Securing talent is always challenging, but for me, hiring for a start-up is the most difficult. You can explain till you’re blue in the face that when you’re doing something brand new, you’re going to be faced with uncertainty. But even then, it often still comes as a surprise to some when they are faced with the reality of the startup world.
Startups, either by design or due to scale, are usually flat in structure, with business units working very closely together and with most employees roles involving a balance of strategy and execution. This is true at Weploy and when we’re aiming to 3 times our revenue this year we have to think big. Small iterative changes just won’t cut it. This in turn, means employees often find themselves working in project teams, managing and influencing stakeholders. When I looked at Weploy over the past 12 months and how we achieved our success so far, the main defining characteristic of the individuals that make up Weploy was great stakeholder management skills.
So I decided to try and codify the traits and turned this into a scorecard to help me find the right person to join Weploy, whether it’s for a Coordinator, or Head of Marketing. You may notice that the one thing all these skills have in common are that they are best performed human to human, and would be difficult to automate or learnt by machine.
First off is the ability to make decisions and being able to clearly articulate the process of decision making. When people struggle with decisions or look to always create consensus, this can be the death of any project. But it’s also important that decisions are made with accountability. Owning failures, whilst being able to offer learnings that the business can implement in the future. I hate the idea of embracing failure wholesale - failure is only useful if it’s not due to incompetence and you know how to avoid similar pitfalls in the future.
Being decisive definitely does not mean you don’t look for collaboration. There’s an interesting study that showed two heads is sometimes not as good as one… paradoxically it can lead to less collaboration! But in general, good stakeholders always start by thinking about who should be involved at different stages of a project. Collaboration is a skill and good collaboration is a managed process rather then just wanting to get input from anyone and everyone. Which leads on to...
The desire to collaborate means nothing if you are unable to get alignment and buy in from different stakeholders. The most important element of communication then becomes what information should be presented to different people and how often. There’s tools such as the stakeholder matrix which help you understand how proactive communication about a project should be. But it’s also essential that you are able to tailor the content based on the seniority and the stakeholders’ own objectives.
When I talk about leadership with more junior candidates they can sometimes look puzzled. There’s many good resources on leading without authority, but what I’m looking out for is - how they build trust. For me the foundation pillar to leadership at any seniority is trust - people have to trust in you and your decision making.
Closely related to leadership is leverage, and from what I’ve found, is where a lot of more experienced managers fall down. What I look for is someone who is always thinking about generating and sustaining momentum. Often it’s easy to take on more work to achieve goals but you can only scale this activity so far. I’m always looking for people who think how to empower others so the sum of their efforts is multiplied.
What’s really interesting as well - when we look at the characteristics that our top performing Weployees exhibit - we see traits such as collaboration, influence and learning ability most highly correlated.
So that’s my roundup of the core traits I look for in candidates at Weploy. But these are not skills that are exclusive for success within startups. In fact, many of these traits were the same I looked for when I was at LinkedIn and at previous roles. For me, in both large enterprises and emerging business, stakeholder management skills - those which cannot be performed by machines, are critical to achieving big goals in the Future of Work. I’ll conclude this blog with a question - what’s your favourite interview question to ask candidates? I always love asking this question and stealing the best ones for myself!
As a sector with huge influence in shaping the infrastructure of the world around us and designing algorithms embedded in our everyday lives, STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) has a disconcertingly under represented proportion of women. In the US, 24.24% of STEM graduates are women and 24.61% of the Tech workforce are women. Just 23.66% of Australian STEM grads are women and 28% of the Tech workforce are women. UK statistics are worse. The gender pay gap for workers in Tech in Australia is 20%. The issue is not new, but the statistics remain problematic. There is a growing body of evidence to suggest the idea that girls are genetically pre-dispositioned to have less of an interest in these fields is simply a myth - Hayaatun Sillem, CEO of the Royal College of Engineering points out that in countries like Malaysia and Oman, the engineering workforce is 50% female. The visibility of the Gender issue in these fields has skyrocketed however, and as the power of women in tech rises, so does their responsibility to lead change from within. Read on for our roundup of 5 of the most influential women in tech from the 19th Century, up to now.
