Skip to main content

Are there good candidates in the market?

Are there good candidates in the market?
A recent study published by CB Insight indicates a number of common reasons that startups fail. The
 first and second are not surprising:  42% of startups close because they found no market for their products and 29% because they ran out of money. But the most solvable reason is the third:  23% of startups fail because of an inadequate team. Obviously, these companies didn’t put the right people in place to do the job that needed doing

Entrepreneurs set up a company, develop an amazing product which the market is waiting for, raise funding and yet, one out of four startups close because the team was not suited for the tremendous challenges entrepreneurs and startups face. So even while the 3rd most common reason startups fail can be attributed to not having the right team in place, the first two reasons can also be partially attributed to having the wrong people executing those tasks.
It’s sort of obvious to me. Not having the right team is arguably far more than a quarter of the reason why startups fail. As someone who’s been involved in both high-tech startups and the recruitment business for more than 20 years, I can tell you I’d estimate the number one reason startups fail can be either completely or partially attributed to not having the right people in place to do the important work key roles are tasked with doing. Perhaps entrepreneurs are ashamed to admit they failed, personally unable to put the right team in place.  Why is this happening so often? Here is what usually happens.

Johnny and Jake, who worked as software engineers at the same company came up with a brilliant idea. They shared the idea with Mary. Then the group brought in Tom, the only one they knew with an understanding of sales and marketing. The entrepreneurial nucleus is ready to go to battle.
The group prepares a business plan and an investor deck with the aim to raise money. The technology development is easy. After all, the team members have technological experience from previous jobs. When things start happening they have to recruit a team in order to execute on their plan. They need more programmers, product managers, sales and marketing professionals and pretty soon they will need someone to head up their new office.

So far there was no problem recruiting new people. Johnny brought Susan and she brought Andrew. A year has passed and our startup has twenty people.  It’s evolved into a small empire ready to conquer the world. But something begins to crack. Bill, who was the brilliant programmer at Jake’s previous company, finds it difficult to work with Jake’s team. His attitude is negative and getting toxic. Mary was a really good Product Manager but ever since the company hired a VP of Product she finds it difficult to cooperate with his new process.  And worst of all, Tom, who is one of the company’s founders and its main sales guy, does not deliver anything close to scalable results. The company needs a much more experienced VP of Sales and a far more advanced distribution strategy.
This story repeats itself again and again in thousands of startups. In some cases, the entrepreneurs succeed to overcome these common difficulties and bear the heavy price of losing momentum and opportunity and in many cases this situation results in the disintegration of the delicate human and cultural fabric that is so vital for startups to succeed.

What can be done to prevent these situations? The short answer is that any company, especially startups, must have a realistic understanding of their own personal limitations as well as a well thought out strategy for recruiting key employees. A successful process requires the CEO’s attention and involvement as the main task in building a successful company.
The company needs to decide on its short and long term hiring strategies. It needs to decide what will be developed internally and what can be outsourced. This decision will impact the number and type of people it hires. The company must decide on the ideal mix of people in the company, one that will help create an ideal culture that engenders a sense of purpose and drives the team to work hard and stay, even in times of crisis.  Some employees may be capable of meeting their goals in the first year but not beyond. Others may seem overqualified (I hate this term) but can help the company as it grows. And sometimes good people just get bored and need to be put out to pasture for everyone’s benefit.

These are serious challenges that not all entrepreneurs know how to cope with. As the pressure grows (and it does), personnel problems start to haunt managers and they are more likely to make hiring mistakes like hiring the wrong people for the wrong task or not hiring anyone at all.
Even after a strategy is formulated, the plan is not done. The company must create a structured process for recruiting personnel that can be implemented and measured so that success can be determined and people involved can be held accountable. Budget and resources must be allocated in order to make the process work. Department managers have to decide what happens when hiring is not going as planned. No business can execute on its plan without a great team in place, period.
I meet companies that are unable to recruit employees for key roles for months on end, sometimes even a year or more. Conversely, I see companies that continue to improve their hiring process relentlessly and now understand how to make amazing hires, even in a tight talent market. When a job goes unfilled then something is wrong with someone or everyone in the hiring process. Either the process is wrong, the expectations are unrealistic or no one is being held accountable for the lack of results.

The common argument which goes "there are no good candidates in the market" does not hold water.  Good companies recruit excellent people and build winning teams because they make hiring an accountable process internally. 

Gal Almog is a veteran entrepreneur and the co-founder and CEO of Talenya, a technology based recruitment company. www.talenya.com  

Popular posts from this blog

The Limitation of "Boolean" in Talent Sourcing

I did a search on LinkedIn for a “Java Software Engineer” in New York City. I entered that job title as a keyword (under Job Titles) and LinkedIn suggested that my talent pool was 2,059 candidates. Then I added a skill and my talent pool decreased to 1,956 candidates. When I added another skill, my pool increased. This is the nature of Boolean search. Every candidate that has at least one of the requirements is brought up in the search results. If you want the skills to be additive (X and Y), you need to write a compound Boolean search string rather than just adding the skills from the LinkedIn menu. I wanted to reduce my targeted talent pool and added “years of experience” range. The pool tanked. The same happened when I added “education requirements”. It was not clear what I should do at this point. I didn’t know what to change in my search in order to maximize my pool while maintaining the quality of the candidates in my search results. Was it a specific skill or the combin

Diversity in the workforce – Artificial Intelligence (AI) comes to the rescue

According to a  study  published by McKinsey & Company, every 1% rise in the rate of diversity is associated with an increase in revenues of between 3% and 9%. We all know how important it is to have diversity and inclusion in the workforce, and not only for financial reasons. Yet in the US, some 97% of companies fail to reflect the demographic composition of the country in their senior leadership and workforce.  Most companies want to increase diversity, but unfortunately, the talent sourcing tools that are available today are highly limited, and even discriminatory. There are several reasons for that:  Limited talent pool  - Traditional talent sourcing tools (like LinkedIn) have a limited reach to talent. Candidates are often active on multiple sites and leave important data, to which single source tools lack access. Diversity specific job sites and resume databases are limited to active job seekers, eliminating passive, qualified, and diverse talent. Discriminatory search techni

Why Men Still Get An Unfair Advantage Finding New Jobs

A large scale research of 10 million candidate profiles conducted by Talenya reveals why men still get an unfair advantage finding new job opportunities.   It’s 2020, and women are still being paid 79 cents to the dollar as compared to men, with women making up only 40% of managers. Deep structural problems exist, starting with the hiring process. The problem is twofold - arising both from the way candidates are recruited as well as the presence of implicit bias when viewing candidates. It isn’t that there aren’t qualified women in the pipeline, it’s that recruiters find and accept candidates who write resumes and professional networking profiles in a certain way -- the male way. Discrimination based on how people write their resumes is apparent in both human recruitment and improperly trained AI-powered recruitment systems. Amazon scrapped their recruiting AI after finding that there was gender bias, specifically related to certain language used by male candidates as opposed to fema