🏃Demian YaDeau’s Post

Seeing all of these EOQ posts going up. Reminds me of a few years back I was sitting on signing a big client. The entire company had gotten involved, CEO, CTO, VP of Sales. It was viewed as a landmark account for the new territory build-out, and a key win to close Q2 out strong. We were going back and forth on terms, and project scoping. I was pretty confident it would get signed, and was just unsure if we would get it done in time. I had already agreed to go to the cabin with my wife (girlfriend at the time) to meet her extended family. So she was driving us to the cabin, while I was working from my laptop (verizon hotspot jetpack for the win). I managed to get a Hail Mary call in with the prospective client. This ended up being a 60-minute call which we went line by line through the SOW. While also talking in detail about cabin life. He's a cool guy, that loves his family, and I think sharing the cabin trip helped humanize the entire thing. In the end the deal got signed, and it made for a much better cabin trip. To all the C-suite/senior leaders taking calls and helping reps finish the quarter strong, you're appreciated. I still look back at that car trip with a smile.

If you’re presented a candidate who’s crushing it at the exact job you’re hiring for with one of your competitors. And your first response when seeing their salary requirements is “They’re way too expensive for us to consider”. You should be concerned, because if any of your employees catch wind of this discrepancy. What job board do you think they’ll be scrolling if they ever get a case of the Sunday Scaries? P.S. I’ve had this happen a handful of times over the years. It's bewildering when the candidate is in the shared “range” (granted the high end). Big ol’ 🚩

What do London Black Cab drivers, and college grads have in common? I know… sounds like the start of a joke. Rory Sutherland of Oglivy (author of Alchemy) argues for hiring, there's plenty. It’s all about the Signal of effort. In marketing, it’s this idea that the more costly the effort is, the higher the likelihood there will be a positive experience. (think handwritten cards vs emails) Becoming a Black Cab driver in London involves a 4-year program, known as The Knowledge. Memorizing 25,000+ streets and 20,000 landmarks of London. (a city that doesn’t operate on a numbered grid system). It’s so intensive that it has a 70% attrition rate. You know that if you use them, there's a high likelihood you'll have a positive experience. Since they put so much work into passing The Knowledge. College students on the other hand have to put in a ton of work over several years. Often for something completely unrelated to the profession, they land in. It was a stretch trying to make my history degree relevant. (Great chance to highlight my ability to sell though. Forget “sell me this pen” how about “sell me on your irrelevant degree”). And yet college degree requirements are the norm in so many professions. I think it has to do with people being unsure how else to test for aptitude. So they fall back on what they know. Since it Signals an ability and willingness to put in costly work. I love the idea of Signals at the heart of this book. And I bet one could take that concept to find other ways to test for aptitude. Question for folks that have hired before. How do you like to test whether a candidate will be successful in a role during interviews? P.S. One of these days I'm going to figure out Dall-E. Today it got hung up on Black cabs being in the image. The more I asked to get rid of the cabs, the more cabs GPT included

Me getting ready to share my thoughts, as one of the illustrious "few experts" selected by LinkedIn

Most Job Descriptions are full of fluff. Including lines like, “must have a passion for (insert whatever industry)". As a requirement doesn’t accomplish a thing. Seriously, how the heck do you plan to score against that? If someone is in dire need of a job, they can fake passion in the short term. "Sure Mr/Mrs employer, you see my passion for SaaS started at my grandad’s farm 30 years ago." (ridiculous answer for a ridiculous question, seems fair) If you want to include something like. “You're the type of person who enjoys serving others". Or "You're the type of person who finds satisfaction in moving projects forward". Sure, that makes sense in certain scenarios. Use that as an example of what type of people would enjoy working here. If you have a marketing team, talk to them. Get their help with copywriting. Save the boring Job Descriptions for backend compliance. Instead, focus on Job Advertisements to spark interest and start conversations. Because my goodness. I don't know how businesses think they'll inspire top-level candidates to apply. Using LinkedIn AI to write a job description. P.S. Pretty sure Dall-E is messing with me at this point, the prompt on the last one was to leave out the word "Job Board". Knocked it out of that park....

What's the difference between having a big ego? Versus a chip on your shoulder and something to prove? An HR director recently shared how they score in interviews to see if the candidate is ego-driven. Makes sense, especially given their industry. Fast forward a week. I was on a morning run with a friend, and I shared a recent setback I've been working through. It wasn't a pity party, it was me unpacking what I was facing, and how I was going to deal with it. By the end of the conversation. I was fired up, and flat-out said, I know I can beat this, and here's why. Then I felt the need to say, "I also know that's my ego talking". But here's the thing that was pointed out to me, and I thought it was gold. It doesn't really matter if it's ego-driven, or a chip on the shoulder. It's the response to that chip and how you handle it that counts. Are you going to say this is unfair and quit? Or are you going to make a plan, focus on improvements, and get incrementally better? As the wise Mike Anderson would say, "Your ego is not your Amigo". And maybe there's also a place for that chip on your shoulder if it helps keep you going. What're your thoughts on ego, versus having something to prove? Can there be a place for both? P.S. The setback was sports-related but the story still feels apt for life. Thanks for meeting up to pound the trails, Josh Peterson! 

Talk is cheap, you've probably heard that phrase before. But what about when cheap talk backfires on employers? I recently met a sales engineer with solid tenure. He's doing some amazing work, it shows in his numbers. Clients love him, and he's continuously receiving praise from leadership. Yet when he asks for a raise, or a promotion, crickets... This has left him frustrated. After all, leadership keeps saying he's doing great. Yet when he tries to elevate his career, there's nothing to offer but excuses. He shared, that at this point the praise he receives has become a point of contention. Since it's not backed up with anything meaningful, now he's in the market for a new role. I'm hearing things like this more and more, not having a pathway to move up in an organization is killing tenure. How would you handle this, if you were in a similar situation?

80% of people who accept a counteroffer leave within 6 months... Many of us have heard the stat (at least in recruitment). Is that really the case? I was chatting with an engineer who stayed with their current employer after receiving a new offer. When I asked how it impacted their relationship with their employer they shared some interesting feedback. Not only was their pay increased. They now had a better-defined career path and addressed a few areas they were unhappy about. They said if anything it strengthened the relationship. Sure one could argue, "Well why didn't they have those things beforehand?". Or "Why did it take the risk of losing them to step up?" Both are valid. Yet the fact remains that they were able to improve their circumstances, and are happy they stayed. When you look up 80/20 counteroffer, it’s just a bunch of recruitment firms posting the stat in a blog. It’s unclear where this 80/20 counteroffer claim originated from. Or what the parameters of the study are. I'm starting to suspect that it's a catchy Pareto Law re-hash. I'm sure there's plenty of anecdotal evidence of people who wish they wouldn't have stayed. Promises made weren't kept, and things didn't get better. But I'm also willing to bet there are plenty of counter-examples. Food for thought, a lot of this could be avoided with regular career check-ins. And an environment where people feel comfortable sharing feedback about their current role.

Making a job change is scary. Even with all the vetting & interviews, there's still an inherent leap of faith involved. It's no surprise that a job change ranks as one of the most stressful life events. So when things start getting real. I believe it makes sense to go meet in person to talk through the potential upcoming change. Driving an hour from my house to meet up with a candidate who is nearing the offer stage. Yeah, I could wait until they have it in writing, but the investment at that point seems skewed. I'm a huge fan of doing things that aren't scalable, it's one of the few advantages a small firm has. Besides, I'll get to go knock on some doors while I'm there. At the very least I might make some new friends.