The Resume Is Dead. Here’s What Innovative Companies (Including Tesla) Are Using to Hire Instead (Inc.)
 

A study was done that found that previous work experience is actually one of the weakest indicators of future job success. So why do we still rely on it as the primary tool when it comes to hiring?

Hiring based on experience makes no sense.

What does make sense is aggressively innovating on hiring practices, and that’s what a number of companies are doing, including Tesla, Accenture, LinkedIn, and more. Those companies are tossing out résumé s wholesale, and instead relying on neuroscience-based A.I.-powered technology to determine whether a candidate is a fit and how likely they are to succeed.

In the case of Tesla, Accenture, and LinkedIn, they do this by working with Pymetrics, a company that has distilled what used to be a four-hour, academic process of evaluating a person’s cognitive and emotional capabilities into a 30-minute game-playing scenario.
Basically, candidates complete brain tasks (like puzzles or quizzes), the results of which A.I. parses to come up with measurements of things like the person’s problem-solving skills, ability to multitask, and level of altruism.
The reason this is so brilliant is that the results are delivered in the following format: how likely the candidate is to succeed in this role when measured against your company’s own top employees. In other words, it helps you compare the candidate’s metrics to those of your top performers — which is presumably what you want to hire more of.
 

You don’t have to use Pymetrics, either. Tech startup founders like Pat Murray prioritize enthusiasm and determination over previous experience when hiring. A young innovator in a somewhat lethargic industry (parking), he knows he needs people on his team who are ready to shake things up now, regardless of where they’ve come from:

“It doesn’t matter what someone did before they got here,” Murray says. “When we hire, what we’re looking for is that unmistakable mix of drive and talent. But if we were to rank one, we’d pick drive every time. Someone who’s hungry is someone who’s going to do whatever it takes to excel … and that’s invaluable.”

The operative word there:  hunger.

Other CEOs, like Justin Yoshimura of CSC Generation, are coming up with their own algorithms to determine fit (similar to Pymetrics). Again, they have nothing to do with past experience, and everything to do with hunger.

Says Yoshimura, “With unemployment at record lows, the competition for top talent has literally never been greater. This has caused large companies to dramatically increase their compensation packages for ‘obvious’ candidates. As such, we realized we needed to be contrarian in our hiring practices — finding and empowering the non-obvious candidates.”

Here’s how CSC does it: Along with creative and critical thinking tests, the interviewer asks a set of questions that is entered into the A.I.-powered algorithm. Such questions include:

What did your parents do for work?

What do you believe about the world that other people don’t?

Who paid for your college education?

What has been your biggest failure in life?

Why do you want to join a team where the hours are longer and the pay is lower than a big company’s?

While some look like “normal” interview questions, it’s worth looking at, for example, the one about college. If you put yourself through college, what does that say about you? Well, a lot. You had to balance school with work, so you learned how to manage your time as a young adult. You probably had to work when other people were partying, which means you know how to delay gratification.

The main thing is this: If you put yourself through college, you had to want it. Bad. Which is indicative of the design of the rest of the questions. They’re designed to elicit the answer to that critical question: How hungry are you?

Hungry people are driven to succeed. They want to move up, move forward, move things along. They stay late not to look good, but because they want to nail it. They tend to make things at your company far more efficient, because they’re constantly thinking about what’s not working and how they can improve it. Hungry people inspire those around them, because they bring a kind of relentless enthusiasm to the table.

Hungry people make good hires.

Interestingly, guess what else this kind of hiring is good for? Diversity. According to Frida Polli, Pymetric’s CEO, the company’s algorithms test for and eliminate gender and ethnic biases, which leads to the hiring of more women and minorities. It also helps with socioeconomic diversity, by reducing the likelihood of your just hiring people who went to expensive schools.

Leaders like Musk, Murray, and Yoshimura know the truth: The résumé is dead. If you truly want top talent, you’ve got to innovate on your hiring practices.

Or, in the immortal words of Steve Jobs: “Stay hungry. Stay foolish.”

Your people ARE your company. 

You already know this. People ARE your company, NOT things like technology, building, logo, inventory, income statements, etc.
Your employees determine your customers’ experience. If they create a good customer experience then you will grow, if they deliver a poor customer experience then you will fail. It is really that simple.
We all agree that your people are #1…   so why do Orthopedic companies hire B Players?
As a retained recruiter in Orthopedics, I get to see inside diverse companies coast to coast. Each week I watch companies completely blunder the hiring process. Companies settle for filling a chair, instead of attracting the best talent. Filling a chair can kill your company.
“A Players hire A Players.
B Players hire C players.
And C Players will kill your company.”

I believe there are 5 reasons why Orthopedic companies “accidentally” attract B Players.

