---
url: "https://youtube.com/watch?v=zegYJ6dhIg4&is=Rgy1kFIxBpXBQ1mY"
title: The playbook for building high talent density teams | Adam Ward, Head of Talent at Cursor
source_kind: youtube
author: "Lenny's Podcast"
captured: "2026-08-09T18:08:01+00:00"
comment_tree: false
topics: [other]
summary: Adam Ward shares a playbook for building high-talent-density teams, emphasizing targeted pursuit over broad funnels and specific referral questions.
status: ok
---

# The playbook for building high talent density teams | Adam Ward, Head of Talent at Cursor

Channel: Lenny's Podcast

## Transcript

[0s] You have built and are known as someone
[2s] that can build the most elite high
[4s] talent density teams. Let's start with
[6s] how people do it wrong, something you
[8s] call the funnel of doom.
[9s] >> Companies think about recruiting like a
[11s] funnel. I'm going to reach out to 100
[14s] people. 20% of those will apply. By
[16s] definition, that is not the top 20%.
[18s] That is just the 20 people who you
[20s] caught on a bad day. The way we all
[21s] recruit is we kind of weed people out at
[25s] each stage and we hire the remainder. In
[27s] your mind, they're okay, there are 50
[28s] people in the world who can do this.
[30s] Let's go find those 50 people and you
[32s] relentlessly pursue and you focus your
[34s] energy on activating those people, not
[36s] trying to find them out of the funnel of
[39s] doom. The mistake that most companies
[40s] make is they'll say, "Hey Lenny, who's
[43s] the best product engineer you know?"
[45s] That is the worst question you can ask.
[46s] The better question to ask is, "Hey
[48s] Lenny, of all the product engineers
[50s] you've worked with, who stands out to
[51s] you as the person who's most
[53s] collaborative with designers? [music]
[55s] Or who can translate a framework into a
[59s] product better than anyone you've ever
[61s] seen?"
[62s] >> When you're looking for that first
[63s] recruiting hire, is there anything you
[64s] think is important to look for?
[66s] >> Recruiters are excellent at 90 to 110%
[68s] [music] capacity and are terrible
[70s] outside of that. If they only have half
[72s] a req load, they kind of like are
[74s] useless. But they're kind of great at
[75s] this like edge [music] of adrenaline
[78s] rush busy. You want to find those
[80s] people.
[80s] >> What are some things you've learned
[82s] about building incredible teams, keeping
[84s] people working for you over the long
[85s] term?
[86s] >> When you look at candidate satisfaction
[88s] scores, the number one thing that's
[89s] always there
[92s] >> Today my guest is Adam Ward. Adam is
[95s] known in the Valley as the most
[96s] effective recruiting leader at building
[99s] elite high talent density teams. He
[101s] co-founded an independent recruiting
[103s] firm [music] called Growth by Design,
[105s] which Cursor acquired fully last year,
[108s] which is not something that you often
[110s] hear and is a testament to how good he
[113s] and his team are and how important
[114s] [music] talent is right now in today's
[116s] market. Adam is now head of talent at
[118s] Cursor, helping them scale and build one
[121s] of the most talent [music] dense teams
[122s] in the world. Prior to starting his own
[124s] firm, Adam led global recruiting at
[126s] Pinterest, growing the company from 200
[129s] to over 2,000 [music] employees. And
[130s] before that, he led a global team of 65
[133s] recruiters across 10 offices at
[135s] Facebook, helping them scale Facebook's
[137s] tech [music] org from 1,000 to over
[139s] 10,000 employees. If hiring the best
[141s] people is your number one priority, as
[144s] it should be, this conversation will
[146s] open your mind up to what it takes to do
[148s] that. Adam gets super tactical and
[150s] extremely specific, and
[152s] >> [music]
[152s] >> you're going to thank me for inviting
[154s] Adam on this podcast to share all of
[156s] this incredible [music] advice. A huge
[158s] thank you to Bree Wolfson, Janet
[161s] Fishberg, Jill Macre, [music] Mike
[163s] Joiner, and Tim Kendall for suggesting
[164s] topics and questions for this
[166s] conversation. Before we get into it,
[168s] don't forget to check out
[169s] lennysproductpast.com [music]
[171s] for a free year of the hottest and most
[173s] beautifully crafted AI products in the
[175s] [music] world, available exclusively to
[177s] Lenny's newsletter subscribers. With
[179s] that, I bring you Adam Ward.
[185s] Adam, thank you so much for being here.
[187s] Welcome to the podcast.
[188s] >> Thanks so much for having me. It's a
[189s] pleasure.
[190s] >> You've been doing this for 20 years now,
[193s] hiring, recruiting, building teams.
[196s] How different is the market we're in
[199s] today? How How How crazy is the market
[201s] in the hiring market we're in today?
[202s] >> If there's a scale, it's an 11. Um but,
[206s] you know, I do think there's like there
[207s] are similarities to the some other
[210s] markets we've been in over time. You
[212s] know, you mentioned that the years like
[214s] there was a moment in time where a lot
[216s] of companies were moving to mobile.
[219s] And there was like there literally was
[220s] not
[221s] a mobile engineer, like an iOS engineer
[224s] was not a thing.
[225s] You know, and so but there was a
[226s] scramble for talent to, you know, build
[230s] your mobile app and things like that.
[231s] Like there there was this moment that
[232s] like that was a thing and it has like
[235s] some
[237s] uh similarities to that
[239s] market and moment. I think that the the
[241s] really the difference here is like
[243s] everything here is like just so
[244s] compressed.
[246s] So, that mobile moment was
[248s] two years, maybe. You know, where like
[251s] there was no mobile engineers and then
[253s] there were like mobile boot camp, mobile
[254s] engineer boot camps, all these things.
[255s] You know, like now we're in like
[257s] days.
[258s] We're in weeks, you know, there there
[260s] are no months or year measures right
[262s] now.
[263s] Um and so that what what makes this like
[264s] feel very different.
[265s] >> The other thing that feels very
[266s] different about this market is there's
[268s] many people doing extremely well. It's
[270s] the most competitive, as you said, 11
[273s] out of 10 for specific roles. A lot of
[275s] other people are just really struggling,
[277s] having a really hard to time finding
[279s] jobs.
[279s] >> Yeah, it's a tale of two cities, really.
[282s] Um you can read uh back-to-back
[285s] headlines of
[287s] you know, NBA
[289s] salary offers
[291s] to a new grad PhD and the next line
[295s] being a blue-chip company laying off 10%
[299s] of workforce. You know, like how can
[301s] both of these things be be true? And you
[304s] see this shift of how companies are
[307s] doing work and getting work done.
[309s] And I really believe we're in this like
[310s] moment where there's this like
[312s] resettlement of talent and labor and how
[317s] work gets done. And I really believe
[319s] that the this like there will be a
[321s] resettlement and there will be a shift
[322s] and this will this will come back, but I
[324s] feel like we're in like the one of the
[325s] largest gaps
[327s] of those worlds right now that I believe
[331s] will and I want to believe will come
[332s] back closer together.
[333s] >> This episode is brought to you by our
[335s] season's presenting sponsor WorkOS. What
[338s] do OpenAI, Anthropic, Cursor, Replit,
[341s] Sierra, Clay, and hundreds of other
[343s] winning companies all have in common?
[345s] They are all powered by WorkOS. If
[348s] you're building a product for the
[349s] enterprise, you've felt the pain of
[351s] integrating single sign-on, SCIM, RBAC,
[354s] audit logs, and other features required
[356s] by large companies. WorkOS turns those
[358s] deal blockers into drop-in APIs with a
[361s] modern developer platform built
[363s] specifically for B2B SaaS. Literally
[365s] every startup that I'm an investor in
[367s] that starts to expand upmarket ends up
[369s] working with WorkOS. And that's because
[372s] they are the best. Whether you are
[373s] seed-stage startup trying to land your
[375s] first enterprise customer or a unicorn
[377s] expanding globally, WorkOS is the
[379s] fastest path to becoming enterprise
[381s] ready and unblocking growth. It's
[383s] essentially Stripe for enterprise
[385s] features. [music] Visit workos.com to
[387s] get started or just hit up their Slack
[389s] where they have actual engineers waiting
[391s] to answer your questions. WorkOS allows
[393s] you to build faster with delightful
[395s] APIs, comprehensive docs, and a smooth
[397s] developer experience. Go to workos.com
[400s] to make your app enterprise ready today.
[403s] >> What are roles that are kind of trending
[404s] up in the most in demand right now? And
[407s] what are maybe less and less in demand?
[409s] And you have a really unique perspective
[411s] because not only you're a cursor now,
[413s] but before that you had your own
[414s] independent agency working with a ton of
[416s] different companies. So, you got to see
[417s] across a lot of different places. What's
[420s] kind of trending up? What's most in
[421s] demand and what's maybe softer now?
[424s] >> Yeah, I think one thing is really in
[425s] demand is this and there's lots of
[427s] different names for it, but this like
[428s] forward deployed engineer, this like
[431s] technical person who can partner with a
[433s] sales team and partner with a customer
[435s] to deploy what is a, you know, can be
[437s] for like some audiences in a company a
[439s] very technical and maybe overwhelming
[442s] product or helping companies think about
[444s] moving from token maxing to like
[447s] optimizing, maxing to optimizing. And
[449s] so, that's like a I think a new skill as
[452s] CFOs start to get the bill coming in.
[455s] Um, you know, the companies are able to
[456s] help partner with them to think about
[458s] what's the the best solution for them.
[459s] So, that's a really unique skill because
[460s] you are you're deeply technical
[462s] yourself. You understand the product,
[463s] but you can also
[465s] walk into a room with executives and
[467s] leaders and help conjugate some of that
[469s] and then even deploy that help them
[470s] deploy that into their workforce. I
[471s] think that's like a a real supply demand
[474s] issue right now.
[476s] I think maybe the thing that is waning,
[478s] I would say, is like the specialized
[482s] technical person.
[484s] The person who is I you know, it's cuz I
[487s] think you almost see this like squeezing
[488s] together of engineer product design in
[492s] some ways where
[493s] we would love a designer who can
[495s] actually do for be more of like a design
[497s] engineer,
[498s] right? And we want that like super deep
[500s] technical engineer that has a little bit
[501s] more stronger product sense. And so you
[503s] kind of see that So I think the people
[504s] who are maybe like very narrow, very
[507s] deep, and like overly um specialized in
[510s] a way are waning like in like in the
[512s] same way along that vein might also be
[514s] like the new grad who just hasn't had
[516s] enough like experience uh to be able to
[518s] do that where
[520s] a a product like Cursor or others can do
[523s] some of that work right now.
[525s] >> This is extremely interesting. I haven't
[527s] heard it put this way before.
[528s] Interestingly with the FDE role, it
[530s] feels similar to the mobile example you
[532s] shared where not very few people have
[534s] actually been forward deployed
[535s] engineers.
[536s] Uh so what what's kind of the the um I
[539s] don't know the look of a person that can
[540s] become an FDE?
[542s] >> Yeah, I actually think it is that
[544s] engineer it is that person who maybe was
[546s] like a full stack engineer in like a
[549s] three to five years ago is now maybe
[552s] actually that forward deployed engineer,
[554s] right? And so
[556s] uh and you you kind of you talk to some
[557s] of the these folks and they actually
[559s] like it like kind of unlocks something
[560s] in them. Like they're kind of like
[562s] moving out of the terminal
[564s] and moving in into like the company, you
[566s] know, and into the customers and
[567s] clients. And for the right person that
[569s] like that's super energizing kind of
[570s] unlocks another chapter or like an maybe
[573s] a unexpected chapter in their career.
[575s] >> That is interesting. I was expecting you
[576s] to say AI researchers said this is
[578s] interesting. And imagine cuz there's not
[580s] as many of those roles.
[581s] >> I think so. I think I think it's just a
[582s] that's a very defined set.
[584s] >> Mhm.
[585s] >> And so like you got like it's a very
[586s] clear bracket of what that is and how
[589s] many there are and where they are.
[591s] And I think this like I I think that
[593s] sometimes the bigger challenges are the
[595s] nebulous things or the new
[597s] the very new things
[599s] uh that I think are sometimes just as
[601s] challenging as the scarcity ones of an
[603s] AI or ML engineer.
[605s] >> Just as a final question along these
[606s] lines, what about just uh the core
[608s] product design engineering roles? Are
[609s] those kind of steady as they've been? Is
[611s] one increasing, decreasing? How's that
[613s] looking?
[614s] >> I think they're high I think they're but
[615s] I think there's you probably see a lot
[617s] of conversation out there around this,
[619s] you know, where I think we're getting a
[621s] little bit back in a good way to the
[623s] craft of things. And so if you think
[626s] about what AI can do in the design
[629s] world, uh it can also create a lot of
[631s] slop in its own way.
[633s] And so
[635s] I'm an optimist. Just off you'll you'll
[637s] probably hear that throughout.
[638s] >> Same.
[638s] >> And and I think and I think it's just a
[640s] a better way to live. Um but I think
[642s] what I will hopefully help us get back
[644s] is to like to to the craft of what we
[646s] do. You know, and maybe a an
[649s] appreciation for it. And I see that in
[651s] the design world too.
[654s] >> And is that kind of in saying ICs are
[656s] more in demand and especially ICs that
[658s] are have good taste, good judgment? Is
[660s] that kind of the core?
[661s] >> Yeah, I think like you know, we've seen
[662s] this for maybe the last 12 or the rise
[664s] of the power IC.
[666s] >> Yeah.
[666s] >> Um and uh the recognition and
[669s] appreciation for that work I think has
[671s] like come like almost in in a full
[673s] circle moment for them. But like I think
[675s] taste, decision-making, problem-solving,
[679s] these these characteristics, curiosity,
[682s] um in all the good ways I think are
[683s] coming back up to the surface.