When I think about the best leaders I've worked with there has always been one element that stands true. I trust and respect their decision making. I don't have to want to be their best friend, but I have to believe in the decisions they make.
I'm faced with a multitude of decisions every day and my biggest priority, both professionally and personally, is to constantly improve how I make decisions. So I thought I'd share the four most important principles I've developed when it comes to making decisions. I've also added further reading within each principle, and if you're keen to learn more I'd highly recommend subscribing to the podcast and blog of Farnam Street as it's a goldmine of wisdom within this field of study.
We are faced with a paradox of our own evolutionary making. People who lack choice, seem to want and fight for choice but this has a cost. The more choices and decisions we make, the less effective we become over time at choice making. It's well understood now that we have limited resources when it comes to making decisions, and continually working this muscle creates decision fatigue. We see this in all parts of life, with research showing judges make poorer decisions later in the day. But we're not just talking about big decisions, choices come at us from all angles each day. Choosing what coffee to order, which shampoo to buy, if I should snooze my alarm or get up. No matter how trivial, they all have an impact on our ability to make good decisions. So to improve, the only option is to limit the number of decisions you make. A great tool I found on the Farnam Street blog was a take on the 2x2 Eisenhower matrix that categorised decisions into four categories.
Those decisions that are inconsequential, whether reversible or not, are to be delegated. For decisions that have consequences but are reversible - there is opportunity to run experiments of which your team or individuals can share the learnings. The only decisions that should require your brain power are those which are consequential and irreversible. Of course this is only a framework and you will have to clearly define what the terms ‘consequential’ and ‘reversible’ mean to you and your business. But this has already helped me focus on what matters and build capability and empowerment in my teams.
Further reading: https://fs.blog/2009/07/an-introduction-to-decision-making/
It's easy to think that great decision makers are those that are instantly able to weigh up a scenario, identify the possible outcomes and come to an immediate decision. It's impressive but what's the rush? If this really is an important decision - by which I mean one that is both consequential and irreversible, then the desire to make an immediate decision is due to us falling prey to a cognitive bias of pushing to do what is easiest with the available information.
It's hard to think of opposing points of view or other alternate outcomes but that's really what success in my job is all about. I try to give myself time to think about as many contributing factors and apply as many lenses onto a situation as I can. Then I give myself thinking time. Personally, I’ve found I need to change my environment, go for a walk, or sit in another part of the office to let my mind wander around the decision. Play thought experiments and try to walk through the outcomes with different hats on.
One great model from the mathematician Carl Gustav Jacob Jacobi is to inverse the problem. To do this, rather than try to think of solving a problem forward (for instance - trying to increase productivity in your team), instead invert the problem, and ask what are all the things that I could do to reduce productivity in my team. Then don't do them! It may not solve the problem you're facing but it can mean you don't factor in arguments that can lead to poor outcomes.
Further reading: https://fs.blog/2014/06/avoiding-stupidity/
First let's define what a decision in uncertainty means. Uncertainty is when we don't know the outcome of a decision and we don't know the probability of those outcomes. This is different from a decision in risk - where we don't know the outcomes but we do know the probabilities. A professional poker player will know the probabilities of a win based on their hand but the outcome is still unknown. So, when dealing with uncertainty you are going to be ignorant of some elements that are relevant and consequential to a decision. Importantly there are two states of ignorance.
It may seem that if we can't predict the unknowable outcomes any better if they are recognised or not... then why bother. But when you are aware of your own ignorance, you can start to look for sources of cognitive bias that could cloud your decision-making. There are plenty of such biases that can affect how we approach decision making - but the three that are most relevant are:
Personally, I look to embrace my own ignorance when it comes to uncertainty and try to uncover how my decisions could be coloured.
Further reading: https://sites.hks.harvard.edu/fs/rzeckhau/anatomy of ignorance.pdf
Another factor I find important is to optimise decisions for the long term. Again - the human brain is hard-wired to seek instant gratification. For me, this comes down to looking for win/win scenarios and what is called second order thinking. They are strikingly simple concepts in theory but both require conscious effort to implement. Any relationship, if it is to last, must be win/win so when I'm considering which direction to go, it must benefit both my customer, and Weploy as a business, if it has any chance to prosper over time. The other model, second order thinking can be boiled down to a simple phrase:
And then what?
