来自全球顶尖高管猎头的经验 | Lauren Ipsen(Daversa Partners, GC)
Lessons from one of the world’s top executive recruiters | Lauren Ipsen (Daversa Partners, GC)
Lauren Ipsen: Regardless of whether or not you’re hiring, you should always be keeping a pulse on the market. That is the most important thing. And I think that should be the case for both candidates and folks that are hiring. Like, you never want to put yourself in a position where you have no idea what good looks like, whether that’s from a company standpoint or from a candidate standpoint. So, both parties should always be having a good understanding of which companies are thriving, which individuals are building great things and are well known commodities in their organizations and get great references.
Oftentimes, I encourage founders to simply chat with what good looks like and get a really good sense of what benchmark candidate profiles could be, and who knows where that person will be in a year or what have you, but staying really, really close to really great people and using them from an advising capacity or getting them ingrained in some type of involvement in the product prior to actually having that specific need, I think, is really important.
Lenny: Welcome to Lenny’s Podcast. I’m Lenny and my goal here is to help you get better at the craft of building and growing products. Today my guest is Lauren Ipsen.
One of the most important skills for founders and senior product leaders to develop is the ability to hire great people. You won’t be able to build the best company or the best product if you can’t hire the best people. And Lauren is one of the most experienced and successful people in the world when it comes to hiring product leaders. She’s placed over 80 senior product leaders across tech companies and has worked with some of the biggest companies out there. When I asked a bunch of really smart product leaders who their favorite product recruiter was, Lauren’s name came up a ton.
In our conversation, we get super tactical about what founders need to do to find the best product talent, what product managers should be doing during their career to give themselves the most opportunity, and we also touch on what recruiters themselves often get wrong when trying to attract great talent. This episode is rich with actionable advice for basically everyone, and I am really excited to bring it to you. With that, I bring you Lauren Ipsen.
Who has an opinion on internal tools? Internal tools are something you probably don’t think about until you have to, or it probably didn’t even occur to you to think about them, but if you work at a big company, you probably have a bunch of one-off custom apps or dashboards that are laser focused on just one job to be done for one specific team or just one role, and they’re always such a huge pain to build and maintain. And that’s why I’m such a big fan of Retool, and why I think Retool is so popular. Retool allows teams as small as just one person to build a suite of custom internal apps in a fraction of the time that you think it takes. The productivity gains of custom apps is now within reach, not just for large enterprises, but for small teams as well. And as you scale your company, Retool scales with you.
Snowflake saves about 26 hours a week of manual spreadsheet work with custom internal apps built on Retool. Amazon uses Retool to handle GDPR requests. Thousands of teams at companies like Coinbase, DoorDash, and NBC collaborate around custom-built Retool apps to operate with greater efficiency.
Maybe you’ve thought about using Retool before but just haven’t, and I’m here to tell you that now teams of up to five can build unlimited Retool apps for free. Get started today at retool.com/lenny.
I actually used Miro to come up with a plan for this very ad. With Miro, you can build out your product strategy by brainstorming sticky notes, comments, live reactions, voting tools, even a timer to keep your team on track. You can also bring your whole distributed team together around wire frames where anyone can draw their own ideas with the pen tool or put their own images or mock-ups right into the Miro board. And with one of Miro’s ready made templates, you can go from discovering research to product roadmaps to customer journey flows to final mocks.
Want to see how I use Miro? Head on over to my Miro board at miro.com/lenny to see my most popular podcast episodes, my favorite Miro templates. You can also leave feedback on this podcast episode and more. That’s M-I-R-O.com/lenny.
Lauren, thank you for being here. Welcome to the podcast.
Lauren Ipsen: Thanks so much. It’s great to be here.
Lenny: I’ve been meeting to do an episode on product hiring and recruiting product people for a while, and when I asked a bunch of smart friends who should I have on to talk about this stuff, your name came up a bunch, and so I’m really happy that we’re finally doing this.
Lauren Ipsen: Me too. Absolutely. I’m grateful that you asked.
Lenny: So, to help listeners get a sense of just your background and kind of the journey you’ve been on to get to where you are now, can you just spend maybe just a minute kind of talking through the wonderful things you’ve done in your career and what you’re doing now?
Lauren Ipsen: Yeah, absolutely. So I started my career in broadcast. I originally thought that I wanted to be on the news and quickly realized I didn’t necessarily want to be the face of sadness. There’s a ton of that happening in the world.
So, made a pivot pretty early on and thought, where could I use the communication skills that I’ve been working so hard on and do something that’s impactful in a big way, but maybe just with a little bit of a different angle? And stumbled across executive search.
Exec search is not really something that people major in college by any means or think they’re going to end up doing. So it was something I found fascinating. I had applied to all of these different companies like Twitter and Snap and Pinterest, hadn’t heard back from any of them, was a name in the resumes, and thought, well, how cool would it be if I could work with all of them and have an opportunity to play a part from a different lens?
So, got into exec search, was really focused early on on consumer mobile build outs. Was doing a lot of work with Twitter and Reddit and TaskRabbit and Nextdoor, Postmates, you name it, and that was probably 85% of the work I was doing. And then as, on the agency side, 15% was obscure, autonomous helicopters selling into the Department of Defense and then retail and robotics, and it was all very fascinating, but for me, who has wicked bad ADD, it was amazing to be able to be so stimulated by so many different industries and feel like I couldn’t really master this.
So, long story short, had an awesome career at Daversa Partners, which is a boutique executive search firm, and thought I was going to be there potentially forever. Was tapped by a awesome individual, Abe Shafi, who was founding a company. I had been doing a lot of work for them. They were a client of mine at the time. Placed a couple great hires and they said, “We’re either going to kick off a head of talent search with you or you can come over and join us.” So I was the first recruiting hire over there, built out the talent function in its entirety.
Lauren Ipsen: I definitely think there was a part of me that I loved the operating experience, learned a ton, worked side by side some amazing people, but was really missing working with founders, and lots of them, and keeping a pulse on the market. So General Catalyst tapped me most recently, and been working here for the past couple months, and it’s been great thus far, and I’m specializing in our consumer and crypto investments.
Lenny: Awesome. The fact that you’re at GC now makes me think about another recruiter that I know who’s awesome, Austin Brizendine, and it’s interesting that a lot of the best recruiters seem to be heading to VC funds, and I’m curious why that is happening. Is it like a comp thing? Is it other things that are pulling everyone away into funds?
Lauren Ipsen: It’s a great question. It’s definitely not a comp thing. I’ll say that. I think it could be a stability of life thing. Search is incredibly volatile, and you have to hustle so hard, and as soon as you have three wins, you’ve got four more things to execute on. And so, there’s aspects of it that can be tough, especially in a market like right now where you really do have to chase business and you can’t be selective about what you take on, so you could be pitching things that maybe you don’t necessarily believe in in its entirety or what have you. So, I think that’s one component.
In house is obviously difficult right now as well for talent leaders. It’s really scary to take a bet on one single company right now and know what it’s going to look like six months from now. And so I think those things combined might be the reason for an influx in folks leaning more towards venture, and I think it’s just timeliness.
Lenny: Got it. That makes sense. The downside is it’s hard for people to find awesome recruiters because once you’re in a fund, you’re just going to help those startups. And so we’re going to talk later about just how do people find awesome recruiters, what do you look for? But there’s roughly three things I want to spend our time chatting through today. One is for founders and hiring managers, just how to find the best talent and what they could do to be successful finding the best talent. Two is for product leaders and PMs, how to give themselves the most opportunity from the flip side. And then third is just for recruiters, what do they often do wrong? How do they miss out on the best product talent? Does that sound good?
Lauren Ipsen: Yeah, that sounds great.
Lenny: Okay, cool. So on the hiring front, just diving in, say you are a founder, you’re someone really early at a company, and maybe you’ve got a couple PMs and you’re starting to think about we need to hire a really senior product leader or first senior product leader.
Lauren Ipsen: Sure.
Lenny: What do you find is often the biggest mistake that founders make when they’re trying to hire their first senior product leader?
Lauren Ipsen: I think especially for founders that haven’t hired for this caliber of talent in the past, it’s really easy to be distracted by shiny objects and look at huge names. You want to find the CPOs of Google and YouTube or what have you because that seems like it would be such an incredible opportunity for brand recognition. And to an extent, it is. But the fact of the matter is, oftentimes those individuals are pretty far from the work and have a great team of executors that they’ve put into place that are actually the ones that are in the weeds.
And so I think that’s the biggest mistake I see people make, especially on the hiring front where they have limited resources, and maybe they’re an early stage company and trying so hard to bring in big names is not always the best way to go about it because the fact of the matter is they need to go then hire a team. So, I think looking for someone that’s a little closer to the work, maybe someone that can step up into that type of role and do so in a way where some days they might actually be operating like a PM and then other days they might be able to build from a leadership perspective, that’s more of the DNA that people should be targeting.
Lenny: Do you think the source of the issue with that going wrong, that they no longer can do that work as well because they’ve been shielded away from the tactical day to day? Or is it that they’re not as hungry as they used to be and they’re just like, “I already, I’m a YouTube 10 year super success, I don’t need to prove myself anymore,” and they’re just not as hungry, or something else?
Lauren Ipsen: I mean, I’m not going to sit here and say that all senior leaders aren’t hungry. I think that there’s some folks that really lean into the work in a different way and miss that, and often go to startups because they crave building.
So it’s not necessarily that, but I do tend to lean towards folks that have a chip on their shoulder or have something to prove and want to build a name for themselves. All of that to say, there’s a reason that a lot of those people got to where they are, and some of the best talent are some of the senior folks, but just maybe not necessarily the best talent for where this company is today. Right? It could be great for 10 years down the road, but the past five years of that individual’s career could have been far more focused on camaraderie, team building, operational components, performance reviews, and then aspects of product vision, which just might not be the innovative AB testing type of profile that you typically look for in these pre-IPO companies.
Lenny: Got it. I imagine there are stories that you can share about people you’ve placed like that, that have not worked out. If you can share one, that’d be awesome. But maybe a side question is the general advice, just don’t assume someone that’s been successful at a big company with a fancy background is going to be great. Sometimes they work out, but not always, is that kind of the takeaway?
Lauren Ipsen: Yeah. I would say the general advice is who is going to be best for this specific role at this specific time, not necessarily who is the best talent in the world or in the market. Those are two very, very different questions to ask. And I think early on in my recruiting career, I was often just trying to recruit these whales of executives to try and prove myself and say, “Oh, I got this person to entertain this opportunity, how sick is that?” But naturally, that’s not necessarily the person that actually can move the needle. And so you need to think very specifically. Just because this is the best talent, that doesn’t necessarily mean they are the best talent for this role today.
Lenny: So to double down on that, say you are hiring and you know you’re going to start hiring a senior product leader, what is it that you suggest founders nail down and iron out when they’re kicking off the hiring process, either on their own or with a recruiter? Like, in the job description, what else do they have to get right to find the right person?
Lauren Ipsen: It’s a number of things, like product leaders can come in a lot of different flavors, and so I think it’s trying to determine where this person should major and minor, where they should spike. Is this someone that’s going to really lean into the design efforts? Is it someone that actually kind of needs to just operate like a very senior PM and continue to build out a team? Is this someone that really should be focused on product vision for the long haul? And then thinking more holistically about how to build the rest of the team.
Lauren Ipsen: There’s so many different ways in which you can hire for a product leader. So I think it’s trying to work a little bit backwards and think about, what is the actual outcome that we are trying to solve for with this hire? Or are we just hiring a head of product because we feel like we need to hire a head of product? That’s so often what I see is the board’s telling me we need to hire a head of product and I don’t necessarily think that we do, or I’m not exactly sure what we need in this role. And so whenever you’re starting a search in that regard, it’s kind of doomed from inception, so you need to get incredibly granular on the front end around, what is this person going to be coming in to do? What’s their mandate? And if we think about someone that’s just absolutely hitting it out of the park and crushing it, what does that look like? So I think just trying to be really specific on the front end.
Lenny: I love that last piece, just what does success really look like for this person? On the first piece, that’s exactly the same advice I give founders when they’re looking for a PM is like, what do you concretely need them to do day to day? Not like, “We need someone to help us with product.” And that often helps illuminate, okay, I see. We need someone to help us ship more consistently. We need someone to help us hire engineers. Yeah, just make a list. What are they going to do in the first month or two or three?
Lauren Ipsen: Yeah, yeah, absolutely. I think those are the most important things. Like the 90 day plan is something that’s overused but so necessary, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. So that component and then, okay, a year from now, what should this person be doing? Two years from now? Do we want them to grow up into a CPO role? Do we think about that in a different way? How are we thinking about the product direction today, 12 months from now, 18 months from now, through IPO? I think it’s really difficult to think about things that way, and so often you’re thinking about the task in front of you and just trying to iterate quickly, but that is the type of thought process that needs to be happening from the CEOs and founders.
Lenny: Are there archetypes of PMs, if you just bucket like here’s the three maybe most common types of product leaders that founders hire, because there’s an infinite list of skills and things they could do, but just to make it even simpler, like here’s probably one of these three you’re looking for. Do you have something like that in your head?
Lauren Ipsen: Yeah, there’s platform product leaders or folks that are kind of more indexed on the infrastructure components. There’s folks that are typically focused on core product, or consumer product if it’s on the consumer side of things. And then you’ll have folks that are really indexed and that can include UX individuals, design folks. And then there’s also typically specialists, so individuals that are really hyper-focused on growth or monetization or what have you. Those are the three buckets that I would say I see most often.
Lenny: Do you feel like founders sometimes pick one of the wrong buckets and that’s a common mistake, or is it generally it’s the wrong bucket but then maybe it’s not the right spikes of skills within that bucket?
Lauren Ipsen: Well, it’s kind of twofold. I think sometimes people just bring in a head of product to do everything, so that’s probably not the best way to go about things. I think that ends up being a unicorn, which you hear often in the search world, and it becomes really difficult to hone in on what good looks like.
And so I think again, it just comes back to having a clear org chart on the front end and determining, are we hiring someone specifically to build out our walled garden ads approach, or are we hiring someone to run product marketing, or are we hiring someone to help from a product perspective to build a better core user experience? Those are all very, very, very different roles, and if you bring in one person to try and do it all, the facts of the matter is, they’re going to have to bring in some key lieutenants to help them, so is that something you want to do or are you more focused on bringing in someone imminently to help on the ad side of things, and then we can find that head of product to help them out down the road?
That’s kind of the way in which I would architect it and think about it, is what’s most imminent, and what do you actually need to hire for today, as opposed to just hiring for the sake of hiring and bringing in that leader.
Lenny: And part of the discussion there is maybe they grow up into this head of product long term, maybe not. Maybe we just need someone to ship the ads platform, right?
Lauren Ipsen: That’s exactly right. Yeah.
Lenny: You mentioned this title of head of product. There’s also VP of product, CPO. There’s all these titles and I feel like people sometimes use them interchangeably, don’t know which one to use when they’re putting out a job description. Do you have any kind of heuristic rule of thumb of just, here’s how to think about when to use each of these titles? Or is it not even a big deal for, say, a founder, hiring the first senior product leader?
Lauren Ipsen: It’s a great question and it definitely leads to confusion across the board because I’ll have candidates come to me and they’ll say, “I’m only looking for a CPO role,” when I’m working with a startup where, maybe on the venture side of things, we’ve actually advised that startup to not hire C-level executives at this point. And so that naturally could eliminate a candidate that could be amazing for the role.
Similarly, people could feel that way if it’s a VP of product role, but that in their mind is the most senior product leader within the organization running everything from end to end who they intend to be the CPO down the road but are not in a position where they’re ready to hire C-level execs. So, it’s tough, and it really depends on the organization and the way in which they’re thinking about org charts and leveling.
A lot of startups at this point are almost allergic to C titles or VP titles or are just more title agnostic than I’ve seen in the past, so you see a lot more of these head ofs, and that is sector leaders, up until probably C plus or D stage. And then you get to D and E, and you’ll see more of the VP, director, CPO type. And I think that is the way that people should be thinking about it is, if I’m joining a company very, very early days and it’s called head of engineering, that is intended to be the most senior engineering leader within the organization.