[685s] >> Awesome. Okay. So let me
[688s] let me kind of zoom out and frame the
[689s] conversation that uh I'm hoping we have
[691s] uh broadly. You have built and are known
[694s] as someone that can build the most elite
[697s] high talent density teams. So many
[699s] people kept telling me you were the
[701s] person that does this better than anyone
[703s] else.
[704s] This is every company's and founders
[705s] dream. Build the highest talent talent
[707s] density team. So I'm going to go through
[710s] this in a sequence.
[711s] Uh
[712s] let's start with something you call the
[714s] funnel of doom hiring. Talk about the
[717s] funnel of doom. What is the funnel of
[718s] doom?
[719s] >> Yeah.
[720s] And this is a concept I got to
[722s] um
[722s] uh recognize my very first as an intern
[727s] actually in 1998
[729s] at a company called Trilogy
[731s] which is a somewhat of an infamous
[733s] company around recruiting and it's kind
[735s] of where I learned the trade.
[737s] Uh my very first manager Jeff Daniel
[739s] uh he we did this campus tour around the
[741s] country talking to CS students and
[744s] that's where I first heard the term. He
[746s] coined that term so I had to acknowledge
[748s] that. But I think uh well the funnel did
[751s] forever
[753s] uh almost forever as you think about the
[754s] recruiting history companies think about
[757s] recruiting like a like a funnel. You
[759s] know, maybe akin to a sales funnel.
[761s] Right? Where they think about different
[763s] stages, pass through rates and things
[765s] like that.
[766s] And when you think about how most
[767s] companies have recruited over these last
[769s] several decades it's really been
[772s] candidates come from kind of three
[773s] buckets. They could they apply, they are
[776s] activated or sourced or they're
[777s] referred.
[779s] But if you kind of think about like for
[781s] a lot of companies who think about
[783s] talent density typically referrals and
[786s] sourcing or activation of passive talent
[789s] is is is really the focus. And when you
[791s] kind of even narrow further on this like
[793s] source talent
[794s] this is how most companies think about
[795s] it. I am going to reach out to 100
[798s] people.
[799s] 20 people
[801s] will reply just for round numbers. So
[803s] 20% of those will reply. By definition
[806s] that is not the top 20% that is just the
[808s] 20 people who you caught on a bad day
[811s] for them. Good day for you, bad day for
[812s] them.
[813s] And so, you're starting with a
[814s] sub-optimal set. You're not starting
[817s] with the top 20% even if this and then
[820s] the way we all recruit is we kind of
[822s] weed people out at each stage and we
[825s] hire the remainder.
[827s] So, this remainder hiring is the output
[830s] of the funnel of doom.
[832s] And you say when you say that out loud,
[833s] you're like, that's kind of messed up.
[834s] If I If I think about building a
[836s] talent-dense company over time
[839s] is that really the best approach? Or
[841s] does that kind of get me like just above
[843s] average over time assuming I have really
[845s] good interview process and hygiene and
[847s] all these things? You kind of regress to
[849s] the mean over time as you get to as you
[851s] get to volume.
[853s] And so,
[854s] I we just think about this in a
[855s] different way is like, what if you had
[858s] confidence up front
[860s] of who the top 20% was and then you use
[863s] your assessment process to validate that
[865s] thesis
[867s] of who those are.
[869s] That seems like a better you know, so
[870s] there's this funnel doom, but there's
[871s] like within a funnel doom this is a
[873s] pillar of excellence.
[875s] What if you started with the pillar of
[876s] excellence and went from there versus
[878s] having this wide funnel?
[880s] Cuz imagine how expensive that is to do
[882s] remainder-based hiring and you kind of
[884s] hire the person who drops to the bottom.
[886s] >> Uh I love this especially hearing this.
[888s] Like this is how hiring has been forever
[891s] and just hear you describe it, it's
[894s] clear this is not optimal.
[896s] Why hasn't this changed uh ever?
[899s] >> There is a
[900s] um
[901s] something detrimental about comparing it
[903s] to a sales funnel.
[905s] Because in a sales funnel we're you
[907s] know, as as a a sales person you're
[908s] typically selling a widget a piece of a
[911s] software, an item. Those things are
[914s] relatively static and rational.
[916s] In recruiting, you have an irrational
[919s] unit of a hiring manager and recruiter
[922s] and and in another rational unit of a
[924s] candidate. And so, to believe that
[926s] things are transactional and linear and
[930s] passed through in the same ways, I think
[932s] is a bit of a fallacy. But, sales has
[935s] been around for
[937s] hundreds of years? Hundred you know, a
[939s] long time. Recruiting as a craft or in
[942s] the kind of this is like
[944s] 50 years? 40 years? You know, so we're
[946s] behind on it, but like as humans, we
[949s] often try to relate a problem to another
[952s] problem that we know. And so, I think
[954s] this connectedness to sales has been
[956s] somewhat detrimental to companies as
[959s] they think about doing this in a more
[960s] strategic way.
[961s] >> So, let's follow this thread and help
[962s] make it very clear what you're
[963s] describing here. The way I've heard you
[965s] describe this is you treat every hire as
[967s] an executive recruiting sort of hire
[970s] uh and the goal is to go for the top 1%
[973s] of people out in the world versus kind
[975s] of who you kind of drops in the funnel.
[977s] Talk more about just that kind of way of
[978s] thinking about it.
[979s] >> So, if you've ever worked on like a
[980s] senior specialist hire or leadership
[982s] role done well, here's there's roughly
[985s] like three main steps. One is scoping.
[988s] And so, if you think about going after
[989s] the 1%,
[991s] the most important step is getting
[993s] really clear on what 1% means to you.
[996s] And so, if you've ever heard that phrase
[998s] like I will I'll I'll know what if I'll
[1001s] know it when I see it, I'll know what
[1002s] great looks like, you actually you
[1003s] won't.
[1005s] You won't see You won't know cuz you
[1006s] haven't spent like the time objectively
[1009s] identifying what that what great looks
[1011s] like. And so, when you think about
[1013s] scoping, if we can just dive into that
[1014s] the cornerstone piece,
[1017s] really good scoping is thinking about um
[1021s] what are like the skills and experiences
[1023s] you're looking for. You stack rank these
[1025s] things, you get really clear objectively
[1026s] before you talk to any candidate, but it
[1028s] sets up your entire process. It sets up
[1030s] your sourcing strategy. It sets up your
[1033s] pitch for them cuz you're asking
[1035s] questions like um why is this role
[1037s] important? What would success look
[1038s] like?" It you know, it really helps you
[1040s] craft those things. It also helps you
[1041s] set up your assessment process of like
[1043s] what you're going to be assessing
[1044s] against. It helps you think about kind
[1045s] of that close of like, "Why this person
[1048s] and why this role is going to have big
[1049s] impact here?" So, it really that I think
[1052s] piece of the hiring process is under
[1054s] invested in. But in a leadership search,
[1057s] that is often like known to be a a
[1058s] really strong cornerstone. So, let's say
[1060s] you take like this like really good
[1062s] scoping and then you kind of you pair it
[1064s] with really good market mapping,
[1067s] intelligence, and signals that to give
[1069s] you confidence of who the very best
[1071s] people are. So, when you're doing a
[1072s] leadership search, for example, you're
[1074s] like, "Okay, there's really in your mind
[1075s] like, hey, there are 50 people in the
[1077s] world who can do this. Let's go find
[1079s] those 50 people."
[1081s] Right? And so, that kind of that
[1082s] approach, I think you can do at scale if
[1084s] you do that really good scoping and get
[1085s] really clear on what that looks like.
[1087s] And then you take that that like list of
[1090s] 50 people, those targets, and you
[1092s] relentlessly pursue and you focus your
[1093s] energy on activating those people, not
[1096s] trying to find them out of the funnel of
[1098s] doom.
[1100s] Um,
[1101s] hi you know, large population.
[1104s] >> Amazing.
[1105s] Uh, I imagine everyone listening to this
[1107s] is going to be like, "We need Adam on
[1108s] our team ASAP." Uh, unfortunately,
[1110s] you're locked in at a company and so
[1113s] we're going to do our best to try to
[1114s] extract as much wisdom as we can in this
[1116s] conversation because you're uh,
[1118s] you have a job. So, this is great. So,
[1121s] kind of the three steps here that you
[1122s] walked through of how to approach hiring
[1125s] from this perspective, the way that
[1127s] executives are hired. This idea of going
[1130s] after top 1%. So, step one was be very
[1132s] clear on what top percent looks like.
[1134s] So, just to kind of mirror back what you
[1135s] just shared, be clear on the skills you
[1137s] need and kind of stack rank, here's the
[1139s] skills we need from them. This person,
[1141s] what experiences we're looking for and
[1143s] stack rank that. Talk about why this
[1145s] role is impactful and just why this is
[1146s] so important. Is there anything else
[1148s] there just to flesh that up?
[1149s] >> I I those are the general buckets. Like
[1151s] every company will have other specific
[1152s] things that really matter. But, yeah,
[1154s] those would be Yeah, those would be the
[1156s] things And remember, those are all those
[1157s] these are things you're not asking are
[1160s] what companies are they from? Uh these
[1162s] are the kind of these are These are
[1163s] objective, somewhat transferable
[1167s] things.
[1169s] Versus trying to piggyback off of
[1172s] someone else's
[1174s] process or definition of great. Cuz we
[1176s] just said almost every company's doing
[1178s] this wrong or has company doing funnel
[1180s] of doom. So, why would we mirror or map
[1183s] someone else's process that we feel like
[1184s] like maybe wasn't perfect? Um and your
[1187s] company is different, your product is
[1188s] different. And so, you you owe it to
[1191s] yourself to kind of identify what does
[1192s] great look like for you and who's going
[1194s] to be successful in this role in this
[1195s] product versus what was successful for
[1197s] someone else in a process that maybe you
[1199s] don't have full confidence in anyway.
[1201s] >> So, you're saying specifically don't
[1203s] focus on and it's a trap to focus on the
[1205s] logos on the resume.
[1206s] >> I think so.
[1207s] >> Mhm.
[1208s] >> Yeah. There are clearly vintages of
[1210s] companies
[1211s] when you're like, "Hey,
[1213s] you know, this team at this company at
[1215s] this time did fantastic things. And
[1218s] possibly because that person was on that
[1220s] team at that company at that time, they
[1221s] are great." Possibly.
[1223s] That can be like shorthand.
[1226s] Um but that But, most companies jump to
[1227s] that almost immediately.
[1229s] >> Awesome. Okay. Step two is mapping out
[1232s] and finding basically the top 50. What
[1234s] are tools that help you do that? Is it
[1236s] like LinkedIn? Is it something else?
[1238s] >> I think it's a combination of things. Um
[1240s] but I think I where I where we typically
[1242s] start is a set of people who we trust in
[1246s] terms of having high taste in talent.
[1249s] And so,
[1250s] it But, I think the mistake though, and
[1252s] that's not that's an obvious
[1254s] point, but the mistake that most
[1256s] companies make is they'll say, "Hey
[1258s] Lenny, who's the best
[1260s] uh product engineer you know?"
[1263s] That is the worst question you can ask.
[1265s] The best The better question to ask is,
[1266s] "Hey, Lenny, of all the product
[1269s] engineers you worked with, who stands
[1271s] out to you as the person who's most
[1272s] collaborative with designers?
[1275s] Or who can translate a framework into a
[1279s] product better than anyone you've ever
[1282s] seen?" You got to have to put these very
[1284s] specific characteristics
[1286s] or skills or needs for your team, and
[1289s] then that's way easier for you to
[1291s] conjure up people that way than like
[1293s] this broad question of who's the best
[1295s] person.
[1296s] >> And I imagine that maps to the step one,
[1297s] which is where you map the skills,
[1299s] experience, and all that.
[1300s] >> you're asking are mapping back to those
[1301s] that cornerstone work that you did in
[1303s] step one.
[1304s] So, when you ask the right targeted
[1305s] questions to a set of people, you
[1308s] actually start to triangulate around the
[1309s] same names.
[1311s] >> Mhm.
[1311s] >> Like, "Ah,
[1312s] >> Um
[1313s] >> Lenny mentioned them, but so did Sally.
[1315s] What What Let's Let's put this person on
[1317s] the list on the target list."
[1319s] >> Okay, so So, part of the strategy here
[1321s] is you talk to people you trust who are
[1323s] awesome, whose taste you trust, ask them
[1325s] these questions.
[1326s] Uh what else helps you find these people
[1328s] in the world?
[1328s] >> So, if you think about um let's Let's
[1330s] pull out like the set of um
[1333s] characteristics.
[1334s] Like, "Okay, um the characteristics of
[1336s] someone we want is like really
[1339s] uh curious, uh systems thinker, whatever
[1342s] they might be." Maybe two or three
[1342s] things. Then you're like thinking about,
[1344s] "What companies also share
[1346s] that approach to how they hire?"
[1349s] And you could literally probably do a
[1351s] quick Boolean or
[1353s] AI string and be like, "Hey, look at all
[1355s] the job openings in the world among
[1357s] these 100 companies, which ones also say
[1360s] these characteristics matter?" Right?
[1361s] So, you kind of think about, "Ooh, where
[1363s] could they maybe picked up some of these
[1364s] skills for a company who also said that
[1366s] that matters as well." And so, then you
[1367s] start to kind of build like company
[1369s] lists that aren't the normal list you
[1371s] have, but you but in the those they
[1373s] might show up there, too, but let's
[1374s] validate it through
[1376s] the things that we objectively said we
[1377s] wanted for us.
[1379s] >> It's so interesting. Systems thinking
[1380s] has come up on a four last four podcasts
[1383s] I've done. Such a trending up attribute
[1386s] people are looking for these days.
[1388s] >> Yeah, I think it's like always been
[1389s] there in a little bit, but I think it's
[1390s] just become really accentuated now
[1394s] uh in this era.
[1395s] >> When you when you hear the term systems
[1396s] thinking, what's what's kind of a way
[1398s] you describe what that actually means
[1399s] when people hear that term?
[1401s] >> I I I learned this pretty early uh maybe
[1403s] in the the second company I worked for.
