybody. Oh, people you're going to relocate can work remote for 3 months. Great idea! You've put them at a disadvantage over anybody local. Oh, you'll account for that somehow? Wonderful. You used to have a recruitment/hiring quality problem. Now you have two problems.

Problem N+1: In every team I've ever worked with, there have always been fast-tracked recruits --- good companies will go out of their way to pick up a specific person they really want for the team. Reconcile this with your "probationary default deny" for "normal" employees. Do so without create a caste system in your embryonic company. Now you have three problems.

posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 at 12:12 PM by Thomas Ptacek

In the end, this is the best way. You need to determine if a person will be valuable to you. How can you come to that decision?

If you could create any imaginable test, what would that look like? A test is something that determines if you have succeded so the only way to actually test the persons capacity to succeed in the real environment.

Why would you trust third parties (schools, grades, recommendations) that know nothing of your requirements and conditions.

One thing that I can't get my head around is what motivates someone to work in a startup? If they just want a regular pay check and somewhere to show up every morning, why take the risk? The only thing I can think of that would motivate them is if they truly believe in the idea, so much that they would do it themselves if we didn't exist.

posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 at 12:18 PM by Johan

My company isn't even a startup and does that. Particularly for low-level positions, they will hire 2 or 3 people before they find one that 'fits'. Usually bad new hires will disappear within the first week- it's rare to find a bad one that makes it past the first month.

The company will generally only do a half-hour interview to find out if you are, indeed, alive, and then will 'hire' you and let the probationary period flesh out the rest.

I think they've determined over time that interviews are essentially useless and that it's better to figure out how someone actually performs rather than ask them what their biggest shortcomings are or whatnot.

posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 at 12:18 PM by Erik

It sounds like some of the advocates for this strategy are in larger companies, where you are hiring people in 3's, 5's and 10's.

It's a bad idea there too, but I'd like to hear someone with an actual startup (where a new hire changes the composition of their team by 10-20%) stick up for the process.

For what it's worth, there's obviously nothing wrong with simply bringing people on as contractors, if you're up-front about it and compete for contractor talent fairly. It's a pretty common experience for contractors to get FTE offers. The reason I don't think this is used as an audition is that many (most?) of those FTE offers are declined, and if your goal is to actually staff up, your "contract audition" leaves you treading water, and outsourcing critical business functions (good luck contracting a product manager).

posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 at 12:28 PM by Thomas Ptacek

Also: have fun running a "probationary" period for someone in a high-touch customer-facing role. Your customers will just love you for it.

I promise to shut up now.

posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 at 12:30 PM by Thomas Ptacek

Probationary period is actually built in most employment contracts anyway, in most cases they are for three months. The employer has to clearly define how does the employer will "pass" probation though. And if the employer, after three months, can't determine whether I as an employee has passed or not, I probably wouldn't want to work there anyway!

posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 at 12:34 PM by Perry Ismangil

"What you're describing is a short-cut that allows you to exercise this option without any of the troublesome "overhead" (like getting someone in and out of COBRA, or honoring the terms of your employment contract) of actually hiring someone."

Having been a contractor for awhile now, all I can say is that most companies are schizophrenic when it comes to hiring full time "permanent" people. Managers need to realize that it is no easier on anyone but them: When someone is fired from whatever mechanism you set up to employ them, they are still going to suffer economically and miss out on other, potentially better, opportunities because of this self-centered, egotistical hogwash. Learn to do better interviews, idiots!

What startups really want is people who will work long hours for little money based on some (usually bullshit) promise of making it big if the company takes off. In biz parlance, this is known as having "some skin in the game." It is also known as "not having a life" and "being somebody's dupe."

posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 at 2:00 PM by Random Tech Guy

Great ideas, Dharmesh!

On the legal front... A contractor can work full time with a set schedule and STILL BE A CONTRACTOR if it's a fixed term contract. I don't think there are any legal issues unless you did it on a permanent basis.

I think the SPIRIT of the idea is dead on. I think the implementation of it needs some work. If you implement it that way, you are going to turn some people off.

I'd suggest doing it the "old fashioned way", but keep your 3 month probationary period and your "default is NOT keeping them on" provision. That is, hire them as an employee (thus dodging the legal issues, insurance issues, relocation issues, etc) with a firm undestanding that it is a trial period.

Dharmesh, could you clarify what advantage you have by contracting versus hiring? The only one I can think of is reduced legal liability for termination and less hiring paperwork... The disadvantages of this idea seem to outweigh these.