The fact of the matter though is there’s good reason sometimes why they’re not throwing out that C title, and could this person be layered down the road? Potentially, because maybe the talent they need right now is different than, just as we had spoken to earlier, is different than the talent that they might need from a massive CPO in two and a half years.
And so I think that rubs people the wrong way because they want a bit of a promise that things are going to, if they join at this stage, that they’ll be in it for the long haul and be that chief product officer that takes a company through an IPO. But companies are so dynamic and things change so quickly.
So, I guess a long-winded way of me saying there’s different breadth and depth to each role, but I think for the most part, unless it’s a very siloed company with multiple different VPs, if you’re coming into a company and they say this is the head of product, the VP of product, or the CPO, that all means the same thing dependent on the stage, for the most part.
Lenny: And the other takeaway there, which is awesome, is if you’re early stage startup, probably just start with head of product. Keep it simple.
Lauren Ipsen: Yeah.
Lenny: Don’t over promise. Everyone understands.
Lauren Ipsen: Yeah. Because the last thing you want to do is have to demote someone. But once you get to a place of having C-level executives, like that’s not going to do any good, but maybe you start as a head of product, and then as the company continues to grow, you lean into the growth side of things more, and so you become that head of growth or an SVP of growth. Like things iterate and change, but you just never know and you can’t predict the outcome of a company on the front end, so.
Lenny: A lot of people listening to this probably aren’t hiring senior product leaders right now, but plan to and will in the future, and so I wanted to ask, what should founders do when they know they will hire a head of product, say, in the next year, that could set them up for success down the road? What should they be doing ahead of time?
Lauren Ipsen: Regardless of whether or not you’re hiring, you should always be keeping a pulse on the market. That is the most important thing. And I think that should be the case for both candidates and folks that are hiring. Like, you never want to put yourself in a position where you have no idea what good looks like, whether that’s from a company standpoint or from a candidate standpoint. So, both parties should always be having a good understanding of which companies are thriving, which individuals are building great things and are well known commodities in their organizations and get great references.
Oftentimes, I encourage founders to simply chat with what good looks like and get a really good sense of what benchmark candidate profiles could be, and who knows where that person will be in a year or what have you, but staying really, really close to really great people and using them from an advising capacity or getting them ingrained in some type of involvement in the product prior to actually having that specific need, I think, is really important.
Lenny: That sounds awesome and it makes sense. How do you, as a founder, do some of that? Do you just ask folks like, “Hey, who are some of the best product leaders you know? I just want to chat with them. I’m not hiring, just want to kind of meet people who are awesome.” Is that the behavior you suggest or is there something else you can do?
Lauren Ipsen: That’s a great way to go about it. And by simply saying, “No agenda, I’m not trying to hire you tomorrow, I just want to know great people.” And to be totally honest, people feel flattered by that, typically. Most of the time if you’ve been referred to someone and heard nothing but great things about them and you really don’t have an agenda other than wanting to pick their brain, people are like, “Huh, well, this is different from the day to day. This is fulfilling,” and people want to pour their knowledge, especially into companies that they believe in.
So, I think more often than not you’ll find that, not just products leaders, but executives across the board are actually really inclined to do so and want to help out because it’s a little bit different from the day to day monotony of their work life.
Lenny: So, the advice is keep track of companies who are killing it, who you might be able to kind of poach from in the future, and keep a list and keep warm contact with folks that are awesome.
Lauren Ipsen: Yeah.
Lenny: It reminds me of a founder that … or basically all founders who are really good at hiring and how far ahead they plant seeds and how they just play the long game with the best people they meet, and they just kind of keep the conversation going until they finally convince them to join a year or two later. Do you find that the same thing?
Lauren Ipsen: Yeah, 1000000%. Yeah. When I was on the executive recruiting side of things at Daversa, the VP of engineering candidate that we ultimately landed, it was a seven month game of courtship, and let’s bring him in to help out from an advising capacity, let’s ask him how he would think about structuring this organization, let’s talk to him about the best talent that he would recommend that we’re spending time with. No question that’s invasive, but more so just collaborative and exciting, and you’ll find that the founder and that leader will build a different level of rapport and trust by not going through a formal interview process and having it feel transactional. And then with that, magic can happen and you can land incredible people.
Lenny: This all sounds like a lot of work and a lot of time. Do you have guidance on how long it should take to find, like for a early stage startup, say series A or B, to find someone awesome, and/or how much time founders should spend a week, just best practice, on hiring for someone like this?
Lauren Ipsen: I mean, I think if you’re going to search, so if you’re looking for this individual, it’s really so case to case. There’s searches that I’ve been in that I call three people. I know they’re amazing for this. I tell the founder and CEO, “These are the three people you should chat with, hire one of them.” And it’s that easy.
There’s others where it’s a lot of trying to figure out what the person’s actually looking for. If there’s some … they hit it off from an emotional standpoint. There’s so many different things that come with it. I would say from a timing perspective, it’s not a hard number. It’s more of just put yourself in the room with great people. If you have a tremendous amount of respect for someone, continue to harvest that relationship and ask what good looks like. Find excuses to continue to touch base with people that are important in your network. If you remembered that they’d mentioned that they were going to some event and you think that you might want to hire them down the road, in a non-creepy way, show up to that event. These are things that I’m constantly doing, and I think that founders can do a better job of, but just make yourself known and relevant. And then when you reach out and timing is right, it won’t feel so obscure or so transactional.
Lenny: That reminds me of a time at Airbnb where we had these meetups for engineers every month or so where it was a tech talk, and then all the engineers get a target engineer that is coming to the event. Like they get their profile and their picture, and their job is to make sure they have a great time and try to convince them to join someday.
Lauren Ipsen: Oh my god. But it’s so real. It’s similar to college trips where you’re trying to get recruited for a sport, and you have to ensure that you’re, yeah, just continuing to give people the best experience possible and staying top of mind for people.
Lenny: Yeah. But I can see it being creepy, They have no idea there’s this person assigned to them, but it works. It worked great. It was a great tactic.
Lauren Ipsen: That’s awesome.
Lenny: I want to come back to a question that I asked, but I feel like you’ll have an actual more concrete answer to the specific piece of just, what’s your guidance per week how much time you should be spending on hiring broadly, and specifically, heads of product, if that’s any different. Do you have any just advice? Because I imagine it’s always spend more time than you think. It’s going to take a lot of time.
Lauren Ipsen: Yeah, it’s definitely spend more time than you think. If you are in an actual search, then you should devote all of your time to it. I know that sucks to hear, but you should be really carving out concrete time.
Lauren Ipsen: The thing that’s tough though is you could spend, I guess what I was trying to say is you could spend one hour on something or you could spend 10 hours on it, but it’s more so around, are you doing things to be impactful during that period of time? Are you actually doing things that are going to move the needle? Are you just blindly reaching out to people on LinkedIn? Because that’s not going to be the way in which you’re going to find the best of the best. Some of the greatest talent, they’re not even on LinkedIn.
And so I think it’s building a really strong network in advance, and then once you actually get to a place where you need to hire that person, calling all of those amazing people that you’ve built relationships with and saying, “Now tell me who your favorite person is and who the best person you’ve ever worked with is, and could you put me on a thread with them?” How are you going to differentiate yourself from the rest of the market? So it’s less in my mind like a quantitative number of hours and more of, how are you doing things differently than the rest of the market?
Lenny: I want to pull on this thread. Okay, so spending one hour versus 10 hours, and your point about how you could spend one hour and get as much done maybe in those 10 hours. What sorts of behaviors and actions should folks take to make use of, say, that one hour in hiring? How do you not waste your time?
Lauren Ipsen: I mean, I would say I’ve got probably five of my all time favorite product leaders in the world that I tap whenever I’m kicking off a search. And they know that whenever life brings them to an opportunity where they are going to start looking or want to lean into board opportunities, that I’m going to set them up and shout their name from the rooftop, so oftentimes they’re willing to point me in the right direction of great people, make those introductions, what have you, and I’m going to know simply because of how great they are that they would never put me in touch with someone that wasn’t equally as qualified.
So that I think because the quality is there, so I’m not just blindly guessing on quantity, spending a ton of time on LinkedIn, and then having to call unknown entities and ask for back channel references when they also might not even feel comfortable sharing the dirt. You know? So it comes back to rapport and people that you have around you that you know you can trust and tap into and ensuring that you’re spending the time in the right areas.
Lenny: Got it. Yeah, so tapping your network makes a lot of sense. If you don’t have that yet, I guess is it worth spending time on LinkedIn just cold messaging people as a founder, and any tips there for just cold outreach that you think work for a founder doing it versus you who are a professional at it?
Lauren Ipsen: I do think it is worth that time. If you see someone that looks amazing, hell yeah, reach out to them, spend time with them, why not? And oftentimes, again, people are excited to see, oh, this CEO and founder wants to pick my brain, doesn’t look like they’re coming at me to try and recruit me, but rather just to have an open-ended conversation. For sure, and they can sense. You can definitely sense that type of interaction and feel comfortable with it, whereas sometimes the walls immediately go up when someone senses that they’re trying to get poached.
And so it’s I think something that’s worth them doing for sure. It’s just if you are going to look for a key executive and are on a time crunch, I don’t necessarily think the best use of your time is blindly reaching out to executives when you don’t necessarily have the expertise in knowing which companies were thriving during that period of time, which organizations were great, and which were a little bit weaker within companies. All of those things are just the inner workings of the recruiting atmosphere and technology, and I think tapping people, if you don’t have the network, talk to a great recruiter or just spend some time kind of doing some research on who’s great. You can ask investors or board members in your companies as to who you should be targeting. So there’s always got to be one or two people that can at least point you to another three or four.
Lenny: That reminds me of a tactic Gokul shared on this podcast about one of his best tricks, as you think of, if you’re hiring salespeople, instead of looking for who are just the best salespeople, you look for the company that is known for being really good at sales and then you go find people there and try to poach their lieutenant types, not maybe necessarily their head of sales. Do you think that’s a good move?
Lauren Ipsen: Yes and no.
Lenny: Ooh.
Lauren Ipsen: Yes and no, because I think if the organization is incredibly good at sales then the majority of the folks are probably amazing, but you always have weak links, and just because someone has a brand on their resume at the right time, I think oftentimes CEOs and founders will do this thing where they kind over generalize, well, Amazon’s Prime team at this time was amazing or something like that. It’s like, they definitely could have been, but just as any other company, there’s going to be people that are breakout, top 1% type individuals, and then other individuals that get to ride the wave and reap the benefits of being at the right place at the right time. And I think that’s a good starting place, but then also spending time getting a little bit deeper on who the best people are within that organization. But yeah, we always start with market mapping, so determining who the best companies are within a specific area, and then I just encourage everyone to take that a layer deeper.
Lenny: Got it. It just comes back to your previous piece of advice. Don’t assume someone that has an awesome logo is going to be great, but sometimes they are. There’s a question I should have asked you at the beginning that I’m going to ask now. How many folks have you placed? How many companies have you worked with? And then also, is there a story of just your favorite person that you’ve placed/company you’ve helped hire that comes to mind?
Lauren Ipsen: Yeah. So both great questions. I’ve placed probably 85 executives over the course of my career, and then lots of entry level employees when I was in house, and also some great key leaders. Yeah, probably 85 searches that I’ve opened and closed, so that’s been incredibly fulfilling work. It’s also fun too on the exec side of things because you hire the VP of engineering at Postmates and you see firsthand the product change. You know, you watch those types of things happen before your eyes, which is, it’s fulfilling stuff, it’s really cool.
Lenny: And delivery gets there faster too.
Lauren Ipsen: Yeah, yeah, exactly. So, that’s really fun. Favorite placement of all time has got to be the VP of engineering that I placed at IRL, which is, to be completely honest, a big reason that I joined that company. Alex Strand is his name, and he is just the most incredible, atypical, high emotional intelligent engineering leader. Still super technical, but has managed teams in the hundreds, built out Amazon Prime Day, then went on to build the core messaging platform at Snapchat, called him and he was like, “Why would I ever leave? There’s a ton of financial incentive and a team that I’ve built that all loves me.”
Lauren Ipsen: And we got him to ultimately make a move in two weeks, which is just kind of unheard of, although it ended up being like a seven month push for a start date, but that was a big reason why I went and joined IRL was to work side by side him and help build out his team and learn to get more deep on the technical side of things. Because oftentimes, on the executive level, as mentioned before, can be sometimes more of that people management type role. And so he just felt like this unique hybrid of an individual, and yeah, you close searches and you cross your fingers and hope for the best and feel very good about it, but he was one where I had all the confidence in the world that I could not have done better. You know? I just felt so great about that. So, that was a good one.
Lenny: I don’t know how much more confidence you could instill in a candidate joining a company than the recruiter also then joining the company.
Lauren Ipsen: Yeah, I did say that to him. I kept saying, “And if I were to go in house, I swear this is probably the company I would do it for.” And then about four weeks after he signed, I’d texted him and I said, “Well, you’ll never guess.”
Lenny: Wow.
Lauren Ipsen: Yeah.
Lenny: Amazing. What a stamp of confidence.
Lauren Ipsen: Yeah. And a full circle life moment. I sent him a box of cookies, he sent it back and said, “Your turn.”
Lenny: And is he still there at IRL? Awesome.
Lauren Ipsen: Yes, he is. He’s great.
Lenny:
Also, if you want to sell to the enterprise, proving security is essential. SOC 2 can either open the door for bigger and better deals or it can put your business on hold. If you don’t have a SOC 2, there’s a good chance you won’t even get a seat at the table.
Beginning a SOC 2 report can be a huge burden, especially for startups. It’s time consuming, tedious, and expensive. Enter Vanta. Over 3,000 fast growing companies use Vanta to automate up to 90% of the work involved with SOC 2. Vanta can get you ready for security audits in weeks instead of months, less than a third of the time that it usually takes.
For a limited time, Lenny’s Podcast listeners get $1,000 off Vanta. Just go to vanta.com/lenny, that’s V-A-N-T-A.com/lenny to learn more and to claim your discount. Get started today.
I want to shift a little bit to kind of flip to the product person’s perspective and talk about, how do you be successful as a product leader in finding new opportunities and giving yourself opportunities in the space? And so maybe a first question is just generally, what should product leaders and PMs focus on to give themselves the most opportunity in their career?
Lauren Ipsen: I think breadth is incredibly important. It’s so critical, especially if someone has an end goal of wanting to step into a product leadership role to have been able to have touched lots of different components, as opposed to specializing in one specific thing. So I would say that’s very important, to be able to make sure that you’re maximizing opportunities for yourself down the road.
And then as mentioned before, just always keeping a pulse on the market, regardless of how happy you are in your current company, regardless of what the project is that you’re so incredibly excited about that isn’t going to conclude until Q1 of next year. It’s just so important that you always know the companies that are doing great things and keep those windows open for people, because you never know what the next 12 months hold, and you want to be in a position where you’re never running out the door looking for what’s next, but rather being able to be super selective about the things that you have in front of you. And that comes with time and network building and relationship building over years, honestly.
Lenny: And when you say breadth, are you saying things like work on the platform team for a bit, work on the user facing team, maybe the internal tools team, like different types of product, or something else?
Lauren Ipsen: Exactly that. Yeah. I think there’s people that probably want to just be a specialist in growth, or want to get super deep on ads, and if that’s the case, then by all means, do so. And I think there’s something to be said about that as well because those types of skillsets will be needed. But if you’re looking to diversify your skillset, continue to grow from a career trajectory perspective and think about potentially being in a head of product type role, I think it’s really important that you touch all aspects of that.
Lenny: I’m really happy to hear that because that’s exactly the advice I give new PMs is that a variety of experience is one of the most powerful things you can do because you also just become a better PM because you can see how different types of products are built and how different types of teams operate and it just makes you better.
