Some thoughts about Recruitment from 37 Signals
Posted on June 13th, 2010 by Paul McArdle – No CommentsThe June issue of Inc Magazine arrived recently.
Some issues don’t have much relevance to where we’re at, but this one had a few interesting articles.
1) On this post, I’d like to comment on “Never read another Resume” by Jason Fried, co-founder of 37 Signals, specifically as it relates to us.
2) Perhaps I’ll also find time to post about the others at a later date …
Repeat visitors of this blog will understand how we’re investing quite a bit of time and effort, of late, in upgrading our capabilities – we’ve brought in a couple coaches (to bridge our skills gaps, short-term) and have started recruiting in a number of key people (starting with the software development team).
This article was relevant to these efforts.
1) Our Capability Upgrade
A couple of months ago I appointed Derrick Hill as our new “General Manager for Discerning, Developing and Delivering what the Customers Wants (Needs)” as the first step in this process.
(a) We also welcomed Eamon Hetherton back to the company, after a few years away – during which he gained some international software development experience in a range of different companies.
(b) We’ve also bid farewell to a couple of people who’ve worked with us during the consolidation phase that the company has worked through these past few years.
(c) We’re currently in the midst of a recruitment process for 1 (or maybe 2) Senior .NET Developer(s) to become an integral part of our team, focused on tackling the opportunities & challenges ahead of us:
This is as an opportunity for a pragmatic, keen and capable person to join us at the start of our journey, as we:
i. commence our process of re-engineering our product framework; and
ii. continue our transition to a pragmatically applied, Agile software development methodology.
Both these changes will set us up for the next decade of growth.I’ll post more about these continuing changes, when I have a bit more time.
2) Thoughts triggered by Jason Fried
Obviously, you can read what Jason has to say in his article. I’d just like to draw out a few points that were particularly relevant for me, given where we are currently at.
(a) Hire to alleviate pain, not for pleasure
This dichotomy is not as significant for us as it seems to be for Jason.
We know that there is plenty of opportunity to which we could apply more software developers – our customers have let us know (sometimes all too clearly) that this is the case. You could say that we feel our share of pain!
Our recruitment approach is moreso based on what are two core factors:
(i) Can we attract the right candidates?
With the ambitious goal we have set for ourselves, our focus very much needs to be centered on getting the “right people on the bus” – perhaps moreso than I have been in the past.
What’s “right” for us?
Every organisation is different, I know. We’re just different in our own way – we’re in the process of rebuilding our team, with a specific focus on starting with people who can drive us in the next stage of our growth.
Yet, just like any company which has been around for 10 years, we have our share of legacy issues (including code) which need to be managed & rejuvenated.
Hence, the people we’re looking for need to be pragmatic, keen, and capable – and able to overlook the fact that our corporate website is not reflective of what we do, and our company name is just awful (they are just two of the things we need to change)!
(ii) What are we comfortable affording?
One of the upsides of being self-funding is that we’re not beholden to external Angels, VCs and the like, who might not share our Vision, our Mission, and our Core Values.
On the flip-side, this means that we only re-invest current revenues in the growth of our capabilities.
Hence, whilst there might be enough market opportunity for us to employ many more software developers, we’re starting with 1 (or perhaps 2) more as that is what our bootstrapping methodology will provide for, at presemt.
Hence, whilst we might have the pain to warrant additional people, we’ll only be putting them on when we can attract the right people, and when our cash flow from current sales provides.
(b) Have you already tried the job yourself?
I understand the logic of what Jason says here:
How do you know if you really need someone? A good rule of thumb is this: Have you already tried to do the job yourself? If you haven’t done the job, you don’t really understand the job. Without that fundamental understanding, it’s hard to judge what constitutes a job well done.
Wherever possible, I understand why this holds value.
However, sometimes (at least for me) it’s not so cut-and-dried.
For instance, in recruiting Derrick into our team, I knew I was after someone who had capabilities way beyond my own very modest capabilities as a pseudo “Chief Software Engineer”.
Whilst I might be a General Dogsbody, I am certainly not an expert on everything – I believe that this would be the same for pretty much all company founders.
