How to hire the best

How to hire the best

There are many aspects to hiring great people, and various people smarter than me have written extensively on the topic.

So I'm not going to try to be comprehensive.

But I am going to relay some lessons learned through hard experience on how to hire the best people you've ever worked with -- particularly for a startup. I'm going to cover two key areas in this post:

Criteria: what to value when evaluating candidates.

And process: how to actually run the hiring process, and if necessary the aftermath of making a mistake.

Criteria first.  Lots of people will tell you to hire for intelligence. Especially in this industry.

You will read, hire the smartest people out there and your company's success is all but guaranteed.

I think intelligence, per se, is highly overrated. Specifically, I am unaware of any actual data that shows a correlation between raw intelligence, as measured by any of the standard metrics (educational achievement, intelligence tests, or skill at solving logic puzzles) and company success. Now, clearly you don't want to hire dumb people, and clearly you'd like to work with smart people.

But let's get specific.

Most of the lore in our industry about the role of intelligence in company success comes from two atmospherically successful companies -- Microsoft, and now Google -- that are famous for hiring for intelligence.Microsoft's metric for intelligence was the ability to solve logic puzzles. (I don't know if the new, MBA-heavy Microsoft still does this, but I do know this is how Microsoft in its heyday worked.) For example, a classic Microsoft interview question was: "Why is a manhole cover round?" The right answer, of course, is, "Who cares? Are we in the manhole business?"

(Followed by twisting in your chair to look all around, getting up, and leaving.)

Google, on the other hand, uses the metric of educational achievement. Have a PhD? Front of the line. Masters? Next. Bachelor's? Go to the end. In apparent direct contraction to decades of experience in the computer industry that PhD's are the hardest people to motivate to ship commercially viable products -- with rare exception. (Hi, Aziz! Hi, Mahesh!)

Now, on the one hand, you can't question the level of success of either company. Maybe they're right. But maybe, just maybe, their success had a lot to do with other factors -- say, huge markets, extreme aggressiveness, right time/right place, key distribution deals, and at least in one case, great products. Because here's the problem: I'm not aware of another Microsoft that's been built by hiring based on logic puzzles. And I'm not aware of another Google that's been built by hiring PhD's. So maybe there are other hiring criteria that are equally, or more, important.

Here's what I think those criteria are.

First, Drive.

I define drive as self-motivation -- people who will walk right through brick walls, on their own power, without having to be asked, to achieve whatever goal is in front of them. People with drive push and push and push and push and push until they succeed. Winston Churchill after the evacuation of Dunkirk: "We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."

That's what you want.

Some people have it and some people don't. Of the people who have it, with some of them it comes from guilt, often created by family pressure. With others, it comes from a burning desire to make it big. With others, it comes from being incredibly Type A. Whatever... go with it -MOTHER OF INSECURITY.

Drive is independent of educational experience, Grade Point Averages (G.P.A.), and socioeconomic background.

(But Aziz, isn't a 4.0 GPA a sure sign of drive? Well, it's a sign that the person is driven to succeed on predefined tests with clear criteria and a grader -- in an environment where the student's parents are often paying a lot of money for the privilege of having their child take the tests. That may or may not be the same thing as being driven to succeed in the real world.) Drive is even independent of prior career success. Driven people don't tend to stay long at places where they can't succeed, and just because they haven't succeeded in the wrong companies doesn't mean they won't succeed at your company -- if they're driven. I think you can see drive in a candidate's eyes, and in a candidate's background.

For the background part, I like to see what someone has done. Not been involved in, or been part of, or watched happen, or was hanging around when it happened. I look for something you've done, either in a job or (often better yet) outside of a job. The business you started and ran in high school. The nonprofit you started and ran in college. If you're a programmer: the open source project to which you've made major contributions. Something.

If you can't find anything -- if a candidate has just followed the rules their whole lives, showed up for the right classes and the right tests and the right career opportunities without achieving something distinct and notable, relative to their starting point -- then they probably aren't driven. And you're not going to change them.

Motivating people who are fundamentally unmotivated is not easy. But motivating people who are self-motivated is wind at your back. I like specifically looking for someone for which this job is their big chance to really succeed.

For this reason, I like hiring people who haven't done the specific job before, but are determined to ace it regardless.

I also like specifically looking for someone who comes from some kind of challenging background -- a difficult family situation, say, or someone who had to work his/her way through school -- who is nevertheless on par with his/her more fortunate peers in skills and knowledge (Sometimes I see a lot of me in these candidates).

Finally, beware in particular people who have been at highly successful companies.

People used to say, back when IBM owned the industry: never hire someone straight out of IBM. First, let them go somewhere else and fail. Then, once they've realized the real world is not like IBM, hire them and they'll be great.

And remember, an awful lot of people who have been at hugely successful companies were just along for the ride.

