Why Twitter’s Next Fail Whale can be found on their Recruiting Page
Posted by austin under General, Talent Search

I love Twitter and am fascinated by the ecosystem that Evan, Biz and the team at Twitter have created around the popular microblogging service. While many people on the sidelines are obsessed with when Twitter will make money, I see nothing but great opportunities ahead for the Twitter team. (Disclosure: I’m an investor in Identi.ca - an open source microblogging service.)
Twitter is also undeniably the hottest startup out there today. It’s got plenty of money, and more mainstream press than any startup has received in a very, very long time. The times I’ve met Evan I’ve been impressed with his ability to stay out of the echo chamber that surrounds the popular service (As an entrepreneur Evan’s got class).
My affection for Twitter is also the source of my concerns for the Twitter team as I saw the signs of fail whales to come on their recruiting page.
Let me explain. During the last Internet boom & crash I was the CEO of Zero-Knowledge Systems, a company that was also a media darling with tons of money and attention to go with it. Like Twitter we defied the trends in the industry when we raised $22 million at record valuations nine months after the dot com crash had begun to sweep through the tech industry. (This was after having just raised $25 million the year before. Unlike Twitter we did not have a successful product and it took us a number of years to turn the company into the success it is today.)
Throughout 1998-2002 we had employees from around the world desperately trying to join the company to be part of our dot.com dream. One of the many mistakes we made was hiring too quickly as our staff rolls grew to over 200 people.
The Problems with Twitter’s Recruiting Drive
Twitter no doubt needs to hire. Here’s Twitter’s career site: http://twitter.com/jobs
Twitter has almost 15 open positions listed which according to reported numbers would be a 35% increase in their current headcount.
Despite their ability to recruit people like high profile people from the Google campus Twitter falls far behind its Mountain View rival for talent in a critical aspect of HR: employment branding.
Google has a long history of strong employment branding. They’ve won awards for being a top employer, and received plenty of press – not just for the lavish perks, but also for the way they recruit. Google may have many problems inside the Googleplex (crazy cash flow hides many problems), but their attention to advertising what it takes to be hired by them has served them well as they grew.
Google’s attention to its employer brand started very early on, and has been pervasive throughout its growth. Even as the most popular darling of the Internet world, it remained focused on its brand – a rigorous recruiting process, lots of perks, unique value proposition and only hiring the absolute best.
So what about Twitter?
As one of the hottest startups in the Valley hiring while unemployment rates continue to rise Twitter needs to be vigilant about guarding their culture. To do this they need a concerted effort to ensure only the best candidates enter their hiring funnel.
Despite this attention in the middle of an economic downturn Twitter appears to have a lack of any focus on employment branding.
Some might argue that given Twitter’s popularity they don’t need to focus on their employment brand; they don’t need to promote their internal culture more effectively and focus on publicly attracting the best. I’m sure Twitter wants to hire the best (and has the dollars and buzz to help them do so), but it takes a more concerted, ongoing effort. Just look at Google…
Much of a company’s public-facing employer brand starts with its career site. (Disclaimer: I’m an investor and co-Founder of Standout Jobs - http://standoutjobs.com - which helps companies with their career sites and recruitment. But this post isn’t about vendor selection or products as much as it’s about the importance of strong employer branding and developing a rigorous culture of recruiting.)
Although Twitter’s made some effort to include cultural content on the site, it’s lacking. As much as I think I know what it’s like to work at Twitter, or I can imagine it, I don’t really get the picture I want from their site. They don’t even provide a roll up of recent tweets from their employees like Zappos & employee culture genius Tony Hsieh does.
Worst still, are the job descriptions they use. They’re about as generic as job descriptions come looking like they were haphazardly copied from some other boring job advertisement on some average job board.
If you look at the job posting for Product Manager or Software Engineer (arguably two of the most important roles in a software company) there is nothing there that discourages anyone with the minimum requirements from throwing their hat in the ring. The amount of investment that goes into a unique & specific job description tells candidates how important you take finding the best fit. When you copy a weak job description you send the signal that you are too busy to take hiring seriously.
As important as the cultural information and the job descriptions is the need for more information on the recruitment process and what Twitter wants to see from applicants. One of the goals with this kind of information is to help job seekers self-select. I’m sure Twitter doesn’t have a problem getting a large volume of applications, but quality is another story. Allowing applicants to self-select by making sure they understand more about the recruitment process and expectations can help weed people out before they even apply.
Compare the Twitter job descriptions with the job descriptions I recently posted for a UX Designer for my company Akoha. Another great exampleis the job description that my friend Alistair Croll listed for a Program Manager. In both cases candidates have a clear picture of what will be expected of them, hopefully a sense of the companies mission and most importantly a number of explicit requirements that allow candidates to self-select whether they believe they are qualified for the role.