[1405s] And it comes around to a fundamental
[1408s] question of what problem are we trying
[1410s] to solve?
[1412s] Right? And so when I think about systems
[1413s] thinking or when I'm sitting around
[1414s] like, what is like the fundamental root
[1417s] question problem that we're trying to
[1418s] solve? And then how do we take this like
[1420s] larger problem and break it into really
[1422s] small pieces? And I've fortunately been
[1423s] working with like engineers most of my
[1425s] life and I just really have learned and
[1427s] I admired how they can take something
[1429s] that's really big and break it into kind
[1430s] of start to tackle that problem that
[1432s] problem. As long as you're anchored into
[1433s] like what is the overall thing
[1435s] um that we're trying to solve here.
[1436s] >> Awesome, very helpful. People always
[1438s] hear these terms and they're like, yeah,
[1439s] yeah, I'm a great systems thinker. And
[1441s] so it's always helpful to just hear from
[1442s] different people what that actually
[1443s] means.
[1443s] >> You know, I think systems thinking
[1445s] sounds very strategic, but actually I
[1447s] think it's ex- extremely tactical.
[1450s] The very best systems thinkers take
[1452s] these things and put them into like very
[1453s] small tactics and start to remove
[1456s] each you know, tactic by tactic kind of
[1458s] remove the problem, remove the the
[1459s] blocker.
[1460s] >> So to close the thread on this step of
[1462s] finding these incredible people, what
[1464s] what I'm hearing is mostly it's kind of
[1465s] sit around, talk to people, and just jam
[1467s] in a doc probably of here's people that
[1470s] people recommend, here's companies to
[1471s] look at.
[1472s] >> Yeah, and there are tools and there's
[1473s] there's LinkedIn, there's all these
[1474s] things too.
[1476s] Um but I think the most valuable one is
[1479s] the most time-intensive one.
[1482s] Which is you spending time in in digging
[1484s] into people's networks. I I I I I
[1486s] you know, we've shared this before, but
[1488s] uh people on my team whose entire job is
[1491s] to dig into our current employees'
[1493s] networks.
[1495s] You could you could automate that.
[1497s] You could use an AI tool and have some
[1501s] fit walk them through a facilitation of
[1503s] it, but nothing beats you and I sitting
[1505s] down every other week for 6 weeks and
[1508s] diving into people. You're like, "Hey,
[1510s] last session
[1511s] uh you gave me these three names. I
[1513s] checked out like And then, but what
[1515s] about this person?" You're like, "Oh,
[1516s] yeah. They were great, too." Like, "Oh,
[1518s] well, what's going to happen?" So, you
[1518s] kind of go back to back. And by the way,
[1520s] I'm also holding you accountable for you
[1522s] sending out notes.
[1523s] And what did they say? Oh, they reply?
[1526s] You're going to send another note? And
[1527s] so, kind of this like one-to-one,
[1529s] hand-to-hand
[1530s] cultivating of signal
[1533s] I think it's a really important. Of
[1534s] course, those signals go into like a
[1536s] system and a database, but the
[1537s] extraction I think is a hugely personal
[1541s] and effective approach.
[1543s] >> This all sounds very time-intensive and
[1546s] slow and lots of work.
[1549s] How do you
[1551s] You know, there's a reason companies
[1552s] don't hire this way, treat everyone as
[1554s] an exec cuz they're not execs. They're,
[1555s] you know, IC engineers, PMs.
[1557s] How do you talk about that trade-off of
[1560s] taking this approach knowing that it's
[1562s] going to take a lot more time and
[1563s] effort?
[1563s] >> Yeah. Yeah. Uh so, I mean, I usually
[1565s] like will ask a question, so founder,
[1569s] like
[1570s] you know, in the all the things are
[1571s] important to you
[1572s] um where does talent fall into that
[1574s] list? And like ah, it's number one.
[1577s] Like, talent is the most important
[1578s] thing. Okay. So, if talent is the most
[1581s] number one thing, like there
[1582s] it's not about time or cost like this is
[1586s] the most this is where the focus should
[1587s] be. And so, if
[1590s] if talent is number one, then there
[1592s] should be no obstacles to in terms of
[1595s] effort or resourcing uh or time put in
[1598s] to get there cuz that is paramount to
[1599s] your success. You just said that
[1601s] objectively.
[1602s] And so,
[1603s] you know, so if both can't be true, you
[1605s] know, you can't say, "Hey, it's the most
[1607s] important thing and I'm going to
[1609s] outsource it or I'm going to hand it
[1611s] over to a recruiting organization to do.
[1614s] If it's the number one thing that's like
[1615s] that is your focus.
[1617s] >> Like hearing that obviously correct. Why
[1619s] would you not do that? And then there's
[1621s] like holy everything's on fire all
[1622s] the time. I have to make time for all
[1624s] this stuff, all these meetings and it's
[1626s] just like is there anything you do to
[1627s] help keep a founder and a team on track
[1629s] and just sticking to this plan knowing
[1631s] it's so much work and time?
[1632s] >> Yeah, I mean typically the founders
[1634s] keeping the company on track around that
[1636s] the very best companies. And so and part
[1638s] of it keeping on track means like
[1640s] keeping top of mind. You know, there's
[1643s] also the adage of like what gets
[1644s] measured gets done.
[1646s] So if it's an important thing, we we
[1648s] measure it just like we might measure up
[1650s] time or we might measure customer
[1653s] satisfaction or we might measure revenue
[1656s] and we hold those teams accountable. We
[1657s] also hold hiring managers and leaders
[1659s] and organizations accountable to hiring.
[1662s] And so keeping it top of mind but
[1664s] putting in the right systems
[1667s] around rewards and recognition and all
[1669s] those things around it will help people
[1672s] keep it as a priority. But if you aren't
[1674s] measuring it or they will hand that over
[1676s] or they will shirk that responsibility
[1679s] to somewhere else.
[1680s] >> Yeah, one of your big pet peeves is
[1683s] having the recruiters to sit not
[1685s] basically empowering
[1686s] the recruiters and hiring managers not
[1688s] being deeply involved in the process.
[1690s] >> Yeah, I think a lot of companies
[1693s] the recruiting owns the hiring goal.
[1696s] And I've yet to be in a company where
[1697s] recruiters are making hiring decisions.
[1700s] So these things are in conflict.
[1701s] Hiring managers or leaders or committees
[1705s] are making hiring decisions.
[1707s] And I feel like the recruiters goal is
[1709s] really about helping
[1711s] provide confidence to that hiring
[1713s] manager to make the right decision.
[1715s] They're a confidence engine. They're not
[1717s] a
[1718s] decision-making engine.
[1721s] And so I see a lot of companies where
[1723s] they
[1725s] um they lose the thread is when they
[1728s] essentially hand over
[1730s] the function of recruiting
[1732s] the act of recruiting to a function of
[1733s] recruiting.
[1735s] Right? And so no one should care more
[1737s] about a hire, no one gets the joy or the
[1740s] pain of a good and bad hire
[1742s] than that hiring manager and that team.
[1744s] So why then is a recruiter or recruiting
[1746s] organization holding that accountability
[1749s] when they are actually don't they don't
[1750s] have they don't have the decision-making
[1752s] let alone the benefits
[1754s] or or pain or cost of a good or bad
[1757s] hire.
[1758s] >> I want to come back to this uh it's like
[1759s] a different funnel but I'll call it a
[1760s] funnel. Would you still describe it as a
[1762s] funnel but the funnel of non-dooms or
[1763s] another term cuz it's still kind of a
[1765s] funnel?
[1765s] >> Yeah. Yeah, there could be they
[1768s] not all funnels are bad so yeah, they're
[1769s] all good.
[1770s] >> talent density.
[1771s] >> Yeah.
[1772s] >> So coming back to the how to discover
[1774s] the best people uh luckily there's this
[1776s] incredible post out there about how Coda
[1778s] approaches hiring by Brie Wolfson that
[1781s] uh was very helpful in helping me prep
[1782s] for this talk and another tactic that
[1785s] she shared of how Coda finds the best
[1788s] people is there's a Slack channel called
[1789s] hiring ideas and people on the team just
[1792s] share here's someone we might want to
[1793s] hire.
[1794s] >> It's super active. Uh you know, we could
[1795s] pull it up right now. Um there's someone
[1798s] we want to let's see what people
[1799s] [laughter] are
[1801s] Yeah, maybe we can get some audience
[1802s] input on it.
[1804s] Um so so the the general gist is someone
[1806s] will come across something impressive, a
[1810s] uh a product, a post, um what
[1814s] overheard at a barbecue and they'll drop
[1817s] that person's profile or that X post
[1820s] into the in hiring channel and it
[1822s] becomes a rallying effect around
[1826s] ooh, I've heard of them. I know here's
[1828s] how we get to get here's what I think
[1829s] what is compelling to them. You almost
[1830s] like create this quick like strategy of
[1833s] how we might engage this person.
[1836s] And imagine working at a place where the
[1838s] company just is wired that way
[1841s] where people like are excited and
[1843s] enthusiastic and like love the thrill of
[1845s] the hunt and like to go
[1847s] want to work with great people. And so
[1849s] we're just like very fortunate to have
[1851s] that as like a ongoing tailwind.
[1854s] Um but that's like that was like an
[1856s] early
[1857s] expectation, if you will. Um an early
[1862s] um almost like
[1864s] I'm going to say it's almost like
[1866s] um
[1866s] social credibility in the company to be
[1870s] able to like surface someone who is
[1871s] great and then people come in and help
[1872s] out and try to get them into the
[1874s] process. So as we're creating like
[1876s] that's like such a good like we are not
[1877s] initiating that. We're not dropping in a
[1878s] profile does anyone know this person?
[1880s] This is and
[1882s] uh you know, non-recruiting
[1884s] folks in the company
[1885s] uh dropping in ideas and then the
[1887s] company rallying behind it.
[1889s] >> Amazing. So this is just a really good
[1890s] way to just if we zoom out again, the
[1892s] way most companies hire, there's this
[1894s] funnel people apply, people refer and
[1895s] they kind of work through and then you
[1897s] try to reach out and kind of work
[1898s] through and pick a few people
[1900s] at the bottom and your point there is
[1902s] this is like
[1903s] not the top people because they're not
[1905s] going to apply to you, they're not going
[1906s] to make it through the funnel. You don't
[1907s] even know what you're hiring for a lot
[1908s] of times.
[1909s] >> Right. Correct. Correct. And but you
[1911s] know, by the way like, you know, all the
[1912s] hiring ideas aren't always great ideas.
[1914s] They aren't always right for us, but it
[1916s] is becomes this almost like tangential
[1919s] injection into the hiring process that
[1922s] um is often
[1923s] um a great outcome.
[1925s] >> And so just to
[1926s] uh maybe make very clear how different
[1929s] this approach is is
[1931s] the opposite. It's figure out who are
[1932s] the best top 50 people for this role in
[1935s] the world and then relentlessly pursue
[1938s] them.
[1938s] >> Mhm. Yeah.
[1939s] >> So let's talk about that part of it. How
[1941s] to actually relentlessly pursue people.
[1944s] What are some tactics and stories there
[1946s] of just how you convince these top
[1948s] people to actually talk to you and then
[1949s] join?
[1950s] >> Yeah. Yeah, and I think one of the
[1951s] things you said a few minutes ago is
[1952s] well, hey this can be a very slow
[1954s] process.
[1955s] Right? Um and if you're at like a zero
[1958s] point, your your day zero, that can feel
[1961s] like a slow It can feel like a slow
[1963s] burn. But imagine over multiple days,
[1966s] you're actually planting all of these
[1967s] seeds
[1968s] with potential top 50 people, they're
[1971s] going to come to harvest
[1973s] at different rates. But you got to plant
[1974s] the seeds. You got to start. And because
[1977s] it will take weeks
[1979s] for some, months for others. I have
[1982s] stories of years
[1983s] a year of we've worked on on candidates.
[1986s] And but you have to start the clock on
[1988s] that. And you And so
[1990s] how we think about this like relentless
[1992s] pursuit is you'll often reach, you know,
[1995s] one step is just getting them into a
[1996s] conversation, getting a response,
[1998s] getting some kind of engagement.
[2001s] Um, but most people will tell you if you
[2004s] get them, it's like not good timing.
[2006s] Here's all the reasons I can't do it.
[2008s] And you're like, "Hey, I'm not I'm not
[2010s] asking you to interview.
[2011s] I'm not asking you to consider a role.
[2013s] I'm asking for a next conversation."
[2016s] And so when you say, "Hey, you know,
[2018s] it's not really a good timing for me
[2019s] right now, maybe
[2021s] uh in the late fall." You're like, "Hey,
[2023s] so I totally try what's great. Like can
[2025s] But also, can you come by for um you
[2028s] want to come by for a coffee and see the
[2029s] office? Right? Can you Can I introduce
[2032s] you to this other person on the team
[2033s] who's really fascinated by your work?
[2035s] Can you go chat?" But And so you know
[2037s] it's not it Let's say it is true they
[2039s] can't join till late fall, that doesn't
[2041s] mean you're not
[2042s] connecting them and having conversations
[2044s] on a weekly basis and working that
[2046s] piece. And the it it can only move it
[2048s] forward. By doing nothing and actually
[2050s] talking to them in the late fall, at
[2052s] best, you get them even if they're still
[2054s] interested then or someone else has them
[2056s] grabbed them.
[2057s] So we think about this continual
[2058s] touchpoint approach to them to getting
[2062s] them into process.
[2064s] Um, but that could again, we're willing
[2066s] to do that over
[2067s] days, weeks, months, and sometimes
[2069s] years.
[2069s] >> When you reach out to someone and
[2071s] mention working at Cursor, now it's part
[2073s] of SpaceX. It's like, oh, this is
[2074s] interesting and cool. And you know, it's
[2076s] like, you never know, maybe it'll work
[2077s] out someday. A lot of companies, and
[2079s] you've worked with other companies that
[2080s] are not as interesting of a brand and as
[2082s] successful. Is there any advice for
[2085s] folks to get someone over the line to
[2086s] even talk that works? And you know, I
[2088s] imagine it's all very particular and you
[2090s] want to be just any advice there.