Career success is great to look for -- but it's critical to verify that the candidates out of hugely successful companies actually did what they claim in their roles at those companies. And that they really get it, that the real world is a lot tougher than being IBM in the 80's, or Microsoft in the 90's, or Google / Facebook today.

Second criterion: curiosity.

Curiosity is a proxy for, do you love what you do? Anyone who loves what they do is inherently intensely curious about their field, their profession, their craft. They read about it, study it, talk to other people about it... immerse themselves in it, continuously. And work like hell to stay current in it. Not because they have to. But because they love to.

Anyone who isn't curious doesn't love what they do. And you should be hiring people who love what they do.

As an example, programmers. Sit a programmer candidate for an Internet company down and ask them about the ten most interesting things happening in Internet software. REST vs SOAP, the new Facebook API, whether Ruby on Rails is scalable, what do you think of Sun's new Java-based scripting language, Google's widgets API, Amazon S3, etc.

If the candidate loves their field, they'll have informed opinions on many of these topics.

That's what you want. Now, you might say, Aziz, that's great for a young kid who has a lot of spare time to stay current, but what about the guy who has a family and only has time for a day job and can't spend nights and weekends reading blogs and staying that current? Well, when you run into a person like that who isn't current in their field, the other implication is that their day job isn't keeping them current. If they've been in that job for a while, then ask yourself, is the kind of person you're looking for really going to have tolerated staying in a day job where their skills and knowledge get stale, for very long? Really? Remember -- because of the Internet, staying current in any field no longer costs any money.

In my  Insurance experience, drive and curiosity seem to coincide pretty frequently. The easiest way to be driven is to be in a field that you love, and you'll automatically be curious.

Third and final criterion: ethics.

Ethics are hard to test for.

But watch for any whiff of less than stellar ethics in any candidate's background or references. And avoid, avoid, avoid.

Unethical people are unethical by nature, and the odds of a metaphorical jailhouse conversion are quite low.

Priests, rabbis, and ministers should give people a second chance on ethics -- not hiring managers at startups.

One way to test for an aspect of ethics -- honesty -- is to test for how someone reacts when they don't know something. Pick a topic you know intimately and ask the candidate increasingly esoteric questions until they don't know the answer. They'll either say they don't know, or they'll try to bullshit you. Guess what. If they bullshit you during the hiring process, they'll bullshit you once they're onboard. A candidate who is confident in his own capabilities and 

ethical -- the kind you want -- will say "I don't know" because they know that the rest of the interview will demonstrate their knowledge, and they know that you won't react well to being bullshitted -- because they wouldn't react well either.

Second topic: process -- how to run the hiring process.

First, have a written hiring process. Whatever your hiring process is -- write it down, and make sure everyone has a copy of it, on paper. It's continually shocking how many startups have a random hiring process, and as a result hire apparently randomly.

Second, do basic skills tests.

It's amazing how many people come in and interview for jobs where their resume says they're qualified, but ask them basic questions about how to do things in their domain, and they fail. For example, test programmers on basic 

algorithms -- linked lists, binary searches. Just in pseudocode -- it doesn't matter if they know the relevant Java library calls. It does matter if they are unable to go up to the whiteboard and work their way through something that was covered in their first algorithms course. A lot of people come in and interview for programming jobs who, at their core, can't program. And it's such a breath of fresh air when you get someone who just goes, oh yeah, a linked list, sure, let me show you. The same principle applies to other fields. For a sales rep -- have them sell you on your product all the way to a closed deal. For a marketing person -- have them whiteboard out a launch for your new product.

Third, plan out and write down interview questions ahead of time. I'm assuming that you know the right interview questions for the role -- and frankly, if you don't, you probably shouldn't be the hiring manager for that position.

The problem I'm addressing is: most people don't know how to interview a candidate. And even people who do know how, aren't necessarily good at coming up with questions on the fly. So just make sure you have questions planned out and assigned to each interviewer ahead of time. I do this myself -- always enter the room with a list of questions pre-planned -- because I don't want to count on coming up with them on the fly. The best part is that you can then iteratively refine the questions with your team as you interview candidates for the position. This is one of the best ways for an organization to become really good at hiring: by iterating the questions, you're refining what your criteria are -- and how you screen for those criteria. 

Fourth, pay attention to the little things during the interview process.

You see little hints of things in the interview process that blow up to disasters of unimaginable proportions once the person is onboard. Person never laughs? Probably hard to get along with. Person constantly interrupts? Egomaniac, run for the hills. Person claims to be good friends with someone you know but then doesn't know what the friend is currently doing? Bullshitter.

Person gives nonlinear answers to simple questions? Complete disorganized and undisciplined on the job.

Person drones on and on? Get ready for hell.

Fifth, pay attention to the little things during the reference calls.

(You are doing reference calls, right?)

Most people softball deficiencies in people they've worked with when they do reference calls. "He's great, super-smart, blah blah blah, but..."