Lauren Ipsen: Yes. Variety of experience, I think taking a bet on doing something more entrepreneurial, starting something, and then also joining things that are a little bit later and more established to get best practices. I think diversifying your skillset within an organization but also diversifying the work in which you’re doing and the companies that you’re spending time with is awesome.
Lenny: Yeah. So on that, something I’m always weary of is folks jumping around between all the fancy companies to get a bunch of logos on the resume. “Oh, I worked at Snap and Facebook and Netflix,” and I feel like you’re just building a resume and then your life flies by, and you forget that you should enjoy the things you’re doing and work on things that are fulfilling and optimized for not a great resume. And, curious your thoughts on just how often you think you should move from company to company, one to optimize for opportunities in the future, or just generally, do you recommend people try to move around or go deeper at their company? There’s a bunch of questions there, but take it wherever you want to.
Lauren Ipsen: Yeah, yeah. Okay. Sounds good. I think it’s an interesting one because logo collecting is never something that you want to be known for, and the first thing you’re taught, like entry level recruiting 101 is recognize patterns of candidates that jump from place to place and don’t give opportunities a full chance. So, you’re spot on. That is definitely not something you want to be known for if you’re a prospect.
There’s also something to be said about staying somewhere too long though. And I will say that. I think sometimes you find people that are almost loyal to a fault, and companies have tanked and all executives have left and the writing’s on the wall, and they’re holding onto the fact that they were hired by a really good guy or gal and they want to make it work because they care about the human being, and I think sometimes in your career you do have to be a little bit more selfish and think about what’s going to be best for you in the long haul. And so maybe that is still keeping your head down and working hard while also being thoughtful about other things that are out there and not saying hard nos to opportunities that knock on your door.
Lauren Ipsen: So it’s one where I would say it’s an art and a science because you have to be thoughtful about taking on new things and knowing when it’s worth taking a bet on yourself, but also you can’t run as soon as things get hard because that is recognized, and if there’s a riff or an internal dispute or a new leader brought in, and that is so quick as to make you run for the fences, that’s not something that people look for because startup world is hard, tech is hard. Look at the crypto world right now. Things are incredibly volatile and difficult, and you want to be able to bring people in that are going to hang with you through the highs and lows.
We’re always looking to see where people moved the needle, especially on the product side, where their fingerprints were, what they can actually point to that they did and are proud of during their time there. And so if all that they can say that they did was onboarded and moved on, then doesn’t matter where you were, but it’s not going to be something that I can at least stand on to cheer you on.
Lenny: I really like that. A lot of this comes down to, what impact have you made? And I was going to touch on that, and your point is, one, kind of heuristic for how long to stay at a place at the minimum is have some meaningful impact you can point to that you led. Does that sound right?
Lauren Ipsen: Yeah, exactly. And have that meaningful impact be something that others can speak to. I think that’s huge. If you built something within the organization that you’re proud of but no one knows about it, then that’s more difficult to have as your stamp of approval for what you are able to accomplish there. But if you did something that cross-functional leaders were speaking to, that your team all sings the praises of, then that is something that you can put a feather in the cap and say, “Okay, I left this place better than I found it, and that’s the reason that I have decided to move forward.”
Lenny: And I imagine part of that is reference checks. People are going to check to see if you actually were successful.
Lauren Ipsen: All the time. Yup. Whether you are exploratory, opportunistic, not looking at all, people are constantly calling each other, and the world of tech is so, so, so small, and no matter how fired up you were leaving a company or what went sideways, it is so critical that you try to leave the place better than you found it and do so as seamlessly as possible, because you want people to have nothing but positive to say. And oftentimes, that … The thing that I always find too is if I call 10 people that were a part of the same organization as someone during a given period of time and they can’t speak to anything they did, in that case, no news is not necessarily good news. You want to have an impact, you want to be able to say, “I did X, Y and Z. I’m super proud of this and the reason I moved on is because I did what I came in to accomplish.”
Lenny: It’s a little bit innately tricky for product leaders. I imagine you run into this, that sometimes you have to upset people as a product leader to get stuff done that needs to get done and maybe they disagree and then later it’s like, okay, I see what you did. Is that true? Do you deal with that or is it generally like, oh, yeah, they’re the great people everyone knows, like a hundred percent of people will say they’re awesome?
Lauren Ipsen: It’s a really good question. I think there’s a way to navigate conflict without rubbing people the wrong way so that they’ll say negative things. There’s a way to be an impactful product leader and disagree and make change, and maybe your engineering leader and design leader and marketing leader completely disagree with the direction in which you’re going, but because you have all of the data to support it and because you have gone about things in a way that feels very fact first and less emotional, it’s really difficult for them to then point to why they disliked this person.
Lenny: Yeah. This is interesting. So say you make those 10 calls, in your experience, the leaders you want to hire, are you finding 10 out of 10 are generally like, “Yes, this person’s amazing, you should hire them”?
Lauren Ipsen: There’s ones that are slam dunks and no one has any negative to say. That’s incredibly rare. More often you find some people like to just have something negative to say, just to have something negative to say. I also take all of my back channels with a grain of salt. Maybe the person I’m calling to back channel this person with I also haven’t back channeled, right?
So every single thing that you hear, you just take, make note of, and then move on and think more holistically about. But I think typically what I would say is the glaring nos are very obvious. People that are polarizing individuals or have done wrong within an organization or made bad calls across the board are, you can get that information typically pretty quick.
It’s the mixed ones where it’s, “I think that person was decent,” those are pretty tough, and you need to really find people that worked super closely with them because otherwise it’s pretty difficult to say whether or not they were able to make an impact. Which again comes back to why right off the bat it’s so nice to just have people that you can tap within every organization that’s like an academy company or a great company and say, “Point me in the direction of the three best people.” I don’t want to have to go through the burden of having to try and back channel all of the maybe middle 50% or what have you.
Lenny: Yeah, most people don’t have that, which is a reason to hire, work with a recruiter. You come build in with all of that network.
Lauren Ipsen: Totally. Totally there. Yeah.
Lenny: There’s a couple things I want to touch on that I wasn’t planning to touch on, but reference calls. You do a lot of them, I imagine. And I’m curious, do you have any tips for how to ask questions on a reference call where you actually get useful advice where it’s not just, “Yes, I like them, they’re great. Hire them”?
Lauren Ipsen: Especially on references, provided references, I’ve only had two candidates where provided references have come back negative, which that’s tough. Outside of that, typically references are a standard. It is important to dig pretty deep and ask the hard questions.
Lenny: What’s the hard questions?
Lauren Ipsen: Yeah, why would I not hire this person? What are their biggest weaknesses? And then if they give you the typical, “Oh, if they work too hard,” it’s like, no, tell me more. What are their actual weaknesses? What are things that we should be really cognizant of? Would you hire this person again? Would you report to this person? Would you endorse this person if you knew that your name was attached to it? Things like that I think get people thinking, and even if you just sense the slightest pause, that in itself will be enough to make you think twice. Right?
So it’s a lot of reading the room and probing harder than you think necessary, which is tough. But back channel references I think will always provide a greater source of truth than provided. It’s similar to an Instagram Reel as opposed to the photos you’re tagged in. That’s the way I think of it. It’s like this is what you want the world to see or think of you as, and then these are what your peers and your direct reports and the people around you actually say about the work that you did during this time.
Lenny: Awesome. Coming back to a point you made about recruiter training 101, you learn how to find patterns and red flags in people’s resume. What else is a red flag in your resume that you want to avoid/there’s a rule of thumb of like, if you’re at a place for less than a year, it’s bad. Is that true? How do you feel about that? How do hiring managers generally feel about that?
Lauren Ipsen: It definitely depends, with regards to being at a place less than a year. If that’s a recurring theme, of course that’s a big red flag. Even if it’s happened two or three times, three definitely. If it’s happened twice, it’s like, “Huh, that feels off.” You got to let people tell their story though and their side of things, and again, it comes back to reaching out to different people and understanding if what they’re saying is true was actually the truth. And so when you have a really good pulse on what’s happening in tech and whether there was a riff and the reason that person was let go was actually because they weren’t prioritizing a certain part of the product or whatever, like those things, it happens. That’s life, especially right now, right? If we were to X every single person that has a short stint that joined a new company over the course of the past year, that wouldn’t do anyone any good.
Another thing I’ve found that’s pretty interesting is that people will often, because they’re so afraid of that narrative, they’ll often not include on their resume companies that they didn’t stay for a year. And in my personal opinion, that’s actually almost more of a red flag because that did happen, and you don’t want to just pretend like that wasn’t a decision you made in your life, and usually is handled with grace. You can speak to the reason that you decided to make a bet, the reason that you went there, and the reason that you moved on, in a way that people can typically resonate with. But I’ve seen executives just put that they’ve simply been advising for two years or something like that, when in reality they had two companies that failed.
And the fact of the matter is, I have some CFO candidates I’m talking to right now and their past three years have been short stints because they were brought in to take a company through an IPO and then that changed, or they were brought in to enter into a SPAC and then that became less of the buzz. Right?
So these things happen and roles change, and I think it’s just allowing people to tell their story is the most important thing. So I would say red flag is, for me, just always be honest about when you started, when you left a company. If I see that someone still has present on their LinkedIn but they’ve been gone for two years and they kind of are acting like they’re still there, that doesn’t feel good. Just want people to give you the truth, the straight facts, so that you can support them and tell their story and represent them in a way that makes you feel like you have all the details.
Lenny: Got it. So basically, don’t lie. That makes sense. That reminds me a little bit of people kind of upgrade their titles a little bit because maybe they don’t have an official title or they just want to sound a little important. How do you feel about when people do that on their resumes?
Lauren Ipsen: Yeah, I don’t love that. I also don’t love on the resume when people, and some people do this and it’s okay, but when people say silly, vague names like they’ll say something along the lines of, “Whatever at Reddit,” as their title or, “Master of blank at this,” and it’s like, okay, what were you actually doing?
Lenny: But I think they do that to avoid recruiters reaching out to them.
Lauren Ipsen: Exactly. As their direct target, I’m pissed. So I feel directly attacked in that regard. So that’s something that throws me off, but that could definitely be a personal thing. And I think overall, for the most part, people don’t have any other things that really just throw me for a loop. And the fact of the matter is, resumes we look at less and less, especially at the executive level, and it’s a lot more of allowing people to tell their story, meeting in person, talking with their different people that support them, and getting kind of more of the big picture around who they are.
Lenny: I want to talk about what recruiters often do wrong and what you’ve learned there. But before we get there, one last question: do you have any tips for a product manager in the interviewing process, how to be more successful interviewing?
Lauren Ipsen: I’ve had this come up a few times when I’ve interviewed product folks that they’ll speak down on their counterparts or say that the reason they weren’t able to meet deadlines or push product in the right way was because of the engineering team or because of other components of the business and it wasn’t them. And so I think that’s never a good way to go about it. So it seems obvious, but you would be surprised how not obvious it is.
So thinking about things more holistically, speaking honestly about your strengths and things that you want to continue to grow and improve upon, and then being able to tell your story, like practice telling your story. So often people don’t do that, especially when they’re not looking for jobs, and then it’s not until their 10th interview that they know how to tell their story and what they did and what they impacted and why they were someone to be missed when they moved on. Those are things that you want to know how to speak to, and unless it’s something you’ve been doing or practicing, it’s less natural. That’s some advice I think just off the top of the head.
Lenny: Awesome. That’s really good advice. One thing that makes me think about, I know I want to get to this last section, but do you think the best product leaders have their kind of story figured out in the future and work backwards from that and have a sense of where they want to end up, or just kind of take it as it goes? Because I’m the latter. I had no plan, I just went to see … follow the path that was presented. Do you think that is generally true for folks that end up being successful, or do you recommend people think about, “Here’s where I want to be in five years, here’s what I need to do to get there”? Do you have any guidance there?
Lauren Ipsen: I mean, for what it’s worth, I’m definitely more with you. I don’t know where I want to be in five years, so it’s tough for me to say. But I do think that typically someone that has the end goal of being a CEO will put the pieces into place to try and get there, and so it’s not a bad idea if you do have an end goal of wanting to run your own thing to inch towards that. So maybe you go from being a product specific leader to then operating in some type of GM of a business unit capacity and owning a P&L, and then although it’s more of a product oriented role, you’re still getting closer and closer to that end goal of COO or CEO.
So if it’s something like that, then I think that naturally makes sense. Do think people can be enticed by shiny objects, so excited because it’s a step up from a title perspective and things like that, and I think that’s just so not important in the grand scheme of things. You could be the VP of product or a CPO of what, you know? That’s so vague. If someone just says, “I want to be a chief product officer, that’s the end goal,” I always say, “Of what?” You could be the chief product officer of your household. Is it of a multi-billion dollar consumer brand or …
Lauren Ipsen: So I guess what I’m trying to say is work backwards from a goal for sure, but don’t allow titles or valuation bubbles or other things to derail something that feels good. If you’re in a role and you feel like you’re making an impact and you’re learning and you’re growing and are excited about the work you’re doing, do not allow a title of some other company to make you feel like what you’re doing isn’t worthwhile.
Lenny: I love that advice. So many people just chase some fancy new role, new title, new logo, and end up getting there like, “Man, this sucks.”
Lauren Ipsen: Exactly. Yeah.
Lenny: This reminds me, I did a meditation retreat once and one of the teachings there was you don’t want to be fixated with achieving a specific thing, but you want to push your cart in that direction, just like head that direction and have a general sense, but not, “I need to be that thing and that’s what’ll make me happy.”
Lauren Ipsen: Exactly. I think that’s exactly right.
Lenny: Awesome. Okay. Final topic is from the recruiter perspective, what do you find recruiters do wrong most often or miss when they’re trying to attract great product talent to a company?
Lauren Ipsen: Yeah, so this is one I feel especially passionate about because I do think recruiters have a bit of a reputation, and I think that it’s for some good reason. There’s naturally people that forget that these are human beings that we’re dealing with every single day that have lives, have families, have careers, or ambitions outside of their career.
So I think it’s essential that you remember that this is another human being on the other end of things and that you should treat them with the same level of respect that you would expect to be treated.
This has become even more apparent now that I have gone through some of my own recruiting cycles where I was looking for different jobs, and a transactional recruiting call just will rub you so the wrong way and will make you want to put things on your resume like I just alluded to that say things like, “Whatever at Reddit,” or what have you because you just don’t want to deal with it.
And so I think you have to be a human, you have to start with a relationship, find common ground, build rapport, listen to people, like actually listen, and remember what they say. So if someone says, “I never want to do a crypto company,” and I just am only shoving crypto companies down their throat, that’s just insanely tone deaf. Or if they say, “I have this vest that I really want to be around for in May of next year,” and I just keep hitting them up prior to that, that’s just so not receptive to what they just said.
Things like that, make notes if easier, because we speak to so many people all day long so it’s definitely not easy to do. But I’ll have a note on my calendar that John Kim’s vest just happened in March, and then I’ll be like, “Oh, okay, might be a good time for me to catch up.” I won’t say, “Congrats on the recent vest.” I’ll say, “You want to grab a coffee, or do you want to catch up about this?” Or, “Hey, I saw that you were speaking at this conference, love what you spoke about with regards to this.” You got to find ways to connect with people outside of just shoving them into a job.
And so I would say something that I’ve learned and become very good at is starting with a foundation of relationship building, gaining trust from people, because once you have that, then people will hear you out on jobs and people will listen to you and actually trust your advice from a career direction and perspective, but that takes time to build that, and it’s definitely not going to be built by just chucking things at the wall and seeing what sticks with people and seeing where you can shove them temporarily. In fact, that will make them lose trust. And once you lose trust in a candidate, it’s impossible to get it back.
Lenny: It’s interesting how one of the recurring themes of our chat so far is just play the long game in every way, which takes more time.
Lauren Ipsen: Yes.
Lenny: Kind of sucks that you have to put in all this time ahead of time before you really need to get something done, but what you keep coming back to is just that’s how you end up being successful as a recruiter, as a product leader, as a hiring manager, as a founder.