[2091s] >> Yeah, I think it's really spending a lot
[2093s] of time up front to get a sense of what
[2096s] could be
[2097s] uh engaging for them.
[2099s] So, who might that be and what might
[2101s] that topic be?
[2103s] And so, there's very There are There are
[2105s] a number of um excellent people in the
[2107s] world who aren't on any platform.
[2109s] There's no information about them. But
[2110s] most you can get a couple nuggets. We
[2113s] spend a lot of time here thinking about
[2115s] who can create a warm intro
[2118s] to that person.
[2119s] Almost as much effort goes into that
[2122s] than it does
[2124s] the actual
[2125s] messaging and the right because if you
[2127s] get the right person, that accelerates
[2129s] it.
[2130s] Right? And once someone's ignored one
[2132s] thing, it's much easier for them to
[2133s] ignore the second and third.
[2135s] But if you get the first one right,
[2138s] you like condense that
[2140s] that that activation timeline and
[2142s] effort.
[2143s] >> I've heard that you often say caring is
[2145s] free.
[2146s] >> Yeah.
[2147s] >> Talk about that cuz it feels like that
[2148s] connects throughout this entire process.
[2150s] >> Yeah, I I think there's like all kind of
[2153s] tactics out there that are of varying
[2155s] degrees of cost. But out caring other
[2158s] companies that like when I've built
[2159s] recruiting teams, that's something that
[2160s] we've always talked about. Like, we can
[2162s] care more about that candidate than
[2164s] anyone else. That That's in us. That's
[2166s] within us. We can do that. And I think
[2169s] it hit like um over the history of time,
[2172s] when you look at candidate satisfaction
[2174s] scores, the number one thing that's
[2175s] always there is the company generally
[2178s] wanted me.
[2179s] They generally like like they made it
[2181s] feel like I belonged there. And so, the
[2183s] more that we can care for our candidates
[2187s] and demonstrate that, I think it's an
[2189s] unfair advantage and it's in all of us.
[2191s] And so it that is like an effort and
[2193s] that is a extra step type of thing. It's
[2195s] the extra
[2196s] uh intentionality that you take that I
[2198s] think
[2199s] um in a very somewhat feeling like
[2201s] transactional business like recruiting,
[2203s] if you're doing this like step-by-step
[2204s] funnel of doom, you kind of get caught
[2205s] up in the steps. You get caught up in
[2207s] the numbers game. I need to reach out to
[2209s] 100 to get to 20.
[2211s] I need to have 10 hiring manager screens
[2213s] to get four on-site. You know, you you
[2214s] get caught up in the numbers and you
[2215s] lose the human element.
[2218s] You're looking for the one. You know, so
[2219s] I I tell
[2220s] remind my team like we're trying to hire
[2222s] one person for this role here, not 10.
[2224s] So don't get caught up in the 10.
[2226s] Get focus on the one.
[2228s] >> That is such a big reframe in this way
[2229s] of thinking. As you said, instead of
[2231s] this funnel of we need 200 people at the
[2233s] top to get one at the bottom, you're
[2235s] just like, here's the 50 people that
[2237s] would be the the best 50 in the world
[2239s] for this. We just need one of these 50.
[2241s] It feels a lot more com- a lot more
[2242s] doable.
[2243s] >> And we're building hopefully we're
[2244s] building relationships with dozens of
[2245s] other those that could be So when you
[2247s] talk about this being slow, we're
[2249s] planting seeds. Planting seeds, we're
[2250s] planting seeds. And
[2252s] I think the other thing that often
[2253s] happens when you kind of get into this
[2254s] funnel of doom mentality is I think you
[2256s] become overly consistent in your hiring
[2260s] approach. And we are very comfortable
[2264s] with bespoke
[2266s] and ad hoc
[2268s] hiring.
[2269s] That doesn't mean we don't have like
[2270s] similar stages for consi- But but like
[2272s] who that next conversation is, what they
[2274s] you know, might focus on. I think we get
[2277s] a little robotic sometimes in recruiting
[2279s] with that. And we have like So a lot of
[2281s] companies as they get into like higher
[2282s] volume hiring, they might like, "Hey, we
[2284s] have a pool of these interviewers who
[2286s] can do this type of interview."
[2288s] And they just like let fate decide. They
[2291s] let availability decide who has that
[2293s] next conversation. But you know, the
[2294s] savvy recruiter or the savvy hiring
[2296s] manager is like, "Ooh, they mentioned
[2298s] this thing.
[2299s] Who on our team has that shared interest
[2302s] in that pool, right? Can we like be a
[2303s] little bit more prescriptive and can we
[2307s] orchestrate a much better candidate
[2308s] experience by being taking the extra
[2310s] thoughtful step of who might have a
[2312s] better conversation together?
[2313s] >> It's so interesting hearing just how
[2314s] important that initial contact is for
[2317s] the rest of the process and how much of
[2318s] this is for future seed planting versus
[2320s] even immediately.
[2322s] >> Yeah, I feel like so we put so much
[2324s] energy to the onsite interview, which I
[2326s] totally get, but honestly the most
[2327s] important one is that hiring manager
[2330s] first conversation.
[2331s] And so it kind of feels like this like
[2334s] 50/50 like hey, half the people you talk
[2336s] to hire manager should come on and like
[2337s] we kind of like I think we under
[2339s] estimate the importance of it cuz this
[2340s] is like who you're going to work with.
[2342s] This is the person who should care this
[2343s] person is going to make the hiring
[2344s] decision and so they should be asking
[2345s] the most important questions. They
[2346s] should be getting pulling out the most
[2349s] important motivators from that candidate
[2351s] and I feel like we sometimes maybe we
[2353s] put it into a 30-minute thing often.
[2355s] It's like 30 minutes and it feels like
[2356s] so important to the rest of of that
[2358s] process.
[2359s] >> Especially if instead of we just need
[2361s] this funnel and work through a bunch of
[2363s] people, it's this is one of the 50 in
[2364s] the world that could be the best for
[2365s] this.
[2366s] >> You might meet three times, right? You
[2367s] might meet four times as a hiring
[2369s] manager versus before that person
[2370s] actually is like you know, fully in
[2372s] process.
[2372s] >> The way Breed described this in her
[2374s] piece is that you treat hiring as the
[2377s] atomic unit of hiring is the person, not
[2379s] the job spec and not the role.
[2381s] >> Correct. And I think that so that makes
[2383s] it incredibly frustrating imagine for my
[2385s] team
[2386s] because you're like oh, what's the
[2386s] process you know, and you're like well,
[2388s] like you know, it's like at this it's
[2389s] like um
[2390s] it's like almost like a decision tree.
[2392s] It could go many different ways based
[2394s] off of this conversation and so
[2396s] but when you are not caught into the
[2398s] numbers game, it feels a little bit less
[2400s] scary
[2401s] when you're really focused on how do we
[2404s] get that person here
[2405s] versus how do we are they the right
[2407s] person for that job?
[2408s] >> And because they're on this list,
[2409s] they're innately very popular and in
[2411s] demand. Is there anything else that
[2413s] works for getting them excited to talk
[2416s] and interested other than you know, soft
[2418s] warm intro things you shared.
[2419s] >> Yeah, I mean, we've done lots of like
[2421s] tactics I think to get them involved. I
[2424s] mean, one thing I just love is breaking
[2427s] bread. Having a meal with someone
[2430s] is
[2431s] one of the most human and leveling
[2433s] things that you can do.
[2435s] Um you you know, you sharing a meal
[2438s] uh across the table is just a disarming
[2442s] act and a joining act.
[2444s] That I think is just so important. So,
[2446s] that could be a coffee, it could be a
[2447s] lunch, it could be it it you know, it
[2448s] doesn't be super formal, but I just
[2450s] think it is this humanizing
[2453s] activity
[2455s] that um I think is really important. So,
[2456s] we try to we try to center around food
[2459s] and drink as much as possible.
[2461s] I think we've done other things I think
[2462s] are very useful, which is like if they
[2464s] are one of these 50 people, they might
[2466s] be somewhat famous or well-respected,
[2468s] they probably have an expertise, having
[2470s] them come in and give a talk
[2472s] to the team. Having them come in and do
[2474s] like a fun side project.
[2476s] They like something these people they
[2478s] love they love to kind of like share and
[2479s] like learn and they're curious and um
[2481s] and so that that but also it's like it
[2483s] demonstrates increased interactivity
[2485s] between the two teams around quality and
[2487s] kind of gives them this like realistic
[2489s] preview of being there. We try to play
[2492s] home games as much as we can, bringing
[2493s] them into the office.
[2495s] But we also understand some of the folks
[2496s] like early on might want to go to a
[2498s] neutral site of a coffee shop or
[2500s] something too.
[2501s] But we try to play home games when we
[2503s] can.
[2504s] Cuz you have the power of the team.
[2506s] But you have the power of and so, you
[2507s] know,
[2508s] one analogy I think about is like when
[2510s] you sometimes when you walk on when some
[2513s] people are considering university early
[2515s] in their lives, you kind of walk onto a
[2516s] campus and you get that feel in your
[2519s] gut.
[2519s] You know, you can't really describe it,
[2521s] it's just like, "Ooh, this feels like
[2522s] home."
[2523s] We want people to feel that when they
[2524s] kind of walk into the offices of Cursive
[2527s] and like that is like a priceless
[2528s] moment. And by the By the also like a it
[2531s] can be like a um
[2533s] a defining moment. It also could not
[2534s] hit. And that's
[2536s] it's good to like suss that out early,
[2537s] too. But for a lot of people, it it does
[2539s] hit and we we like that a moment.
[2540s] >> This uh resonates so deeply with early
[2542s] days Airbnb. I remember Joe Gebbia had
[2545s] the saying, "Just get them in the
[2546s] elevator."
[2548s] And this is because the office was on
[2550s] the second floor of this building. You
[2551s] had to like go in this elevator to get
[2552s] in and that was the whole strategy, just
[2554s] get them in the elevator.
[2555s] >> Yeah. Yeah. Um that was that was like
[2557s] more than half the battle.
[2559s] >> Uh along these lines of breaking bread
[2561s] and uh Homecourt, I know uh
[2563s] this might be one of the reasons you
[2564s] guys have a Cafe Cursor right right
[2566s] there near the office, which was and now
[2568s] it's like happening all over the world.
[2569s] Uh I think Ben leads this work, but it
[2571s] there's all these cafes popping up all
[2573s] over the world.
[2574s] >> Yeah, I think it's been a interesting um
[2576s] obviously it's it's very much focused on
[2578s] the product and the the user, but
[2581s] he and that team have done a really good
[2583s] job of taking that vibe
[2586s] and putting into a moment. And if you've
[2588s] been in the Cursor office, it almost
[2590s] feels like you're in a um
[2592s] Hogwarts library. It's very warm and
[2595s] soft and like but cafes bring that
[2597s] energy and and
[2598s] as well.
[2599s] Uh and so we've tried to kind of lift
[2602s] and you like lift that and drop that in
[2604s] uh really around the world.
[2606s] >> And there's also a lot of chalkboards at
[2607s] the office.
[2608s] >> A lot of chalkboards. It's like has this
[2609s] like some like It's like again like this
[2611s] like disarming warm feel that I think
[2615s] really kind of exudes our like Midwest
[2617s] vibes. That is like kind of sometimes
[2619s] how I describe um Cursor. You know, very
[2622s] hard working, very ambitious, but you
[2624s] know, at the same time the work speaks
[2625s] for itself and understated as well. And
[2627s] so uh I think a lot of our office helps
[2630s] uh evoke those vibes, too.
[2632s] >> This episode is brought to you by
[2634s] Mercury. Radically different banking
[2636s] loved by over 300,000 entrepreneurs. And
[2639s] now with command. I've been a customer
[2641s] of Mercury's for over 6 years. I have
[2643s] never once thought about leaving.
[2645s] Mercury is basically what happens when
[2647s] banking is built by product people, not
[2649s] by bankers. They make it so easy, dare I
[2653s] say fun, to send [music] invoices, move
[2655s] money around, set up virtual cards for
[2657s] folks on my team. Does your bank have an
[2659s] API, a terminal [music] native CLI, or
[2662s] an AI ready MCP server? I don't think
[2665s] so. And just recently they launched
[2667s] Command, a conversational interface
[2670s] built directly into Mercury, which acts
[2672s] as your financial operator. I've been
[2674s] using Command to transfer money around,
[2676s] to figure out what categories I've been
[2677s] spending the most money in, analyze
[2679s] [music] my cash flows, and just today I
[2681s] used it to find out how much I've made
[2683s] from a specific sponsor over the past
[2685s] year. I just [music] asked, "How much
[2687s] have I made from X over the past year?"
[2689s] 10 seconds later I have an answer. It is
[2691s] so freaking cool. Visit mercury.com to
[2694s] learn more and apply online in minutes.
[2696s] Mercury is a fintech company, not an
[2698s] FDIC-insured bank. Banking services
[2700s] provided through Choice Financial Group
[2702s] and Column N/A, members FDIC.
[2705s] Okay, so if people have been following
[2706s] along, we're working our way through the
[2707s] funnel. This kind of my strategy here.
[2709s] So we've talked about how to kind of
[2711s] figure out what you're looking for,
[2712s] figure out who these people are, how to
[2713s] get them talking to you.
[2715s] So you got them in the interview stage.
[2718s] What are some things you've learned
[2719s] about how to increase your signal on the
[2721s] person and identify if they're a good
[2723s] fit and someone you want to make an
[2724s] offer to.
[2724s] >> Yeah, some of it's a little fundamental,
[2726s] which is
[2727s] um
[2728s] research has shown that work samples are
[2730s] the highest
[2731s] predictor of success at a company. But
[2734s] yet most companies are still spending a
[2735s] lot of time doing one-to-one across the
[2738s] table
[2739s] assessments. And so
[2742s] uh you know, I think we are famously
[2744s] known for doing long on-sites
[2746s] experiences for some of our roles.
