Retaining good people has always been at the top of my list, even in the dark days.  But hiring and managing in an environment that’s once-stagnant-now-growing presents some real challenges.  Many of these aren’t unique to startups — it’s always tough to find A players — but there are three things I’ve observed that are uniquely tough about hiring in an entrepreneurial environment:

Book Short:  Are You Topgraded?

I read a decent volume of business books (some of my favorites and more recent ones are listed in the left hand column of the blog).  I have two main pet peeves with business books as a rule:  the first is is that most business books have one central idea and a few good case examples and take way too many pages to get where they’re going; the other is that far too many of them are geared towards middle and upper management of 5,000+ person companies and are either not applicable or need to be adapted for startups.

Anyway, I thought I’d occasionally post quick synopses of some good ones I’ve read recently.  Topgrading, by Brad Smart was so good that this post will be longer than most.  It’s a must read for anyone who’s doing a lot of hiring (fellow entrepreneur blogger Terry Gold is a fan, as well).

The book is all about how to build an organization of A players and only A players, and it presents a great interviewing methodology.  It’s very long for a business book, but also very valuable.  Buy a copy for anyone in your company who’s doing a lot of hiring, not just for yourself or for your HR person.  I think the book falls down a little bit on startup adaptation, but it’s still worth a read.

There’s been much talk lately about “the importance of B players” in Harvard Business Review and other places.  I share the Topgrading perspective, which is a little different (although more semantically different than philosophically different).

The Topgrading perspective is that you should always hire A players — the definition of which is “one of the top 10% of the available people in the talent pool, for the job you have defined today, at the comp range you have specified.”  I absolutely buy into this.  Don’t like what you’re seeing while screening candidates?  Change one of the three variables (job definition, comp, or geography) and you’ll get there.

The corrolary to the A-player-only theory is that there are three types of A players — the author calls them A1, A2, and A3.  A1’s are capable of and interested in rapidly rising to be leaders of the organization.  A2s are promotable over time.  A3s are not capable of or interested in promotion.

I think what the HBR article on B players is talking about is really what Topgrading calls A3 players.  A3 players are absolutely essential to an organization, especially as it grows over time and develops more operational jobs that leverage the powerhouse A1s and A2s that make up such a big percentage of successful startups.  You just have to recognize (perhaps with them) that A3 players may not be interested in career growth and promotion and not try to push them into more advanced roles that they may not be interested in or capable of doing well.

I’m a huge believer in having a healthy balance of A1s, A2s, and A3s, but I will always want to hire A players per the above definition.  Why would you ever settle for less?

Book Short:  More on Email Marketing

My friend Bill Nussey’s The Quiet Revolution in Email Marketing is a good read for those in the industry.  It’s a little different in focus than our recently published book, Sign Me Up!, and in many ways is a good complement.

Bill develops a good framework for Customer Communication Management (CCM) based on his experience as CEO of SilverPop, one of the leading email marketing companies.  He builds on Seth Godin’s permission framework and applies it directly to email marketing, point by point.  He addresses head on every email marketer’s nightmare, when you tell someone what you do for a living, and the person replies “oh, you’re a spammer.”

The book also has a wonderful quote from Bill’s SilverPop colleague Elaine O’Gorman:  “Locking down email policies and enforcement too tightly i like cooking a potato in the microwave.  If you don’t poke some holes in the potato before turning on the microwave, you’ll be doing a lot of clearning up afterwards.”

It’s Easy to Feel Like a Luddite These Days, Part II

In Part I, I talked about tagging and podcasting and how I felt pretty lame for someone who considers himself to be somewhat of an early adopter for not understanding them.  So now, 10 weeks later, I understand tagging and have a del.icio.us account, although I don’t use it all that often (quite frankly, I don’t have tons of surfing time to discover cool new content).  And I’ve even figured out how to integrate del.icio.us with Feedburner and with Typepad.

I’m still out of luck with Podcasting, mainly because my iPod and computer setup at home makes it really difficult to add/sync, so I haven’t given that a shot yet.

But today I had another two breakthroughs — I switched from AOL Instant Messenger to Trillian for my IM client, and I started using Skype.  Trillian is pretty cool and of course free.  I’ve never used MSN Messenger or Yahoo Messenger seriously, so the value for me is less in the aggregation of all three clients, and more in tabbed chatting.  Just like Firefox, the client lets you have all your chat windows displayed as tabs in a single window, which is much simpler and cleaner.  But better than Firefox, you can detach a chat window if you want to see it separately.