"Sometimes wasn't that motivated" -- the person is a slug, you're going to have to kick their rear every morning to get them to do anything. "Could sometimes be a little hard to get along with" -- hugely unpleasant. "Had an easier time working with men than women" -- raging sexist. "Was sometimes a little moody" -- suffering from clinical depression, and unmedicated. You get the picture.

Sixth, fix your mistakes fast... but not too fast.

If you are super-scrupulous about your hiring process, you'll still have maybe a 70% success rate of a new person really working out -- if you're lucky. And that's for individual contributors. If you're hiring executives, you'll probably only have a 50% success rate. That's life. Anyone who tells you otherwise is hiring poorly and doesn't realize it.

Most start ups in my experience are undisciplined at fixing hiring mistakes -- i.e., firing people who aren't working out.

First, realize that while you're going to hate firing someone, you're going to feel way better after the fact than you can currently imagine. Second, realize that the great people on your team will be happy that you've done it -- they knew the person wasn't working out, and they want to work with other great people, and so they'll be happy that you've done the right thing and kept the average high. (The reason I say "not too fast" is because your great people are watching to see how you fire people, and if you do it too fast you'll be viewed as arbitrary and capricious -- but trust me, most startup managers do not have this problem, they have the opposite problem.) Third, realize that you're usually doing the person you're firing a favor -- you're releasing them from a role where they aren't going to succeed or get promoted or be valued, and you're giving them the opportunity to find a better role in a different company where they very well might be an incredible star. (And if they can't, were they really the kind of person you wanted to hire in the first place?)

One of the good things about our industry is that there are frequently lots of new jobs being created and so you're almost never pushing someone out onto the street -- so don't feel that you're dooming their families to the poorhouse, because you aren't. You're not that important in their lives.

I can name a number of people I've fired or participated in firing who have gone on to be quite successful at other companies. They won't necessarily talk to me anymore, though :-).

Finally, although this goes without saying: value the hell out of the great people you do have on your team. Given all of the above, they are incredibly special people.