Twitter has changed the way many of us communicate on a daily basis. You can pack so much into 140 characters. And yet, the Twitter application process is multiple steps and driven almost exclusively by a person’s resume. Boring. Twitter can’t be hiring based off resumes, I’m sure they’re looking for so much more, and yet that’s not reflected in the application process. There’s so much opportunity for creativity when it comes to recruiting, but too few companies – Twitter included – take advantage. And it’s not enough to rely on their own popularity to attract the best, they need to publicly cultivate and promote a strong employer brand that’s pervasive through everything they do.
Hiring your next fail whale.
I’m sure that Twitter can’t keep up with the volume of applicants attempting to get in on the ground floor of the company. With the only requirement to apply being a resume and basic qualifications there may be a few incredible candidates in their funnel, but I’m sure for the hiring team it is like finding a needle in a haystack.
Having set the bar so low publicly puts all the burden on Twitter to screen and find the best candidates. Many candidates will probably never get a call back or hear from the company (In my test attempt to apply I didn’t even get an automated thank you email, one of the most frustrating experiences for candidates applying into a black hole)
This overflow of candidates means that Twitter will,
- Spend too much time reviewing mountains of candidate applications using resumes as the way to screen candidates.
- Miss potentially great candidates who get lost in the noise and are not elevated to the top of the hiring pool by the hiring process.
- Invest too much of their teams time on 2nd tier candidates who can write fancy resumes and may have been in the vicinity of success instead of the creators of it.
- Stretch out hiring time frames which makes topgrading a difficult exercise since candidates cannot be ranked during a constrained timeframe allowing you to pick the best.
- Reduce the amount of time you can spend assessing cultural fit in your interview process.
- Start to make compromises on hiring candidates as the time to fill critical positions continues to increase.
- Increase the chance that a few bad apples will enter the company at a critical time.
While the momentum of Twitter may seem unstoppable, I know first hand how quick a few bad hires can contribute to a company losing its way. Many of the worst mistakes I’ve made in my career can be traced to making compromises in my hiring practices.
At a time when Twitter needs to be accelerating to fulfill their potential their public hiring practices seem to be indications of future fail whales to come.
A great example of hiring practices is how my friend Andy Nulman screens candidates read this interview or this great story of his hiring practices.
12 Responses to “ Why Twitter’s Next Fail Whale can be found on their Recruiting Page ”
Comments:
Leave a Reply
Trackbacks & Pingbacks:
-
Pingback from HR Advice from Austin Hill | Twitterrati
April 10th, 2009 at 8:51 am[...] the wake of this strange move, Austin Hill has a lengthy and insightful post about how Twitter’s “Next Fail Whale can be found on their Recruiting [...]
-
Pingback from 教Twitter如何僱用最好的人 « 加燦 指指點點 - ca 8 hk
April 10th, 2009 at 6:52 pm[...] 我的朋友Austin Hill花了一些時間來寫這篇文章去教教 Twitter [...]







April 10th, 2009 at 7:20 am
Austin,
Timely post. I can’t agree more with your assessment. Employer branding and organized hiring structure (a la Standout Jobs) is as important as sales & marketing when building buzz, momentum and brand awareness. Hype is only the equivalent of the buzz part, a Company needs to deliver on the promise on all fronts.
April 10th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Is this post a plug for the other startup you are investing in, standoutjobs.com ?
Don’t make a Mike Arrington of yourself, please.
April 10th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the comment. Yes I am a co-founder/investors in Standout Jobs, but it’s really not about the vendor but rather the approach. Twitter can (and I argue should) be clear about their job requirements, write better job descriptions, promote & inform candidates about their hiring culture & process. They can do this with any tool. The only reason I mentioned Standout Jobs at all in the post was to disclose that I am an investor in a company in the field not to recommend any solution over another.
Thanks for the comment.
April 10th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Well, as one who’s thrown my hat into the ring for a TechOps position, I have to chime in here.
A) I’m quite qualified having run a shop that has many of the same growing problems as they do at Twitter. I would bring an apparently unique perspective on dealing with customer anger over outages. (Twitter’s notification process for outages, and poor system performance is basically laughable)
B) These positions have been open for months now. Twitter (as any company) should NOT post positions for which they have no real intention to hire.
C) The author of this article has a seemingly valid point about the descriptions for the positions in that they should be made more clear BUT (and this is a HUGE BUT)
Twitter, and indeed any startup of the magnitude and hype that Twitter has CANNOT afford to divulge company secrets by posting the detailed job requirements. I can determine a great deal about the technology being employed by a company but simply reading the details of several position postings. Why should they let the cat out of the bag?