But, again-- spot on. Being good at recruiting means you are batting .500 or so, at best.

posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 at 2:06 PM by Tony Wright

Some excellent comments (both negative and positive) and likely sufficient material for a follow-up article.

A few quick points (given how much discussion this has stirred up):

1. At the risk of sounding trite, I will say that startups are not for everyone. Some people crave the thrill, excitement and adventure of a startup -- some don't. It's not always about the money.

2. The reason for not hiring (even though you have right to fire anyways) is that part of the objective is to send a "signal". The difference between: "We have the right to let you go in the first 2 months" vs. "We hope to bring you on the board the team after 2 months" is often very large. Part of the value is sending the right message both to the new candidate and the existing team.

3. I am not suggesting that this is a perfect strategy (or even the best one). There are definitely challenges, many of which Thomas has pointed out. But, I stand behind the fact that it *can* work and is often better than other methods.

4. Much has been written about improving interviewing skills and increasing the "hit rate" on new hires. However, this continues to be a challenge (at least for me).

In any case, my two cents. Thanks to all for the great discussion so far.

posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 at 2:49 PM by

People who say "just screen your recruits better!" have lost the game before they even started. It's like listening to managers who wonder why software has bugs in it. "Just write your code better!" It doesn't work that way.

I've worked at places that have a variety of recruitment standards, some lax and some very strict. Even the strict ones let some losers in now and then.

If you think you're got a recruitment process that never ever lets in a loser, you're not admitting your mistakes. But don't feel bad -- failure to recognize (and live up to) your mistakes is a classic business blunder. Hey, you're just like GM now!

Firing people isn't easy. I think it's the absolute worst part of being a manager. I can see why people would avoid it, and I've avoided it myself in the past.

Now, the part of this article's advice that I'd have the toughest time following is paying the contractor a "market rate." Most start-ups don't have piles of cash around, especially those that are in the "nights and weekends" mode. Equity is the coin they use to recruit talent.

How do you offer equity to someone that you can let go of after 3 months? If the shares/options are entirely revokable, then the candidate will realize that as well. If not, then you're going to have a hostile shareholder in your midst at a time when you can't afford that distraction.

posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 at 3:57 PM by Dan Weber

Isn't hiring obsolete?

posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 at 6:28 PM by Kirubakaran

By virtue of the 3 month contract - you're hiring a contractor plain and simple - if the contractor is good you move them over to FT.

BUT Are you willing to pay higher contractor wages? Are you willing to compensate for every hour the person spends on the job? No? then you're ripping your employees off! Good luck.

posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 at 8:18 PM by zoran

I disagree on the try before you buy idea, but I agree with the concept that you should have a better idea about the candidate before you hire them full time.

I've heard that Google will have spent 80 man hours interviewing someone before hiring them. That's probably a lot to do with the size of the Google, but you need to spend a lot of time with someone to find out if they fit the culture and work ethic of your business.

One mechanism that a lot of companies don't seem to use to their beneift is the probationary period. Companies hire you for a three month probationary period (usually on a contract rate) and at the end of that time offer you a full time position. From my experience of that scenario, you have to do something really bad to not be offered that permanent role - because companies are disinclined to go back out into the marketplace to start the hiring process all over again.

Instead there should be a strict process of performance reviews during the three month probationary period. This should be Coupled with a 360 feedback review at the conclusion of the probation to find out what the candidate's managers, peers and subordinates think of his efforts. Candidates should be notified up front about this process, and told that unless they receive a certain grade their contract will not be renewed and they will not be offered a permanent role.

posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 at 10:37 PM by Nick Brawn

There is nothing practical about the hiring scheme you propose. It is absurdly biased in favor of the company, and it dramatically increases the risk for startup employees to a point that borders on being outright unethical.

To reiterate my comments on the reddit post:
Furthermore, most California employees are hired ``at-will'' which means they can be terminated at any time for no cause. It cuts both ways though because it means a California employee can quit at any time, and is not obligated to give the customary two weeks notice.

That said, the at-will nature of California employment does not mean fired employees can't sue for wrongful termination. When faced with a wrongful termination suit, many companies will settle out of court because it may still prove cheaper than a costly litigation, even if they could win the case!

The proposed hiring methodology allows a company to conveniently skip the troublesome step of firing an employee, and thereby avoid the risk of a wrongful termination suit. To be sure, this is a good thing in the case of a bad employee filing a bogus wrongful termination suit. But it's a disaster for a good employee that gets pushed out for bad reasons. The sad thing is that the latter case can and does happen in startups. It's shocking how seemingly nice people can turn into greedy bastards when large sums of money are at stake.

posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 at 1:48 AM by Daniel C. Silverstein

Ok, so I accept a trial period because, buddy, I know I AM that damn good that someone ought to see that and speak up for me by the end of the period.

