“Stay single as long as possible.” Lol! Maybe a corollary to that would be, “the longer you go without, the more clearly you can define the role you are wanting to fill.” This allows you to better define your team needs, and thus have greater confidence in the fit of your candidates.
Great points here gents. Like you, most of my career has been spent in large well-established organizations and although my teams/roles created value, they were found on the cost side of the P&L. One caveat I'd share for a startup or small organization based on personal experience is if you provide a billable service, then your hires are the product effectively, and similar to product led organizations then a good hire fast trumps an amazing hire by waiting because you may not be around as a company if you wait for your dream hire. Entering our 3rd year as a company, I have made some hires that were not a good fit for the long-term but they played critical roles in helping us build to a point where I could afford more competitive hires. If your team is intended to stay small (e.g., a strategy team or lean marketing team depending on the business) or the business can survive without the team then I'd agree to wait for the "perfect match." Let me know whether your experience says otherwise. Keep up the thought-provoking content!
James - I think that's an excellent nuance to call out. I'm obviously writing primarily from the experience of hiring consultants or a strategy team (where in many ways the person is the product). There may be legitimate instances (as you call out) where good > perfect. I think that is the difference between theory and practice.
“Stay single as long as possible.” Lol! Maybe a corollary to that would be, “the longer you go without, the more clearly you can define the role you are wanting to fill.” This allows you to better define your team needs, and thus have greater confidence in the fit of your candidates.
Much better said!
Great points here gents. Like you, most of my career has been spent in large well-established organizations and although my teams/roles created value, they were found on the cost side of the P&L. One caveat I'd share for a startup or small organization based on personal experience is if you provide a billable service, then your hires are the product effectively, and similar to product led organizations then a good hire fast trumps an amazing hire by waiting because you may not be around as a company if you wait for your dream hire. Entering our 3rd year as a company, I have made some hires that were not a good fit for the long-term but they played critical roles in helping us build to a point where I could afford more competitive hires. If your team is intended to stay small (e.g., a strategy team or lean marketing team depending on the business) or the business can survive without the team then I'd agree to wait for the "perfect match." Let me know whether your experience says otherwise. Keep up the thought-provoking content!
James - I think that's an excellent nuance to call out. I'm obviously writing primarily from the experience of hiring consultants or a strategy team (where in many ways the person is the product). There may be legitimate instances (as you call out) where good > perfect. I think that is the difference between theory and practice.