Wow, I read this. Tried to forget it. But it annoyed me so much I had to respond...just so I can get it out of my mind and get back to work.
I tried to be as constructive as possible in my criticism...but reader beware...
-----The Constructive Part------
Let me help you find your code monkeys.
First, stop spending any time at meetups and hackathons. That would only make sense if you were a technical person looking to recruit some talent. You're on the wrong side of the fence to get anywhere at those types of meetings.
Second, re-evaluate your value proposition to any potential developer you are thinking about recruiting. I bet you are either being incredibly cheap on the compensation package you are offering (a dollar saved is a dollar earned, right?!). Or your core business model is lame/flawed/weak/not interesting to whomever the developer is you're pitching it to.
Third, get creative. Dress up in a monkey costume and stand outside the Facebook/Zynga/Twitter/LinkedIn office with a sign that says something that will get a developer's attention. Go big. Go over the top. Do NOT underestimate the power of creativity. If you approached me with a boilerplate MBA pitch, I would immediately discount everything you say because I'd think you are full of shit. Now, if you were willing to humiliate yourself, make me laugh and look like you were having fun doing it, then you'd have my attention. Re-read the Obama-O's AirBNB story. Get creative.
Fourth, get busy building the product yourself. You don't need to be a developer to build out business requirements. If you came to me with flushed out wireframes and business requirements and very clear technical roadmap, I'd be WAY more interested than if you came to me with a killer 80 page Stanford business plan. I don't even know who Steve Blank is...neither does any other developer. Realize that anything non-technical (i.e. marketing plans, financial projections, org charts, etc) is all irrelevant to recruiting a developer. All of those items are vitally important for a successful startup, but they are all fluff. They don't (in the eyes of a developer) require much time, effort or thought. If that's all you brought to the table, you'd be seen as a Winklevi (i.e. I came up with this brilliant idea...here's 10 sentences on the product...now go build it code monkey...and here's 0.5% of the company).
-----The Criticism Part-----
"Last week we had a big strategy and planning session, and I had to decide to hold off on signing up any new customers or channel partners because we don’t have the bandwidth in product development to deliver let alone improve the platform."
So let me get this straight: you are so successful selling a real solution to a real customer problem that customers are willing and able to pay good money for (i.e. the hardest single thing to do in a startup) that you have to pull back your sales efforts, but you can't figure out how to recruit technical talent?!
I'm calling bullshit on that one.
More likely, it's a group of MBAs sitting around in their argyle sweater vests thinking they are just killing it in sales, yet they are only able to sell a vague idea of a fictitious software product that they haven't even written business requirements for yet. The rubber isn't even close to meeting the road yet.
Why are you spending one second on a 'big strategy and planning session'?! Seriously. You're biggest problem is hiring developers. And you're a software product company. Huh?? Spend every waking hour finding technical talent. Stop the circle-jerk planning sessions already! Go buy a bunch of bananas and find your code monkeys!
Maybe I got a bit hot-headed, but I settled down and tried to offer some specific advice. Hope you were able to get something from it.
I apologize for annoying you so much and do appreciate your comments! I have a couple comments: 1) We have to make sure our current five customers are happy before expanding to new customers. It's for that reason we're pulling back our sales.. not BSing and no sweaters (the product is built, and I do all the requirements and wire-frames). 2) I don't think we're being cheap on our compensation package but, as an enterprise software platform pre-series A, we're just not getting the buzz needed to attract talent more easily. Traditionally employee development and training is not the most exciting space for developers but that's exactly why it's a huge opportunity now as we introduce game and social mechanics. Again... appreciate the constructive comments and any additional thoughts.
I have to chime in here and say that I know Lloyd personally and am intimate with some of the details of RippleQ, and the rubber has hit the road in a big way.
These guys have built out a solid product, that major companies are paying for, and are getting great feedback from their customers. I understand why you would be tempted to call bullshit, but it actually isn't anywhere near bullshit.
I can't agree with trying to recruit people out of other companies. Instead, go for the technical talent that has been missed by other companies because they their array of technical tests and questionairres and laundry lists of requirements have filtered out good people.
#1 makes no sense. Facebook/Google/Zynga/etc pay hires more because they can no longer offer hires significant equity, like an early startup can. A startup is never going to beat an established company on pay, it's going to beat it on equity. If an offer of significant equity doesn't convince a potential developer to come onboard, perhaps the problem is that the company isn't promising enough.
I honestly can't comprehend someone writing #1 as anything but a joke. You're seriously upset that Google can afford to hire good talent and doesn't treat its employees like shit?
Also, "Shame on you for not squeezing salaries to cut your costs" is not a way to attract good developers.