How to hire the best people you've ever worked with

There are many aspects to hiring great people, and various people smarter than me have written extensively on the topic.
So I'm not going to try to be comprehensive.
But I am going to relay some lessons learned through hard experience on how to hire the best people you've ever worked with -- particularly for a startup.
I'm going to cover two key areas in this post:
Criteria: what to value when evaluating candidates.
And process: how to actually run the hiring process, and if necessary the aftermath of making a mistake.
Criteria first.
Lots of people will tell you to hire for intelligence.
Especially in this industry.
You will read, hire the smartest people out there and your company's success is all but guaranteed.
I think intelligence, per se, is highly overrated.
Specifically, I am unaware of any actual data that shows a correlation between raw intelligence, as measured by any of the standard metrics (educational achievement, intelligence tests, or skill at solving logic puzzles) and company success.
Now, clearly you don't want to hire dumb people, and clearly you'd like to work with smart people.
But let's get specific.
Most of the lore in our industry about the role of intelligence in company success comes from two stratospherically successful companies -- Microsoft, and now Google -- that are famous for hiring for intelligence.
Microsoft's metric for intelligence was the ability to solve logic puzzles.
(I don't know if the new, MBA-heavy Microsoft still does this, but I do know this is how Microsoft in its heyday worked.)
For example, a classic Microsoft interview question was: "Why is a manhole cover round?"
The right answer, of course, is, "Who cares? Are we in the manhole business?"
(Followed by twisting in your chair to look all around, getting up, and leaving.)
Google, on the other hand, uses the metric of educational achievement.
Have a PhD? Front of the line. Masters? Next. Bachelor's? Go to the end.
In apparent direct contraction to decades of experience in the computer industry that PhD's are the hardest people to motivate to ship commercially viable products -- with rare exception. (Hi, Tim! Hi, Diego!)
Now, on the one hand, you can't question the level of success of either company.
Maybe they're right.
But maybe, just maybe, their success had a lot to do with other factors -- say, huge markets, extreme aggressiveness, right time/right place, key distribution deals, and at least in one case, great products.
Because here's the problem: I'm not aware of another Microsoft that's been built by hiring based on logic puzzles. And I'm not aware of another Google that's been built by hiring PhD's.
So maybe there are other hiring criteria that are equally, or more, important.
Here's what I think those criteria are.
First, drive.
I define drive as self-motivation -- people who will walk right through brick walls, on their own power, without having to be asked, to achieve whatever goal is in front of them.
People with drive push and push and push and push and push until they succeed.
Winston Churchill after the evacuation of Dunkirk:
"We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."
That's what you want.
Some people have it and some people don't.
Of the people who have it, with some of them it comes from guilt, often created by family pressure.
With others, it comes from a burning desire to make it big.
With others, it comes from being incredibly Type A.
Whatever... go with it.
Drive is independent of educational experience, grade point averages, and socioeconomic background.
(But Marc, isn't a 4.0 GPA a sure sign of drive? Well, it's a sign that the person is driven to succeed on predefined tests with clear criteria and a grader -- in an environment where the student's parents are often paying a lot of money for the privilege of having their child take the tests. That may or may not be the same thing as being driven to succeed in the real world.)
Drive is even independent of prior career success.
Driven people don't tend to stay long at places where they can't succeed, and just because they haven't succeeded in the wrong companies doesn't mean they won't succeed at your company -- if they're driven.
I think you can see drive in a candidate's eyes, and in a candidate's background.
For the background part, I like to see what someone has done.
Not been involved in, or been part of, or watched happen, or was hanging around when it happened.
I look for something you've done, either in a job or (often better yet) outside of a job.
The business you started and ran in high school.
The nonprofit you started and ran in college.
If you're a programmer: the open source project to which you've made major contributions.
Something.
If you can't find anything -- if a candidate has just followed the rules their whole lives, showed up for the right classes and the right tests and the right career opportunities without achieving something distinct and notable, relative to their starting point -- then they probably aren't driven.
And you're not going to change them.
Motivating people who are fundamentally unmotivated is not easy.
But motivating people who are self-motivated is wind at your back.
I like specifically looking for someone for which this job is their big chance to really succeed.
For this reason, I like hiring people who haven't done the specific job before, but are determined to ace it regardless.
I also like specifically looking for someone who comes from some kind of challenging background -- a difficult family situation, say, or someone who had to work his/her way through school -- who is nevertheless on par with his/her more fortunate peers in skills and knowledge.
Finally, beware in particular people who have been at highly successful companies.
People used to say, back when IBM owned the industry: never hire someone straight out of IBM. First, let them go somewhere else and fail. Then, once they've realized the real world is not like IBM, hire them and they'll be great.
And remember, an awful lot of people who have been at hugely successful companies were just along for the ride.
Career success is great to look for -- but it's critical to verify that the candidates out of hugely successful companies actually did what they claim in their roles at those companies. And that they really get it, that the real world is a lot tougher than being IBM in the 80's, or Microsoft in the 90's, or Google today.
Second criterion: curiosity.
Curiosity is a proxy for, do you love what you do?
Anyone who loves what they do is inherently intensely curious about their field, their profession, their craft.
They read about it, study it, talk to other people about it... immerse themselves in it, continuously.
And work like hell to stay current in it.
Not because they have to.
But because they love to.
Anyone who isn't curious doesn't love what they do.
And you should be hiring people who love what they do.
As an example, programmers.
Sit a programmer candidate for an Internet company down and ask them about the ten most interesting things happening in Internet software.
REST vs SOAP, the new Facebook API, whether Ruby on Rails is scalable, what do you think of Sun's new Java-based scripting language, Google's widgets API, Amazon S3, etc.
If the candidate loves their field, they'll have informed opinions on many of these topics.
That's what you want.
Now, you might say, Marc, that's great for a young kid who has a lot of spare time to stay current, but what about the guy who has a family and only has time for a day job and can't spend nights and weekends reading blogs and staying that current?