Lauren Ipsen: A million percent. Yeah. Yeah. And it’s really easy when you’ve got a quota to hit and you’ve got people to provide for and a mortgage to just think about the numbers, but you have to play the long game because people aren’t just a commodity. It’s so much more.
Lenny: And one of the perks of working with a recruiter is they have done that already for you, and so I was going to ask, when does it make sense for a founder to engage with a recruiter like yourself and when should they not?
Lauren Ipsen: Engaging with recruiters sooner rather than later in a proactive way is always a positive thing. It’s just sometimes companies aren’t at the stage where they can necessarily hire a full-time recruiter because of resources and how expensive it is to bring in an exec recruiter.
So having someone that you can bounce things off of in a more informal capacity, bringing in someone like a talent advisor that can help in a consultative way, those types of things, a million percent. Leaning into the venture firms that have backed you, which is a lot of what I’m doing right now, that is definitely areas in which early CEO founders should be leaning into that and trying to get as knowledgeable as possible. And then I would say typically series B feels … series A, dependent on the check size, and then series B feels like a good time to bring in a couple key big players, if the company’s well positioned to do so.
Lenny: And bring in meaning full-time in-house recruiters or a firm?
Lauren Ipsen: Probably bring in a firm. Yeah. That would be my recommendation. I think you can bring in one or two recruiters in the early days like seed, if it makes sense for the company and they’re growing quickly, but it’s all kind of case to case.
Lenny: The fact that you’re kind of off the table for most founders now that you’re at GC, which is a part … And is that true? Like you basically at this point work for General Catalyst founders, is that correct?
Lauren Ipsen: I am supporting all of our GC founders in the consumer and crypto portfolio. That being said, I spend all day every single day networking and chatting with amazing entrepreneurs, people that could be founding a company down the road and need some advice, great people that want to help in an advising capacity. So it is, I would say, 50% networking, 50% actual parachuting into portfolio.
Lenny: Got it. Okay.
Lauren Ipsen: Supporting them.
Lenny: That’s cool. I didn’t know that part.
Lauren Ipsen: Yeah.
Lenny: So outside of that, what do you suggest founders look for when they’re looking for a recruiter, and the second to last question, what are signs that this is a good firm, a good recruiter? Just what should you be looking for when you’re looking to hire a recruiter, either in house or a firm?
Lauren Ipsen: I think it’s important to provide them with some direction and then see if they can recite it back to you. Tell them the types of things you’re looking for and then say, “Did that resonate? Because I’d love to hear from you what you took away from that and what you think we should be looking for.”
Lauren Ipsen: And then kind of off the bat, ask them for a couple candidate ideas. Don’t give them time to just go call other people. In real time, ask them for some candidate ideas. Where does their brain go? Who are people they would call tomorrow on this? The more that you can get that dynamic relationship formed before you even go to search, the more you can determine whether this is someone you want to calibrate with.
So yeah, I think just putting them on the spot a little bit and asking them to show their work rather than just sending over a deck of searches that could have been done by other partners or could have just been done by other people on their team. You want to actually understand who this person is. So that first question is testing their listening skills and their ability to actually hear what you’re saying and what you’re looking for, and then the second is, okay, now how quickly can we get calibrated on what this profile should look like.
Lenny: Awesome. That is great advice. Very tactical. Any final words or wisdom before we get to our very exciting lightning round?
Lauren Ipsen: This has been awesome, by the way. I think more generally, the advice is just treat people like human beings, build rapport, play the long game, and gain trust, and that takes time. And so those are the most important things from a recruiting standpoint, is being able to tap people and have them feel like you genuinely have their best interest at heart and that you care about their career and life outside their career. And so I think that’s what makes for a really good recruiter.
Lenny: Simple advice, but often forgotten and easy to overlook. Awesome. All right. We’ve reached our very exciting lightning round. I’m going to give you six questions, whatever comes to mind, we’ll go through them real fast. Does that sound good?
Lauren Ipsen: Okay. Yes. Let’s do it.
Lenny: Let’s do it. What are two or three books that you recommend most to other people?
Lauren Ipsen: The Power of Now and You Are Here.
Lenny: Wow. Awesome. What are favorite other podcasts that you listen to other than this one?
Lauren Ipsen: I mean, there’s tech ones, but Your Own Backyard because I went to Cal Poly, so that one hits a little close to home.
Lenny: Wow, I haven’t heard of that. Cool. What’s a recent movie or TV show that you’ve watched that you’ve enjoyed?
Lauren Ipsen: Top Gun I’ve watched too many times and-
Lenny: The new Top Gun.
Lauren Ipsen: Yeah. And then TV show. Oh, it’s all trash reality, so I just can’t tell you.
Lenny: I get that. I understand. My wife has that and she can’t tell anyone. Yeah.
Lauren Ipsen: That’s my one secret.
Lenny: All right. Okay, great. We’ll move on, but that’s great. What’s a favorite … Oh, this is interesting. What’s a favorite interview question that you like to ask or maybe you’ve seen someone ask?
Lauren Ipsen: I love the good strengths and weaknesses question. I think it’s really good to see how people self-analyze themselves.
Lenny: What do you look for in their answer that’s the sign that it’s well answered?
Lauren Ipsen: Honesty, authenticity. Can read right through a, “Work too hard,” answer or a perfectionist type answer. What are your weaknesses? Let’s talk about it.
Lenny: For real.
Lauren Ipsen: So that one I think is always a really good test of character.
Lenny: What are some favorite apps right now?
Lauren Ipsen: I’ve been playing around on BeReal. I mean, I love Spotify, it’s straightforward. And then I’ve been on Strava, I’ve been running, so that are the-
Lenny: That’s a good combination of apps. That’s like a full life.
Lauren Ipsen: Thank you. Thanks so much. Trying to be.
Lenny: Final question. Who else in the industry would you say that you most respect as a leader and a thought leader influence type person?
Lauren Ipsen: My first boss out of college, Joe Suliman, is awesome. He’s always taught me to lead with that relationship-based approach and it’s really so easy to say that you do that, but then to actually do it and live it out for the people that work for you, as well as the people that are in industry and speak of you, is something else. And so he’s always taught me to do that, and I just learned a ton from him and he’s just incredibly smart and in tune with what’s happening in industry and makes great stances and opinions on how to navigate those types of things. So, he’s someone that I have an immense amount of respect for.
Lenny: Sounds like an amazing person. Lauren, this was excellent. I feel like this is going to be useful to so many people, product managers, founders, other recruiters, all kinds of other people. Thank you so much for doing this and making the time. Two final questions. Where can folks find you online if they want to reach out or maybe collaborate with you and learn more? And how can listeners be useful to you?
Lauren Ipsen: Yes, absolutely. And also, thank you. This has been so much fun. They can reach out to me on LinkedIn. I happen to be on that one quite a bit, so definitely can DM me there, can send me an email, and I can shoot you that over as well. And then the way they can be helpful is if there’s people that they think the world of, shoot them my way. If they have questions around best ways to go through an interview process or how to navigate different things, please, by all means, a huge part of my job is trying to help people that are going through this for the first time. Happy to just be a sounding board or of help in any capacity.
Lenny: So if you’re an awesome product leader, you want to see what’s out there, find Lauren on LinkedIn. Is that the best place to find you?
Lauren Ipsen: That’s perfect.
Lenny: All right. Awesome.
Lauren Ipsen: Yep.
Lenny: Thanks, Lauren.
Lauren Ipsen: Thanks so much. Appreciate it.
Lenny: Thank you so much for listening. If you found this valuable, you can subscribe to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app. Also, please consider giving us a rating or leaving a review, as that really helps other listeners find the podcast. You can find all past episodes or learn more about the show at lennyspodcast.com. See you in the next episode.
Glossary
| English | 中文 |
|---|---|
| academy company | 人才输送通道公司(指以培养人才著称、被猎头视为人才来源的企业) |
| ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) | 注意力缺陷障碍 |
| back channel | 私下背调/私下打听 |
| BeReal | BeReal(社交应用,保留原文) |
| Cal Poly | Cal Poly(加州州立理工大学,保留原文) |
| CPO (Chief Product Officer) | 首席产品官 |
| crypto | crypto(保留原文,指加密货币/区块链领域) |
| Daversa | Daversa(高管猎头公司,保留原文) |
| executive recruiter | 高管猎头 |
| executive search | 高管猎头 |
| GC (General Counsel) | 总法律顾问 |
| head of | (头衔前缀)保留原文写法,如 head of engineering |
| head of product | 产品负责人 |
| head of talent | 人才负责人 |
| in house | 内部/内部招聘 |
| Joe Suliman | Joe Suliman(保留原文) |
| key lieutenants | 关键副手 |
| layered | 被上面加一层(指未来可能被更高层级管理者覆盖) |
| logo collecting | 收集 logo(指为了简历好看而在知名公司之间频繁跳槽) |
| poach | 挖人 |
| rapport | 融洽/信任关系 |
| series A or B | A 轮或 B 轮 |
| slam dunk | 满分人选(指毫无争议的优秀候选人) |
| SOC 2 | SOC 2(安全合规认证标准,保留原文) |
| Strava | Strava(运动社交应用,保留原文) |
| SVP (Senior Vice President) | 高级副总裁 |
| talent function | 人才职能 |
| The Power of Now | 《当下的力量》(Eckhart Tolle 著作) |
| title agnostic | 不在乎头衔 / 对头衔不在意 |
| Top Gun | 《壮志凌云》 |
| unicorn | 独角兽(此处指招聘中期望一人兼具所有能力的罕见人才) |
| VC (Venture Capital) | 风险投资 |
| walled garden | 封闭花园 |
| Your Own Backyard | Your Own Backyard(播客名称,保留原文) |
Reformatted by reformat_english.py
来自全球顶尖高管猎头的经验 | Lauren Ipsen(Daversa Partners, GC)
文字记录
Lauren Ipsen (00:00:00): 无论你是否正在招人,都应该始终关注市场的脉搏。这是最重要的事情。而且我认为,无论是对求职者还是招人的一方,都应如此。你绝不想让自己陷入一种境地——完全不知道”优秀”长什么样,不管是从公司的角度还是从求职者的角度。所以,双方都应该始终了解哪些公司在蓬勃发展,哪些人在做着出色的事情、在各自组织中是有口皆碑的人才,并且拥有良好的口碑。
Lauren Ipsen (00:00:35): 我经常鼓励创始人去和那些”优秀”的人聊聊,真正搞清楚标杆候选人画像应该是什么样的。谁知道那个人一年后会去哪里,但与真正优秀的人保持非常、非常紧密的联系,在实际产生具体需求之前就以顾问的身份借助他们的力量,或者让他们在某种程度上参与到产品中来——我认为这非常重要。
播客开场介绍
Lenny (00:01:05): 欢迎收听 Lenny’s Podcast。我是 Lenny,我在这里的目标是帮助大家提升构建和打造产品的能力。今天的嘉宾是 Lauren Ipsen。
Lenny (00:01:15): 对于创始人和资深产品负责人来说,最重要的能力之一就是招到优秀人才的能力。如果你招不到最好的人,就无法打造最好的公司或最好的产品。而 Lauren 在招聘产品负责人方面是世界上最资深、最成功的人之一。她已经为科技公司输送了超过 80 位资深产品负责人,合作对象包括一些最大的科技公司。当我问一群非常聪明的产品负责人他们最喜欢的产品招聘者是谁时,Lauren 的名字被反复提及。
Lenny (00:01:46): 在我们的对话中,我们非常务实地讨论了创始人需要做什么才能找到最优秀的产品人才,产品经理在职业生涯中应该做些什么来为自己创造更多机会,我们还谈到了招聘者自身在吸引顶尖人才时常常犯的错误。这期节目充满了对几乎所有人都切实可用的建议,我非常高兴能把它带给大家。接下来,有请 Lauren Ipsen。
赞助商:Retool
Lenny (00:02:12): 谁对内部工具有看法?内部工具可能是你不到万不得已就不会去想的东西,甚至你可能压根没想过要去想它。但如果你在一家大公司工作,你很可能有一堆一次性的定制应用或仪表盘,它们只为一个团队或一个角色聚焦于一个特定任务,而且开发和维护起来总是非常痛苦。这就是为什么我非常喜欢 Retool,也是为什么 Retool 如此受欢迎。Retool 允许哪怕只有一个人的小团队,在你认为所需时间的零头内就能构建一套定制内部应用。定制应用带来的生产力提升,现在不仅大型企业触手可及,小团队也同样可以享受。而且随着你的公司规模增长,Retool 也会随之扩展。
Lenny (00:02:57): Snowflake 通过在 Retool 上构建的定制内部应用,每周节省了大约 26 小时的手工电子表格工作。Amazon 使用 Retool 来处理 GDPR 请求。Coinbase、DoorDash 和 NBC 等公司的数千个团队围绕定制构建的 Retool 应用进行协作,以更高的效率运营。
Lenny (00:03:17): 也许你之前想过使用 Retool,但一直没有行动,我在这里告诉大家,现在最多五人的团队可以免费构建无限量的 Retool 应用。今天就访问 retool.com/lenny 开始吧。
赞助商:Miro
Lenny (00:03:31): 今天的节目由 Miro 赞助。打造一款产品,尤其是一款让用户离不开的产品,真的很难。但如果你能与同事紧密合作来捕捉想法、获取反馈,并能快速迭代,这件事就会变得容易一些。这就是 Miro 的用武之地。Miro 是一款在线可视化白板,专为像你这样的团队而设计。
Lenny (00:03:53): 实际上,我就是用 Miro 来策划这则广告的。借助 Miro,你可以通过便签、评论、实时反应、投票工具,甚至是计时器来开展头脑风暴、构建产品战略,让你的团队保持正轨。你还可以让整个分布式团队围绕线框图协作,任何人都可以用画笔工具画出自己的想法,或者将自己的图片或模型直接放到 Miro 看板上。借助 Miro 的现成模板,你可以从调研发现到产品路线图,再到用户旅程流程,一直到最终模型。
Lenny (00:04:24): 想看看我是怎么使用 Miro 的吗?前往我的 Miro 看板 miro.com/lenny,可以看到我最受欢迎的播客节目、我最喜欢的 Miro 模板,你还可以对这期节目留下反馈等等。那就是 M-I-R-O.com/lenny。
对话开始
Lenny (00:04:45): Lauren,感谢你的到来。欢迎来到播客。
Lauren Ipsen (00:04:47): 非常感谢。很高兴来到这里。
Lenny (00:04:50): 我一直想做一个关于产品招聘和招聘产品人的节目。当我问一群聪明的朋友应该请谁来聊这个话题时,你的名字被提了好多次,所以我非常高兴我们终于做了这期节目。
Lauren Ipsen (00:05:03): 我也是,绝对如此。感谢你的邀请。
Lenny (00:05:07): 那么,为了让听众了解你的背景和你走到今天所经历的旅程,能不能花大概一分钟讲讲你职业生涯中做过的事情以及现在在做什么?
Lauren 的职业经历
Lauren Ipsen (00:05:19): 好的,当然可以。我最初在广播电视行业开始我的职业生涯。我本来以为自己是想上新闻的,但很快意识到自己并不一定想成为悲伤的面孔。这世界上已经够多了。
Lauren Ipsen (00:05:36): 所以,我相当早就做了一个转型,想:我可以在哪里利用我一直在努力磨练的沟通技能,以一种有影响力的方式做一些大事,但也许换一个不同的角度?然后偶然接触到了高管猎头(executive search)这个领域。
Lauren Ipsen (00:05:52): 高管猎头并不是大学里有人专门修的专业,也不是人们认为自己将来会从事的工作。所以我觉得它非常吸引人。我当时申请了 Twitter、Snap、Pinterest 等各种公司,没有一家回复我,在简历堆里不过是个名字。于是我想,如果我能跟所有这些公司合作,有机会从不同的视角参与其中,那该多酷?