I'm going to give the author the benefit of the doubt here, because sarcasm is notoriously hard to transmit through text. I think he's being tongue-in-cheek while complaining that hiring is difficult because Google/Facebook/etc have collectively raised the bar about what sort of compensation is expected to levels that are hard for him to match.
You guys sure are tough, but I kind of expected it by putting 'MBA' in the title of my post. I can't blame many of you for disliking MBAs. MBA graduate programs are a vestigial product of the industrial era where an aristocratic group of elite were given the reins to control (a.k.a. manage) the workers and get them to do the work. That pisses me off as much as the next guy. Nonetheless, for those of us trying to build post-industrial open enterprises (check out www.Worldblu.org for a glimpse of what I'm talking about) it's also hard to argue against the fact that good management is an important part of any successful enterprise. Just as the stereotype of engineers as nerdy, socially awkward introverts is not true neither is that of the MBA stereotype. For example, I play squash not golf, and I wear penny loafers never argyle sweaters (read: this is a tongue and cheek comment, meaning it's not true but written solely for comic effect and perhaps -- if I'm going to be completely honest-- as a slight dig back at those of you who felt entitled to stereotype me unfairly).
I read over my post and can totally understand some of your comments, particularly from readers who didn't catch the sarcasm. I don't actually think Google is evil for paying its engineer a lot. I have a ton of respect for Google: in fact I have a lot of friends working there and Eric Schmidt taught us at Stanford.) The important point in my blog was that we've done a good job to date boot-strapping rippleQ to identify a market need, to build a cool product (iterating a lot along the way) and, most recently, to sell to a number of enterprise customers. We're poised to raise a series A round now too. In other words, we're doing all the right things but struggle to find top web developers because the demand is already so high in the valley. It's obviously difficult for everybody (e.g. companies are advertising on road-side billboards now to attract engineers!). I've continued to receive great advice on how to reach out to recruit great engineers (and we're talking with a number of engineers now -- thank you to those who referred people!), but I thought I'd just rant a bit out loud, and I guess I thought (perhaps mistakenly) that out of my rants an awesome developer would fall out of the sky, contacting me interested in learning more about rippleQ. Some entrepreneurs wear monkey suits, I write disgruntled emails that poke fun at myself and MBAs!
Can't wait to see this revolutionary implementation of social game mechanics that will improve capitalism for the benefit of all.
This person managed to get into the most selective and sought after MBA program on the planet so I want to give him the benefit of the doubt but, jesus...wtf?
The real problem is not what you think. The real problem is that some employers (MBA's?) don't know how to recognise and employ technical talent. There's talent around, it's not too hard to employ. It's just that some employers have the wrong set of measures of people.
I spend all my time finding great people who are often knocked back after a set of selection criteria is applied that often filters out good people.
So Lloyd I am afraid that the problem is not the fault of Google or LinkedIn or job boards, it's that you're not recognising the great people because your assessment process is probably flawed.
How about you post here your technical interview questions and your requirements and the tests that you give people?
In my hunting for a job, the three most annoying things that some employers do to potential tech talent:
- Instant rejection for missing one of a laundry list of technologies. There's no desire to grow people into positions.
- Long competency tests that are really a test of your ability to recall or search for solutions/trivia.
- Zero feedback. Completely relying on the job-seeker to follow up.
1. Google and the other big boyz talk a big game about doing no evil, but giving out huge salaries and signing bonuses to attract the best talent is just plain evil from my vantage-point.
(cross-posted from the blog's comments - didn't realise they're hidden by default)
Just a few comments (from a developer/entrepreneur's perspective):
> I hate asking around for help.
We all do. Asking is hard. But if you're aiming to be a successful entrepreneur, you will have to do things that take you outside your comfort zone. That's the whole point. Bite the bullet, swallow your pride.
> There are so many job boards and most of them are useless.
Yep, that's exactly right. Don't use them. If you want to find great developers (and you're not Google), nine times out of ten you're going to have to do the legwork yourself.
> “I’m looking too. If I found a good software developer, I’d take him. Sorry!” Not cool.
That sounds fair enough to me. Good developers are, as you've discovered, rare. If they're putting the work in, they deserve the payoff - why should they give up a potentially valuable employee just because you asked?
The common theme here seems to be that yes, building a company from the ground up is really hard, and it's a ton of (sometimes frustrating and thankless) work. If you have faith in your company's ability to succeed, you need to do whatever's necessary to get them there.
Assume that he really cannot dole out a huge salary ... how much should he be offering in equity?
Assume that I'm a badass software developer who specializes in scalable web-based systems. In that case, you can also assume that a.) plenty of people approach me with their middling ideas all the time, wanting me to work for peanuts/equity, and b.) I already have a job.