Skype is really cool.  I understand why the company will be sold for a good price, although I still don’t understand either $3 billion as a price or eBay as a buyer.  For those of you who don’t know what it is, Skype is voice Instant Messenger on steroids.  The basic functionality (for free) is that you can ping someone computer to computer, and have a real time voice chat if you are both online and accept the connection via your computer’s microphone.  If you decline the connection, it saves a voicemail for you.  The extras, which I haven’t tried yet, include SkypeOut (you can dial a real phone number from your computer for $0.02/minute, anywhere in the world) and SkypeIn (you get a phone number to give people so they can call your computer from a phone).  The quality was pretty good — certainly as good as or better than many cell phone connections, if not up to land line or VOIP standards.  Permission and usage/volume controls will be an issue here long-term since this is much more intrusive than regular test-based IM, but when it works, it is a beautiful thing.

Now, just like the vendor mayhem in the blog/RSS world (Typepad, Feedburner, Feedblitz, etc.), we need to get Trillian to incorporate Skype into its client so there’s a truly universal chat application.

Book Short:  Reality Doesn’t have to Bite

I just read Confronting Reality (book; audio), the sequel to Execution, by Larry Bossidy and Ram Charan.  Except I didn’t read it, I listened to it on Mariquita’s iPod Shuffle over the course of two or three long runs in the past week.  The book was good enough, but I also learned two valuable lessons.  Lesson 1:  Listening to audio books when running is difficult – it’s hard to focus enough, easy to lose one’s place, can’t refer back to anything or take notes.  Lesson 2:  If you sweat enough on your spouse’s Shuffle, you can end up owning a Shuffle of your own.

Anyway, I was able to focus on the book enough to know that it’s a good one.  It’s chock full of case studies from the last few years, including some “new economy” ones instead of just the industrial types covered in books like Built to Last and Good to Great.  Cisco, Sun, EMC, and Thomson are all among those covered.  The basic message is that you really have to dig into external market realities when crafting a strategic plan or business model and make sure they’re in alignment with your financial targets as well as people and processes.  But the devil’s in the details, and the case studies here are great.

Counter Cliche:  How Much Paranoia is Too Much Paranoia?

Fred’s VC cliche of the week this week, Opening the Kimono, is a good one.  He talks about how much entrepreneurs should and should not disclose when talking to VCs and big partners — companies like Microsoft or Google, for example.

In response to another of Fred’s weekly cliche postings back in April, I addressed the issue of opening the kimono with VCs in this posting entitled Promiscuity.  But today’s topic is the opposite of promiscuity, it’s paranoia.

I was talking with a friend a few months back who’s a friend and fellow CEO of a high profile, larger company in a similar space to Return Path.  He was obsessing about the secrecy surrounding the size of his business and wouldn’t tell me (a friend) how much revenue his company had, even within a $20mm band.

He pursued this secrecy pretty far.  He never shared financials with his employees.  He never told anyone the metrics, not even his close friends and family.  He even withdrew his company from consideration for a high-profile award for growth companies which it had entered into and won in prior years since someone might be able to string together enough years of data to compute their size.

Why?  Because he didn’t want any venture capitalists to figure out how big they had gotten and decide to throw money at upstart competitors.  Talk about a closed kimono!

I’m much more open book than that with Return Path, but I have a tremendous amount of respect for this guy, so I gave the matter some thought.  There are certainly some situations which call for discretion, but I couldn’t come up with too many that would drive my guiding principle to be secrecy.

1. Being “open book” with employees is essential.  Your people need to know where the business stands and how their efforts are contributing to the whole.  More important, they need to know that you trust them.

2. Using some key metrics to promote your company can be very helpful.  I challenge you to show me a marketing person who doesn’t want to brag about how big you are, how many customers you have, what market share you have.

3. There’s no reason to worry about Venture Capitalists.  Sure, they can fund a competitor, but they’ll do that without knowing exactly how much revenue you have, how quickly.  The good ones are good at sniffing out market opporunities ahead of time.  The bad ones, you care about less anyway.

4. All that said, you can never be paranoid enough about the competition.  Assume they’re all out to get you at every turn, that they’re smarter, richer, quicker, and better looking than you are.  Live in fear of them eating your lunch.

Paranoia is healthy (just ask Andy Grove), but it does have its limits around the basics of your business, and around how you treat employees.