Lauren Ipsen (00:06:18): 所以,我进入了高管猎头行业。早期非常专注于消费者移动端的团队搭建。做了大量与 Twitter、Reddit、TaskRabbit、Nextdoor、Postmates 等公司相关的工作,这大概占了我 85% 的业务。然后在猎头机构那边,另外 15% 是一些偏门的领域——卖给国防部的自主直升机,还有零售和机器人,这些都很有意思。而对于我这种注意力严重不集中(ADD)的人来说,能够被这么多不同行业所刺激,感觉永远无法真正精通这个领域,真是太棒了。
Lauren Ipsen (00:06:57): 所以长话短说,我在 Daversa Partners——一家精品高管猎头公司——度过了一段很棒的职业生涯,本来以为自己可能会一直在那里。后来被一位很棒的人,Abe Shafi,联系了,他当时正在创办一家公司。我之前为他们做了很多工作,他们当时是我的客户。我为他们成功推荐了几位优秀的人才,然后他们说:“我们要么启动一次与你的人才负责人搜索合作,要么你可以直接过来加入我们。“所以我就成了那里的第一个招聘人员,从零开始搭建了整个人才职能。
转向风险投资
Lauren Ipsen (00:07:27): 我确实觉得我内心有一部分是热爱运营经历的,学到了很多,和很多优秀的人并肩工作,但真的很想念和创始人打交道——而且是想和很多创始人打交道,同时保持对市场的脉搏。所以最近 General Catalyst 找到了我,我在这里工作了几个月,到目前为止体验很棒,我专门负责我们的消费和 crypto 投资方向。
Lenny (00:07:51): 太棒了。你现在在 GC 这件事让我想到另一位我很欣赏的猎头,Austin Brizendine,有趣的是,很多最优秀的猎头似乎都在转向 VC 基金,我很好奇为什么会这样。是因为薪酬原因吗?还是有其他什么因素在把大家吸引到基金这边?
Lauren Ipsen (00:08:09): 这个问题很好。我可以说,绝对不是因为薪酬。我觉得可能跟生活稳定性有关。猎头工作的波动性极大,你必须拼命奔波,刚拿下三个成果,马上又有四个新的任务要执行。所以这份工作有些方面确实挺艰难的,尤其是在当前这样的市场环境下,你真的不得不去追业务,没法挑挑拣拣,所以你可能要推一些你自己并不完全认同的项目,或者类似的情况。所以我觉得这是一个因素。
Lauren Ipsen (00:08:39): 当然,现在对于人才领导者来说,内部招聘(in house)也同样困难。在当下押注一家单一公司是很可怕的,你不知道六个月后它会变成什么样。所以我觉得这些因素叠加在一起,可能就是越来越多人倾向于转向风投的原因,而且我觉得这也是一个时机问题。
Lenny (00:08:59): 明白了,有道理。不好的地方是,想找优秀猎头变得更难了,因为一旦你进了基金,你只会帮那些基金投资的创业公司。所以我们稍后会聊到人们怎么找到优秀的猎头、要看什么标准。但今天我大概想花时间聊三个方向。第一,面向创始人和招聘经理,怎么找到最优秀的人才,他们能做什么来成功找到最优秀的人才。第二,面向产品领导者和 PM,从另一侧怎么给自己创造更多机会。第三,面向猎头,他们经常犯什么错?为什么会错失最优秀的产品人才?这样安排可以吗?
Lauren Ipsen (00:09:37): 好的,听起来很棒。
创始人招聘产品领导者的常见误区
Lenny (00:09:39): 好,酷。那就从招聘这个话题开始,假设你是一个创始人,或者公司里很早期的人,可能已经招了几个 PM,开始考虑我们需要招一位非常资深的产品领导者,或者第一位资深产品领导者。
Lauren Ipsen (00:09:52): 好的。
Lenny (00:09:53): 你觉得创始人在尝试招聘第一位资深产品领导者时,最常犯的错误是什么?
Lauren Ipsen (00:09:59): 我觉得,尤其是那些过去没有招过这个级别人才的创始人,很容易被光鲜亮丽的东西分散注意力,去看那些大名字。你想找到 Google 和 YouTube 的 CPO 之类的人,因为那看起来似乎对品牌认知度是一个绝佳的机会。在某种程度上,确实如此。但事实是,这些人往往离实际工作已经相当远了,他们手下有一支很棒的执行团队,真正在一线做事的是那些人。
Lauren Ipsen (00:10:33): 所以我觉得这是我看到人们犯的最大错误,尤其是在招聘方面,在资源有限的情况下,如果你是一家早期公司,拼命去招那些大牌人物不一定是最好的策略,因为事实上他们还需要去组建一个团队。所以,我觉得应该去找那些离工作更近的人,也许是一个可以成长到那个角色的人,而且方式是——有些天他们可能实际上在做 PM 的工作,另一些天他们又能够从领导力的角度去搭建,这种 DNA 才是人们应该瞄准的目标。
Lenny (00:11:09): 你觉得这种做法出问题的根源是什么?是他们不再能做好那些工作了,因为他们已经被屏蔽在日常战术之外了?还是说他们不再像以前那样有 hunger 了,觉得”我已经是 YouTube 十年的超级成功人士了,不需要再证明自己了”,就是没有那种饥饿感了?还是有其他原因?
Lauren Ipsen (00:11:29): 我的意思,我不会坐在这里说所有资深领导者都不 hungry。我觉得确实有些人以一种不同的方式深入工作,并且怀念那种感觉,他们去创业公司往往是因为渴望从零搭建。
Lauren Ipsen (00:11:41): 所以不一定是那个原因。但我确实倾向于那些憋着一股劲的人,或者有东西要证明的人,想为自己打出名堂的人。话说回来,那些人能走到今天的位置是有原因的,其中一些最优秀的人才确实就是那些资深人士,但也许不一定是这家公司现阶段最合适的人才。对吧?也许十年后很合适,但这个人过去五年的职业生涯可能更多聚焦在团队凝聚力、团队建设、运营层面、绩效评估,以及产品愿景的某些方面,而这些可能恰恰不是你在 Pre-IPO 公司通常想要的那种创新型 AB 测试类型的画像。
Lenny (00:12:27): 明白了。我猜你肯定有一些你推荐过的人没有成功的案例可以分享。如果你能分享一个就太好了。不过也许一个更直接的问题是,总体的建议就是——不要想当然地认为一个在大公司成功过、背景光鲜的人就一定很厉害。有时候他们确实能成,但不是每次都是,这大概就是核心要点?
找到对的人,而不是最好的人
Lauren Ipsen (00:12:46): 对。我想总体建议是:谁在这个特定时间对这个特定角色最合适,而不是谁是市场上或世界上最好的人才。这是两个非常、非常不同的问题。我觉得在我猎头生涯早期,我经常就是想去招那些”鲸鱼级”的高管来证明自己,说”哦,我让这个人考虑了这个机会,多厉害啊”。但自然而然地,那不一定就是那个真正能推动事情发展的人。所以你需要非常具体地思考。就因为这是最优秀的人才,不代表他就是今天这个角色最合适的人才。
Lenny (00:13:25): 那沿着这个方向再深入一下,假设你现在要开始招聘一位资深产品领导者,你建议创始人在启动招聘流程时——无论是自己做还是和猎头合作——要敲定和理清哪些东西?比如在职位描述里,还有什么需要做对才能找到合适的人?
Lauren Ipsen (00:13:48): 有很多方面。因为产品领导者可以有很多不同的类型,所以我觉得关键是要确定这个人应该在哪些方面主攻、哪些方面辅修,在哪里应该特别突出。这个人是要深度参与设计工作的吗?还是实际上需要像一个资深 PM 一样去运营,同时继续搭建团队?这个人是不是应该专注于长期的产品愿景?然后还要更全局地思考如何搭建团队的其他部分。
Lauren Ipsen (00:14:12): 招聘产品领导者的方式有很多种。所以我觉得关键是要倒过来想,想清楚我们招这个人到底要解决什么问题?还是说我们招一位产品负责人只是因为我们觉得自己需要招一位产品负责人?我经常看到的情况是,董事会告诉我说我们需要招一位产品负责人,但我不一定觉得我们需要,或者我并不完全确定这个角色到底需要什么。所以在那种情况下启动招聘,从一开始就有点注定失败。你需要在前期就极其细致地明确,这个人进来具体要做什么?他的使命是什么?如果我们想象一个人在这个岗位上做得风生水起、表现出色,那会是什么样子?所以我认为关键是在前期就非常具体。
Lenny (00:14:59): 我很喜欢你最后说的那一点——对这个人来说,成功到底是什么样子?关于前面那部分,这恰好也是我给创始人找 PM 时的建议,就是,你具体需要他们每天做什么?而不是”我们需要一个人来帮我们做产品”。这往往能帮助理清思路——好的,我明白了,我们需要一个人来帮助我们更稳定地发布产品,我们需要一个人来帮助我们招工程师。对,就是列一个清单,他们在头一两个月或三个月要做什么。
Lauren Ipsen (00:15:24): 对对,完全同意。我觉得这些是最重要的事情。90 天计划这个概念虽然被用得很多,但确实是必不可少的,而且那还只是冰山一角。这个部分做好了,然后接下来就是——一年之后,这个人应该在做什么?两年之后呢?我们是否希望他成长为首席产品官?我们是不是换一种方式来思考这个问题?我们今天怎么看待产品方向,12 个月后、18 个月后、一直到 IPO,怎么规划?我觉得以这种方式来思考确实很难,你往往只是在想眼前的任务,试图快速迭代,但 CEO 和创始人确实需要进行这种层面的思考。
Lenny (00:16:06): PM 有没有一些原型?如果你把它们归类——比如创始人最常招聘的三种产品领导者,因为技能和他们能做的事情是一个无穷无尽的清单,但为了让事情更简单,比如你大概要找的就是这三种里的一种。你脑子里有类似这样的分类吗?
Lauren Ipsen (00:16:25): 有的。有平台型产品领导者,就是那些更偏向基础设施方向的。有专注于核心产品的,如果是面向消费者的话就是消费端产品。然后还有一些人——这也可以包括 UX 人员、设计人员。此外还有专家型的人才,就是那些非常专注于增长、变现之类的特定领域的人。这是我认为最常见的三个类型。
Lenny (00:16:57): 你觉得创始人有时候会选错类型,这是一个常见的错误吗?还是说通常是类型没选错,但那个类型里面所需要的核心技能没有找对?
Lauren Ipsen (00:17:08): 嗯,这其实是两方面的。我觉得有时候人们就是招一个产品负责人来什么都做,所以这可能不是最好的做法。我觉得那样最终就是在找一个独角兽——这在猎头行业经常听到——然后你就很难界定什么叫”好”。
Lauren Ipsen (00:17:25): 所以我觉得还是要回到前期就有一个清晰的组织架构图,确定我们招人是专门来搭建封闭花园广告方案的,还是招人来负责产品营销,还是招人从产品角度帮我们打造更好的核心用户体验?这些都是非常、非常、非常不同的角色。如果你招一个人来试图包揽所有这些,事实就是——他将不得不招一些关键副手来帮忙。所以你是想这样做,还是更倾向于先找一个人马上来解决广告方面的问题,然后以后再找一位产品负责人来配合他?
Lauren Ipsen (00:18:05): 这就是我会去规划和思考的方式——什么是最紧迫的,你今天到底需要招什么,而不是为了招人而招人、把那个领导者招进来。
Lenny (00:18:17): 这其中的讨论也包括,也许这个人以后能成长为产品负责人,也许不行。也许我们就是需要一个人把广告平台做出来,对吧?
Lauren Ipsen (00:18:24): 完全正确。是的。
Lenny (00:18:26): 你提到了”产品负责人”这个头衔。另外还有产品 VP、CPO,有各种各样的头衔,我觉得人们有时候会混着用,在写职位描述的时候也不知道该用哪个。你有没有什么经验法则,就是这里怎么判断该用哪个头衔?或者对创始人来说,招第一个资深产品领导者时,这其实不是什么大事?
Lauren Ipsen (00:18:48): 这是个好问题,而且确实会在各方之间造成困惑。因为有候选人会来找我说,“我只看 CPO 的机会”,但我合作的那个创业公司——在风险投资这边,我们实际上建议那家公司现阶段不要招 C 级高管。这就自然而然地可能排除掉一个本来非常适合这个角色的候选人。
Lauren Ipsen (00:19:15): 类似地,如果是 VP of product 的角色,人们也可能有这种感觉,但在他们心目中,这其实是组织内最资深的产品领导者,端到端负责所有事情,而且公司打算以后让他做 CPO,只是目前还没有准备好招 C 级高管。所以这确实很难说,真的取决于这个组织以及他们怎么思考组织架构图和职级体系。
Lauren Ipsen (00:19:39): 现在很多创业公司几乎对 C 级头衔或 VP 头衔有种抵触心理,或者比过去我见到的更不在乎头衔,所以你会看到更多的”head of”这种头衔,这在行业内很普遍,大概一直到 C 轮或 D 轮阶段都是如此。等到 D 轮、E 轮的时候,你就会看到更多的 VP、director、CPO 之类的头衔。我觉得人们应该这样来理解——如果我加入一家非常早期的公司,头衔叫 head of engineering,那就是意在让他做组织内最资深的工程负责人。
Lauren Ipsen (00:20:19): 但事实是,他们有时候不给 C 级头衔是有合理原因的。这个人以后会不会被上面加一层?有可能,因为他们现在需要的人才可能——正如我们之前讨论的——与两年半后从一个大型 CPO 身上需要的人才不一样。
Lauren Ipsen (00:20:37): 我觉得这让一些人心里不舒服,因为他们希望得到一种承诺——如果在这个阶段加入,他们就能一直待下去,成为带领公司完成 IPO 的那个首席产品官。但公司是如此动态变化的,事情变化得非常快。
Lauren Ipsen (00:20:52): 所以,我啰嗦了一大堆其实就是说,每个角色的广度和深度是不同的。但我觉得在大多数情况下,除非是一个有很多不同 VP 的非常分权的公司,如果你加入一家公司,他们说这是 head of product、VP of product 或 CPO,在不同阶段,这三个头衔本质上指的是同一件事。
头衔的务实选择
Lenny (00:21:14): 另一条很棒的结论就是,如果你是早期创业公司,可能就从 head of product 开始就好。简单点。
Lauren Ipsen (00:21:19): 对。
Lenny (00:21:19): 不要过度承诺。大家都懂的。
Lauren Ipsen (00:21:22): 是的。因为你最不想做的事情就是不得不降某人的职。但一旦你到了有 C 级高管的阶段,那就不太会有这种问题了。但也许你一开始是 head of product,然后随着公司继续成长,你更多地偏向增长方面的事情,于是你就变成了 head of growth 或者 SVP of growth。事情是在迭代和变化的,但你就是永远无法预知,也无法在一开始就预测公司的走向,所以。
招聘前的准备
Lenny (00:21:49): 听这个播客的很多人可能现在并不是在招资深产品负责人,但计划将来会招,所以我想问,当创始人知道自己未来一年内要招一位 head of product 时,现在应该做些什么,才能为将来打好基础?他们应该提前做些什么?
Lauren Ipsen (00:22:07): 不管你招不招人,你都应该始终对市场保持关注。这是最重要的事情。我觉得无论对候选人还是招聘方来说都应该如此。你绝对不想把自己置于一种完全不知道”好”长什么样的境地,不管是站在公司的角度还是候选人的角度。所以,双方都应该一直了解哪些公司在蓬勃发展,哪些人做出了出色的成果、在组织内部是有口皆碑的公认人才,并且能获得优秀的推荐。
Lauren Ipsen (00:22:43): 我经常鼓励创始人去跟那些标杆人物聊聊,真正搞清楚理想的候选人画像是什么样的。谁知道那个人一年后会在哪里之类的,但跟非常优秀的人保持非常密切的关系,在他们身上获得顾问层面的支持,或者在正式产生招聘需求之前就让他们以某种方式参与到产品中来,我觉得这非常重要。
Lenny (00:23:11): 听起来很棒,也很有道理。作为创始人,具体怎么操作呢?是直接问别人,“嘿,你认识一些最好的产品负责人吗?我就是想聊聊,我不是在招人,就是想认识一些厉害的人”?这是你建议的做法吗,还是有其他方式?