[2749s] Um so where they do a project and they
[2751s] get work to side-by-side. So that gives
[2753s] us a very strong signal. It also gives
[2755s] them the candidate tremendous signal.
[2757s] And so I think this is where most
[2758s] companies get it wrong on the on-site.
[2761s] they're almost always buying.
[2764s] This is like we are assessing, we're
[2766s] extracting information. We're not giving
[2768s] much back
[2770s] to the candidate. And I'm a big fan of
[2772s] the power of self-selection. And
[2774s] self-selection really good
[2776s] self-selection serves really good inputs
[2777s] and data. And so we want that experience
[2780s] with the candidate to feel more two-way
[2783s] than most.
[2785s] So we really think about crafting that
[2788s] on site experience through who they
[2790s] might meet. We talked about that. We
[2791s] really clearly handpicking who they
[2793s] might meet for those interviews. We We
[2795s] do a lot of work sample and project type
[2798s] of work to give us good signal, but we
[2800s] also really curate who's greeting them.
[2802s] Who's sitting beside them for lunch.
[2804s] Like we always try to put it around a
[2806s] meal, a dinner, or lunch, or a
[2807s] breakfast. And everything is really
[2809s] curated to make that as high quality
[2812s] experience for them and get them the
[2813s] data. But we you know, but also us
[2816s] getting data from people that we feel
[2817s] like are the most going to connect with
[2819s] that person.
[2820s] >> Who runs point on this sort of
[2821s] experience? Is it a recruiter or is it
[2823s] the hiring manager?
[2824s] >> Um I would say I think it's the
[2826s] recruiter
[2827s] um primarily as the quarterback, but
[2829s] they're pulling lots of levers. Um and
[2832s] so the hiring manager is probably going
[2833s] to have the most insight into some of
[2835s] those people.
[2836s] Our recruiting coordinators
[2838s] uh are tremendous and I think we
[2841s] probably
[2842s] and they they do a lot of this um
[2845s] hosting with us as well.
[2847s] Um and so our recruiting coordinators of
[2848s] course do some scheduling, but they're
[2849s] probably doing more of this candidate
[2851s] shepherding. So imagine a candidate was
[2853s] with us for a day or two,
[2856s] there's lots of like moving pieces and
[2857s] helping them move from a workstation
[2859s] where they might be doing a project into
[2861s] lunch, back to that, helping them get
[2863s] their environment set up. You know, so
[2865s] um there's a lot of people in play. We
[2867s] ask our quarterback and our quarterback
[2869s] to be our recruiter to be the
[2871s] quarterback, but a lot of the you know,
[2873s] the insights come from hiring managers
[2875s] and execution with the coordinator, too.
[2877s] >> It's interesting just how much of the
[2878s] experience and process changes with this
[2881s] worldview of the every person we are
[2883s] talking to is very special and is
[2885s] they're very rare and these are the best
[2888s] uh for this role. And so it it's clear
[2890s] how much of it trickles down into
[2892s] thinking deeply about every touchpoint
[2894s] along the journey versus the typical
[2896s] journey.
[2897s] >> And imagine that you have a teams and
[2899s] employee base to like
[2901s] understand that well, they went through
[2902s] it. So you get over this like tipping
[2904s] point moment with the company where they
[2907s] had that experience.
[2909s] So they recognize, acknowledge and now
[2910s] they're part of
[2912s] How fun is that? Right?
[2914s] They had a great experience, now they
[2915s] get to help deliver that for this next
[2917s] batch of people.
[2919s] So you kind of create this like flywheel
[2922s] opportunity once you get kind of over
[2924s] that initial hump.
[2925s] >> I just remembered actually, I had a
[2926s] friend applying for a job at Crossover
[2928s] and he said it was the best candidate
[2930s] experience he's ever had.
[2932s] >> That's amazing.
[2932s] >> remembered that.
[2933s] >> [snorts]
[2933s] >> And so So by definition, we thought
[2935s] about like doing a lot of um scoping of
[2938s] really great people. Not all of them are
[2940s] going to be a fit for us by their choice
[2941s] or ours.
[2943s] But every one of them can walk away
[2945s] as a net promoter.
[2947s] And by the again, by definition, they're
[2948s] some of the best. Those promoters weigh
[2951s] more and count more than others because
[2954s] they're influential, they're great,
[2954s] they're known to be good. And so they
[2956s] may never come back to us, but they
[2958s] might tell you
[2960s] who now tells his audience or they might
[2962s] tell you who then you you mention
[2963s] something at a barbecue and like now it
[2965s] becomes this like groundswell and you
[2967s] start to build a little stronger magnet
[2970s] and that activation becomes a little bit
[2972s] less hard
[2973s] if you do that well.
[2975s] >> Mhm, absolutely.
[2976s] Uh the work trial piece, I saw an
[2978s] interview with Michael Terrell talking
[2980s] about this and he said how he they tried
[2982s] to get rid of it because it's obviously
[2984s] adds a lot of load and and some people
[2986s] don't want to be doing these things and
[2987s] he said that it just totally tanked
[2989s] their signal and they had to bring it
[2991s] back.
[2991s] >> Yeah, it's a huge commitment, you can
[2993s] imagine, of time.
[2994s] Uh Um but
[2997s] if talent is your number one thing, then
[3000s] you know, that is a good investment of
[3001s] time to do it. You know, when we all
[3004s] have a role to play in recruiting at the
[3006s] company. Um not everyone is like carved
[3009s] out or you know, best to do work trial
[3012s] work, but like some are. You know, some
[3013s] but some can do the lunch. Some can do
[3015s] the greet. Some you know, so so there's
[3016s] like lots of different ways that people
[3018s] can play a role. Um but yeah, when we
[3020s] ran that experiment, um
[3022s] you know, cuz it is it is quite
[3024s] expensive. It is also a big ask of
[3026s] candidates.
[3027s] We really struggled to have confidence
[3029s] in our decision. Again, this is this is
[3031s] a confidence building
[3032s] function.
[3034s] And so um we are excited to bring it
[3035s] back.
[3036s] >> So good learning there is it's like if
[3037s] you are not doing this, you're lacking
[3040s] significant signal.
[3041s] >> Possibly. Yeah, I think so. You know,
[3043s] and I think there I don't think there's
[3044s] a lot of maximums or absolutes in this
[3047s] business.
[3048s] Um but I think for a lot of companies,
[3052s] it's hard to think of a better way than
[3054s] you know, doing side-by-side real work
[3056s] to get those signals. Obviously, some of
[3058s] it you know, in this case is like a
[3060s] technical signal, but imagine the amount
[3062s] of like
[3063s] core values and uh collaboration and
[3066s] other things you get like other signals
[3067s] you get over a stretch of time that can
[3069s] be um arguably
[3071s] more important than the specific
[3073s] technical skill.
[3074s] >> What do you do for like PMs or like I
[3076s] don't know, go to market or ops people?
[3078s] Is there something like that?
[3079s] >> Yeah, we have a version of this across.
[3081s] And so uh the go-to-market um
[3084s] team does like a challenge where there's
[3086s] like a a problem they work through like
[3087s] a challenge together, like a challenging
[3089s] customer and things like that. And
[3090s] that's like often like one-to-one with
[3091s] the hiring manager.
[3092s] Um product uh does a similar
[3095s] um like project type together as well.
[3097s] So we have like versions of that that I
[3099s] feel like are tight traded to the
[3101s] function, but also the role and things
[3104s] like that as well. So we try Try to be
[3105s] like uh uniform across this um cuz these
[3108s] functions are very different.
[3109s] >> One of the classic criticisms with the
[3111s] work trial is you're doing work for the
[3113s] company and it's like
[3114s] I would just solve problems for you for
[3116s] free.
[3116s] >> Yeah.
[3116s] >> What's the velocity on the problem they
[3118s] tackle say engineering or PM?
[3120s] >> Yeah, there's a set of problems they can
[3122s] choose from. So
[3123s] you know and so we feel like they have
[3125s] like some direction and discretion. We
[3127s] also are very open to
[3130s] right sizing it for them based on where
[3131s] they are and their availability and time
[3133s] too
[3134s] to a a certain extent. So we try to be
[3137s] flexible flexible and understanding
[3139s] around that. And we also you know we'll
[3141s] sometimes use Saturdays too. You know so
[3143s] like we understand it can be hard to
[3144s] take away time away on a work week or a
[3148s] traditional work week and so
[3151s] we totally get it. It's it's a big ask a
[3153s] big commitment. We think it's worth it
[3154s] but we're also willing to schedule that
[3156s] when that works for them.
[3158s] So there's this like conflict around
[3162s] a lot of time and effort that could feel
[3164s] slow.
[3165s] But when they're ready to go
[3167s] we are fast.
[3169s] Right? We make up that time. So if you
[3172s] and I were having an initial screen
[3173s] you're like yeah I'll I'll be able to
[3174s] talk in two I'm like open up your
[3177s] calendar I have their calendar great
[3178s] you're going to talk to them in an hour.
[3181s] Right? So you like you like move once
[3183s] they're ready to go you got to
[3184s] capitalize on that. You can't create
[3186s] openings for them to come have second
[3187s] guessing. So when we go we go but we it
[3190s] might take a lot of time to get up to
[3191s] that moment.
[3192s] >> Moving ourselves further down the funnel
[3195s] what's kind of the moment when you
[3196s] decide we're going to make this person
[3197s] an offer? Is there something that you
[3200s] look for specifically or and or or just
[3202s] what's the process like a hiring
[3203s] committee meeting or something else?
[3205s] >> Yeah, we we debrief as as immediately as
[3208s] possible
[3209s] as a team.
[3211s] Each function has a little bit of a
[3213s] different hiring process of what that
[3214s] looks like but we we don't have hiring
[3216s] committees it is hiring manager led.
[3219s] They get lots of input from the team.
[3222s] And you remember the the role of the
[3223s] hiring manager
[3225s] is you know, it's not a democracy.
[3228s] Hiring manager is holding there that
[3230s] group accountable for getting helping
[3231s] them get them the right inputs to make
[3233s] out the right decision to make the best
[3235s] decision, hire or no hire.
[3237s] Uh, and so we try to frame it in that
[3239s] way.
[3240s] Make sure we get really good signal on
[3242s] it. Um, and we try so we try to move
[3244s] really quickly. So debriefings typically
[3246s] same day if not next day. Um, and and
[3250s] you know, kind of like make that
[3251s] decision then that decision goes to the
[3252s] founders for
[3254s] for stamping.
[3255s] >> Awesome. Okay.
[3257s] Then you get to the offer stage. There's
[3259s] a bunch of stuff here, but one is just
[3261s] uh, there are many massive offers
[3262s] happening these days.
[3264s] Say
[3267s] Okay, so say you made an offer to one of
[3268s] these top 50 people and they're like,
[3270s] "Okay, but I also got this offer from
[3271s] Anthropic for a bazillion dollars."
[3273s] >> Mhm.
[3274s] >> How do you handle that? And also just is
[3276s] that like super frustrating or is it
[3278s] like, "Oh wow, more signal this person
[3280s] is incredible."
[3281s] >> Yeah, I think I think it can it can be
[3282s] both. There's room for both. Um, I think
[3285s] that
[3286s] um, the goal is to not be selling at the
[3290s] close.
[3291s] We're we're we're trying to sell
[3293s] throughout. And so, if you think about
[3296s] the craft of recruiting, the craft of
[3298s] recruiting is up front getting a really
[3300s] clear on this person's motivations.
[3303s] And what might be why they might make a
[3306s] move and for what.
[3308s] And then making sure that that entire
[3309s] experience
[3311s] hits to those pieces. So the at the end
[3313s] is a culmination
[3316s] not a start.
[3318s] Right? It feels like almost like a
[3320s] natural
[3321s] per outcome
[3323s] of it. Where it's just like, "Oh, this
[3324s] is almost like this um,
[3326s] just like a sumptive next step of Yeah,
[3328s] and here's the offer that we talked
[3330s] about a lot." You know, like you know,
[3331s] and so so we versus like kind of
[3332s] starting the the clock or starting the
[3334s] conversation on a close.
[3336s] I think we try to get back to those
[3337s] motivations, so we might think about how
[3339s] we would differentiate against intrinsic
[3341s] size-wise or the role or the team or the
[3343s] people you work with. Um we try to think
[3346s] about we really try to focus on the
[3347s] intrinsic things, not the extrinsic
[3351s] things, which is very hard to do when
[3353s] you're you're getting MBA players like
[3357s] offers and salaries and sometimes great
[3359s] bigger than that. But we really try to
[3361s] focus on people who uh want to be want
[3363s] to be here. You know, and um
[3366s] often when people are thinking about
[3369s] um their job search and what might be
[3371s] next, they maybe start with a set of
[3373s] things and we maybe help them discover
[3374s] other things along the way.
[3376s] And we might discover at the end that it
[3379s] actually this is not the right fit and
[3381s] that's okay and we should be we feel
[3382s] good about walking away from that. Uh
[3384s] but often it's about helping them
[3386s] discover that actually maybe this is the
[3387s] right place through that journey.
[3389s] >> How often do people
[3391s] take a job without with that doesn't
[3394s] have the highest comp? Like is that
[3395s] common or is that rare?
[3397s] >> Yeah, I think you're trying to mitigate
[3399s] comp as a reason people come or don't
[3400s] come.
[3401s] Um and often that means you're not at
[3403s] the it's not the highest number.
[3405s] And I think you you know, we've all
[3406s] probably talked with people who maybe at
[3408s] some point in their career chased just
[3410s] the largest number.
[3412s] And I think what you realize six months
[3414s] in is like that just becomes your new
[3415s] level of like
[3416s] comp expect you know, comp life.
[3419s] But you're you're not excited about the
[3421s] people you work with or
[3422s] the work you're doing.