Reason #1.
Your company does not have a compelling story.
To attract A Players you must communicate your “Why”.  Simon Sinek says it best here.
Great orthopedic leaders connect emotionally when they tell meaningful stories about their business.
Why did you start the company? What clinical problem are you solving? Why are you and your team so committed and passionate about the opportunity?  
Every person in your company should know the story. Once your story becomes ingrained in your culture, your people will become evangelists for your mission that spreads to your customers.  By the way, your story is powerful when hiring. A Players want to work for companies with a strong “Why”.
More reading:  Look for the “Why” in these real interviews with Orthopedic founders. 

Reason #2.
Your hiring process is too slow.
A Players are in high demand. They have the leverage during the hiring process. The speed which you make decisions during the hiring process is a direct reflection on how your company makes decisions.  I know individuals who interview at a company they love, but after 3-4 weeks of interviewing process, they don’t want to work there. “I don’t want to work for an orthopedic company that cannot make a decision in 3-4 weeks.”
By contrast, B Players will hang in there for a while and C Players will hang around forever.
If you want to hire A Players, move fast.
Set up a phone interview within days of learning about them. Set up the in-person interview within days of the phone interview. Make the offer within days of the on-site interview. 

Reason #3.
Your pay is not competitive. 
In Orthopedics today, the candidate has the leverage because the candidate has so many options.  To shift the leverage back to your company, you have to offer a healthy compensation package to attract the best.
Stay aware of what competitors in your local market are paying their employees. 
It’s always cheaper to stretch your pay to attract the A Player.  A Players will make a positive impact on your business.  B and C Players will have to be replaced in the future.

Reason #4.
You have a challenging geography.
There are many compelling Orthopedic companies in rural towns, cold climates or expensive areas. This creates a relocation challenge.
Sales can be remote, this is easy. Generally, Operations and Quality should be on-site, but what about Engineering, Marketing, Finance, Regulatory, Clinical?
If you want to attract A Players in Engineering, Marketing, Finance, Regulatory, Clinical you must become more flexible in where your employees work. Today, the remote working apps are unbelievably good.  Remote workers are generally happier. And you can measure productivity versus time in the office.
Do you want a great Regulatory Director working remotely, or a so-so Regulatory Director who happens to want to live in your geography?

Reason #5.
You are working with a Contingency Recruiter.
Rookie mistake. I promise that your hiring goals and the goals of a Contingency Recruiter are simply not aligned.
Engage a Retained Recruiter and you will find the A Players that you need.  Read more here.

If you’d like to get in touch with a retained Orthopedic pro, email Tiger at [email protected]

I know R&D. 
I have been lucky enough to experience world-class R&D, but I have also seen ineffective R&D. Often the R&D Leader is the problem. 
Here are 8 signals that you should consider making a change to your R&D leadership.

 
1) Lack of Innovation
You are not getting real product innovation from R&D. Your new products look like variations of the competitor’s products.  Meanwhile, some of your competitors are doing remarkable things.
2) Thin Pipeline
Your product pipeline is thin. Successful orthopedics companies win with a steady flow of new products. New products are the engine of the company that fuels the sales force.
3) Heavy Sustaining
Your head of R&D is constantly fixing or redesigning products that have been launched. You may now know it, but the majority of your R&D budget is probably being spent on maintenance. If it feels like there is a disproportionate spend on maintenance, check it out.
4) Risk Averse
The R&D team is not thinking differently.  Your head of R&D is not giving the Engineers room to experiment and make mistakes.  When your R&D leader demands that the Engineers “get it right the first time” he/she biases the Engineers to focus on the least-risky solutions.
5) Lack of Diversity
Your head of R&D hires “like-minded” Engineers from the same background or school. The result is that there is not enough diversity of industry backgrounds, project experiences, and engineering disciplines on your R&D team. Read more in the mingle article.
6) Poor Focus
Your head of R&D is carrying too many projects. This is a common mistake. Most R&D leaders do not want to give up on the more interesting “back-burner” ideas. Engineers may be working on side projects forever that never reach commercialization.  Less projects = more focus = more speed.
7) Poor Collaboration
Your R&D team is not playing well with Regulatory, Marketing, or Sales.  Infighting between R&D and other key departments will kill innovation every time.
8) Customer Distance
Your R&D team is not plugged into the customer, the end-user, the surgeon and healthcare provider.  Many R&D leaders hold their teams back by not allowing them to travel.  Innovation will be sacrificed. R&D Engineers should be in surgeries each week, period.

 
Startups place too much importance on the IDEA, and too little importance on the EXECUTION of the idea.