Lauren Ipsen (00:23:27): 这是一种很好的方式。只需要说,“没有别的目的,我不是明天就要招你,我只想认识优秀的人。“说实话,人们通常会感到受宠若惊。大多数情况下,如果有人把你推荐给一个人,你听到的都是对他的好评,而你确实没有别的目的,只是想向他请教,人们会觉得,“嗯,这跟日常不太一样。这很有满足感。“人们愿意倾囊相授,尤其是给他们看好的公司。
Lauren Ipsen (00:23:58): 所以,我觉得你会发现,不仅是产品负责人,几乎所有高管其实都很愿意这样做,都想帮帮忙,因为这跟他们日常工作生活的单调重复稍微有些不同。
Lenny (00:24:12): 所以建议就是,关注那些做得风生水起的公司——未来也许能从中挖人——列一个清单,跟那些厉害的人保持热络联系。
Lauren Ipsen (00:24:22): 是的。
长线经营人才关系
Lenny (00:24:23): 这让我想起一个创始人……其实所有擅长招聘的创始人都是这样,他们会提前很久就开始播种,跟他们遇到的最好的人打持久战,就这么一直保持对话,直到一两年后终于说服对方加入。你也有同样的感受吗?
Lauren Ipsen (00:24:41): 是的,百分之百万。是的。我之前在 Daversa 做高管猎头的时候,我们最终招到的那位 VP of engineering,整个”追求”过程长达七个月——先以顾问身份把他请进来帮忙,让他帮忙想想怎么搭建组织架构,跟他讨论他觉得最值得花时间的人才。这些都不是什么冒犯性的问题,更多的是协作式的、令人兴奋的交流。你会发现,创始人和那位领导者之间会建立一种不同层级的融洽和信任——因为没有走正式的面试流程,不会让人觉得是交易。在此基础上,奇迹就可能发生,你能招到极其出色的人。
招聘的时间投入
Lenny (00:25:24): 这一切听起来需要很多工作和时间。你有没有什么指导建议,比如早期创业公司——比如 A 轮或 B 轮——要找到一个优秀的人大概需要多长时间?或者创始人每周应该花多少时间在这上面,有什么最佳实践吗?
Lauren Ipsen (00:25:41): 我觉得如果你开始招人了——也就是说你在找这个人的话——真的要具体情况具体分析。我经历过那种只打了三个电话就搞定的搜索。我知道这几个人非常适合,我告诉创始人和 CEO,“这三个人你应该聊聊,从中选一个就行了。“就这么简单。
Lauren Ipsen (00:25:59): 也有另一种情况,需要花很多时间去搞清楚对方到底想要什么。如果他们之间有没有从情感层面一拍即合……这里面有太多不同的因素了。我觉得从时间角度来看,没有一个固定的数字。更重要的是把自己放到优秀的人所在的圈子里。如果你对某人极其敬重,就持续经营这段关系,去了解标杆是什么样的。找到借口跟你人脉网络中重要的人保持联系。如果你记得他们提过要去参加某个活动,而你觉得自己将来可能想招他们,那就以一种不让人不适的方式出现在那个活动上。这些是我一直在做的事情,我觉得创始人可以做得更好,就是让自己被知道、保持存在感。然后当你主动联系、时机也合适的时候,就不会显得那么突兀或者那么交易化。
Lenny (00:26:55): 这让我想起在 Airbnb 的时候,我们大概每个月会有一次工程师聚会,形式是一个技术分享,然后所有工程师都会拿到一个目标工程师——就是来参加活动的那个人。他们会拿到那个人的资料和照片,他们的任务就是确保对方有很好的体验,然后想办法有朝一日说服对方加入。
Lauren Ipsen (00:27:14): 天哪。但这确实就是这样的。有点像大学招生之旅,你去争取被体育项目录取,你必须确保自己……对,就是持续给人们最好的体验,保持在人们心中的存在感。
Lenny (00:27:28): 是的。不过我能想象这可能会让人觉得有点诡异——他们完全不知道有一个人是被指派来专门”照顾”他们的,但确实有效。效果很好。是一个很棒的策略。
Lauren Ipsen (00:27:35): 太棒了。
Lenny (00:27:36): 我想回到之前问过的一个问题,但我觉得你对其中那个具体的部分会有更实在的回答——就是每周应该在招聘上花多少时间,你有什么指导建议?更广泛地说,对于招 head of product,有没有什么不同?你有没有什么具体的建议?因为我猜答案总是”花的时间比你想象的多”,这会花很多时间。
Lauren Ipsen (00:27:54): 是的,肯定比你想象的花的时间更多。如果你正在正式的招聘过程中,那你应该把所有时间都投入进去。我知道这话不好听,但你确实应该切出整块的、固定的时间来做这件事。
Lauren Ipsen (00:28:05): 不过比较难的是——我想我刚才想说的是——你可以在某件事上花一个小时,也可以花十个小时,但关键更在于,你在这段时间里做的事情有没有影响力?你做的事情真的能推动进展吗?还是你只是在 LinkedIn 上盲目地联系别人?因为那不会是你找到最顶尖人才的方式。一些最优秀的人才,他们甚至都不在 LinkedIn 上。
Lauren Ipsen (00:28:32): 所以我认为更重要的是提前建立一个真正强大的人脉网络,然后当你真正到了需要招人的时候,给你建立过关系的那些优秀的人打电话,说:“现在告诉我,你最喜欢的人是谁,你合作过最好的人是谁,能不能把我拉到一个对话里介绍一下?“你要怎么把自己和市场上的其他人区分开来?所以在我心里,这与其说是一个量化的小时数问题,不如说是你做事的方式和市场上其他人有什么不同?
Lenny (00:29:01): 我想顺着这个话题往下挖。花一个小时和花十个小时,以及你说的花一个小时可能和那十个小时完成的差不多——在招聘中,人们应该采取什么样的行为和行动来用好比如说那一个小时?怎么才能不浪费时间?
打造可信赖的人才情报网络
Lauren Ipsen (00:29:18): 我的意思是,我大概有五个我全世界最喜欢的产品领导者,每次我开始一个猎头项目的时候都会找他们。他们也知道,当生活中的机会让他们开始寻找新机会或者想涉足董事会机会的时候,我会为他们牵线搭桥,并且大力推荐他们。所以很多时候他们愿意给我指出优秀人才的方向,做那些介绍,诸如此类。而且我仅仅因为他们本身有多优秀就知道,他们绝不会把我介绍给一个不够格的人。
Lauren Ipsen (00:29:55): 所以我认为,正因为质量有保障,我不是在数量上盲目猜测,不用在 LinkedIn 上花大量时间,然后不得不去联系不了解的人,还要找背调——而且对方也未必愿意分享那些不好的信息。你明白吧?所以归根到底还是融洽关系,还是你身边那些你知道可以信任和借助的人,确保你把时间花在正确的地方。
Lenny (00:30:19): 明白了。是啊,借助自己的人脉网络确实很有道理。如果你还没有这样的网络,我想问,作为创始人,在 LinkedIn 上花时间给陌生人发消息值得吗?在这方面,对于陌生触达,你有没有什么对创始人来说特别管用的技巧,跟作为专业猎头的你不同的那种?
Lauren Ipsen (00:30:37): 我确实认为值得花这个时间。如果你看到一个看起来非常棒的人,当然要联系他们,花时间跟他们聊聊,为什么不呢?而且很多时候,人们会很兴奋——哦,这位 CEO 兼创始人想找我聊聊想法,看起来不是来挖我的,而只是想做一个开放式的交流。当然可以,他们能感受到。你绝对能感受到那种交流的氛围并且觉得很自在,而有时候当一个人感觉到对方是在试图挖人时,防备心理就会立刻竖起来。
Lauren Ipsen (00:31:08): 所以我认为这件事对创始人来说肯定值得做。只是如果你要找一位关键高管,而且时间紧迫,我不一定认为最好的方式是在你没有专业判断力的情况下盲目联系高管——你不知道哪些公司在这个时期发展得很好,哪些组织很出色,哪些在公司内部相对较弱。所有这些都是招聘领域和技术行业的内部运作,我认为如果你没有那个人脉网络,要去找到那些可以帮你引路的人——跟一位优秀的猎头聊聊,或者花点时间研究一下谁比较厉害。你可以问问你公司的投资人或董事会成员,你该瞄准哪些人。所以总归会有一两个人能至少再给你指出三四个方向。
从目标公司挖人的利与弊
Lenny (00:31:56): 这让我想起 Gokul 在这个播客上分享过的一个策略,也是他最好的招数之一——你想想看,如果你在招销售,与其只找谁是最好的销售,不如找到那家以销售见长的公司,然后去那里找人,试着挖他们的副手级别的人,不一定要挖他们的 head of sales。你觉得这是一个好策略吗?
Lauren Ipsen (00:32:17): 是也不是。
Lenny (00:32:18): 哦。
Lauren Ipsen (00:32:19): 是也不是,因为我觉得如果那个组织在销售方面非常出色,那大部分人都可能很厉害,但总会有薄弱环节。仅仅因为某人在简历上有那个品牌、赶上了对的时机——我觉得 CEO 和创始人经常会做这样的事情,就是一概而论:比如”Amazon Prime 团队那个时候很厉害”之类的。确实有可能,但就像任何其他公司一样,总会有那些脱颖而出的、前 1% 的拔尖人才,也会有另外一些人只是搭上了顺风车,享受了对的时间出现在对的地方的红利。我认为这是一个好的起点,但然后也要花时间去深入了解那个组织里到底谁才是最优秀的人。不过是的,我们总是从市场画像开始——确定在某个特定领域最好的公司是哪些,然后我鼓励每个人在此基础上再深挖一层。
Lenny (00:33:16): 明白了。这就回到了你之前的建议。不要假设拥有一个闪亮品牌的人就一定优秀,不过有时候他们确实优秀。有一个问题我一开始就该问你,现在来补上。你一共安置了多少人?你跟多少家公司合作过?还有,你有没有一个印象最深的、你安置过的人或者帮公司招到的人的故事?
Lauren 的职业成就与最难忘的一次安置
Lauren Ipsen (00:33:36): 好的。两个很好的问题。在我职业生涯中,我大概安置了 85 位高管,然后还有很多基层员工——当时我做内部招聘的时候招的,还有一些很优秀的关键领导者。大概开了并完成了 85 个猎头项目,这是一份非常有成就感的工作。高管这方面也很有意思,因为你招了 Postmates 的工程 VP,然后你亲眼看到产品发生变化。你知道,你亲眼看着那些事情在眼前发生,这是一件非常有成就感的事,真的很酷。
Lenny (00:34:09): 而且外卖也送得更快了。
Lauren Ipsen (00:34:10): 对对,没错。所以,这真的很有趣。我最喜欢的一次安置,是我放在 IRL 的那个工程 VP。说实话,这也是我加入那家公司的一个很大原因。他叫 Alex Strand,他是那种最不可思议的、非典型的高情商工程领导者。他依然非常技术,但管理过上百人的团队,搭建了 Amazon Prime Day,之后又去搭建了 Snapchat 的核心消息平台。我给他打电话,他说:“我为什么要离开?这里有大量的财务激励,而且我一手建起来的团队都很爱戴我。”
Lauren Ipsen (00:34:54): 我们最终让他在两周内做出了跳槽的决定,这几乎是闻所未闻的,虽然后来争取入职日期又推了七个月。但这确实是我加入 IRL 的一个很大原因——想和他并肩工作,帮他搭建团队,同时在技术层面学得更深入一些。因为在高管层面,正如之前提到的,很多时候更多是那种人员管理类型的角色。而他给我的感觉是一个非常独特的复合型人才。没错,你完成猎头项目的时候,总是抱着最大的期望、祈祷一切顺利,心里觉得很踏实,但他是那种我完全有信心自己已经做到了最好的人选。你知道,我真的觉得太棒了。所以,那是一个很棒的项目。
Lenny (00:35:38): 我想不出还有什么比猎头自己也加入了这家公司,更能让候选人对自己加入这家公司充满信心的了。
Lauren Ipsen (00:35:44): 是的,我确实跟他说过。我一直跟他说:“如果我去做内部招聘的话,我发誓大概就会选这家公司。“然后在他签约大约四周后,我给他发了条消息,说:“你绝对猜不到。”
Lenny (00:35:58): 哇。
Lauren Ipsen (00:35:58): 是的。
Lenny (00:36:00): 太棒了。多么强有力的信任背书。
Lauren Ipsen (00:36:02): 是的。也是一个人生圆梦的时刻。我给他寄了一盒饼干,他寄回来的时候说:“该你了。”
Lenny (00:36:07): 他现在还在 IRL 吗?太好了。
Lauren Ipsen (00:36:09): 是的,他在。他非常棒。
Vanta 广告
Lenny (00:36:12): 本节目由 Vanta 赞助播出,帮助你简化安全合规流程,加速业务增长。如果你的企业在云端存储任何数据,那你很可能已经被问过、或者将来会被问到 SOC 2 合规的问题。SOC 2 是一种证明你的公司采取了适当的安全措施来保护客户数据的方式,能建立与客户和合作伙伴之间的信任,尤其是那些有严格安全要求的客户和合作伙伴。
Lenny (00:36:37): 另外,如果你想向企业客户销售,证明安全性是必不可少的。SOC 2 要么能为你打开更大、更好的合作之门,要么会让你的业务被迫搁置。如果你没有 SOC 2,很可能连上桌谈判的机会都没有。
Lenny (00:36:51): 启动 SOC 2 报告可能是一个巨大的负担,尤其对初创公司而言。它耗时、繁琐,而且昂贵。这时候就需要 Vanta 了。超过 3000 家快速发展的公司使用 Vanta 来自动化 SOC 2 相关工作中高达 90% 的内容。Vanta 可以让你在几周内而不是几个月内做好安全审计的准备,不到通常所需时间的三分之一。
Lenny (00:37:14): 限时优惠,Lenny’s Podcast 的听众可获得 Vanta 1000 美元的折扣。只需访问 vanta.com/lenny,就是 V-A-N-T-A.com/lenny,了解更多信息并领取折扣。今天就行动起来吧。
产品人如何拓展职业机会
Lenny (00:37:29): 我想稍微转换一下视角,站在产品人的角度来聊聊——作为产品领导者,如何找到新的机会、为自己创造更多机会?所以也许第一个问题就是,总的来说,产品领导者和 PM 应该把重点放在什么上,才能为自己的职业生涯创造最多的机会?
Lauren Ipsen (00:37:51): 我认为广度非常重要。这一点至关重要,尤其是如果一个人的最终目标是进入产品领导层,那就要接触过很多不同的业务模块,而不是只专精某一个方向。所以我觉得这非常重要,要确保自己为未来的机会最大化做好准备。
Lauren Ipsen (00:38:12): 然后就像之前提到的,始终对市场保持关注,不管你在当前公司有多开心,不管你现在手上有哪个项目让你兴奋到明年第一季度都不会结束。始终了解那些在做优秀事情的公司,为人们保持这些窗口的开放,这非常重要,因为你永远不知道未来 12 个月会发生什么,你希望自己永远不要到了不得不夺门而出、四处寻找下一步的境地,而是能够对自己面前的选择非常挑剔。这需要时间,需要多年的人脉积累和关系建设。
Lenny (00:38:54): 你说广度的时候,是指比如在平台团队干一段时间,再去用户端团队,可能再去内部工具团队,就是接触不同类型的产品?还是别的意思?