Big Apple, Little Company

Ed Daciuk, on of my blog subscribers, questions:  What is your view on the benefits of being in NYC as a startup?

Fred wrote a good posting several months ago and a related one this week on early stage investing in the NYC market from the perspective of a venture capitalist.  His main points:  (1) NYC is a great place to invest in early stage tech-related businesses as long as they’re not "core technology" businesses like semiconductor or hardware, because (2) core technology companies are more exciting to investors, and therefore the investors have clustered around those companies in places like Silicon Valley or Boston.  He also thinks this dynamic is changing as more and more successful companies are started as technology-enabled service businesses as opposed to pure tech companies.

As someone who’s been in tech-enabled services businesses in NYC for 10 years now, I couldn’t agree more with this last point.  But I thought I’d address Ed’s question from the entrepreneur’s perspective as well.

First, why is New York a great place for a startup?

1. Access to customers.  There is far greater concentration of major corporations and agencies headquartered in and around the NYC area, making it much easier to see and talk to prospects and customers in this market.

2. Lots of talent.  There are lots of people, meaning there are lots of people to hire.  Some disciplines are easier than others to find talent, but the labor pool is just huge.

3. Convenience.  This is always one of NYC’s main selling points, and it applies here as well.  It’s mainly a collection of little things like being able to see a customer or investor in minutes by foot or mass transit and late night food delivery, but all those extra minutes you save here and there add up!

4. Idea generation.  The density and complexity of the city’s business landscape make it a natural for stimulating great ideas, especially in the service and media sectors.

5. Work ethic.  New Yorkers are accustomed to working startup hours in many professions — banking, consulting, law, etc., so it’s much more natural to have a team pounding away at the office early and late than it is in other geographies.

But it’s not all that easy.  New York can also be a difficult place for a startup because:

1. It’s expensive.  Very expensive.  People cost more, benefits cost more, T&E costs more, rent costs more.

2. Space is limited.  There’s no such thing as starting out in someone’s garage, because there are no garages — only teeny tiny apartments.  And no one takes a lease with room to grow because that extra space comes at such a premium.

3. Good money is harder to find.  As Fred says, it’s getting better, but the environment still isn’t as rich with high quality VCs as places like Silicon Valley or Boston.

4. Even when you do find good money, valuations are tougher.  For whatever reason, I’ve always found that "west coast" valuations are more generous than "east coast" valuations.

On balance, I’d say it’s probably a wash — there are plusses and minuses of NYC as a place for startups.  But it’s definitely not, as conventional wisdom would have it, an inhospitable environment for startups.

Sources of Urgency

Sometimes I wish we were in the hardware business.  Why?  It’s not the margins, that’s for sure.  It’s because hardware businesses usually have externally-imposed deadlines that create urgency in an organization around deliverables.

If you are making a chip that Dell is putting in all of its boxes, and your contract with Dell stipulates that the chip will be ready for testing on X Date and for shipping on Y Date, you darn well better hit the deadline.  If you are making software that gets installed or pre-loaded on all Samsung TVs, same thing.  Maybe it’s not the hardware business per se, but you certainly don’t see this kind of mentality in SaaS businesses very often, either because of the lack of true OEM and ship dates, or because of the now fluid nature of agile software development.

Without that kind of externally-imposed deadline, instilling true urgency gets a lot harder for a leader.  Sure, you can stick an arbitrary deadline out there and rally people to work towards it, but it’s much harder to define the consequences of missing the deadline.  Since there are in many cases no tangible and immediate business consequences, it feels a little more hollow for a leader to say “Why?  Because I said so.”  Yes, you have firing as the ultimate accountability tool in your toolkit, but again, it’s hard to feel good about using that tool when the deadline is arbitrary.

Probably the default method most companies like ours have settled on over the years is around quarterly goals.  That kind of cadence removes the arbitrary part of the problem, but it doesn’t remove the tangible business consequences part of the problem – and often, it doesn’t align with actual project deadlines.  Public companies probably can use quarterly financial results as something more tangible, but those often don’t align with deliverables quarter for quarter.  Customer conferences or marketing events can be other deadlines as well, which are less arbitrary.

I realize my blog is usually more about sharing stories than asking questions, but in this case, I’d love to hear from any reader who has a good answer to this very important management challenge.  If I get a great response, I will reblog it!