What else could he offer that I might find motivating?
First, timing/serendipity is a huge factor and there's nothing anybody can do about that other than keep at it.
To answer your question: Offer a real chance of success.
Success is my personal financial success, not just company success and it has to be financial success.
How many POS startups are out there that will never amount to anything?! 50% of 0 is 0.
Prove that you (the hustler) have what it takes to make this opportunity succeed.
Prove that this opportunity WILL succeed.
Give me enough equity that will pay 3-5X my base salary with the low/conservative projections and 20X my base salary with the homerun projections. That's based on a 2-3 year commitment.
Give me the ability to do my thing (hacking) without you (the hustler) meddling in it.
It's pretty easy, if you're a really good hustler who's actually out there making it happen.
if i were looking, i'd not apply at his company after reading this as he just doesn't seem to be a good problem solver. A successful leader would post a solution (or at least reasonably constructive ways to approach the problem) instead of whining at the problem.
How are MBA programs so behind? I mean, talented/successful entrepreneurs flock to the teaching positions at top MBA programs. Why do they remain to set in their ways?
A question for you all you disgruntled MBA's -- how do you make MBA programs more agile/nimble?
Let us inspect the definition of an MBA - nope. nothing there.
How about the sales pitch B-Schools make - nope they don't. $$ is the only promise.
Basically what we see here is that institutions are issuing certificates saying that they are capable of producing an individual who fits into any leadership role in any org without any domain specific knowledge and can keep everything going smoothly.
After that analysis, the usual response I get from people is that MBAs are great at networking and blah blah. So navigating the communication hierarchy of an org takes 2 years of training ? And this is enough to produce "Da Boss" for an org ?
When you sign up for a 4 yr CS degree - you are guaranteed some exposure to a mixture of CS concepts, same for EE. A masters degree / PhD are also reasonably defined. Can anyone produce a similar intuitive definition for an MBA ?
The use of 'haven' instead of 'having' made it impossible for me to complete this article. I would have expected a higher quality of writing from a Stanford graduate.
[+] [-] trussi|14 years ago|reply
I tried to be as constructive as possible in my criticism...but reader beware...
-----The Constructive Part------
Let me help you find your code monkeys.
First, stop spending any time at meetups and hackathons. That would only make sense if you were a technical person looking to recruit some talent. You're on the wrong side of the fence to get anywhere at those types of meetings.
Second, re-evaluate your value proposition to any potential developer you are thinking about recruiting. I bet you are either being incredibly cheap on the compensation package you are offering (a dollar saved is a dollar earned, right?!). Or your core business model is lame/flawed/weak/not interesting to whomever the developer is you're pitching it to.
Third, get creative. Dress up in a monkey costume and stand outside the Facebook/Zynga/Twitter/LinkedIn office with a sign that says something that will get a developer's attention. Go big. Go over the top. Do NOT underestimate the power of creativity. If you approached me with a boilerplate MBA pitch, I would immediately discount everything you say because I'd think you are full of shit. Now, if you were willing to humiliate yourself, make me laugh and look like you were having fun doing it, then you'd have my attention. Re-read the Obama-O's AirBNB story. Get creative.
Fourth, get busy building the product yourself. You don't need to be a developer to build out business requirements. If you came to me with flushed out wireframes and business requirements and very clear technical roadmap, I'd be WAY more interested than if you came to me with a killer 80 page Stanford business plan. I don't even know who Steve Blank is...neither does any other developer. Realize that anything non-technical (i.e. marketing plans, financial projections, org charts, etc) is all irrelevant to recruiting a developer. All of those items are vitally important for a successful startup, but they are all fluff. They don't (in the eyes of a developer) require much time, effort or thought. If that's all you brought to the table, you'd be seen as a Winklevi (i.e. I came up with this brilliant idea...here's 10 sentences on the product...now go build it code monkey...and here's 0.5% of the company).
-----The Criticism Part-----
"Last week we had a big strategy and planning session, and I had to decide to hold off on signing up any new customers or channel partners because we don’t have the bandwidth in product development to deliver let alone improve the platform."
So let me get this straight: you are so successful selling a real solution to a real customer problem that customers are willing and able to pay good money for (i.e. the hardest single thing to do in a startup) that you have to pull back your sales efforts, but you can't figure out how to recruit technical talent?!
I'm calling bullshit on that one.
More likely, it's a group of MBAs sitting around in their argyle sweater vests thinking they are just killing it in sales, yet they are only able to sell a vague idea of a fictitious software product that they haven't even written business requirements for yet. The rubber isn't even close to meeting the road yet.
