Amina @itsamiinaa - Twitter Profile

Pinned Tweet

about 1 month ago

Two failures here and they need opposite fixes. People leaving after they join usually isn’t about the job description being dishonest, most companies actually say the hard part out loud now, the market got more honest about that The real gap is somewhere else. Hearing about a hard problem and living inside it are two different experiences and people are just bad at predicting how the second one feels based on the first.Someone nods along to “things break constantly here” mentally files it under manageable, then a month in finds out manageable was the wrong word.That’s not you lying to them, it’s a blind spot everyone has between a described difficulty and an experienced one. So telling isn’t the lever, simulating is, give people a real slice of the actual mess before the offer instead of a description of it, a real ticket, a real vague ask, a real version of whatever usually breaks people. You’re not testing if they can do the task, you’re testing whether their reaction in the moment matches the enthusiasm they showed when it was just a conversation. The other half is sequencing. Most companies run the cheap stuff first and save the disqualifying question for last, so it gets asked after four people already gave up their calendars for someone who was never going to work out. Flip that. Whatever’s most likely to end this hire, test it first. And here’s the part nobody says:)) Most startups respond to hiring problems by hiring cheaper and hiring more people, which is backwards.A great hire isn’t twice as good as an average one, they’re closer to ten times as good, and three average hires split that same output across three people who each cost you calendar time, ramp time, and a seat you can’t easily take back. Pay what a genuinely strong hire asks for, the alternative is paying three people to leave you one at a time.The flip side is knowing where mistakes are cheap, junior roles, first internships, small stuff, that’s where you hire for hunger over resume because someone who wants in badly enough beats someone credentialed who’s just passing through.A bad junior hire costs two weeks, a bad senior hire costs a quarter and sometimes the round. For startups specifically, move the founder call to the end instead of the start.Once the founder falls for a candidate mid-process, nobody after that call is actually evaluating anymore, they’re just agreeing with a decision that’s already been made.Every remaining step becomes a formality dressed up as diligence. Save that call for last, and change what it’s for, don’t sell, disclose, what’s broken, what runway looks like, what happens if the raise slips.Then watch what they ask, not whether they still say yes, everyone says yes when there’s an offer on the table. Great hiring isn’t a longer process It’s knowing exactly which four minutes actually matter and refusing to waste them on anything else!

Sridhar A

@sridharfyi

about 1 month ago

we have a hiring problem. we're moving fast, but hiring isn't. we've tried interviews and paid trials. some candidates still leave, while others take weeks of team time to evaluate before we realise it's not a fit. if you've solved this at a fast-moving startup: what does your hiring process actually look like? what do you test before making the offer?

98

250

3

146

27K

0

1

0

553

Amina

@itsamiinaa

Last Seen Users on Sotwe

Trends for you

Most Popular Users