Now lets say that I notice a big problem with something the company is doing, but which is popular with the other employees.

For the sake of the argument, assume that I'm correct about this problem, and that it is a serious enough problem to kill the company if it isn't addressed.

So tell me, do I speak up and save the company, but ensure that I won't be around to see it because everyone hates me and refuses to be my advocate?

Or do I keep my mouth shut and my head down, integrate myself with the people I have to impress, while looking for another job so I can bail out as soon as I can?

You've just trained me to ignore problems if addressing them would make me unpopular. You've trained your super stars that fitting in is more important than doing whatever it is they do that made you want to hire them in the first place.


posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 at 7:16 AM by Robert Moir

Wow! Had not realized this was going to be that controversial of a topic, but so be it.

Rather than sprinkle my thoughts here in the comments (which has turned out to be a discussion even more worth reading than the original article), I'll plan to do a follow-up article that captures some of the most salient arguments.

It should be interesting, stay tuned...

posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 at 9:33 AM by

This idea is a small start but I think that companies can and should do more.

I'm always amazed that most companies make it very difficult or even impossible for employees to work for them. Why not figure out ways to make it easy for employees to work at your company?

Can you reduce the number and sophistication of the technologies that you use without impacting the product? Can you have clear expectations about what position you are hiring for? Can you have a clear idea about what that position contributes to the company? Can you have a clear idea about the "what", the "how" and the "when" of that position over the next year? Can you narrow the position to make it easier to fill?

It's unfortunate that so many companies (large and small) hire people without any idea about what the position really is.

posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 at 12:51 PM by Daniel Howard

Heh-- the best articles always stir the pot, Dharmesh. Good stuff!

I think the "signal" can be sent (quite clearly) without going through the confusing and potentially off-putting problem contracting stuff.

If you say, before they come on, something like "Please understand that our goal is to create an exceptional team. After three months, the default option is to terminate our relationship unless the consensus is that you are exceptional. This means that we sometimes let people go who are merely good." I guess my point is that good communication shouldn't require signals.

As you say, startups are not for everyone. But in our current environment there sure are lots of them, which means that you are competing with other startups for the best talent. The best talent loves the idea of startups and loves the idea of having "skin in the game". But they decidedly are not interested in doing their own quarterly taxes, trying to dig up some sort of short term health insurance solution for them and their family. They probably aren't real interested in generating invoices for you and doing recordkeeping associated with that.

posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 at 3:30 PM by Tony Wright

I'm not sure if this is merely a UK thing, but the idea that some initial part of your employment is a probation period is taken for granted here. Some employers make more of an issue out of this than others but I cannot think of a single job I've worked in that didn't do this at all.

If this isn't the case in the US then this may be why this whole thing of casting about for fancy ways to say "probation period" sounds contrived to me. Here, the employer would just say it and the employee would just hear it, and it would be a normal day at work.

As I say, though, by putting the employment decision in the hands of the employee's peers, you've immediately made employment a 'beauty contest'. You've engineered a situation where it would be difficult for someone to make a choice that would prove unpopular with their peers, which is a problem if that unpopular decision is the best one for the business.

One more thing - Startups require total comittment from everyone involved, that goes without saying. A prospective new hire confronted by this scheme could well ask "Why would I offer you total comittment from day one if you're unwilling to show me the same?"

posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 at 3:42 PM by Robert Moir

It's also a Dutch thing, one or two month trail period with both sides having the ability to cancel at any time.
However, this is mostly a construct for employers. The result is that at a certain point of quality, people don't accept such terms in their contract. Because in all fairnes, no high payed person will leave a secure job to risk being send to social security a week later, because someone didn't like the color of your socks, or the owner's dog didn't like you, or whatever.

posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 10:49 AM by Hans

The probation period is standard here in Egypt also, ranging between 3 to 6 months.

I guess the message Dharmesh was trying to send out, is the making the hiring decision a responsiblity for everyone in the team to share. From mere peers, leaders and manager.

This has the effect of having many view points (with different weights of course) on should the hire continue or disconnected.

A team leader might judge based on the obedience, manager based on taks over clearly thus far. Peers might judge based on how they like him.

Finally, the hiring manager can take the decision after formulating these view points with good weights.

posted on Sunday, June 04, 2006 at 7:36 PM by

Here in Sweden 6 months propation period is standard. I agree with. Your system sound fantastic, but for one reason. You need the best people. The best people are not on the market, they got contacts and skill to get them anywhere. How are you going to get the best people to want to work for you with this system?