Lean In, Part II

My post about Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In a couple months ago created some great dialog internally at Return Path.  It also yielded a personal email from Sheryl the day after it went up encouraging me to continue “talking about it,” as the book says, especially as a male leader.  Along those lines, since I wrote that initial post, we’ve had a few things happen here that are relevant to comment on, so here goes.

We partnered  with the National Center for Women & IT to provide training to our entire organization on unconscious bias.  We had almost 90% of the organization attend an interactive 90 minute training session to explore how these biases work and how to discuss these issues with others.   The goals were to identify what unconscious bias is and how it affects the workplace, identify ways to address these barriers and foster innovation, and provide practice tools for reducing unconscious biases.   While the topic of unconscious bias in the workplace isn’t only about gender, that’s one major vector of discussion.  We had great feedback from across the organization that people value this type of dialog and training.  It’s now going to be incorporated into our onboarding program for new employees.

Second, as I committed to in my original post, we ran a thorough gender-based comp study.  As I suspected, we don’t have a real issue with men being paid more than women for doing the same job, or with men and women being promoted at different rates.    That’s the good news.  However, the study and the conversations that we had around it yielded two other interesting conclusions.  One is that that we have fewer women in senior positions than men, though not too far off our overall male:female ratio of 60:40.  On our Board, we have no women.  On our Executive Committee, we have 1 of 10 (more on this below).  On our Operating Committee, we have 8 of 25.  Of all Managers at the company, we have 32 of 88.  So women skew to more junior roles.

The other is that while we do a good job on compensation equity for the same position, it takes a lot of deliberate back and forth to get to that place.  In other words, if all we did was rely on people’s starting salaries, their performance review data, and our standard raise percentages, we would have some level of gender-based inequality.  Digging deeper into this, it’s all about the starting point.  Since we have far more junior/entry level women than men, the compensation curve for women ends up needing to be steeper than that of men in order to level things out.  So we get to the right place, but it takes work and unconventional thinking.

Finally, I had an enlightening process of recruiting two new senior executives to join the business in the past couple of months.   I knew I wanted to try and diversify my executive team, which was 25% female, so I made a deliberate effort to focus on hiring senior women into both positions.  I intended to hire the best candidate, and knew I’d only see male candidates unless I intentionally sourced female candidates.  For both positions, sourcing with an emphasis on women was VERY DIFFICULT, as the candidate pools are very lopsided in favor of men for all the reasons Sheryl noted in her book.  But in both cases, great female candidates made it through as finalists, and the first candidate to whom I offered each job was female – both superbly qualified.  In both cases, for different reasons I can’t go into here, the candidates didn’t end up making it across the finish line.  And then in both cases, when we opened up the search for a second round, the rest of the candidate pool was male, and I ended up hiring men into both roles.  Now my resulting exec team is even more heavily male, which was the opposite of my intention.  It’s very frustrating, and it leaves us with more work to do on the women-in-leadership topic, for sure.

So…some positives and some challenges the last few months on this topic at Return Path.  I’ll post more as relevant things develop or occur.  We are going to be doing some real thinking, and probably some program development, around this important topic.

Onboarding vs. Waterboarding

One of our new senior hires just said to me the other day that he has been enjoying his Onboarding process during his first 90 days at Return Path and that at other companies he’s worked at in the past, the first few months were more like Waterboarding.

At Return Path, we place a lot of emphasis on onboarding – the way we ask employees to spend their first 90 days on the job.  I’ve often said that the hiring process doesn’t end on the employee’s first day.  I think about the employee’s first day as the mid-point of the hiring process. The things that come after the first day — orientation (where’s the bathroom?), context-setting (here’s our mission, here’s how your job furthers it), goal setting (what’s your 90-day plan?), and a formal check-in 90 days later — are all make-or-break in terms of integrating a new employee into the organization, making sure they’re a good hire, and making them as productive as possible.

Nothing has a greater impact on a hire’s long-term viability than a thorough Onboarding. Sure, you have to get the right people in the door. But if you don’t onboard them properly, they may never work out. This is where all companies, big and small, fail most consistently.  Remember your first day of work? Did you (or anyone at the company) know where you were supposed to sit? Did you (or anyone at the company) know if your computer was set up? Did you (or anyone at the company) have a project ready for you to start on? Did you (or anyone at the company) know when you’d be able to meet your manager? Probably not.

