The best part about this post is the "how". The criteria themselves are awesome and important in their simplicity. However, showing people how to evaluate the things that matter is often difficult for candidates, particularly when they don't feel a lot of agency to control the process. Reorienting interviews and evaluation to be two-way is key. This post provides a compass and a map on how to do so. Thank you.
I do have one other thing I *always* think about now (and one thing that sometimes makes sense to think about):
Is this a tech company? Or a tech-enabled company. Not unrelated to fiscal discipline, but at a tech company the problems you'll help discover and the solutions you'll help design, build, and release are the direct inputs to the company's value. Value creation is the primary measure of Product success at tech companies. But tech-enabled companies are different - at a tech enabled company you're a cost center. It's not that the work you're doing isn't critical but you're enabling some larger effort or initiative being driven by the real value creators. So thinking about Imperfect Foods: the website was the great, the ordering process was smooth. Good job, Adam! But my usage of the service ultimately came down to product selection, product pricing, and the delivery experience - three things you couldn't really "fix".
(On a very small note, sometimes some people care a ton about the domain because they have specialized knowledge.)
Very good point for sure -- and I would say that lots of companies are more tech-enabled than pure tech companies. Where I would disagree is that tech-enabled businesses *do* have product development teams that are direct inputs into the company's value. They're just not the only inputs. And selection, pricing and delivery experience are all things (in the case of IF) where technology could improve. The question is how willing is the company to move full speed in that direction vs. how much of a slog is it.
At my first jobs, I ignored both the people and the mission part. I focused on having a "safe" job where I could play with technology as a software engineer to grow my skills. I actually did not care about the domain, nor the mission of the company. I'm pretty sure that many of my co-workers did not have a clue what the mission was.
Sooner or later, when a culture doesn't fit your own values, the job will make you miserable. Now, for me culture including mission, people and how these people make (financial) decisions are on the top of my list when evaluating companies.
The best part about this post is the "how". The criteria themselves are awesome and important in their simplicity. However, showing people how to evaluate the things that matter is often difficult for candidates, particularly when they don't feel a lot of agency to control the process. Reorienting interviews and evaluation to be two-way is key. This post provides a compass and a map on how to do so. Thank you.
You’re welcome! I think the “how” is super important and often missing in overly generalized writing. Appreciate the support for this approach.
I do have one other thing I *always* think about now (and one thing that sometimes makes sense to think about):
Is this a tech company? Or a tech-enabled company. Not unrelated to fiscal discipline, but at a tech company the problems you'll help discover and the solutions you'll help design, build, and release are the direct inputs to the company's value. Value creation is the primary measure of Product success at tech companies. But tech-enabled companies are different - at a tech enabled company you're a cost center. It's not that the work you're doing isn't critical but you're enabling some larger effort or initiative being driven by the real value creators. So thinking about Imperfect Foods: the website was the great, the ordering process was smooth. Good job, Adam! But my usage of the service ultimately came down to product selection, product pricing, and the delivery experience - three things you couldn't really "fix".
(On a very small note, sometimes some people care a ton about the domain because they have specialized knowledge.)
Very good point for sure -- and I would say that lots of companies are more tech-enabled than pure tech companies. Where I would disagree is that tech-enabled businesses *do* have product development teams that are direct inputs into the company's value. They're just not the only inputs. And selection, pricing and delivery experience are all things (in the case of IF) where technology could improve. The question is how willing is the company to move full speed in that direction vs. how much of a slog is it.
Super timely! A few folks this week had asked me for help in thinking through which of several offer to take. Pointed them at this article!
Thanks Josh! I'll be elaborating on this in the next two posts.
Great post, I'm a fan of the new PMF framework.
At my first jobs, I ignored both the people and the mission part. I focused on having a "safe" job where I could play with technology as a software engineer to grow my skills. I actually did not care about the domain, nor the mission of the company. I'm pretty sure that many of my co-workers did not have a clue what the mission was.
Sooner or later, when a culture doesn't fit your own values, the job will make you miserable. Now, for me culture including mission, people and how these people make (financial) decisions are on the top of my list when evaluating companies.
Thanks for sharing your story Niels. Often we have to experience it first hand to shape our evaluation criteria. I know I did!
Thanks for sharing these great insights! They're very actionable.
You're welcome!