Lauren Ipsen (00:39:04): 就是这个意思。是的。我觉得有些人可能就想做增长方向的专家,或者想在广告领域做得很深,如果是这样的话,当然完全可以。而且我觉得这也值得肯定,因为这类技能始终是被需要的。但如果你希望丰富自己的技能组合,在职业发展路径上持续成长,并且考虑未来可能担任 head of product 这样的角色,我认为接触产品的方方面面就非常重要。
Lenny (00:39:38): 听到这个我真的很高兴,因为这正是我给新 PM 的建议——多样化的经验是你能做的最有价值的事情之一,因为你也确实会因此成为更好的 PM,因为你能看到不同类型的产品是如何构建的,不同类型的团队是如何运作的,这让你变得更好。
Lauren Ipsen (00:39:52): 是的。多样化的经验,我认为也包括冒险去做一些更有创业性质的事情,去创业,以及加入那些更后期、更成熟的公司来学习最佳实践。我认为在组织内部丰富自己的技能组合,同时也在你做的事情和你花时间的公司上多样化,这非常好。
关于跳槽频率的讨论
Lenny (00:40:15): 是的。说到这个,我一直很警惕的一种情况是,人们在各种光鲜的公司之间跳来跳去,只为了在简历上攒一堆 logo。“哦,我在 Snap、Facebook、Netflix 都待过”,我觉得你只是在堆砌简历,而生活就这么从身边溜走了,你忘了应该享受自己正在做的事情,去做那些有成就感的工作,而不是为了漂亮的简历去优化。所以我很好奇你的看法——你觉得多久换一次公司比较合适,一方面是为未来的机会做优化?或者更广泛地说,你建议人们多跳槽,还是在一家公司做得更深?这里面包含了好几个问题,你可以挑你想回答的。
Lauren Ipsen (00:41:01): 好的好的。没问题。我觉得这是一个很有意思的话题,因为”收集 logo”绝不是你想要被贴上的标签。你学的第一课,就是入门级招聘 101——识别那些频繁跳槽、不给机会以充分时间的候选人模式。所以你说得完全对,如果你是一个求职者,这绝对不是你想要被人贴上的标签。
Lauren Ipsen (00:41:27): 但另一方面,在一个地方待太久也有问题。这一点我也要说。我觉得有时候你会发现有些人几乎忠诚过了头,公司已经不行了,所有高管都走了,迹象已经很明显了,他们还抱着当初是被一个很好的人招进来的这一点不放,想要坚持下去,因为他们在乎那个人。我认为在职业生涯中,有时候你确实需要稍微自私一点,想想什么对长远发展最有利。所以也许你仍然埋头苦干,同时也留意外面的其他机会,而不是对上门的机会一律硬性拒绝。
Lauren Ipsen (00:42:12): 所以我觉得这件事既是艺术也是科学,因为你需要审慎地考虑接受新机会的时机,知道什么时候值得在自己身上赌一把,但同时也不能一遇到困难就跑,因为这是会被注意到的。如果公司裁员、内部出现分歧,或者引入了新的领导层,你就迫不及待地逃离,这不是人们所看重的品质,因为创业的世界很难,科技行业很难。看看现在的 crypto 领域,事情变化极快、困难重重,你希望能找到那些愿意和你一起经历高低起伏的人。
真正的业绩与影响力
Lauren Ipsen (00:42:55): 我们一直在看人们在哪里推动了实质性的进展,尤其是在产品方面,他们留下了什么印记,他们在那段时间里实际做了什么、为之骄傲的东西。所以,如果他们能说的只是”我完成了入职,然后离开了”,那不管你去的是哪里,至少对我来说,这不是我能为你站台喝彩的资本。
Lenny (00:43:22): 我很认同这一点。归根结底就是,你做出了什么影响?我本来也想聊这个。你的观点是——判断在一个地方至少待多久的一个经验法则是,你要能指出一些你自己主导的、有意义的影响。这样说对吗?
Lauren Ipsen (00:43:35): 对,没错。而且这个有意义的影响要能被其他人谈及。我觉得这非常重要。如果你在组织内部建了一个你引以为傲的东西,但没人知道,那你要把它作为你在那段时间成就的证明就会比较困难。但如果你做的事情,跨职能的领导们在谈论,你的团队成员都在交口称赞,那这就是你可以引以为豪的,可以说:“好吧,我离开这个地方时它比我来时更好了,这也是我决定继续前行的原因。”
Lenny (00:44:15): 我想这其中一部分就是背景调查。人们会去核实你是否真的做成了那些事。
Lauren Ipsen (00:44:20): 一直都是这样。没错。无论你是在主动探索机会、顺其自然,还是完全没在看机会,人们都在不断地互相打听。科技圈真的非常非常小,不管你离开一家公司时有多愤怒,或者出了什么问题,努力做到离开时让这个地方比你来的更好,并且尽可能顺利地过渡,这一点至关重要,因为你希望人们对你的评价全是正面的。而且很多时候……我还发现一件事,如果我给同一时期在某个组织的 10 个人打电话,他们都说不出来那个人做了什么,在这种情况下,没有消息不一定就是好消息。你要有影响力,你要能说”我做了 X、Y 和 Z,我对此非常自豪,而我离开的原因是我完成了我来这里要做的事情。“
产品领导者的特殊挑战
Lenny (00:45:20): 这对产品负责人来说天生就有点棘手。我想你肯定也遇到过这种情况——有时候作为产品负责人,为了推进必须推进的事情,你不得不得罪一些人,他们可能不同意,后来才发现”哦,原来你做的是对的”。是这样吗?你处理过这种情况吗?还是说一般来说都是”哦,是的,他们是很棒的人,所有人都这么说,百分之百的人都说他们很厉害”?
Lauren Ipsen (00:45:38): 这个问题问得很好。我认为有一种方式可以在制造冲突的同时不让别人对你产生反感以至于说坏话。你可以做一个有影响力的产品负责人,可以有分歧,可以推动变革,也许你的工程负责人、设计负责人、市场负责人完全不认同你的方向,但因为你有充分的数据支撑,因为你做事的方式让人觉得是以事实为先、而非情绪驱动的,他们就很难指出为什么不喜欢这个人。
背景调查中的信号判断
Lenny (00:46:19): 对。这很有意思。假设你打了那 10 个电话,以你的经验,你想招的那些领导者,是不是 10 个里面有 10 个基本上都会说”是的,这个人很棒,你应该招他们”?
Lauren Ipsen (00:46:31): 确实有那种满分人选,没有任何人会说负面的话。但这极其罕见。更常见的是,有些人就是喜欢说点负面的话,纯粹为了说而说。我对所有的私下背调也会持保留态度。也许我打电话去了解这个人的那个人,我自己也还没做过背调呢,对吧?
Lauren Ipsen (00:46:50): 所以你听到的每一条信息,都先记下来,然后继续往前走,更全面地思考。但我认为通常来说,那些明显的否定信号是非常清晰的。那些有争议的人物,或者在组织内做过错事、全面做出错误判断的人,你通常很快就能获取到这些信息。
Lauren Ipsen (00:47:13): 比较难处理的是那些褒贬不一的反馈——“我觉得那个人还行”——这种就很难判断,你需要真正找到和他们紧密合作过的人,否则很难说他们是否真正产生了影响力。这也再次说明了为什么一开始就能直接联系到每个组织内部的人、问一句”给我指出最好的三个人”是那么方便——像那些被当作人才输送通道的公司或者很优秀的公司。我不想费劲去逐一背调那可能处于中间的 50% 的人。
Lenny (00:47:48): 对,大多数人没有这样的网络,这也是为什么需要和猎头合作的原因。你自带所有这些人脉。
Lauren Ipsen (00:47:55): 完全正确。完全如此。
推荐人电话的技巧
Lenny (00:47:56): 有几个我本来没打算聊但想提一下的话题——推荐人电话。我想你做过很多。我很好奇,你有什么技巧可以在推荐人电话中提出问题,从而获得真正有用的信息,而不是只听到”是的,我喜欢他们,他们很棒,招他们吧”?
Lauren Ipsen (00:48:11): 特别是在候选人自己提供的推荐人方面,我只遇到过两例候选人提供的推荐人给出负面反馈的情况,那确实很难。除此之外,推荐人的反馈通常都是标准化的。深入挖掘、问那些尖锐的问题,这一点很重要。
Lenny (00:48:28): 什么尖锐的问题?
Lauren Ipsen (00:48:29): 比如,为什么我不应该招这个人?他们最大的弱点是什么?如果对方给出那种”嗯,他们工作太拼了”之类的套话,那不行,继续追问。告诉我更多。他们真正的弱点是什么?有哪些我们需要特别注意的地方?你会再次招这个人吗?你愿意向这个人汇报吗?如果你知道你的名字会和推荐绑定在一起,你会为这个人背书吗?我觉得这类问题会让人认真思考,哪怕你只是察觉到最轻微的犹豫,这本身就足以让你三思。对吧?
Lauren Ipsen (00:49:04): 所以这很大程度上是察言观色,比你觉得必要的程度再深挖一步,这确实不容易。但是私下背调我认为总是比候选人提供的推荐人更能反映真实情况。这就好比 Instagram Reel 和你被标记的照片之间的区别。我是这么理解的——推荐人是你想让世界看到和认为的样子,而私下背调是你的同事、你的下属、你周围的人对你在这段时间所做工作的真实评价。
Lenny (00:48:28): 什么尖锐的问题?
Lauren Ipsen (00:48:29): 比如,为什么我不应该招这个人?他们最大的弱点是什么?如果对方给出那种”嗯,他们工作太拼了”之类的套话,那不行,继续追问。告诉我更多。他们真正的弱点是什么?有哪些我们需要特别注意的地方?你会再次招这个人吗?你愿意向这个人汇报吗?如果你知道你的名字会和推荐绑定在一起,你会为这个人背书吗?我觉得这类问题会让人认真思考,哪怕你只是察觉到最轻微的犹豫,这本身就足以让你三思。对吧?
Lauren Ipsen (00:49:04): 所以这很大程度上是察言观色,比你觉得必要的程度再深挖一步,这确实不容易。但是私下背调我认为总是比候选人提供的推荐人更能反映真实情况。这就好比 Instagram Reel 和你被标记的照片之间的区别。我是这么理解的——推荐人是你想让世界看到和认为的样子,而私下背调是你的同事、你的下属、你周围的人对你在这段时间所做工作的真实评价。
简历中的红旗
Lenny (00:49:33): 太好了。回到你之前提到的猎头培训 101,你学会了如何在简历中发现规律和红旗。简历中还有哪些你希望避免的红旗?有一种经验法则说,如果你在一个地方待不满一年就不好。这是真的吗?你怎么看?招聘经理一般怎么看?
Lauren Ipsen (00:49:53): 关于待不满一年这个问题,确实要看情况。如果这是一个反复出现的模式,那当然是一面大红旗。哪怕只出现了两三次,三次就肯定了。如果出现两次,你会觉得”嗯,感觉不太对”。但你还是要让人家讲出自己的故事和自己的说法,而且说到底还是要去联系不同的人,了解他们说的是否真的是事实。所以当你对科技圈正在发生的事情有很好的把握——比如是不是有裁员,那个人被裁是否真的因为公司没有优先发展产品的某个部分或者其他类似原因——这些事情确实会发生。这就是生活,尤其现在,对吧?如果我们要把过去一年里加入新公司、有过短暂经历的人都划掉,那对谁都没好处。
Lauren Ipsen (00:50:44): 另一件我觉得挺有意思的事是,人们往往因为太害怕那种叙事,所以不会在简历上写那些待不满一年的公司。而在我个人看来,这实际上几乎更是一面红旗,因为那确实发生了,你不想假装那不是你人生中做过的一个决定,而且通常只要得体地处理就好。你可以说清楚你当初为什么决定去赌一把、为什么去了那里、又为什么离开,用一种通常能让人产生共鸣的方式来讲述。但我见过一些高管,干脆写自己过去两年一直在做顾问之类的,而实际上他们待过的两家公司都失败了。
Lauren Ipsen (00:51:33): 事实是,我现在正在接触的一些 CFO 候选人,他们过去三年都是短期经历,因为他们是被请进来带公司走 IPO 流程的,后来情况变了;或者他们是被请来做 SPAC 的,后来 SPAC 不再是热门话题了。对吧?
Lauren Ipsen (00:51:51): 所以这些事情确实会发生,角色也会变化,我认为最重要的是允许人们讲述自己的故事。所以对我来说,红旗就是——始终对你什么时候入职、什么时候离开一家公司保持诚实。如果我看到有人在 LinkedIn 上还写着”至今”,但其实已经离开两年了,还装作自己还在那里,这就让人感觉不太好。我只希望大家给我真实的情况、直白的事实,这样我才能支持他们、帮他们讲述故事、代表他们,而我觉得自己掌握了所有细节。
Lenny (00:52:23): 明白了。所以基本上就是,别撒谎。说得通。这让我想起有些人会稍微”升级”一下自己的头衔,可能他们没有正式头衔,或者就是想显得重要一点。你怎么看人们在简历上这样做?
简历上的花招与诚实
Lauren Ipsen (00:52:35): 是的,我不太喜欢这种做法。我也不喜欢简历上人们——有些人会这么做,也可以理解——当人们在简历上写一些很滑稽、很模糊的头衔名称,比如他们会写类似”Reddit 的某某”作为头衔,或者”某某领域的大师”之类的,这就让人想问,你到底在做什么?
Lenny (00:52:58): 但我觉得他们这么做是为了避免猎头找上门。
Lauren Ipsen (00:53:00): 没错。作为他们的直接目标群体,我很生气。所以我感觉自己直接受到了冒犯。这确实会让我分心,但这也可能是我个人的问题。总的来说,大多数情况下,没有什么其他东西真的会让我特别困惑。事实是,我们越来越少的看简历了,尤其是在高管层面,更多的是让人们讲述自己的故事、见面交流、和他们身边支持他们的人交谈,从而了解更全面的那个人。
给产品经理的面试建议
Lenny (00:53:33): 我想聊聊猎头经常犯的错误以及你从中学到了什么。但在那之前,最后一个问题:你对产品经理在面试过程中有什么建议吗?如何在面试中表现得更好?
Lauren Ipsen (00:53:45): 我在面试产品人的时候遇到过几次这样的情况——他们会贬低自己的搭档,或者说之所以没能按时交付、没能把产品推向正确的方向,是因为工程团队或者因为业务的其他环节,而不是他们自己的问题。我觉得这从来都不是一个好的应对方式。这听起来似乎显而易见,但你会惊讶于有多少人并不觉得这有什么问题。
Lauren Ipsen (00:54:10): 所以,更全局地思考问题,诚实地谈自己的优势以及想继续成长和提升的方面,然后能够讲好自己的故事——练习讲自己的故事。很多人不这样做,尤其是当他们没有在找工作的时候,然后直到第 10 次面试他们才知道该怎么讲自己的故事、自己做了什么、产生了什么影响、以及为什么自己离开时会让人舍不得。这些都是你需要知道如何讲清楚的东西,除非你一直在做或者在练习,否则不会那么自然。这就是我能随口想到的一些建议。
职业规划:有目标还是顺其自然
Lenny (00:54:45): 太好了。这建议真的很好。这让我想到——我知道我想进入最后一个话题了——你觉得最好的产品领导者是那种对未来有清晰故事、然后倒推回来行动、对自己最终想去哪里有概念的人,还是那种顺其自然的人?因为我是后者。我没有任何计划,只是跟着眼前出现的路走。你觉得这对最终成功的人来说通常是如此吗,还是你会建议人们想一想”五年后我想在哪里,为了达到目标我需要做什么”?你在这方面有什么指导吗?