[3424s] Um and so we try to kind of mitigate
[3426s] that as a as a piece, but I think that
[3428s] happens happens a lot. You know, and
[3430s] also rightfully so, you know, that we've
[3432s] probably lost people where maybe we were
[3434s] the highest one and they went somewhere
[3435s] else too and like if that's the right
[3436s] fit for them, this is this is going to
[3438s] sound sound a little polyannic, but like
[3440s] I fundamentally believe there are right
[3442s] people for right companies at the right
[3444s] time.
[3445s] And if they discover at the end of that
[3446s] that we're not,
[3448s] that's the right call for them and like
[3450s] as a recruiter, if they're not the right
[3452s] fit, I literally have to redo that work
[3454s] in 6 months.
[3456s] I don't want to redo that work. I'd
[3457s] rather let's let's figure that out right
[3459s] now um and have that more open
[3460s] conversation.
[3462s] >> You should build uh an agent
[3463s] [clears throat] that helps you decide
[3465s] and figure that out, which company is
[3466s] the right fit for you right now in this
[3468s] time cuz that sounds really valuable.
[3470s] >> That would be That would be That would
[3471s] be super interesting.
[3473s] >> Uh something that I've heard Anthropic
[3475s] does that I've never heard anyone do, uh
[3477s] similar to Tesla, they don't have a They
[3480s] don't let you negotiate. They're just
[3482s] like, "Here's the offer."
[3483s] Do you feel like that's like an only
[3484s] Anthropic thing that they could do
[3486s] because they're just Anthropic and or is
[3488s] or is that something you think about?
[3490s] >> I I mean, I've thought about it. I see,
[3491s] you know, uh over time different
[3492s] companies have done that. Um and I think
[3495s] what I respect about it is like you make
[3498s] that call.
[3499s] And um
[3501s] and you kind of stick with it and
[3502s] there's a commitment to it. Um but every
[3504s] company's different and I think the
[3505s] approach is is So, I I respect it, but
[3508s] um
[3508s] I I think about it, but it you know, may
[3510s] not be right for us.
[3511s] >> From the candidate's perspective, what
[3513s] are what are some mistakes that people
[3515s] make when they get an offer that kind of
[3518s] shoot themselves in the foot?
[3519s] >> Um the general advice I give to
[3522s] candidates is when you think about your
[3524s] offer and if you're negotiating, it has
[3526s] to just fit a line of logic.
[3531s] Right? And so,
[3532s] if you are asking for a certain piece of
[3534s] compensation or certain other piece of
[3537s] it, like what is it rooted Well, how
[3539s] like walk me through like your the logic
[3541s] behind it and like how like that I think
[3543s] that makes it easy for that person to
[3545s] understand, but also easy for them to
[3546s] communicate that forward to maybe a
[3548s] different decision maker as well.
[3551s] Um so, I see um candidates who maybe a
[3553s] little bit all over the place on that uh
[3556s] where earlier it was this and now it's
[3557s] this and it's kind of it's kind of the
[3558s] add-on type of thing
[3560s] versus a candidate who's coming in of
[3562s] like, "Here's the four things that are
[3563s] important to me." and being clear and
[3565s] consistent with it um as as much at the
[3568s] from the outset as you can. Not all
[3570s] things can be there at the outset.
[3572s] Um, that makes it very logical and easy
[3575s] for the company to kind of engage with
[3576s] that.
[3577s] >> Versus just finding random excuses for
[3580s] more income.
[3581s] >> Correct. And you know, I think what a
[3582s] company generally knows is like
[3584s] we're not their top We're intrinsically
[3586s] not their top choice. Mhm. Right? And
[3588s] so, um, we're trying to win head and
[3591s] hearts
[3592s] here. And it's not we're not trying
[3594s] we're not we're not trying to,
[3596s] um,
[3596s] we're not trying to buy that out.
[3598s] >> How just like mind-blowing are these
[3599s] comps these days? I imagine you've seen
[3601s] so many.
[3603s] >> Yeah. I think it's all it's all true and
[3604s] worse, um, or higher.
[3607s] I think the the open question a lot of
[3609s] us the AI companies are like how does
[3611s] this like where does it go how does it
[3612s] go from here? Like how does this end?
[3614s] Nobody knows.
[3616s] Um, but it does feel like
[3619s] the unit
[3620s] of measure that matters the most
[3623s] is the most fixed and finite, which is
[3625s] time.
[3627s] It is a race against the clock
[3629s] to get the model, the talent, you know,
[3632s] and like that is like the all that is
[3634s] like the thing that matter the most is
[3635s] the most precious.
[3637s] Clearly for some companies there's more
[3639s] money and there's more other things, but
[3641s] time is like
[3642s] is our is the most fixed and important
[3645s] asset right here in in this market.
[3647s] >> Just coming back to the AI researcher
[3650s] trend, it's crazy how these people used
[3651s] to be just like off on the side building
[3654s] these AI models ML models not that
[3656s] exciting to anybody and now they're like
[3658s] the most in demand.
[3659s] >> And I remember I helped, um, build out
[3661s] the, um, the research group at Facebook
[3664s] before they had they they just not hire
[3667s] PhDs even, you know, advanced degrees
[3669s] really much at all. And
[3672s] um, you know, this is uh, 2010 or
[3675s] something.
[3676s] And I remember meeting just like this
[3679s] set of academics really, who
[3684s] were grow getting this like growing
[3685s] frustration of their work not ever
[3688s] making it outside of those the halls of
[3691s] academia. And so,
[3693s] I'd like to very excited for that
[3695s] population to have like this moment. You
[3698s] know, they've been
[3699s] arguably
[3701s] the underpinning of technical innovation
[3703s] for decades.
[3705s] And
[3707s] they're having their moment. And like
[3709s] well well well deserved.
[3711s] >> Kind of along those lines to close out
[3714s] this the funnel of let's call it the
[3715s] funnel of joy instead of the funnel of
[3717s] doom.
[3717s] >> Yeah, love it.
[3718s] >> I heard from one of your candidates,
[3719s] here's the quote that I got, uh that you
[3722s] and your team's ability to close and
[3723s] convert candidates with offers to accept
[3726s] is extraordinary.
[3728s] What are some things you do that help
[3730s] get someone over the line that are kind
[3731s] of on the fence?
[3732s] >> Yeah, um so I think there's like a
[3734s] couple things there. One, I I I'll just
[3737s] re-mention quickly, which is that the
[3739s] closing is happening throughout the
[3741s] process. Um in terms of like who they're
[3744s] meeting and motivations and like we're
[3745s] removing objections along the way.
[3748s] Uh so that's one. I think the second is
[3751s] um closing is a team sport.
[3753s] And so, when we have a candidate, um
[3756s] particularly like a high-profile,
[3757s] high-caliber, there are
[3760s] often daily stand-ups
[3763s] around that candidate about what we're
[3765s] doing
[3766s] to get them to yes. And that might be 10
[3768s] minutes,
[3769s] but it's not the amount of time, it is
[3771s] like I focused energy every day around
[3774s] what we are collectively doing. And so
[3776s] that could be the hiring manager,
[3777s] recruiter, but also could be former
[3778s] peers. You know, there's like lots of
[3780s] people who influence that, and we try to
[3781s] just be very intentional about making
[3784s] sure that person feels cared for and
[3786s] belong and coming here and like staying
[3788s] on top of things. The third thing I
[3789s] think is we just try to make it very
[3791s] personal. Um and so, just this week, you
[3794s] know, 2 days ago I I just saw and we try
[3797s] to share these stories internally, too.
[3799s] Cuz this is how builds the culture of
[3800s] recruiting. We kind of share these
[3802s] stories back to the company.
[3803s] Uh but someone was sharing we were
[3805s] working on a candidate in New York and
[3806s] we learned that
[3808s] uh through getting to know them that
[3809s] they went to a performing arts high
[3811s] school
[3812s] and were a classically trained violin
[3814s] violinist.
[3815s] And we were just kind of very into like
[3818s] stringed
[3819s] uh instruments.
[3821s] Um so this person
[3824s] um
[3824s] I found this like specialty instrument
[3827s] store in New York City and bought this
[3829s] like kind of unique Turkish guitar
[3831s] almost almost violin guitar thing. And
[3835s] they were meeting for like a dinner
[3837s] where they got the offer and they
[3838s] presented that gift to them.
[3841s] And so it was
[3844s] a couple hundred dollars maybe, right?
[3845s] Not a lot of money. Particularly
[3846s] relative to like the size of offer and
[3848s] the size of impact that we thought that
[3850s] you know that someone's going to have.
[3852s] Uh but it's like it's the thoughtfulness
[3854s] and the touching uniqueness of it and
[3856s] the personal moment of that
[3859s] that like I think stands out. And I
[3860s] think when a candidate thinks about
[3862s] having the best candidate experience,
[3864s] often they feel like wow, this felt like
[3866s] tailored to me. This felt unique to me.
[3869s] >> I know there's also a Slack channel that
[3870s] gets created per for each candidate.
[3872s] >> Every candidate Yeah, so I think when
[3873s] you talk about the stand-up, sometimes
[3875s] that's also strategy and updates and
[3876s] like and so there's the same rallying
[3878s] effect to activate is no different at
[3881s] the at that close and each candidate has
[3883s] their own channel.
[3884s] >> Just so much of this just keeps going
[3886s] back to intentionality around every
[3888s] specific candidate and not treating it
[3890s] like the funnel, but just this is the
[3892s] atomic unit, this person. What can we do
[3894s] throughout the entire process to make
[3895s] them get excited and see if it's a fit?
[3897s] >> Which is hard to do when you're doing at
[3900s] scale at the funnel of doom.
[3902s] So when you are thinking about a hundred
[3903s] candidates for every role then this is
[3906s] not that does not scale. But when you're
[3908s] narrowing that down to a small
[3910s] percentage of people that you've been
[3911s] kind of laying groundwork with over
[3913s] time,
[3915s] it come because it because now people
[3917s] are moving faster through those steps
[3918s] and it's a smaller number of people. So,
[3920s] the time that you're taking, you know,
[3922s] holistically for that funnel, you're
[3923s] just displacing putting it in different
[3925s] places.
[3927s] >> It's so interesting and it's such a
[3928s] different approach. I've never heard of
[3929s] anyone hiring this way.
[3931s] >> Yeah, and we had this like thesis when I
[3933s] was at Growth by Design, you know,
[3935s] around like there's a we think there's
[3936s] this different way to do this. We'd seen
[3937s] all these companies over time and work
[3939s] with labs and all these things were
[3940s] like, "Wow, like these companies are
[3942s] literally
[3944s] at the cutting edge of a technical
[3946s] revolution
[3947s] here. Probably the most exciting one
[3950s] we've seen
[3951s] in millennia
[3952s] and they were recruiting in a
[3955s] web browser way.
[3958s] And we're like, "If a company like had
[3961s] this willingness to commit this time and
[3963s] effort as this collective force, they
[3966s] could really
[3968s] have an unfair advantage when it comes
[3970s] to talent."
[3971s] And when you think about companies over
[3973s] time, whether they become this iconic
[3974s] logo or one that we know we no longer
[3977s] recognize,
[3978s] it often isn't the first company, the
[3980s] fastest to market, the first idea. It's
[3982s] actually execution.
[3984s] And execution comes down to having the
[3986s] right talent at the right time. And when
[3988s] companies figure that out, they're like,
[3989s] "Ooh, this is the most important thing
[3991s] and this is how we're going to approach
[3992s] it." And so, when we met Cursor, we're
[3994s] like,
[3995s] "This could be fun."
[3996s] >> Cursor is actually such a great example
[3998s] of exactly what you're describing
[4000s] because it feels like throughout the
[4001s] entire history of Cursor, it was always
[4003s] just like, "How are they going to
[4004s] survive? There's these model companies
[4006s] building these things, the IDEs
[4009s] like like people are moving away from
[4010s] IDEs and it's been incredible to watch
[4013s] Cursor execute and get ahead of each of
[4015s] these shifts. Whenever people doubt that
[4017s] there's an opportunity here, it just
[4018s] keeps growing and killing it.
[4020s] >> I mean, it's not too long ago it was
[4022s] like tab auto complete, you know, on it
[4024s] and like now we're in the fully cloud
[4026s] agents and it's just um
[4029s] But just remember the time span is like
[4031s] once. You know, it's
[4032s] >> [laughter]
[4033s] >> the condensed nature of this is just
[4034s] wild.
[4035s] >> I came to the office at one point, and I
[4037s] got a tab button, and now it's just like
[4038s] no longer even a thing.
[4039s] >> Yeah. Now it's just cute. Yeah, now it's
[4041s] just on the shelf. Yeah.
[4042s] >> And just talk.
[4044s] Something that one of your colleagues
[4045s] wanted me to ask you is just what it
[4046s] what is it like to work with an exact
[4048s] team who truly believes recruiting is
[4049s] the most important thing?
[4051s] >> It's a gift. And at times incredibly
[4054s] frustrating.
[4056s] So the gift part of it is like imagine
[4059s] that
[4060s] uh how much they care like trying to
[4062s] convince a founder to go have a
[4064s] conversation or to do anything
[4067s] recruiting like that is not a problem
[4068s] here. And like we've you know uh worked
[4070s] with companies who you know where you're
[4071s] like you're trying to like
[4073s] pull them in to things.
[4075s] Um so it's a it's a true gift.
[4078s] The the you know the challenge is like
[4080s] they're in your
[4082s] Like they're in it, you know, like they
[4084s] understand it. Like the the cursor team
[4087s] hired their first 80 people
[4089s] roughly 80 people on their own. They
[4091s] know how hard they know
[4093s] how to do it. They know how hard it is,
[4095s] which is great, but also like they love
[4098s] it and they're in it, and they want to
[4099s] do it. And so there can be zero ego
[4101s] about this of who owns you know who has
[4104s] what piece and like it's an all hands on
[4105s] deck. And so sometimes that can be
[4107s] confusing on who's doing things and
[4109s] things that you know you find out about
[4110s] things after the fact that happened like
[4111s] but like it's like I don't know I'll
[4113s] take that every day.