However, it does leave the issue posed by Jason as one to be addressed – as I don’t have 20 years of experience in software engineering, I’m not one who can assess the details of how Derrick does his job.
What’s more important to me, however is results (so long as the role is congruent with our core values). Hence, to me, the job title says it all: General Manager for Discerning, Developing and Delivering the Software our Customers Want (Need).
The flip side of this, of course, is that (as our software team begins to take shape – e.g. with Derrick and Eamon onboard) we’re in a much better position to assess if the capabilities of other candidates for the software team are the capabilities we most need at this present point in time.
It will be a similar process, later in the year, when I commence the recruitment process for our GM of Sales & Marketing.
I have other areas to focus on, at present, but will create a similarly descriptive position title for this person before advertising – perhaps “General Manager for Finding, and Keeping Customers Happy”?
(c) Ignore CVs and look at the Cover Letters
I think I understand the context of the comment – yes, CVs are decidedly the applicant’s “best foot forward”, and it’s almost expected that they might have had some help in preparing the CV.
The letter, on the other hand, does provide some indication of the applicants keenness for our particular position (and, in some cases, ability to string two sentences together).
In the recruitment process for the GM DDD WCW position, I asked Derrick (and the others) to pitch for the job – with the flip side being that I was very open about where the company is at (warts and all) and invested many days into the process. The ultimate objective was to find the best match.
I’m happy with the results achieved – though I understand that such an approach won’t be appropriate for every position to be filled in future.
One of my purposes of being quite prolific (perhaps verbose?) in posts on this blog is to enable all potential applicants to self-select onto our bus – if it is aligned with their view of the world, and way of working. Certainly, no-one should be turning up for work on their first day to find it any surprise!
(d) All questions aren’t equal
Jason talks about liking “why?” questions and disliking “how?” questions.
I don’t think we can be as cut-and-dried. What I am interested in is seeing, in an interview, that people:
(i) Have a healthy dose of curiosity – particularly in us, and our market;
(ii) Demonstrate their keenness in having done their research beforehand (e.g. through this blog, as noted above) to eliminate any questions that might have been easily answered prior;
(iii) Have a unique (or at least innovative) way of viewing the world, and our place in it.
(e) Try before you buy?
Jason says:
We also try to test-drive people before hiring them full time. We give designers a one-week design project to see how they approach the problem. We pay them $1,500 for their work.
Derrick has already developed a paper-based test that applicants complete in the process of an interview.
This tells us something about an applicants ability – but the longer the time we have with a candidate, the better our view will be. Hence, Jason’s idea holds some interest.
Of course, this has to be balanced with the practical realities that:
(i) Most capable candidates will already have current commitments, which preclude any longer-period test arrangements.
(ii) From a company point of view, there needs to be something meaningful that we can get the candidate to do to establish their capability, and yet deliver value to the company.
A case in point here was with Eamon – back in 2002, we brought him in initially on a 10-week “trial” to develop the first version of ez2viewOntario, just after the market opened. This worked for us, and it worked for him (we even secured our first client there!) – though it’s unlikely such a synchronicity will be present, all the time.
3) The underlying assumption in Jason’s article
As noted above, the underlying presumption in Jason’s entire article is that the company has an effectively endless stream of excellent candidates that it can turn on-or-off at will.
Whilst this might be the case for 37 Signals, which has established a reputation (and a fan base) for itself, it’s not the case for us presently.
As noted above, we’re a company with a poor choice of name and with a company profile that’s not that great – whilst some of our products might be well-known in the electricity industry, we’re relatively unknown in the software space.
Hence, whatever lessons are prescribed in this article (and to which I generally prescribe) need to be balanced with other aspects of the practical realities of where we’re currently at.
As a bootstrapped company, we’re going to work through several iterations of our growth in capability (incorporating both step-change, like now, and more gradual improvements):
1) some people will stay with us through several of these stages of growth (and grow with us), whilst others will be with us only through one particular stage.
2) my preference would be that people stay with us the whole way through – however I know that I need to be realistic in this respect.