This is my observation as a recruiter who works with early-stage startup leaders. 
Startup leaders fall in love with their idea. They often ask me to sign an NDA before they can even share their idea with me.  I sign the NDA, but it really doesn’t matter.

The IDEA doesn’t matter. In fact, they could email their idea to all the Big Orthos and nothing would happen.

It’s the EXECUTION that matters.  Potential acquirers will only take notice when a startup is executing well. Acquirers give strong valuations for great execution, not great ideas. 

 
Derek Sivers shares the multiplier example below.
To me, ideas are worth nothing unless executed. They are just a multiplier. Execution is worth millions.
Explanation:

AWFUL IDEA
= -1

WEAK IDEA
= 1

SO-SO IDEA
= 5

GOOD IDEA
= 10

GREAT IDEA
= 15

BRILLIANT IDEA
= 20

——–
———

NO EXECUTION
= $1

WEAK EXECUTION
= $1000

SO-SO EXECUTION
= $10,000

GOOD EXECUTION
= $100,000

GREAT EXECUTION
= $1,000,000

BRILLIANT EXECUTION
= $10,000,000

To make a business, you need to multiply the two.
The most brilliant idea, with no execution, is worth $20.
The most brilliant idea takes great execution to be worth $200,000,000.
 
 
That’s why I don’t want to hear people’s IDEA.
I want to understand how they plan to EXECUTE.
 
 

I noticed funny behavior on the beach this summer.  All the seagulls chase the same food at the same time.  

When someone drops a potato chip on the beach, the seagulls viciously fight for it. One bird eventually gets the chip, then a few birds will chase the winning bird for miles hoping for a chip fumble. Meanwhile, there is an endless abundance of fish in the sea all around them.

This got me thinking. Many orthopedic companies act like the seagulls.  They are drawn towards the same technology or business models while ignoring an ocean of other undiscovered opportunities.

Remember the 2000’s after the Spine-Tech acquisition?  We need spine.

spine, spine, spine, spine, spine, spine, spine, spine, spine, spine, spine, spine, spine

This flock behavior is how we ended up with 236 spine startups. Not surprisingly, many of these startups failed (Applied Spine Technologies, Archus Orthopedics, Disc Dynamics, Hydrocision, Innovative Spinal Technologies, Spinal Restoration, Vertebron, etc.), while other more established companies (S+N and Exactech) dropped their spine businesses altogether.

And it never ends.  There is always a new chip on the sand.

Right now, the flock is fighting over robotics and 3D printing.  Zimmer just announced that they are jumping into robotics in a big way to chase Stryker, Medtronic and Smith and Nephew. On the 3D printing front, every ortho/spine company is trying to figure out how to get on the 3D-printed implant train. And by the way, there is no proof that robot-aided surgery or 3D-printed implants create better outcomes.

Why the funny seagull behavior?
Classic groupthink. Groupthink is a common bias in which companies conform to a prevailing view.  Orthopedics companies that fall into groupthink tend to stay in a “safe zone” that is determined by the industry leaders. The crowd is trying not to be wrong.  This is why all the products look the same at the tradeshows. Groupthink is dangerous because it limits imaginations, impedes unconventional thinking, and leads companies to stop the productive challenging of ideas that often lead to better thinking.

The better way, the contrarian view
Historically in orthopedics, those outside the flock, the contrarians, win and win big.  While the flock swarms in on the trends, the contrarians find the big new fish that nobody was looking for. If you’ve seen the film “The Big Short,” or read Peter Thiel’s Zero to One, you know what I mean. Contrarian thinking works.
I remember contrarian moves in orthopedics that seemed crazy at the time.  However, these contrarian innovators reshaped orthopedics forever.

Smith and Nephew brought the Ilizarov distraction osteogenesis technique from Russia before reshaping bones was thought even possible.

Sofamor Danek made a $50M licensing bet on growth factors before growing bone synthetically was possible.

EBI innovated with low-level electrical fields instead of relying on natural fracture healing.

Kyphon innovated with balloons to increase vertebral body height before it was in vogue.

Hand Innovations created and perfected volar plating for distal radial fractures when everyone else was focused on dorsal plating.

MAKO believed in robotics when everyone else was focused on better surgical instruments for precision.

Ellipse Technologies created movable implants by remote control when everyone was focused on stationary implants.

VCs already know the contrarian play. VCs will tell you that they win the BIG returns when they are right and everyone else is wrong. When a technology is a new trend, it’s just too late. VCs are looking elsewhere.
The opportunities are endless and the opportunities are only limited by imagination and technology and funding.   It takes real effort to find an opportunity and grow it.  Take Peter Thiel’s challenge, “What valuable company is nobody building?“

Take-home Message
If you want to win big, think like a contrarian.
If you want to play it safe, chase the potato chip on the beach with the others.