If I make this decision now, what happens tomorrow, what about in a weeks time, a month, year, 10 years… Not all decisions need you to go too far in the future, but thinking about the branches of possible outcomes through and then what is hugely valuable. I regularly find decisions come up that can be negative in the first order (have a high cost, slow down production etc.) but when we move to the second order and third order they can become a net positive. As all of my decisions should look to build long term, sustainable competitive advantage, second order thinking is essential if I am to succeed.
Further reading: https://medium.com/@noahmp/second-order-thinking-3fc2a224b131
So those are the four principles I try to use when making decisions, hopefully you find it valuable and I'd love to hear more about the most important tricks and models you use to improve your decision making.
How can we use the power of technology to help us reach human challenges and bridge gaps in empathy that go beyond the logistical challenges we’ve mastered so far? The discussion at this year's conference centred around what Weploy and other innovators like us have done to address challenges in relating to others’ needs and acknowledged some of the ‘red flags’ or limitations of technology in this space and how we can overcome them.
The possibilities for tech with purpose are endless. It can enable greater innovation, connection, efficiency in service delivery and operations, de-bias decision-making, provide access to different markets and communities.
In the case of job matching for example, outsourcing decision-making to tech can enable individuals to access opportunities that they may never have been able to before. Students who are considered not experienced enough for certain roles, qualified people from ethnic minorities who may be subject to unconscious bias, or experienced older workers who are consistently told they’re not a ‘cultural fit’ for younger teams. HR tech helps to provide a democratic platform for job seekers to be considered with equal opportunity.
Manisha Amin, CEO of The Centre for Inclusive Design pointed out that the commonly held beliefs about AI and automation are a little reductionist. Automation is certainly removing some of the more administrative or repetitive tasks from our jobs, to make room for more strategic or ‘higher level’ thinking. But with that comes the fear that automation is also removing our ‘downtime’ and causing pressure for us to be constantly connected and engaged. In reality, the impact of automation is a lot more complex.
There is an interesting dichotomy between connecting and alienating communities when it comes to tech. Deep, rich and meaningful connections are made possible now more than ever before thanks to technological advancement. Everyday, WhatsApp chats with friends all over the world for example, or video calls with relatives that help to maintain meaningful relationships.
It can be used to provide safety, comfort and support for people who are otherwise alienated or estranged with access to Facebook communities, meet-ups and groups for like-minded people. But on the flipside, heightened connectivity can become dangerous if left unregulated.
Whilst having an increased visibility into larger social issues and global causes that may not have been considered previously can only be a good thing, there are plenty of red flags to watch out for too. Aivee Robinson, the founder of Catalyser warned of the danger of ‘Social Echo Chambers’. The sheer volumes of erroneous content for public consumption can ensnare susceptible users into ‘digital ‘bubbles’ of interest that support their internalised beliefs systems, whether accurate or not. This can lead to potentially catastrophic collective misremembering, The Mandela Effect is one such example. Hyper-connectivity for some people is not always desirable - for example HR Tech provides a layer of protection between the potentially damaging relationship between Employer/Employee. For the Weployees on our platform, our technology shields them from having to go for interview after interview. So, for them ‘reduced connectivity’ (i.e. fewer interviews) is a benefit.
Whilst it is certainly true that ‘Tech can Make us Better Humans’ it is clear that better regulation and clearer strategies must be laid down in order to help us ensure we are harnessing the power of tech in a safe, inclusive and democratic way. Amin referenced the story of OXO, the American utensil manufacturer that was founded by Sam Farber when he saw his wife Betsey having trouble holding her vegetable peeler due to arthritis. The couple saw an opportunity to create more thoughtfully designed utensils that would benefit everyone, with or without arthritis - and the success of OXO’s iconic Good Grips Handles is testament to the power of inclusive design. The design, creation and ideation of new technologies should be no different.