Lauren Ipsen (00:55:18): 这么说吧,我跟你一样。我不知道自己五年后想在哪里,所以我很难说。但我确实认为,通常一个以成为 CEO 为最终目标的人,会一步步把各个拼图拼到位来努力达成那个目标,所以如果你确实有一个想自己掌舵的终极目标,朝着那个方向迈进并不是坏主意。比如你可能先从一个专注产品的领导者,然后转而以某种业务单元总经理的身份运作并负责一个 P&L(损益表),这样虽然本质上还是偏产品的角色,但你离 COO 或 CEO 的终极目标越来越近了。
Lauren Ipsen (00:55:53): 所以如果是这种情况,我觉得自然就顺理成章。不过我确实认为人们容易被闪亮的东西诱惑——因为从头衔角度看是个晋升而兴奋不已之类的,我觉得从大局来看这真的没那么重要。你可以是产品副总裁或者首席产品官,但——是哪个公司的?这就很模糊了。如果有人只说”我想当首席产品官,那就是我的终极目标”,我总会问”什么的首席产品官?“你当你们家的首席产品官都行。是某个数十亿美元消费品牌的首席产品官,还是……
Lauren Ipsen (00:56:32): 所以我想说的是,一定要从一个目标倒推回来,这没错,但不要让头衔、估值泡沫或其他东西把你从一件感觉不错的事情上拽走。如果你在一个岗位上,你觉得自己在产生影响、在学习、在成长,对手头的工作感到兴奋,那就不要让别的公司的一个头衔让你觉得自己正在做的事情没有价值。
Lenny (00:57:01): 我很喜欢这个建议。很多人就是追逐某个光鲜的新职位、新头衔、新 logo,等到了那里才发现,“天哪,这糟透了。”
Lauren Ipsen (00:57:08): 没错。是的。
Lenny (00:57:09): 这让我想起,我以前参加过一次冥想静修,那里有一句教导是:你不要执念于实现某件具体的事,而是要把你的车往那个方向推,就是朝着那个方向走,有一个大概的方向感就好,而不是”我必须成为那个东西,那才会让我快乐。”
Lauren Ipsen (00:57:26): 没错。我觉得说得非常对。
Lenny (00:57:27): 太好了。好,最后一个话题,从猎头的角度,你觉得猎头在为公司吸引优秀产品人才时,最常犯的错误或最容易忽略的是什么?
猎头应以人为本
Lauren Ipsen (00:57:38): 是的,这个话题我特别有热情,因为我确实认为猎头群体的名声不太好,而且我觉得这有一定道理。总有人会忘记,我们每天打交道的都是活生生的人,他们有自己的生活、家庭、职业,或职业之外的抱负。
Lauren Ipsen (00:58:01): 所以我认为最根本的是,你要记住对面也是一个人,你应该以你期望被对待的同等的尊重去对待他们。
Lauren Ipsen (00:58:15): 这一点在我自己也经历了几轮求职之后感触更深。那种纯交易式的猎头电话会让人极度反感,会让你想在简历上写我刚才暗示的那类东西,比如”Reddit 随便什么职位”之类的,因为你根本不想应付他们。
Lauren Ipsen (00:58:36): 所以我觉得你必须做一个有血有肉的人,必须从关系开始,找到共同点,建立融洽/信任关系,倾听对方——真正地倾听,并且记住他们说了什么。如果一个人说”我绝不想去 crypto 公司”,而我还一个劲地往他面前塞 crypto 公司,那就极其迟钝了。又或者他说”我有一笔 vest 明年五月才到期,我真的很想等到那个时候”,而我在那之前一直骚扰他,那就完全没把对方说的话放在心上。
Lauren Ipsen (00:59:12): 诸如此类的事——如果做笔记更容易的话就做笔记,因为我们每天要跟那么多人说话,所以这确实不容易做到。但我会在日历上记一笔,比如 John Kim 的 vest 三月刚到期,然后我就会想,“哦,好的,可能是个好时机跟他聊聊。“我不会说”恭喜你最近 vest 到手了。“我会说,“要不要一起喝杯咖啡,或者聊聊这个?“或者,“嘿,我看到你在那个会议上做了演讲,你讲的关于某某的内容我很喜欢。“你必须找到把人当作人来连接的方式,而不是只想着把他们塞进某个职位里。
Lauren Ipsen (00:59:46): 所以我会说,我学到并且变得非常擅长的一件事是:以建立关系为基础起步,赢得人们的信任,因为一旦你有了这个基础,人们才会愿意听你介绍工作机会,才会听你的、真正信任你从职业方向和角度给出的建议。但这需要时间去建立,绝对不会通过那种朝墙上扔东西看什么能粘住的方式建立起来——不会通过那种看能把人临时塞到哪里去的方式。事实上,那样做会让人失去信任。而一旦你在候选人那里失去了信任,就不可能再挽回了。
玩长线游戏
Lenny (01:00:22): 很有意思的是,我们对话中反复出现的一个主题就是——在每个方面都要玩长线游戏,而这需要更多时间。
Lauren Ipsen (01:00:28): 是的。
Lenny (01:00:28): 有点烦人的是,你必须在你真正需要做成某件事之前就投入所有这些时间,但你反复回到的核心就是——这就是你作为猎头、作为产品领导者、作为用人经理、作为创始人最终获得成功的方式。
Lauren Ipsen (01:00:39): 百分之百同意。是的。是的。当你有业绩指标要完成、有人要养、有房贷要还的时候,只看数字是很自然的事,但你必须玩长线游戏,因为人不是商品。它远不止于此。
何时引入猎头
Lenny (01:00:56): 而与猎头合作的好处之一就是他们已经提前为你做了这些铺垫,所以我想问,创始人在什么情况下应该与你这样的猎头合作,什么情况下不应该?
Lauren Ipsen (01:01:08): 尽早、主动地与猎头建立联系,总是件好事。只是有时候公司还没到那个阶段,不一定有能力雇佣全职猎头,因为资源有限,而且引入高管猎头的成本很高。
Lauren Ipsen (01:01:26): 所以,以一种更非正式的方式找一个能跟你探讨问题的人,引入一位人才顾问以咨询的方式来帮忙——这类事情,百分之百值得做。也可以借助投资你的风险投资公司的力量,这也是我目前正在做的事情之一,早期的 CEO 创始人绝对应该在这方面多借助 VC 的资源,尽可能多地获取知识。然后我会说,通常 A 轮或 B 轮——取决于融资规模——B 轮感觉是一个引入几个关键重要人物的好时机,如果公司状态允许的话。
Lenny (01:02:06): 你说的”引入”是指全职的内部猎头,还是猎头公司?
Lauren Ipsen (01:02:09): 可能是指引入一家猎头公司。是的。这是我的建议。我认为在早期,比如种子轮阶段,如果对公司来说合适且增长很快的话,可以引入一两个猎头,但这也得具体情况具体分析。
如何选择猎头
Lenny (01:02:22): 考虑到你现在在 GC(总法律顾问),对大多数创始人来说你基本上已经”下架”了——GC 是……这是事实吗?你现在基本上是为 General Catalyst 的创始人工作,对吗?
Lauren Ipsen (01:02:32): 我在为所有 GC 的消费和 crypto 投资组合的创始人提供支持。话虽如此,我每天一整天都在社交和与优秀的创业者交流——那些可能将来会创立公司、需要一些建议的人,以及那些愿意以顾问身份提供帮助的优秀人才。所以我会说大概 50% 是社交,50% 是真正空降到投资组合中去支持他们。
Lenny (01:03:00): 明白了。好的。
Lauren Ipsen (01:03:01): 支持他们。
Lenny (01:03:01): 这很酷。我不知道这部分。
Lauren Ipsen (01:03:03): 是的。
Lenny (01:03:03): 那么除此之外,你认为创始人在寻找猎头时应该看重什么?倒数第二个问题——什么迹象说明这是一家好公司、一个好猎头?当你准备雇佣一个猎头的时候,无论是内部的还是猎头公司,你应该看什么?
Lauren Ipsen (01:03:15): 我觉得重要的是给他们一些方向指引,然后看他们能不能复述回来。告诉他们你在找什么样的人,然后问,“这些你听起来有共鸣吗?我很想听听你从中抓住了什么,以及你觉得我们应该找什么样的人。”
Lauren Ipsen (01:03:32): 然后直接就问他们要几个候选人想法。不要给他们时间去到处打电话。当场问他们要候选人想法。他们的第一反应指向哪里?他们会立刻想到给谁打电话?在正式开始搜索之前,你越多地把这种互动关系建立起来,就越能判断这个人是不是你想与之校准的人选。
Lauren Ipsen (01:03:54): 所以我觉得就是稍微给他们一点压力,让他们展示自己的真功夫,而不是仅仅发过来一叠搜索案例——那些可能是其他合伙人做的,也可能是他们团队里其他人做的。你要真正了解这个人是谁。所以第一个问题是在测试他们的倾听能力——能不能真正听进去你在说什么、你在找什么样的人;第二个问题则是,好,我们多快能对这个画像应该是什么样的达成一致。
闪电问答前的临别建议
Lenny (01:04:21): 太棒了,这个建议非常好。非常实操。在我们进入激动人心的闪电问答之前,还有什么最后的寄语或智慧吗?
Lauren Ipsen (01:04:26): 顺便说一下,这次对话很棒。我觉得更笼统地来说,建议就是:把人当人对待,建立融洽/信任关系,打持久战,赢得信任——这需要时间。所以从招聘的角度来说,最重要的事情就是能够在找到人的时候,让他们感觉到你真心为他们的利益着想,你在乎他们的职业发展,也在乎他们工作以外的生活。所以我觉得这就是一个真正优秀的招聘者应该具备的素质。
Lenny (01:04:53): 简单的建议,但往往被遗忘,也很容易被忽视。好,我们现在进入激动人心的闪电问答。我会问你六个问题,想到什么就说什么,我们快速过一遍。可以吗?
Lauren Ipsen (01:05:08): 好的,来吧。
Lenny (01:05:10): 来吧。你最常推荐给别人的一两本书是什么?
Lauren Ipsen (01:05:14): 《当下的力量》和《你在这里》。
Lenny (01:05:17): 哇,不错。除了这个播客,你还喜欢听什么播客?
Lauren Ipsen (01:05:22): 科技类的有一些,但我想推荐 Your Own Backyard,因为我上的是 Cal Poly,所以这个跟我的经历比较近。
Lenny (01:05:28): 哇,我都没听过这个。酷。最近看过并喜欢的电影或电视剧是什么?
Lauren Ipsen (01:05:34): 《壮志凌云》我看了太多次了——
Lenny (01:05:39): 新的那部《壮志凌云》。
Lauren Ipsen (01:05:39): 对。然后电视剧嘛……全是垃圾真人秀,所以我不好意思说。
Lenny (01:05:45): 我懂。我理解。我老婆也看那些,她也不好意思告诉别人。
Lauren Ipsen (01:05:51): 这是我唯一的小秘密。
闪电问答
Lenny (01:05:51): 好,好的。我们继续,挺好的。你最喜欢的一个面试问题是什么?你自己喜欢问的,或者见别人问过的?
Lauren Ipsen (01:06:01): 我很喜欢经典的优缺点问题。我觉得这很能看出一个人如何自我分析。
Lenny (01:06:06): 你在他们的回答中看重什么?什么样的回答说明答得好?
Lauren Ipsen (01:06:10): 诚实,真实。那些”工作太努力了”之类的回答,或者完美主义者式的那种回答,一眼就能看穿。“说说你的缺点?我们来聊聊吧。”
Lenny (01:06:19): 真的。
Lauren Ipsen (01:06:21): 所以我觉得这个问题一直是一个非常好的品格测试。
Lenny (01:06:24): 最近最喜欢的几个 app 是什么?
Lauren Ipsen (01:06:27): 我最近在玩 BeReal。当然还有 Spotify,很直接。另外我一直在用 Strava,最近在跑步,所以——
Lenny (01:06:34): 这个 app 组合不错。感觉生活很充实。
Lauren Ipsen (01:06:37): 谢谢。非常感谢。尽力而为。
Lenny (01:06:41): 最后一个问题。在行业中,你最尊敬谁?作为领导者和思想领袖型的人物。
Lauren Ipsen (01:06:49): 我大学毕业后的第一个老板,Joe Suliman,非常厉害。他一直教我要以关系为出发点来领导——这说起来容易,但真正做到并为你的下属以及行业中的同行所认可,那完全是另一回事。所以他一直教导我这样做,我从他身上学到了很多东西,而且他非常聪明,对行业动态非常敏锐,在如何应对这些问题上有很清晰的立场和观点。所以,他是我极其尊敬的一个人。
Lenny (01:07:24): 听起来是一位了不起的人。Lauren,这次对话太棒了。我觉得这对很多人都会很有用——产品经理、创始人、其他招聘者,以及各种各样的人。非常感谢你抽出时间来做这期节目。最后两个问题。如果大家想联系你,或者想和你合作、了解更多,在网上哪里可以找到你?听众可以怎么帮到你?
Lauren Ipsen (01:07:44): 好的,当然。也谢谢你,这次真的很有趣。大家可以在 LinkedIn 上联系我。我恰好那个用得比较多,所以完全可以直接私信我,也可以发邮件,我也可以把邮箱发给你。然后大家能帮到我的方式是:如果你身边有你非常欣赏的人,请把他们推荐给我。如果有人对面试流程的最佳做法有疑问,或者不知道怎么应对各种情况,请尽管来找我——我工作中很大一部分就是帮助那些第一次经历这些事情的人。很乐意充当一个倾听者的角色,或以任何方式提供帮助。
Lenny (01:08:19): 所以如果你是一位优秀的产品领导者,想看看有什么机会,去 LinkedIn 上找 Lauren。这是找到你最好的方式吗?
Lauren Ipsen (01:08:24): 完全可以。
Lenny (01:08:25): 好,太棒了。
Lauren Ipsen (01:08:25): 嗯。
Lenny (01:08:25): 谢谢,Lauren。
Lauren Ipsen (01:08:26): 非常感谢。感谢邀请。
结束语
Lenny (01:08:29): 非常感谢你的收听。如果你觉得这期节目有价值,可以在 Apple Podcasts、Spotify 或你最喜欢的播客应用上订阅本节目。另外,也请考虑给我们评分或留下评价,因为这真的能帮助其他听众发现这个播客。你可以在 lennyspodcast.com 找到所有往期节目或了解更多关于本节目的信息。下期见。
术语表
| 原文 | 中文 |
|---|---|
| academy company | 人才输送通道公司(指以培养人才著称、被猎头视为人才来源的企业) |
| ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) | 注意力缺陷障碍 |
| back channel | 私下背调/私下打听 |
| BeReal | BeReal(社交应用,保留原文) |
| Cal Poly | Cal Poly(加州州立理工大学,保留原文) |
| CPO (Chief Product Officer) | 首席产品官 |
| crypto | crypto(保留原文,指加密货币/区块链领域) |
| Daversa | Daversa(高管猎头公司,保留原文) |
| executive recruiter | 高管猎头 |
| executive search | 高管猎头 |
| GC (General Counsel) | 总法律顾问 |
| head of | (头衔前缀)保留原文写法,如 head of engineering |
| head of product | 产品负责人 |
| head of talent | 人才负责人 |
| in house | 内部/内部招聘 |
| Joe Suliman | Joe Suliman(保留原文) |
| key lieutenants | 关键副手 |
| layered | 被上面加一层(指未来可能被更高层级管理者覆盖) |
| logo collecting | 收集 logo(指为了简历好看而在知名公司之间频繁跳槽) |
| poach | 挖人 |
| rapport | 融洽/信任关系 |
| series A or B | A 轮或 B 轮 |
| slam dunk | 满分人选(指毫无争议的优秀候选人) |
| SOC 2 | SOC 2(安全合规认证标准,保留原文) |
| Strava | Strava(运动社交应用,保留原文) |
| SVP (Senior Vice President) | 高级副总裁 |
| talent function | 人才职能 |
| The Power of Now | 《当下的力量》(Eckhart Tolle 著作) |
| title agnostic | 不在乎头衔 / 对头衔不在意 |
| Top Gun | 《壮志凌云》 |
| unicorn | 独角兽(此处指招聘中期望一人兼具所有能力的罕见人才) |
| VC (Venture Capital) | 风险投资 |
| walled garden | 封闭花园 |
| Your Own Backyard | Your Own Backyard(播客名称,保留原文) |
此文档由 AI 分片翻译(translate_long_document)