Take onboarding much more seriously, and you’ll be astounded by the results. We have a Manager of Onboarding whose only job is to manage the first 90 days of every employee’s experience. You don’t need to go that far (and won’t be able to until you’ve scaled well past 100 employees), but here are some things you can, and must, do to assure a successful onboarding process:

1. Start onboarding before Day 1. Just as recruitment doesn’t end until Day 90, onboarding starts before Day 1. At Return Path, we ask people to create a “Wall Bio” – a one-page collage of words and images that introduces them to the team – before their first day. It’s a quick introduction to our company culture, and something the rest of our team looks forward to seeing as new people join. Your project can be different, but it’s important to get new hires engaged even before their first day.

2. Set up your new hire’s desk in advance. There is nothing more dispiriting than spending your first day at new job chasing down keyboards and trying to figure out your phone extension. We go to the opposite extreme. When a new hire walks in the door at Return Path, their desk is done. Their computer, monitor and telephone are set up. There’s a nameplate on their office or cube. They’ve got a full set of company gear (T-shirt, tote, etc.). To show how excited we are, we even include a bottle of champagne and a handwritten note from me welcoming them to the company. In the early days of the business, we even had the champagne delivered to the employee’s home after they accepted the offer. (That didn’t scale well, particularly outside of New York City.)

3. Prepare an orientation deck for Day 1. There are certain things about your company that new hires will learn as they go along: nuances of culture, pacing, etc. But there are some things that should be made explicit right away. What is the company’s mission? What are its values? How is the organization structured? What is the current strategic plan? These details are common to every employee, and all new hires should hear them—preferably from the CEO. You can present these details one-on-one to your direct reports, or do larger in-office sessions to groups of new hires over breakfast or lunch.

4. Clearly set 90-day objectives and goals. Other details are going to be specific to an employee’s position. What’s their job description (again)? What are the first steps they should take? Resources they should know about? People they should meet? Training courses to enroll in? Materials to read and subscribe to? Finally, and most importantly, what are the major objectives for their first 90 days? They shouldn’t spend their first quarter “feeling around.” They should spend it actively and intentionally working toward a clear goal.

5. Run a review process at the end of 90 days. Whether you do a 360 review or a one-way performance review, the 90-day mark is a really good point to pull up and assess whether the new hire is working out and fitting culturally as well. It’s much easier to admit a mistake at this point and part ways while the recruiting process is still somewhat fresh than it is months down the road after you’ve invested more and more in the new hire.

With that, the hiring process is done. Now, repeat.

[Note:  this post contains some passages excerpted from my book, Startup CEO:  A Field Guide to Scaling Up Your Business, published by Wiley & Sons earlier this fall.]

Breaking New Ground on Transparency

I’ve written a lot over time about our Live 360 process for senior leaders in the business.  (This post is a good one, and it links to a couple earlier ones that are good, as well.)  We take a lot of pride in feedback and in transparency at Return Path, and after 15 years, even for an innovative business, it’s unusual that we do something big for the first time around people.  But we did today.

This image is of something never seen before at our company.  It’s my own handwritten notes about my own Live 360.

It’s never been seen before, because no one has ever been physically present for his or her own review before.  In previous reviews, my Board, my exec team, and a few skip-levels gather in a room for 90 minutes with a facilitator to discuss my performance and behaviors.  Then the facilitator would go away and write up notes, and discuss them with me, then I’d produce a development plan.

Today, we decided to experiment with having me sit in my own review to add to the transparency and directness of the feedback.  My only role was to listen, ask (non-judgmental) clarifying questions, and take notes.  I left the room at the end in case someone wanted to say something without me hearing it directly, but although the conversation about the business continued, it didn’t sound like there was anything material about me that surfaced.

It was a little awkward at first, and it was interesting that some people addressed me directly while others spoke of me in the third person.  But once we got past that, the experience was incredibly powerful for me.  The first part — the “what do you appreciate about Matt” part — was humbling and embarrassing and gratifying all at the same time.

The meat of the review, though — the “how can we coach Matt on areas where he needs development” — was amazing.  I got great insights into a couple of major areas of work that I need to do, and that we need to do as a business.  I’m guessing I would have gotten them out of reading a summary of the review conversation, but hearing the texture of the conversation was much, much richer than reading a sanitized version of it on paper.  As always with reviews, there was the odd comment or two that annoyed me, but I felt like I handled them well without any defensive body language or facial expressions.

I will, as I’ve always done, post my development plan to my blog after I formulate it over the course of the next few weeks.  But for now, I just want to thank my Board and team for their awesomely constructive feedback and for helping us usher in a new era of increased transparency here.