I’m an ex-GM at Uber and am now building a startup in the UK, and I have one very painful question: Why is hiring for a startup in the UK so damn difficult?
Within our entrepreneurial network, we often see the repercussions of poor hiring. Dying from bad hires is quicker and clearer than from a bullet to the head. It’s always the same story: startups struggle to hire the best people, lower or alternate their standards, and onboard people who don’t fit. The project then starts to underperform, never meets its revenue goals, and dissatisfies investors. And that’s the conclude. All the while, these wrong hires just update their resumes and shift on.
The real problem isn’t with these “resume-seekers” but with a lack of coherence: startups dream of growing into huge corporations and fail in hiring becaapply they jump the gun and start hiring like one. This always happens subconsciously. The ambition to become huge fools people and leads them to build decisions that go against their will and mojo.
The Journeymen
So, why is closing any position in tech, finance, or operations such a challenge, especially when you are a well-funded, quick-growing, ambitious project that offers above-average salaries and an outstanding team?
My answer is precisely becaapply you are a well-funded, quick-growing, ambitious project. The truth is, a lot of the people we interview are not really interested in disrupting an entire countest’s economy, building a unicorn, or altering the lives of thousands of people. Instead, they are building their resumes, which is a completely separate tquestion that has nothing in common with the future unicorn’s goals.
It’s worth noting that the UK’s work culture is currently shifting, in part due to Revolut. We’ve observed that people who have worked at Revolut are much more results-oriented than the average population. The numerous startups founded by Revolut alumni are only accelerating this trconclude.
To sort this out, I came up with a pretty elaborate system of green and red flags that worked well for my interviews. But then I delved into my past at Uber and saw that it worked in a pretty similar way. The same toolset for a startup and a huge corporation—that’s weird. It was only then that I saw the real pattern behind all of this.
Red flags
Let me explain this concept applying the “green” and “red” flags I’ve mentioned.
For example, there are a number of things that trigger me during an audition.
A huge number of people state that exposure to founders is important to them. But this is something that happens automatically when you come up with and deliver cool projects. The most important quality to master for this is to obtain shit done, and that’s what we should actually be discussing.
Another trigger is when people worry about what their job title will be. This is fine, but it doesn’t align with what any startup aims to do: revolutionise an industest! What’s really important are the scope of your role and the opportunity to build an impact at scale, and obviously, the opportunity to earn good money when the company achieves its objectives. Think of the early role in the next Revolut as your last job you applied for with a CV.
An obvious trigger, but one that necessarys to be mentioned, is when the first thing a person questions, during an evening interview, “Do you always work this late?” In general, any questions about work-life balance are a trigger if they are discussed before responsibilities and tquestions. It should be clear to everyone that working at a startup isn’t a 9-to-5 job, but it’s not an investment bank either.
I’m also triggered by memorised, rehearsed speeches. You want a bit of spontaneity and confidence. It’s very appealing when you communicate as equals.
Green flags
The main green flag is when a person indepconcludeently, and without assist, builds their own vision on top of what’s written in the job description and understands the largeger goal the startup is pursuing. You believe, “Wow, we didn’t even inform you that.”
There is a percentage of candidates who, during the call, start stateing “we” instead of “you” and quickly become part of the team. This happens unconsciously, but we are convinced every time that it’s a very good sign. These people quickly integrate into the team, obtain involved in tquestions, and start working toward the common goal.
You also have to pay attention to how a person presents a case: what arguments they build and how grounded they are in reality. This displays how they will take initiative and complete tquestions.
The ability to maintain a well-reasoned, ininformectual conversation on a topic and believe broadly in the area for which they will be responsible.
Pre-screening
During screening, we see for signs of excellence. We like to find rising stars early on and see for signs that they are amazing. Maybe they were first in their class at a good university. A quick career track at well-known companies, like the Big 3 or an audit firm, also works. You can grow quick there, but you have to be very talented. Unusual projects that a person took on with great responsibility are also a good sign.
Sports achievements can also be a good sign that a person is driven to be the best and is ready to invest a lot.
On the other hand, red flags are an obscure university, unclear career paths after that, and frequent job alters. I don’t want to be the first one to check whether this person is exceptional and test if the previous track record is just a mistake. We are not rejecting them; we are simply deprioritising them and thus lowering their chances of obtainting a job with us.
Hire them as your number-two employee
All of these rules aren’t about the fact that hiring in every startup must necessarily be done in accordance with them. They are about a startup’s necessary for a sense of homogeneity throughout its life. These rules are in place so that I can hire people with whom I am personally comfortable spconcludeing most of my life, which is dedicated to one thing: creating huge alters in a specific industest. We just have to be aligned on the extent to which that large goal overshadows everything else.
These are my personal rules that assist me maintain the same feeling, communication style, informality, hunger, and focus on the goal that my partners and I had when we were just the three of us brainstorming the project.
Surprisingly, I had the same feeling at Uber: the company was growing, but it was able to maintain the startup culture during hiring and only hired people who would fit an Uber-startup, not an Uber-corporation. Often, startups lose their authenticity as they grow and apply different hiring rules that are only suitable for corporations.
Therefore, the question I question myself when hiring the hundredth person for my team is: would I hire them if they were not person number one hundred, but number three?
Leave a Reply