[4115s] That is extremely net positive, but
[4117s] there you know there's always like a a
[4118s] counter balance to uh such an advantage
[4121s] like that.
[4122s] >> So interesting. That's like CPOs often
[4124s] are frustrated for that reason where the
[4126s] founders are always in there in their
[4128s] >> Yeah, but they care. You know, like I
[4130s] will I'll take the I'll take the effort
[4131s] and care and with that with that tax any
[4133s] day.
[4134s] >> And then one of your hot takes is that
[4136s] the recruiter the recruiting team should
[4138s] be the highest paid team within the
[4139s] company.
[4140s] >> Yeah, one of them. Yeah, if not the I
[4141s] mean if if you think about the this
[4143s] impact that they're having,
[4145s] um
[4146s] that uh and like the you know, I feel
[4149s] like there's a supply and demand crisis
[4152s] around really strategic recruiters
[4154s] because of the somewhat transactional
[4157s] nature we've made recruiting over time.
[4159s] And so, I just think there's a really
[4161s] small supply of recruiters who can
[4165s] function at this level and at and at
[4167s] this approach and style. And so, like
[4171s] any other labor market, it's a it's a
[4174s] cost of labor thing and there's just
[4175s] very few of it. And so, um we think that
[4178s] they have tremendous impact. Um but it's
[4180s] like a really rare skill set.
[4182s] >> Uh something I wanted to ask you that I
[4184s] forgot to ask is uh we talk a lot about
[4186s] talent density.
[4187s] How much of it is about the person
[4189s] specifically versus the team that you
[4192s] assemble around them?
[4194s] >> Yeah, I feel like where companies like
[4196s] overly focus is like an individual.
[4199s] And unless they are a team of one, it's
[4201s] actually like the the you know, if you
[4203s] think about amazing leadership and
[4204s] amazing managers, they're actually quite
[4207s] great puzzle builders.
[4210s] And they think about building these
[4212s] teams that are complementary
[4215s] uh together and then help them excel.
[4217s] And so, talent density is not a single
[4219s] piece unless like the numerator and
[4221s] denominator are both one.
[4223s] You know, and so, but that's not the
[4224s] case. Often, this is one over how many
[4226s] people. And so, talent density is
[4228s] actually a a collective nature
[4230s] of of individuals and humans. But we
[4232s] often because you are recruiting one
[4234s] human at a time, I think sometimes we
[4235s] get overly focused on that specific
[4238s] 10Xer thing, you know?
[4241s] Um and I actually would think I like to
[4242s] think a little bit more around
[4243s] exponential around 10X of like a a team
[4246s] versus an individual.
[4248s] I don't think you can have
[4250s] a 10X person on a
[4253s] bad team.
[4254s] It just like doesn't exist. You know, I
[4256s] think you know, like I used to think
[4257s] when we were like at my last company,
[4260s] we can't we can't be a great
[4263s] uh client service provider if we don't
[4265s] have a great client if we don't have a
[4266s] great client. We can get There's like
[4267s] just a bar there. And similarly, a
[4269s] person that is might be excellent is
[4271s] going to be throttled if they're not on
[4273s] a
[4274s] strong and supportive team.
[4276s] >> That makes sense to me.
[4278s] Okay, I'm going to ask you a bunch of
[4279s] random questions. These are uh again, I
[4281s] think people are going to be hearing
[4282s] this and be like, I need Adam
[4284s] immediately when we need help. Uh and
[4286s] they're not going to be able to get that
[4287s] cuz you know, you got a job. So, I'm
[4288s] going to try to extract as much as I can
[4290s] while we're here. Um
[4292s] when is Say you're an early-stage
[4293s] company, think about hiring, setting up
[4294s] your first your hiring approach, what's
[4297s] kind of the most common ways that
[4299s] early-stage companies and founders eff
[4300s] up their early team and hiring?
[4303s] >> Yeah, I think the thing they try to do
[4305s] is do this um silver bullet
[4308s] hire,
[4309s] um which is a first like head of talent,
[4312s] and they kind of um collapse two
[4315s] competing skill sets into one.
[4318s] Okay, so when you are generally as a
[4320s] founder, when you're ready to hire your
[4321s] first recruiter, you're probably behind
[4324s] on hiring. There's a problem to solve
[4325s] there. You're behind on hiring. So, then
[4327s] maybe there's like a a debt of roles to
[4329s] fill.
[4330s] 5 10 15.
[4332s] But you also are hiring someone at this
[4334s] stage cuz you want them to build like a
[4335s] system. Like just like we're like they
[4338s] might be like, "Wow, like I want to
[4339s] build something like Adam's talking
[4341s] about." So, you're trying to build this
[4342s] like hire someone who can also put in
[4344s] the right pieces to help scale out. And
[4347s] like those are competing interests.
[4350s] Because person who wants to come in and
[4352s] like just any new hire, they want to
[4354s] like prove out, they want to make hires,
[4355s] but they might not put in the system, or
[4357s] they might put in the system, but not
[4359s] make any hires, and now you're like not
[4360s] sleeping. And so, they try to collapse
[4362s] this into one role, and generally that's
[4364s] a mistake. And so, we recommend kind of
[4365s] decoupling those things.
[4368s] So, that means you still might will to
[4370s] one person, but can you get some help
[4373s] with the other one?
[4375s] I'm going to hire the person who's going
[4376s] to put in the right system, but I'm
[4377s] going to partner them with a
[4379s] uh contingent recruiter or something
[4381s] else to like make some short-term
[4383s] progress while they and kind of like
[4386s] teach the company how to do this through
[4387s] these roles that they fill that they're
[4388s] helping orchestrate or vice versa. I
[4390s] might bring in someone to help us put in
[4392s] the right
[4393s] uh foundation which like we did at GBD
[4395s] and then they get to hire like a really
[4397s] high-powered IC recruiter who can
[4399s] connect execute.
[4400s] >> Amazing. That makes all the sense in the
[4402s] world. Uh
[4403s] when you're looking for that first
[4404s] recruiting hire, is there anything else
[4406s] you think is important to look for? I
[4408s] know it depends on maybe which of these
[4409s] two buckets they're going to be in, but
[4410s] any other advice?
[4411s] >> Yeah, I think number one is that they
[4413s] are
[4414s] like curious and business-focused. Um
[4417s] they're an early member of the team.
[4418s] They got to be really curious and
[4421s] understanding of how the business works
[4423s] and how each of those hires is going to
[4425s] change the slope of the business.
[4427s] >> Mhm.
[4427s] >> Um and so
[4429s] >> Mhm.
[4430s] >> you know, often that means that they
[4431s] have all these interesting it shows up
[4433s] in lots of way curious people, um but I
[4435s] think that's the number one thing I
[4436s] think of. The number two one which I
[4438s] think and I think these sometimes get
[4441s] switched is just like high motor,
[4443s] you know, someone who like understands
[4447s] the grind that it will be
[4449s] and the pace that it works and is down
[4451s] for it. And that doesn't have mean they
[4453s] have to be
[4455s] younger or or it doesn't mean anything.
[4457s] It's just that they
[4458s] love um working at this edge of
[4462s] overwhelmness. And so I often think
[4464s] about my team is like we want the water
[4466s] level to be like right here.
[4469s] Uh and so you're like you're breathing,
[4471s] but you know, and if you if you've met
[4473s] any kind of recruiters,
[4475s] recruiters are excellent at 90 to 110%
[4478s] capacity and are terrible outside of
[4480s] that. Right? If they only have half a
[4482s] req load,
[4484s] they kind of like are like useless.
[4486s] Or if they're like, know, way
[4488s] overwhelmed, also just overwhelmed. But
[4490s] they're kind of great at this like
[4491s] middle ground of like edge of adrenaline
[4495s] rush busy.
[4497s] And you go you want to find those
[4498s] people.
[4499s] >> Oh, man. So, along those lines, uh I've
[4501s] heard from a bunch of people that you
[4503s] just have a huge followership on your
[4506s] team. There's a lot of heads of talent
[4508s] from other companies that decided to
[4509s] join your team to be ICs.
[4512s] What are some things you've learned
[4513s] about building incredible teams, keeping
[4516s] people working for you over the long
[4518s] term?
[4519s] >> One thing I learned is at each place my
[4522s] team has looked different.
[4524s] Um because the company how they think
[4526s] about recruiting or the product is
[4527s] different. And so, the Cursive way
[4530s] demanded a different type of team.
[4533s] Right? It demanded this
[4535s] level of recruiter and who has like
[4538s] understands the leadership recruiting
[4539s] motion, who's not going to get caught up
[4541s] in the numbers game of the funnel to do.
[4543s] Like they have this confidence and they
[4545s] have you know, they they have a network
[4546s] that they can tap into. And so, we I
[4548s] think we we talked a lot about hiring
[4550s] managers other people networks, but
[4552s] seasoned great recruiters have their own
[4553s] networks, too. Like you have a couple of
[4555s] recruiters in your life that you trust,
[4557s] that you probably would like seek advice
[4559s] on, you know? And so, we try to collect
[4561s] those people, too, cuz they they can be
[4563s] as influential in tapping their networks
[4566s] as
[4567s] uh a technical leader, for example.
[4570s] Um so,
[4572s] and then I kind of just kind of think
[4573s] about like three attributes
[4575s] um of someone who I want on my team. Uh
[4578s] so, one, uh I want people who are
[4580s] excellent humans
[4582s] and excellent in what they do.
[4584s] And I'm not willing to trade that off.
[4586s] We are going to spend
[4588s] most of our waking hours during the week
[4590s] together.
[4591s] And we should be all be selfish enough
[4593s] to want to work with great people, great
[4595s] yeah, great humans.
[4597s] The second is um people who I look for
[4600s] people who have a chip on their
[4601s] shoulder, something to prove, um love
[4605s] the craft. They have this is like
[4606s] internal drive and motivation
[4609s] to be excellent.
[4611s] Um and that can show up in lots of ways
[4612s] and I try to get to that.
[4614s] And then the third thing is I look for
[4615s] people who put team over themselves. And
[4617s] so this is really important clearly for
[4619s] the team I built now. They could be
[4621s] running recruiting
[4623s] at lots of places.
[4625s] Um but what they've realized is that no
[4628s] one really aspires to get to middle
[4629s] management.
[4630s] We kind of end up there.
[4632s] But what they did realize is like they
[4633s] love the craft of recruiting and they
[4635s] love to be challenged, they love to
[4636s] learn.
[4637s] Um they want to work with great people.
[4639s] And so when I would go out to my network
[4642s] and I'm like, "Hey Lenny, who are three
[4644s] people you know that are excellent
[4646s] humans and excellent recruiters?
[4648s] They just just have this natural drive
[4649s] or chip on their shoulder and like they
[4652s] put team over themselves." You're like,
[4653s] "Ah, you should talk to Janet." You
[4655s] know, you like you can conjure those
[4657s] things up. And so we've really tried to
[4658s] build a team uh of those folks here and
[4661s] I'm really excited about the people
[4662s] we've collected.
[4663s] >> Uh it's a good sign when I'm just like,
[4665s] "Wait, I want to work for Adam. This
[4666s] sounds really great."
[4668s] >> And I try to be this balance of
[4671s] because recruiting is sometimes around
[4673s] inspiring your team,
[4675s] but it's a deeply operational
[4678s] function. You know, and so I've tried to
[4681s] find this balance of where I can be like
[4684s] in the weeds, operational, understand
[4686s] it, be in it with them, but also
[4689s] sometimes lift up and help like paint
[4691s] the bigger picture, too.
[4692s] >> Amazing. Adam, we've covered so much
[4694s] ground. We've gone through the whole
[4695s] funnel and more.
[4697s] Before we get to our very exciting
[4699s] lightning round, is there anything else
[4701s] that you wanted to share, anything else
[4703s] you want to leave listeners with, any
[4704s] nugget you want to double down on?
[4706s] >> I mean, one thing that we didn't talk
[4707s] about which I think is happening, I'm
[4709s] seeing more of, is renegs on offers. And
[4712s] so I think a lot of companies get to the
[4715s] yes
[4717s] of the offer acceptance and there's
[4719s] often like a gap of time.
[4721s] Uh in the more senior they are often
[4723s] it's, you know, beyond a couple weeks.
[4726s] Uh we think about a second motion
[4727s] happening after offer accept. Which is,
[4731s] you know, where we are a button seat
[4732s] business in recruiting and there's like
[4734s] a big window there where someone has
[4736s] like, ah, they accept the offer and we
[4738s] kind of like go on to the next one.
[4740s] But what are we doing between offer
[4742s] accept and join?
[4744s] And there's two key parts of that. One
[4745s] is like make sure that they show up. The
[4746s] second is like a bit of a pre-boarding
[4748s] and helping them have a fast ramp by
[4749s] staying connected with them. So, we'll
[4751s] do dinners with other people who have
[4753s] accepted. We try to create essentially
[4754s] create community around them. We'll send
[4756s] them a Cursor laptop.
[4758s] You know, kind of feels like a
[4759s] presumptive you've joined kind of way.
[4761s] We do these dinners. We do these like
[4762s] touch points. Um one is help to make
[4764s] sure like that delivery happens, but
[4766s] also to feel like they they start to get
[4768s] excited, too. They start to kind of
[4770s] visually realize what's it going to look
[4771s] like.
[4772s] >> Wow, that is so brutal to have gone
[4773s] through that entire funnel. Got the
[4775s] offer, made the offer, accepted the
[4777s] offer, we're in and just no.
[4779s] Oh man. And you're saying this is a
[4781s] trend, I imagine, because just the
[4783s] market is so hot and they're getting
[4784s] better offers, offers that they didn't
[4786s] expect.
[4787s] >> Correct.
[4787s] >> Yeah.
[4788s] Uh I love I feel like there's this lake
[4789s] of things we didn't talk about. Is there
[4791s] anything else, any other trends, any
[4792s] other trends, things that you noticed of
[4794s] like, wow, this is changing in the
[4795s] hiring landscape?