Well, when you run into a person like that who isn't current in their field, the other implication is that their day job isn't keeping them current.
If they've been in that job for a while, then ask yourself, is the kind of person you're looking for really going to have tolerated staying in a day job where their skills and knowledge get stale, for very long?
Really?
Remember -- because of the Internet, staying current in any field no longer costs any money.
In my experience, drive and curiosity seem to coincide pretty frequently.
The easiest way to be driven is to be in a field that you love, and you'll automatically be curious.
Third and final criterion: ethics.
Ethics are hard to test for.
But watch for any whiff of less than stellar ethics in any candidate's background or references.
And avoid, avoid, avoid.
Unethical people are unethical by nature, and the odds of a metaphorical jailhouse conversion are quite low.
Priests, rabbis, and ministers should give people a second chance on ethics -- not hiring managers at startups.
'Nuff said.
One way to test for an aspect of ethics -- honesty -- is to test for how someone reacts when they don't know something.
Pick a topic you know intimately and ask the candidate increasingly esoteric questions until they don't know the answer.
They'll either say they don't know, or they'll try to bullshit you.
Guess what. If they bullshit you during the hiring process, they'll bullshit you once they're onboard.
A candidate who is confident in his own capabilities and ethical -- the kind you want -- will say "I don't know" because they know that the rest of the interview will demonstrate their knowledge, and they know that you won't react well to being bullshitted -- because they wouldn't react well either.
Second topic: process -- how to run the hiring process.
First, have a written hiring process.
Whatever your hiring process is -- write it down, and make sure everyone has a copy of it, on paper.
It's continually shocking how many startups have a random hiring process, and as a result hire apparently randomly.
Second, do basic skills tests.
It's amazing how many people come in and interview for jobs where their resume says they're qualified, but ask them basic questions about how to do things in their domain, and they flail.
For example, test programmers on basic algorithms -- linked lists, binary searches.
Just in pseudocode -- it doesn't matter if they know the relevant Java library calls.
It does matter if they are unable to go up to the whiteboard and work their way through something that was covered in their first algorithms course.
A lot of people come in and interview for programming jobs who, at their core, can't program.
And it's such a breath of fresh air when you get someone who just goes, oh yeah, a linked list, sure, let me show you.
The same principle applies to other fields.
For a sales rep -- have them sell you on your product all the way to a closed deal.
For a marketing person -- have them whiteboard out a launch for your new product.
Third, plan out and write down interview questions ahead of time.
I'm assuming that you know the right interview questions for the role -- and frankly, if you don't, you probably shouldn't be the hiring manager for that position.
The problem I'm addressing is: most people don't know how to interview a candidate.
And even people who do know how, aren't necessarily good at coming up with questions on the fly.
So just make sure you have questions planned out and assigned to each interviewer ahead of time.
I do this myself -- always enter the room with a list of questions pre-planned -- because I don't want to count on coming up with them on the fly.
The best part is that you can then iteratively refine the questions with your team as you interview candidates for the position.
This is one of the best ways for an organization to become really good at hiring: by iterating the questions, you're refining what your criteria are -- and how you screen for those criteria.
Fourth, pay attention to the little things during the interview process.
You see little hints of things in the interview process that blow up to disasters of unimaginable proportions once the person is onboard.
Person never laughs? Probably hard to get along with.
Person constantly interrupts? Egomaniac, run for the hills.
Person claims to be good friends with someone you know but then doesn't know what the friend is currently doing? Bullshitter.
Person gives nonlinear answers to simple questions? Complete disorganized and undisciplined on the job.
Person drones on and on? Get ready for hell.
Fifth, pay attention to the little things during the reference calls.
(You are doing reference calls, right?)
Most people softball deficiencies in people they've worked with when they do reference calls.
"He's great, super-smart, blah blah blah, but..."
"Sometimes wasn't that motivated" -- the person is a slug, you're going to have to kick their rear every morning to get them to do anything.
"Could sometimes be a little hard to get along with" -- hugely unpleasant.
"Had an easier time working with men than women" -- raging sexist.
"Was sometimes a little moody" -- suffering from clinical depression, and unmedicated.
You get the picture.
Sixth, fix your mistakes fast... but not too fast.
If you are super-scrupulous about your hiring process, you'll still have maybe a 70% success rate of a new person really working out -- if you're lucky.
And that's for individual contributors.
If you're hiring executives, you'll probably only have a 50% success rate.
That's life.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is hiring poorly and doesn't realize it.
Most startups in my experience are undisciplined at fixing hiring mistakes -- i.e., firing people who aren't working out.
First, realize that while you're going to hate firing someone, you're going to feel way better after the fact than you can currently imagine.
Second, realize that the great people on your team will be happy that you've done it -- they knew the person wasn't working out, and they want to work with other great people, and so they'll be happy that you've done the right thing and kept the average high.
(The reason I say "not too fast" is because your great people are watching to see how you fire people, and if you do it too fast you'll be viewed as arbitrary and capricious -- but trust me, most startup managers do not have this problem, they have the opposite problem.)
Third, realize that you're usually doing the person you're firing a favor -- you're releasing them from a role where they aren't going to succeed or get promoted or be valued, and you're giving them the opportunity to find a better role in a different company where they very well might be an incredible star.
(And if they can't, were they really the kind of person you wanted to hire in the first place?)
One of the good things about our industry is that there are frequently lots of new jobs being created and so you're almost never pushing someone out onto the street -- so don't feel that you're dooming their families to the poorhouse, because you aren't.
You're not that important in their lives.
I can name a number of people I've fired or participated in firing who have gone on to be quite successful at other companies.
They won't necessarily talk to me anymore, though :-).
Finally, although this goes without saying: value the hell out of the great people you do have on your team. Given all of the above, they are incredibly special people.

