>can these companies really not get productive work of a slightly broader group?
Relative to the 1/100 resumes-- if your friend took the time to dig deeper, he'd likely spot 2-3 diamonds in the rough, a moneyball misfit.
If your friend is like most senior managers, he'll scoff at the idea-- 'I'm too busy to read 100 resumes' he'll likely say, or 'that's HRs job!'
Finding & attracting talent is a mission critical competency that senior leadership must drive. Too often it's delegated to mid-tier management that don't share the same sense of urgency.
It takes an exceptionally rare manager who can assess and train-up mediocre talent into A-Player status. Fewer still, who have the guts to make a trial hire. A bad hire can be costly on a variety of levels.
But most guys would rather play it safe-- blame HR, lack of bandwidth, or the market. Meanwhile, the guys who figure it out manage to scale.
It could be a resources problem. The company I'm about to leave wanted me to find 24x7 on-call DevOps folks for $70K/piece (Chicago). I told them $100K/year was the floor for quality people and they balked.
Finding talent isn't the only challenge. Incentivizing them to join and stay is equally challenging.
Given the Chicago reference (fellow Chicagoan here), do you view this as a Midwest problem? I feel like a lot of the companies here tend to lowball on salaries / benefits. I did a study on this for the VC / startup communities in the Midwest, and we think we have enough data to back it up.
> Given the Chicago reference (fellow Chicagoan here), do you view this as a Midwest problem?
I view it as a Chicago problem. There are two types of Chicago startups: Bootstrapped (no cash, sweat of the brow, all equity) and amateur VC/angel.
What I mean by bootstrapped should be obvious. When I say "amateur" VC/angel, I mean someone doing a startup because they want to do a startup, not because they're looking to solve a problem. Or someone who has a pet project.
Its a real problem for Chicago tech, as I see most colleagues head of to the SFBA or NYC to where startups have not just the technical and financial resources they need, but the proper management (whether that's founders, advisors, or mentors) resources as well.
Feel free to get in touch; would love to chat over coffee (email in profile).
EDIT: My apologies for not reading your paper/data/results first; it appears you hit the nail on the head:
"Students view Chicago as an “entrepreneurial city”, but noted the Midwest needs to enhance access to capital and entrepreneurial support networks — through initiatives like ThinkChicago — in order to entice more entrepreneurs to start companies in the region."
This. I am sick and tired of hearing how nobody can get funding in Chicago. There are two problems: 1) most of their ideas suck, even by startup standards (and I've worked with enough startups to have somewhat of a standard). 2) The VCs want to see next-to-impossible business models / traction. I don't like the frothiness going on in other areas right now, but Chicago takes such little risk it's distburing.
Chicago lacks serial entrepreneurs and a true ecosystem. If you read the "results" section of our report, it goes in-depth. I just posted the thing to the HN homepage. We had to censor it for fear of political push-back (it was a very real risk from some very powerful people). I'm happy to share more in person.
Are you dead set on your health analytics startup? I'm in touch with someone working on healthcare.gov if you'd be interested in participating in that project.
I'd be happy to talk more about that; right now, though, I've been working on the business model / user research for 4-5 months and just scored a decent partnership with the NIH yesterday (I'm doing behavioral health, where the competition is nascent to non-existent).
I've given myself a timeline to get an MVP and hit certain milestone; given that I've been in the health-tech community for a few years, there are a couple of influential people following the traction.
My problem has been coming from a background where full-stack development was never my thing (undergrad in business, M.S. in Library / Information Science). Sure, I can run some bayesian classifiers on a set of data, but my role in enterprises has always been product management / UX with dabbling in programming on an as-needed basis. Never enough to know the things I don't know.
Some context: My roommate and I led this during grad school for the City of Chicago and a bunch of VCs / startup community around the Midwest. We looked primarily at ag-tech, health-tech / life sciences, and advanced manufacturing. Then, we looked at the supposed "brain drain" where we educate all these kids here in the Midwest and then they leave for the coasts. The pundits just want to say "We need more STEM! Argh!" Truth: We don't pay employees enough to stay, even with differences in cost-of-living, and the startups here are under-funded, tackle low-level problems, and Chicago is run by a cartel of private equity / consultants-turned-VCs.
I'm trying to launch a startup in Chicago in data analytics, and it's tough. All the startups here that get publicity don't solve any problems. I'm sorry, but Groupon and GrubHub? Seriously? That's the best you can do? I don't know what your thoughts on this are, but I'd actually love to listen to someone else vent if you're in Chicago. Trying to find a co-founder has been rough, since you tell people you're doing something other than digital tech and get a blank stare.
I've only recently started investigating Chicago as a place to startup anything, but I'm not looking in the sectors where you are looking. I don't have any frustrations to vent; I like the midwest.
I like to believe the midwest is actually a better place to do a startup than NYC or SF primarily because the cost to bootstrap is much lower here. What about just building your prototype in the midwest and taking it to the coast for funding? I don't feel like capital is really confined to specific regions anymore, and Chicago is only a 3-hour flight from NYC.
Limited budget demands that you, get creative and dig-deeper still. Could a local QA guy get the job done in a pinch? Will your Ops support someone working remotely, even off-shore? Economical solutions require some flexibility.
You're looking at this too rationally. That's not meant as snark. The people responsible for these requirements aren't acting rationally. They want Bill Gates, Microsoft CEO for the price of Bill Gates, Harvard Freshman. And if they can't find that person, they complain there's a shortage of good candidates.
> TL;DR My org wanted to pay below market rates yet still dictate shoot-the-moon requirements.
I've been on the receiving end of this numerous times "Oh, we know we can't pay what you're used to, but thought you might like a challenging environment ..?"
These days I've stopped accepting interviews unless the recruiter/company will share a salary range in advance of technical questions.
(You'd be amazed how many places advertise with "Salary: Competitive", and no firm figure/range.)
Relative to the 1/100 resumes-- if your friend took the time to dig deeper, he'd likely spot 2-3 diamonds in the rough, a moneyball misfit.
If your friend is like most senior managers, he'll scoff at the idea-- 'I'm too busy to read 100 resumes' he'll likely say, or 'that's HRs job!'
Finding & attracting talent is a mission critical competency that senior leadership must drive. Too often it's delegated to mid-tier management that don't share the same sense of urgency.
It takes an exceptionally rare manager who can assess and train-up mediocre talent into A-Player status. Fewer still, who have the guts to make a trial hire. A bad hire can be costly on a variety of levels.
But most guys would rather play it safe-- blame HR, lack of bandwidth, or the market. Meanwhile, the guys who figure it out manage to scale.