The key Fail at Twitter for their hiring practice is FAILURE TO HIRE!!! The simple fact of the matter is that in a 2-3 month period with a sufficient number of unemployed geeks applying for the positions, AT LEAST one candidate has applied that matches no only the posted description, but the hidden internally known description AND the corporate culture requirements. It is simply ludicrous to think that no one meeting their desired profile has stepped forward to fill the positions.
With the attention that Twitter has placed on improving their system stability, reliability and performance over the last year (NONE) I find it no surprise that they have given the same level of attention to their hiring.
But, honestly what would you expect out of a social media company that makes virtually no use of their own social network.
Would I take the position if they offered it to me? I don’t know anymore. The amount of stress that is associated with working for an obviously failed techops department is far greater than I think I wish to introduce into my life. I would have taken the job 2 or more months ago when I applied, but now that I’ve seen the reality of Twitter not paying attention to their future employees, and not paying attention to their users, well, let’s just say the options would have to be VERY high, and the strike price still very low. I seriously doubt that twitter would make good on either of those two requests.
April 10th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
and FWIW Tiwtter is using Jobscore for the applications process, which I find an excellent service as the candidate.
April 10th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Austin, you should come to SF sometime. Out here, all new hires are done by internal recommendations. Corporate culture is maintained. External job pages are boilerplate.
April 10th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Meh. Agreed that hiring problems are a huge issue for a lot of startups, and employment branding can make a big difference. It’s an excellent point about how lack of followup from Twitter can disappoint and antagonize applicants, but that’s true no matter how well-crafted their job descriptions are.
But let’s keep this in perspective. Twitter’s the hottest company in the Valley. It’s hard for me to believe that somebody who might be considering Twitter as a next career move cares about whether or not employee tweets are rolled up on their page. Yes, the culture matters; they’re still at the stage where that’s easy enough for people to discover during the interview process. And different companies have different styles, so what works for you and your friends Alistair and Andy isn’t the only answer.
there is nothing there that discourages anyone with the minimum requirements from throwing their hat in the ring.
Isn’t that the point? And they’re still at the stage where what matters most is the caliber of people they’re hiring, so tightly-crafted job descriptions are likely to rule out people with a great mix of skills who don’t have the specific requirements listed on the job description. True, that approach sometimes makes sense when hiring situationally, but maybe that’s not where Twitter sees themselves.
But this post isn’t about vendor selection or products as much as it’s about the importance of strong employer branding and developing a rigorous culture of recruiting.
Well, for what it’s worth, as somebody just stumbling on this post it certainly comes across as you talking up the need for a company you’ve funded. It also seems like you’re trying to talk down Twitter, as opposed to its competitor that you’re also funding. So from your own branding perspective, you might want to think about the impression you’re creating for you and the companies you’ve invested in.
jon
April 10th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Nice one, Austin.
I just sent this to my Exec Team and HR team - love the sentiment that more effort up front yields more effective time sifting CVs and it is less costly to hire well than to fix later!
@alexhoye
April 10th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
I think this “failure” as you call it is less about creating an awareness that Twitter (or any company for that matter) only wants to hire the best. WHO doesn’t?
The failure from Twitter (and many MANY other companies) is in their process. And that is telling, as they seem to have problems with other proc’s in their org too. Maybe they need a COO?
HR is screening too low level, and focusing on the wrong attributes. The initial screening needs to be done by people with expert level knowledge. The organization needs to block out and mandate their time investment. Up front.
All decision makers need to come to the interview process, go through a line up. And a decision needs to be made on a hire within 2 weeks period. There is NO excuse, especially in these times with so much inventory, for any other response. And if they aren’t sure what they want, then what else are they wasting their time on internally that investors or customers should be wary of?
I have seen too many companies going through the same dance. And looking into their processes, I see the same low level HR groups performing initial screening and destroying the supply chain. Too many companies with the same jobs open for 6-8 months. In NYC, there is one executive recruiting company that has been hiring for the same job for ONE YEAR now. That is a fail worthy of blacklisting.
So yes, everyone wants to hire only the very best. However, a company like Twitter needs to commit actual resources to executing. So far it doesn’t look like they have. I wonder how long their investors will tolerate that?
April 10th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
I’m actually out in SF quite a lot & lived out there for a number of years. I agree that recommendations play a more powerful role in SF due to the density of qualified workers, but either you are listing a job for applicants to apply or you are using your network to recruit someone. If you have an open job posting, making sure candidates get replied too & setting the bar appropriately high so the right candidates apply is basic HR.
This is no different no matter what market you are in. When I had my office & team in the valley we were recruiting in a tight talent market and it allowed us to focus in on the best candidates.
Thanks for your comment.