Why are you spending one second on a 'big strategy and planning session'?! Seriously. You're biggest problem is hiring developers. And you're a software product company. Huh?? Spend every waking hour finding technical talent. Stop the circle-jerk planning sessions already! Go buy a bunch of bananas and find your code monkeys!
Maybe I got a bit hot-headed, but I settled down and tried to offer some specific advice. Hope you were able to get something from it.
[+] [-] llnimetz|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kabuks|14 years ago|reply
These guys have built out a solid product, that major companies are paying for, and are getting great feedback from their customers. I understand why you would be tempted to call bullshit, but it actually isn't anywhere near bullshit.
[+] [-] andrewstuart|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fuzzmeister|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Synthetase|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] va_coder|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikhael|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clownz0r|14 years ago|reply
Also, "Shame on you for not squeezing salaries to cut your costs" is not a way to attract good developers.
[+] [-] lmkg|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] llnimetz|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] localhost3000|14 years ago|reply
This person managed to get into the most selective and sought after MBA program on the planet so I want to give him the benefit of the doubt but, jesus...wtf?
[+] [-] andrewstuart|14 years ago|reply
I spend all my time finding great people who are often knocked back after a set of selection criteria is applied that often filters out good people.
So Lloyd I am afraid that the problem is not the fault of Google or LinkedIn or job boards, it's that you're not recognising the great people because your assessment process is probably flawed.
How about you post here your technical interview questions and your requirements and the tests that you give people?
[+] [-] BenSS|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] edj|14 years ago|reply
This is parody, right?
[+] [-] jcampbell1|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fractalcat|14 years ago|reply
Just a few comments (from a developer/entrepreneur's perspective):
> I hate asking around for help.
We all do. Asking is hard. But if you're aiming to be a successful entrepreneur, you will have to do things that take you outside your comfort zone. That's the whole point. Bite the bullet, swallow your pride.
> There are so many job boards and most of them are useless.
Yep, that's exactly right. Don't use them. If you want to find great developers (and you're not Google), nine times out of ten you're going to have to do the legwork yourself.
> “I’m looking too. If I found a good software developer, I’d take him. Sorry!” Not cool.
That sounds fair enough to me. Good developers are, as you've discovered, rare. If they're putting the work in, they deserve the payoff - why should they give up a potentially valuable employee just because you asked?
The common theme here seems to be that yes, building a company from the ground up is really hard, and it's a ton of (sometimes frustrating and thankless) work. If you have faith in your company's ability to succeed, you need to do whatever's necessary to get them there.
[+] [-] wdrury|14 years ago|reply
Assume that I'm a badass software developer who specializes in scalable web-based systems. In that case, you can also assume that a.) plenty of people approach me with their middling ideas all the time, wanting me to work for peanuts/equity, and b.) I already have a job.
What else could he offer that I might find motivating?
[+] [-] trussi|14 years ago|reply
To answer your question: Offer a real chance of success.
Success is my personal financial success, not just company success and it has to be financial success.
How many POS startups are out there that will never amount to anything?! 50% of 0 is 0.
Prove that you (the hustler) have what it takes to make this opportunity succeed.
Prove that this opportunity WILL succeed.
Give me enough equity that will pay 3-5X my base salary with the low/conservative projections and 20X my base salary with the homerun projections. That's based on a 2-3 year commitment.
Give me the ability to do my thing (hacking) without you (the hustler) meddling in it.
It's pretty easy, if you're a really good hustler who's actually out there making it happen.
[+] [-] VladRussian|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pssamant|14 years ago|reply
A question for you all you disgruntled MBA's -- how do you make MBA programs more agile/nimble?
[+] [-] shriphani|14 years ago|reply
How about the sales pitch B-Schools make - nope they don't. $$ is the only promise.
Basically what we see here is that institutions are issuing certificates saying that they are capable of producing an individual who fits into any leadership role in any org without any domain specific knowledge and can keep everything going smoothly.
After that analysis, the usual response I get from people is that MBAs are great at networking and blah blah. So navigating the communication hierarchy of an org takes 2 years of training ? And this is enough to produce "Da Boss" for an org ?
When you sign up for a 4 yr CS degree - you are guaranteed some exposure to a mixture of CS concepts, same for EE. A masters degree / PhD are also reasonably defined. Can anyone produce a similar intuitive definition for an MBA ?
[+] [-] imrankk|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thinkcomp|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pg_bot|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clownz0r|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] llnimetz|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacques_chester|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NonEUCitizen|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shareme|14 years ago|reply
He is searching for a co-founder but not giving the benefits of a co-founder..that is a sale he will never make..ever.