Comparing how start-ups and corporates hire executive roles

In some ways start-ups and corporates are similar in how they go about hiring VP & C-level roles, in others they're very different.

This is not binary. Everything below evolves on a spectrum from tiny start-up through Fortune 500. There are always exceptions, but these are the main key differences you should know about.

Qualifying candidates:

The single biggest difference is the primary filter they apply when looking at candidates. 9 times out of 10 a start-up will look to hire an executive that has seen the growth and maturity journey before that they expect to go through themselves over the next 2-3 years. They seek a delicate balance between someone hands-on, fast-paced, comfortable with the rough-and-tumble and ambiguity of a start-up, but who knows how to lay the foundations for scale and maturity (team, tools, systems, processes). In essence, they are right both for where the company is today and where they expect to be in 2-3 years.

For corporates, they don’t think about nor see the candidate market this way. Generally their primary filter is requisite leadership experience – measured in terms of the scale and complexity of their previous roles. They want a strong communicator who has worked in impressive brands, and feels like an all-round smart, polished executive.

Role Fluidity:

For start-ups, it is usually their first time hiring a particular leadership role at this level and so the role itself is malleable around the individual – what it is responsible for outright vs influences, where it begins and ends with its peers, etc. The broader leadership team is usually far from settled and so someone who can take on more is usually better. Execs need to be comfortable with this ambiguity and go in with the knowledge that the org structure will evolve around them significantly over the next 2-3 years if the company continues to scale and be successful. If you have the ability and ambition, this will present opportunities. If not, you will be hired over. There is merit in the old saying – "don’t argue about what seat you have on a rocketship".

The flip side is also true – people pay to select their seats on a jumbo jet. In corporates, roles are very well defined. It is rare a role is new and very likely there are clear boundaries already established from your predecessor in terms of team, budget, expectations, etc. There is a mature leadership team and org structure in place - you need to slot perfectly into the confines of the role as there is little to no flexibility. Compensation will be banded and limit your negotiation potential. Policies will come into play in terms of bonus make-up and pay-out, equity grants, etc.

Speed & Process:

Start-ups move much faster - from first interview to hire can often be done in 2-3 weeks (or even quicker). Fewer stakeholders tend to be involved in the interview process and the decision-making power is heavily skewed towards the founders. Preferred candidates are often expedited irrespective of where other candidates are in the process. Investors are often the final interview but used to 'sell' rather than qualify. Very different if it is an operator board member - this will be your toughest interview as they have been there before (probably unlike the founders).

Corporates tend to be slower, with more clearly defined interview stages, and process-oriented in terms of ensuring they have certain numbers of candidates at each stage - and less willing to drop everything to expedite the preferred candidate from early stages. Certain stakeholders must be involved/sign-off on the hire, and the CEO will take the team's opinion into account much, much more than an early-stage founder.

References tend to happen earlier in the process for start-ups and are more direct, informal, and, frankly, useful. Founders tend to reach out to founders. Investors to investors. If discretion is required, they will reach out to a former executive the candidate will have previously worked with, or a former company. With corporates, referencing tends to come at the end of a process, it is more formal, referees tend to be more cautious with the information they share (either due to company policy on references or fear of litigation).

Culture fit:

Assessing culture-fit for a start-up is different and more important than a corporate - there is simply nowhere to hide and you will play a large part in forming the company culture. Founders hire on instinct, are more deeply invested in their company than a professional CEO, and need a serious bond with a key leadership executive. This is more about personal fit than professional fit.

For corporates, the culture is well-defined and the team established - how you fit with this, the team you will inherit, and, in particular, the broader executive team is the primary concern. Your 1-to-1 bond with the CEO is less important (but still important).