Hiring, managing, promoting, and firing executives

One of the most critical things a startup founder must do is develop a top-notch executive team. This is a topic that could fill a whole book, but in this post I will provide specific guidelines on how to hire, manage, promote, and fire executives in a startup based on my personal observations and experiences.
For the purposes of this post, definitions: An executive is a leader -- someone who runs a function within the company and has primary responsibility for an organization within the company that will contribute to the company's success or failure. The difference between an executive and a manager is that the executive has a higher degree of latitude to organize, make decisions, and execute within her function than a manager. The manager may ask what the right thing to do is; the executive should know.
The general theory of executives, like managers, is, per Andy Grove: the output of an executive is the output of her organization. Therefore, the primary task of an executive is to maximize the output of her organization. However, in a startup, a successful executive must accomplish three other critical tasks simultaneously:
Build her organization -- typically when an executive arrives or is promoted into her role at a startup, she isn't there to be a caretaker; rather she must build her organization, often from scratch. This is a sharp difference from many big company executives, who can spend their entire careers running organizations other people built -- often years or decades earlier.
Be a primary individual contributor -- a startup executive must "roll up her sleeves" and produce output herself. There are no shortage of critical things to be done at a startup, and an executive who cannot personally produce while simultaneously building and running her organization typically will not last long. Again, this is a sharp difference from many big companies, where executives often serve more as administrators and bureaucrats.
Be a team player -- a startup executive must take personal responsibility for her relationships with her peers and people throughout the startup, in all functions and at all levels. Big companies can often tolerate internal rivalries and warfare; startups cannot.
Being a startup executive is not an easy job. The rewards are substantial -- the ability to contribute directly to the startups's success; the latitude to build and run an organization according to her own theories and principles; and a meaningful equity stake that can lead to personal financial independence if the startup succeeds -- but the responsibilities are demanding and intense.

Hiring:
First, if you're not sure whether you need an executive for a function, don't hire one.
Startups, particularly well-funded startups, often hire executives too early. Particularly before a startup has achieved product/market fit, it is often better to have a highly motivated manager or director running a function than an executive.
Hiring an executive too quickly can lead to someone who is really expensive, sitting there in the middle of the room, doing very little. Not good for the executive, not good for the rest of the team, not good for the burn rate, and not good for the company.
Hire an executive only when it's clear that you need one: when an organization needs to get built; when hiring needs to accelerate; when you need more processes and structure and rigor to how you do things.
Second, hire the best person for the next nine months, not the next three years.
I've seen a lot of startups overshoot on their executive hires. They need someone to build the software development team from four people to 30 people over the next nine months, so they hire an executive from a big company who has been running 400 people. That is usually death.
Hire for what you need now -- and for roughly the next nine months. At the very least, you will get what you need now, and the person you hire may well be able to scale and keep going for years to come.
In contrast, if you overhire -- if you hear yourself saying, "this person will be great when we get bigger" -- you are most likely hiring someone who, best case, isn't that interested in doing things at the scale you need, and worst case, doesn't know how.
Third, whenever possible, promote from within.
Great companies develop their own executives. There are several reasons for this:
You get to develop your best people and turn them into executives, which is great for both them and you -- this is the single best, and usually the only, way to hold onto great people for long periods of time.
You ensure that your executives completely know and understand your company culture, strategy, and ethics.
Your existing people are the "devil you know" -- anyone new coming from outside is going to have flaws, often really serious ones, but you probably won't figure out what they are until after you've hired them. With your existing people, you know, and you minimize your odds of being shocked and appalled.
Of course, this isn't always possible. Which segues us directly into...
Fourth, my list of the key things to look at, and for, when evaluating executive candidates:
Look for someone who is hungry and driven -- someone who wants a shot at doing "their thing". Someone who has been an up and comer at a midsized company but wants a shot at being a primary executive at a startup can be a great catch.
Flip side of that: beware people who have "done it before". Sometimes you do run into someone who has been VP Engineering at four companies and loves it and wants to do it at a fifth company. More often, you will be dealing with someone who is no longer hungry and driven. This is a very, very big problem to end up with -- be very careful.
Don't disqualify someone based on ego or cockiness -- as long as she's not insane. Great executives are high-ego -- you want someone driven to run things, driven to make decisions, confident in herself and her abilities. I don't mean loud and obnoxious, I mean assured and determined, bleeding over into cocky. If a VC's ideal investment is a company that will succceed without him, then your ideal executive hire is someone who will succeed without you.
Beware hiring a big company executive for a startup. The executive skill sets required for a big company vs a startup are very different. Even great big company executives frequently have no idea what to do once they arrive at a startup.
In particular, really beware hiring an executive from an incredibly successful big company. This is often very tempting -- who wouldn't want to bring onboard someone who sprinkles some of that IBM (in the 80's), Microsoft (in the 90's), or Google (today) fairy dust on your startup? The issue is that people who have been at an incredibly successful big company often cannot function in a normal, real world, competitive situation where they don't start every day with 80% market share. Back in the 80's, you often heard, "never hire anyone straight out of IBM -- first, let them go somewhere else and fail, and then hire them". Believe it.
This probably goes without saying, but look for a pattern of output -- accomplishment. Validate it by reference checking peers, reports, and bosses. Along the way, reference check personality and teamwork, but look first and foremost for a pattern of output.
Fifth, by all means, use an executive recruiter, but for sourcing, not evaluation.
There are some executive recruiters who are actually really good at evaluation. Others are not. It's beside the point. It's your job to evaluate and make the decision, not the recruiter's.
I say this because I have never met a recruiter who lacks confidence in his ability to evaluate candidates and pass judgment on who's right for a given situation. This can lull a startup founder into relying on the recruiter's judgment instead of really digging in and making your own decision. Betting that your recruiter is great at evaluation is not a risk you want to take. You're the one who has to fire the executive if it doesn't work out.
Sixth, be ready to pay market compensation, including more cash compensation than you want, but watch for red flags in the compensation discussion.
You want someone focused on upside -- on building a company. That means, a focus on their stock option package first and foremost.
Watch out for candidates who want egregious amounts of cash, high bonuses, restricted stock, vacation days, perks, or -- worst of all -- guaranteed severance. A candiate who is focused on those things, as opposed to the option package, is not ready to do a startup.
On a related note, be careful about option accceleration in the event of change of control. This is often reasonable for support functions such as finance, legal, and HR where an acquirer would most likely not have a job for the startup executive in any of those functions. But this is not reasonable, in my view, for core functions such as engineering, product management, marketing, or sales. You don't want your key executives focused on selling the company -- unless of course you want them focused on selling the company. Make your acceleration decisions accordingly.
Seventh, when hiring the executive to run your former specialty, be careful you don't hire someone weak on purpose.
This sounds silly, but you wouldn't believe how often it happens. The CEO who used to be a product manager who has a weak product management executive. The CEO who used to be in sales who has a weak sales executive. The CEO who used to be in marketing who has a weak marketing executive.
I call this the "Michael Eisner Memorial Weak Executive Problem" -- after the CEO of Disney who had previously been a brilliant TV network executive. When he bought ABC at Disney, it promptly fell to fourth place. His response? "If I had an extra two days a week, I could turn around ABC myself." Well, guess what, he didn't have an extra two days a week.
A CEO -- or a startup founder -- often has a hard time letting go of the function that brought him to the party. The result: you hire someone weak into the executive role for that function so that you can continue to be "the man" -- consciously or subconsciously. Don't let it happen to you -- make sure the person you hire into that role is way better than you used to be.
Eighth, recognize that hiring an executive is a high-risk proposition.
You often see a startup with a screwed up development process, but "when we get our VP of Engineering onboard, everything will get fixed". Or a startup that is missing its revenue targets, but "when we get our VP of sales, reveue will take off".
Here's the problem: in my experience, if you know what you're doing, the odds of a given executive hire working out will be about 50/50. That is, about 50% of the time you'll screw up and ultimately have to replace the person. (If you don't know what you're doing, your failure rate will be closer to 100%.)
Why? People are people. People are complicated. People have flaws. You often don't know what those flaws are until after you get to know them. Those flaws are often fatal in an executive role. And more generally, sometimes the fit just isn't there.
This is why I'm so gung ho on promoting from within. At least then you know what the flaws are up front.