Some of the younger ones might, but then again, they might want to have a safe career at a bigger corporation instead. The older ones are going to have kids and mortgages and will not be especially inclined to accept such an unsafe position.

You'll get enthusiastic people, not good people with this system.

posted on Thursday, October 26, 2006 at 8:24 AM by Mikael Anteskog Adler

This is great for the startup but you will have a very hard time hiring good candidates with this strategy. The job market here in CA is very tight and most full-timers are wary of startups these days. This strategy will attract contractors instead of the full-timers you are looking for. I work for a VC-funded startup and I can tell you we have a very hard time getting good candidates and closing the offers. Even though we pay at or above market rates and have some nice perks, the perceived lack of stability gives a lot of candidates flashbacks to 2000-2001.

posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 at 12:34 PM by Ted

Agree with the benefits to the company - you usually know whether someone's working out within 3-4 weeks - but in practice this could be a difficult strategy to execute with top people as many have pointed out. That said, if you called it a consulting assignment instead of a probationary period, you might have more success.

posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 at 10:33 AM by Dave Lefkow

If you can't see how absurdly biased this scheme is towards the employer then I understand why you're having trouble hiring good people -- you have no idea how experienced, reasonable, self-respecting people think. As has been pointed out, you don't *need* this scheme to accomplish your end -- you just like it because it makes things more convenient for you. I'm talking to a number of start-ups right now, and, believe me, if any of them spewed this junk at me it'd be the last words of theirs that I heard. Now, if you want to level the playing field by throwing in a "retention bonus" that's paid out upon real/actual hiring (let's call it 50% of the compensation paid during the probationary period) *then* we might be talking, but even so I think a lot of people would be totally put off by the hassles involved in this arrangement. Firing people is hard? Well, lots of things about being in a start-up are "hard" -- suck it up! Take a page from the VC's playbook: the thing that distinguishes the successful VCs in the long run is not the ability to pick winners so much as the ability to recognize and *quickly kill* losers.

posted on Thursday, January 17, 2008 at 12:20 AM by Roger Scott

Interesting article and debate. It seems like HR is a tough issue. People and companies should remember that things are generally negotiable. I mean if a company really wants someone, they will negotiate. And if a person really wants to work at a company, they will jump at the chance to prove themselves.

posted on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 11:10 AM by chrisco

Well, this one has generated a lot of input, and I can't resist. I worked for a startup once. It wasn't for the pay (which was ok, but nothing to write home about), or even the promises of equity (because there never were any - did I mention I was really young), it was the opportunity to work at something that really mattered, where what I did could not be ignored, and political jockeying and backstabbing for key positions didn't happen because there was no hierarchy.
It wasn't easy, and I wasn't always happy. But it was the absolute, hands-down, best time in my life.
And, it was the hiring process that set the whole tone. I was brought directly on board. I was interviewed by the whole small staff (interviewed, not grilled and charbroiled) taken to dinner, and treated extremely well even though my position a the time was hardly what one would term hard to fill or highly competitive. However, the owners showed passion for their company and made it clear I was important to what they needed to accomplish. In the years I spent there, I worked all the startup overtime, pitched in at every possible job I could handle, always tried to do my level best, and was (as corny as it sounds) proud to work there. I know, I would never do that for a group of owners or managers who started out the relationship the way you want to start out your relationships with your employees.
I recognize the trend is to what I can only term as corporate arrogance, the way some companies treat the people they interview. But I can tell you many years, career changes, and salary increases later, I pass on all work to hire, the majority of contract positions and on anyone who puts me through a meat grinder during an interview (much to the absolute shock of some really large companies.) Why do I want to give my all to someone who basically is saying up front "It's all about me, me, me. You, your just a replaceable cog that better measure up."
Trust me, I've learned the hard way, just as you have that interviews bring no guarantees. And, it isn't just the company that stands to lose. I've gone to work for some real lemons, but it was my decision, and it was my job to correct the situation. It isn't something to put off on someone else.
What it really comes down to is if both sides can't even start out by putting themselves forward on a foundation of trust and respect - why waste each other's time.

posted on Thursday, April 03, 2008 at 6:49 PM by shdot

Thanks for the very thoughtful content.
It's unfortunate that the article led you to believe that I advocate startups/employers taking advantage of recruits and/or not manifesting trust. Didn't mean to convey that, but if that's what you read into it, the issue is on my end.
You're precisely the type of person that startups should be seeking to recruit.

posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 at 12:17 AM by

Comments have been closed for this article.