[4796s] >> I think maybe the other trend I think we
[4798s] see like the rise of the talent
[4799s] engineer. I don't know if you've seen
[4801s] that out there, you know, the kind of
[4802s] the
[4803s] the the function within a recruiting
[4805s] team who is a possibly former engineer
[4808s] who's like building tools and things
[4810s] like that. And uh my warm take,
[4814s] not a hot take, my warm take is like
[4815s] every recruiter should be a talent
[4817s] engineer. Like the things that
[4819s] recruiters now have at their fingertips
[4820s] that they could build
[4822s] in Cursor or other tools
[4824s] is really phenomenal. Um and
[4827s] in earlier companies I was in, we were
[4829s] often beholden to like begging for
[4831s] engineering time to build us tools or
[4833s] functions or features. And now that's
[4835s] like that's in us. Like we have that
[4837s] right now uh in our team. And so uh I
[4841s] want a future state of my recruiting
[4843s] team to feel like they are talent
[4845s] engineers.
[4846s] Um versus you know leaning on someone
[4848s] else on the team to help them like build
[4850s] a tool, if that makes sense.
[4852s] >> Yeah, absolutely. I completely agree.
[4854s] It's interesting. There's go-to-market
[4855s] engineers like every function is going
[4857s] to have their version of engineer.
[4858s] >> Yeah.
[4858s] >> Over time. Engineers engineers.
[4861s] Uh well, Adam, with that we've reached
[4863s] our very exciting lightning round. I've
[4865s] got five questions for you. Are you
[4867s] ready?
[4867s] >> Yeah. Yeah.
[4868s] >> All right. What are two or three books
[4870s] that you find yourself recommending most
[4872s] other people?
[4873s] >> Yeah, this is super nerdy.
[4875s] Um
[4876s] so there's two. There's one of it's like
[4878s] that like I read in undergrad
[4880s] um that has stuck with me.
[4883s] And it's emotional intelligence by
[4884s] Daniel Goleman.
[4886s] And you know it's kind of the the rise
[4888s] of EQ
[4889s] um as an important piece of it. And I
[4892s] just feel like emotional intelligence
[4893s] right now, more than ever, is so
[4895s] important in this like AI age. And so it
[4898s] was like super transformative to me way
[4900s] back then and I think it's like really
[4902s] important now.
[4903s] Uh and the other one I love for founders
[4905s] is just uh the high-growth handbook by
[4907s] Elad Gil. I just think it's
[4909s] set I'm a big fan of a book where you
[4910s] can just jump to a chapter and get an
[4912s] answer. And it's not this like linear
[4914s] piece you got to work through.
[4916s] And so I think it's such a great
[4917s] reference guide on different problems.
[4919s] And you know for the most part building
[4921s] companies
[4922s] um the components are the same.
[4925s] You know the core principles
[4927s] even when that came out several years
[4928s] ago, I still think hold true. So I like
[4930s] the the high-growth handbook.
[4932s] >> Uh a Stripe Press uh shout-out. Uh
[4934s] high-growth handbook. I imagine you've
[4936s] read Scaling People by Claire Hughes
[4937s] Johnson. It feels really up your alley.
[4939s] >> Yeah. Love her.
[4940s] >> Yeah. Another Stripe Press.
[4942s] Uh amazing. I love that yeah, Elad's
[4944s] book is still useful. Like I don't know
[4945s] how many years later.
[4947s] >> Amazing.
[4948s] >> Yeah.
[4949s] >> Uh favorite recent movie or TV show you
[4950s] really enjoyed?
[4951s] >> Yeah, I'm going to I have not seen a
[4953s] movie in years.
[4955s] Um I feel like my life
[4957s] My life is at like 20-minute chunks. Um
[4960s] but I have been watching a series uh The
[4962s] Pit.
[4963s] Um and I'm from Western Pennsylvania, so
[4967s] from like the Pittsburgh area, and not
[4970s] only is that like a it's not only is it
[4972s] extremely well done,
[4974s] um
[4974s] but two, it makes my life feel less
[4977s] frantic. Yeah.
[4978s] >> [laughter]
[4979s] >> Living hour It's about the only thing
[4981s] that can make my life feel less frantic
[4983s] is living an hour in an ER.
[4985s] Um
[4987s] and like all they they go through. And I
[4988s] often, you know, try to tell my team
[4990s] around like the gravity of things. I was
[4992s] like,
[4993s] "Hey y'all, like we get to work for this
[4996s] amazing company and product things, but
[4998s] people are not living and dying every
[5000s] day by decisions that we make. In The
[5002s] Pit, they are, you know? So, it's kind
[5004s] of just gives us like leveling part.
[5007s] Um and then third, I think they just
[5008s] like capture the ethos of that region,
[5011s] which is like my core, which is like
[5013s] Western Pennsylvania blue-collar
[5014s] grinder.
[5016s] Uh and I just think they do a really
[5017s] good job of capturing that. So, I've
[5018s] been I've been watching that uh when I
[5020s] can on some airplanes."
[5022s] >> I love that for most people that shows
[5023s] very stressful and for you it's calming
[5025s] because [laughter] it's less stressful
[5027s] than your life.
[5027s] >> Just the relative relative nature of
[5029s] things is helpful.
[5030s] >> And like have you watched The Bear cuz I
[5032s] feel like that'd be another example?
[5034s] >> Yeah, that I think if I was a probably
[5035s] Chicago guy, that would probably that
[5038s] would probably resonate. Although, I
[5039s] have seen it. Yeah.
[5040s] >> Oh, man. Okay, uh couple few more
[5042s] questions. Uh do you have a favorite
[5044s] product you've recently discovered that
[5045s] you really love other than Cursor?
[5047s] >> Yeah, I think it's still I think one is
[5048s] like semi-recent one isn't. I'm a huge
[5050s] granola fan. I think I was super early
[5052s] on granola, and I love that they
[5054s] continue to innovate.
[5056s] Um and really just did
[5058s] Yeah, just great product decisions, easy
[5060s] to use.
[5061s] Um they're great on feedback, too. If
[5064s] you've ever given them feedback, they're
[5065s] phenomenal.
[5067s] The second I've been using a lot is
[5068s] Whisper, WhisperFlow.
[5070s] And just trying to get out um quick
[5073s] notes to my team. I am better this
[5077s] than this on turns of like my thoughts.
[5080s] And so Whisper's been amazing uh on the
[5082s] go to drop notes to my team.
[5084s] >> Listen to this, Adam. You may not know
[5086s] this. Uh
[5086s] >> I don't.
[5087s] >> Subscribers to my newsletter get a year
[5090s] free of not only Cursor, but also
[5094s] Granola and WhisperFlow
[5096s] >> not know that.
[5097s] >> 30 other incredible products, Replit and
[5100s] Google and lovable and it's out of
[5102s] control. So, if you like any of these
[5104s] products,
[5105s] >> [laughter]
[5105s] >> ladiesproducthunt.com.
[5106s] >> That was not uh that was not a place at
[5109s] all. That was just yeah, I did not know
[5110s] that.
[5110s] >> It's just we have all the best products
[5112s] for free for a freaking year, including
[5113s] Cursor. So, there you go.
[5115s] ladiesproducthunt.com.
[5116s] >> [laughter]
[5117s] >> Okay, two more questions. Uh do you have
[5118s] a favorite life motto that you often
[5120s] come back to in work or in life?
[5122s] >> Yeah. Um I think there's like
[5125s] three things um that I come back to and
[5127s] I you know, try to um instill in my
[5130s] kids, too. So, one is like
[5132s] work hard.
[5134s] I think the value of hard work um
[5137s] is hard to understate.
[5139s] Um and something like I grew up in.
[5141s] Second is like do great work.
[5144s] So, let's not confuse the two.
[5147s] And third is like be helpful.
[5149s] And I think like one thing I've really
[5151s] tried to do and you know, maybe we part
[5154s] of the reason I was able to help build
[5155s] this team is I've really just tried to
[5157s] be helpful. And if you talk to founders
[5159s] out there, anyone,
[5161s] I will answer their emails.
[5163s] I will jump on a 10-minute call with
[5165s] them. And I want to think that people
[5169s] come to me for help and advice and like
[5171s] it's the right ones. And so
[5173s] and that's just has now like I now
[5175s] getting to reap some of that of people
[5176s] who like want to you know, come to the
[5177s] work on the team, but so those three
[5179s] things I've really um tried to live by.
[5182s] >> That is an awesome set of uh principles
[5184s] to live by. Uh clearly it has
[5186s] contributed to your success. I'm going
[5188s] to steal them all. Those are
[5189s] really good. That's like a good tripod
[5191s] of things to to be focused on.
[5194s] You talked about being a dad. Final
[5195s] question. Uh people said you're uh
[5198s] you're an expert on on the importance of
[5200s] a well-placed dad joke. I'm not going to
[5202s] ask you to do a joke unless you want to,
[5204s] but more so just like what's something
[5206s] you've learned about raising kids cuz
[5208s] I'm a I'm a dad, 3-year-old. What's just
[5210s] like a thing you have learned about
[5211s] raising great kids?
[5213s] >> It's humbling.
[5214s] You know, um
[5216s] they will challenge you in ways you
[5219s] don't expect. Um they are like mini
[5222s] mirrors of you sometimes. So it's like
[5224s] that's like a it's a feedback mechanism.
[5226s] And it's like such a joy, honestly. Um
[5230s] and
[5232s] I'm very lucky to have an amazing wife
[5235s] and and partner who
[5237s] um at times, most times, takes the
[5239s] unfair, you know, load of it.
[5241s] Um
[5242s] but um yeah, it's probably it's
[5244s] definitely my greatest joy.
[5246s] >> That's such a good summary. That's
[5247s] exactly how it feels.
[5249s] Very challenging at times, but the
[5250s] greatest joy.
[5251s] >> But just think about your career though.
[5253s] The thing when you look back on your
[5255s] career
[5257s] of your most enjoyable times, you were a
[5259s] little bit over your skis.
[5261s] You were thrown into something
[5263s] unexpected that you weren't ready for.
[5266s] And you like figured it out. And in the
[5267s] moment
[5269s] it was a series of ups and downs,
[5271s] stacking S curves, but you'll look back
[5273s] and I'll be like, "Wow, that was like
[5275s] one of like my career highlights."
[5277s] But you were really over your skis.
[5279s] >> Uh Molly Graham, who's been on the
[5281s] podcast, and did a couple newsletter uh
[5283s] guest posts, she has this concept she
[5285s] calls the J curve, which is you your
[5288s] best roles are just you join and and you
[5290s] go way down and suck at it for a while,
[5292s] and then you come back up, and that's
[5293s] the best experience you've ever had.
[5295s] >> Molly is Yeah, Molly has gold out there,
[5297s] for sure.
[5298s] >> She's so incredible. Working on a new
[5299s] guest post right now, might have come
[5301s] out by the time this comes out.
[5302s] >> Love it.
[5302s] >> Uh with that, two final questions, Adam.
[5304s] Uh what do you want to plug? Anything
[5306s] you want to point people to? And how can
[5307s] listeners be useful to you?
[5309s] >> I think they're one in the same. I mean,
[5310s] I I uh I'll plug I mean, I would love
[5313s] people to try
[5315s] try Cursor. I think it's
[5317s] incredibly exciting things that we're
[5318s] coming out with. Um and we're really
[5320s] proud of it. Um some things in the
[5322s] pipeline, too. I'm not super out there
[5324s] online. I think I'm on LinkedIn a little
[5326s] bit, but um I really
[5328s] honestly try to like my let my work um
[5331s] and our team speak for what we do.
[5333s] Um but I'm always down to be helpful,
[5335s] back to the last point. So, um
[5337s] I I really do get pure
[5340s] energy and joy from helping people. And
[5342s] so, I know at some point that will come
[5344s] back in some kind of way or form. Don't
[5346s] expect it to, but um
[5349s] that's just where I get that that drive
[5350s] from me.
[5351s] >> Just to plug Cursor a little bit. Uh not
[5353s] only is just the design and experience
[5355s] of Cursor awesome,
[5356s] the best feature for a lot of people is
[5358s] you could just switch between models
[5360s] extremely easily. So, instead of getting
[5362s] hooked on Codex or Claude code, use
[5364s] Cursor, and then a new Opus comes out,
[5365s] and you
[5366s] GPT comes out, and you could switch and
[5368s] just play around with it immediately
[5369s] versus switching the product.
[5371s] >> Yeah, there was a world where models
[5372s] were coming out every three or four
[5374s] months.
[5375s] We're down to a number of days between
[5377s] models, and
[5378s] uh people I know who love to build
[5380s] products want to be working with the
[5381s] best tools at any given time. And so,
[5384s] you know, our our agent um
[5387s] allows you to choose the right model.
[5388s] And I think for a lot of companies, also
[5390s] cost is a is a rightful consideration
[5393s] now. And so, it really comes around
[5395s] optimization of using the right model
[5397s] for the right task. And so, that's kind
[5399s] of just landing into uh Cursor's sweet
[5401s] spot.
[5402s] >> Yeah, and you guys are also now just
[5403s] building state-of-the-art models built
[5406s] sitting on SpaceX's data centers like a
[5408s] whole new world for cursor.
[5409s] >> I mean getting to getting to train on
[5412s] the world's largest data center has just
[5413s] unlocked um our models. So, it's been
[5415s] it's been amazing.
[5416s] >> What a time to be alive.
[5417s] >> That's crazy.
[5418s] >> Adam, thank you so much for being here.
[5420s] >> Thanks for having me.
[5421s] >> Bye, everyone.
[5423s] Thank you so much for listening. If you
[5424s] found this valuable, you can subscribe
[5426s] to the show on Apple Podcast, Spotify,
[5429s] or your favorite podcast app.
[5431s] Also, please consider giving us a rating
[5433s] or leaving a review as that really helps
[5435s] other listeners find the podcast. You
[5437s] can find all past episodes or learn more
[5439s] about the show at lennyspodcast.com.
[5441s] [music]
[5442s] See you in the next episode.