Managing:
First, manage your executives.
It's not that uncommon to see startup founders, especially first-timers, who hire executives and are then reluctant to manage them.
You can see the thought process: I just hired this really great, really experienced VP of Engineering who has way more experience running development teams than I ever did -- I should just let him go do his thing!
That's a bad idea. While respecting someone's experience and skills, you should nevertheless manage every executive as if she were a normal employee. This means weekly 1:1's, performance reviews, written objectives, career development plans, the whole nine yards. Skimp on this and it is very easy for both your relationship with her and her effectiveness in the company to skew sideways.
This even holds if you're 22 and she's 40, or 50, or 60! Don't be shy, that will just scare her -- and justifiably so.
Second, give your executives the latitude to run their organizations.
This is the balancing act with the previous point, but it's equally important. Don't micromanage.
The whole point of having an executive is to have someone who can figure out how to build and run an organization so that you don't have to. Manage her, understand what she is doing, be very clear on the results you expect, but let her do the job.
Here's the key corollary to that: if you want to give an executive full latitude, but you're reluctant to do so because you're not sure she can make it happen, then it's probably time to fire her.
In my experience it's not that uncommon for a founder or CEO to be uncomfortable -- sometimes only at a gut level -- at really giving an executive the latitude to run with the ball. That is a surefire signal that the executive is not working out and probably needs to be fired. More on that below.
Third, ruthlessly violate the chain of command in order to gather data.
I don't mean going around telling people under an executive what to do without her knowing about it. I mean, ask questions, continually, at all levels of the organization. How are things going? What do you think of the new hires? How often are you meeting with your manager? And so on.
You never want the bulk of your information about a function coming from the executive running that function. That's the best way to be completely and utterly surprised when everything blows up.
Here's the kicker: a great executive never minds when the CEO talks to people in her organization. In fact, she loves it, because it means the CEO just hears more great things about her.
If you have an executive who doesn't want you to talk to people in her organization, you have a bad executive.

Promoting:
This will be controversial, but I am a big fan of promoting talented people as fast as you can -- promoting up and comers into executive roles, and promoting executives into bigger and broader responsibilities.
You can clearly overdo this -- you can promote someone before they are ready and in the worst case, completely screw up their career. (Seen it. Done it.) You can also promote someone to their level of incompetence -- the Peter Principle. (Seen it. Done it.)
However, life is short, startups move fast, and you have stuff to get done. You aren't going to have the privilege of working with that many great, talented, high-potential people in your career. When you find one, promote her as fast as you can. Great for her, great for the company, and great for you.
This assumes you are properly training and managing her along the way. That is left as an exercise for the reader.
The surest sign someone is ready for promotion is when they're doing a great job running their current team. Projects are getting done, team morale is good, new hires are top quality, people are happy. Time to promote some people into new challenges.
I'm a firm believer that most people who do great things are doing them for the first time. Returning to my theory of hiring, I'd rather have someone all fired up to do something for the first time than someone who's done it before and isn't that excited to do it again. You rarely go wrong giving someone who is high potential the shot.
This assumes you can tell the high potential people apart from everyone else. That too is left as an exercise for the reader.

Firing:
First, recognize the paradox of deciding to fire an executive.
The paradox works like this:
It takes time to gather data to evaluate an executive's performance. You can't evaluate an executive based on her own output, like a normal employee -- you have to evaluate her based on the output of her organization. It takes time for her to build and manage her organization to generate output. Therefore, it takes longer to evaluate the performance of an executive than a normal employee.
But, an executive can cause far more damage than a normal employee. A normal employee doesn't work out, fine, replace him. An executive doesn't work out, it can -- worst case -- permanently cripple her function and sometimes the entire company. Therefore, it is far more important to fire a bad executive as fast as possible, versus a normal employee.
Solution? There isn't one. It's a permanent problem.
I once asked Andy Grove, one of the world's all-time best CEOs, about this. He said, you always fire a bad executive too late. If you're really good, you'll fire her about three months too late. But you'll always do it too late. If you did it fast enough that it wasn't too late, you wouldn't have enough data, and you'd risk being viewed as arbitrary and capricious by the rest of the organization.
Second, the minute you have a bad feeling in your gut, start gathering data.
Back to the point on ruthlessly violating the chain of command -- get to it. Talk to everyone. Know what's going on. Unless you're paranoid -- and, shockingly, I have met paranoid founders and CEOs, and not counting Andy Grove -- you need to gather the data because you're going to need to fire the executive -- if you're good, in about three months.
In the meantime, of course do everything you can to coach and develop and improve the executive. If it works out, that's great. If not, get ready.
A few specific things I think are critical to look for:
Is the executive hiring? If there are open headcount slots and nobody's coming in the door, you have a problem. Just as bad is when the new hires aren't very good -- when they're bringing down the average quality of the organization.
Is the executive training and developing her people? Often in a startup, an executive is hired to take over a function that's already been started, at least in rudimentary form. The people in that function should be noticeably better at their jobs, and highly respectful of the executive's skills, within the first several months at the very least. If not, you have a problem.
What do the other executives think? Great executives are often imperfect but their peers always respect them. If your other executives are skeptical of a new executive after the first few months, you have a problem.
Is it painful for you to interact with the executive? Do you try to avoid or cancel your 1:1's? Does talking to her give you a headache? Do you often not understand what point she's trying to make or why she's focused on such an odd issue? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, you have a problem.
Third, fire crisply.
Firing an executive sucks. It's disruptive to the organization. It creates a lot of work for you -- not least of which is you'll have to go find someone else for the job. And, it risks making you look bad, since you're the one who hired the person in the first place.
And it always seems to happen at a critical time in your startup's life, when the last thing you need is a distraction like this.
Nevertheless, the only thing to do is do it, do it professionally, make clear to the organization what will happen next, and get on down the road.
In my opinion the two most common mistakes people make when they fire executives both fall in the category of pulling one's punches, and I highly recommend avoiding them:
Long transition periods -- tempting, but counterproductive. Confusing, demoralizing, and just plain weird. Instead, make a clean break, put a new person in charge -- even if only on an acting basis -- and get moving.
Demotion as an alternative to firing (or, alternately, "I know, we'll hire her a boss!"). Hate it. Great people don't deal well with getting demoted. There is an occasional exception. Unless you are positive you have such an exception, skip it, and move directly to the conclusion.
Fourth, don't feel guilty.
You're not beheading anyone.
Anyone who got a job as an executive at a startup is going to have an easy time getting the next job. After all, she can always paint you as a crazy founder, or inept CEO.
More often than not, when you fire an executive, you are doing her a favor -- you are giving her a chance to find a better fit in a different company where she will be more valued, more respected, and more successful. This sounds mushy, but I mean it. And if she can't, then she has a much deeper problem and you just dodged a huge bullet.
And on that cheery note, good luck!

Wish from a Genie

A man walks into a restaurant with a full-grown ostrich behind him. The waitress asks them for their orders. The man says, "A hamburger, fries and a coke," and turns to the ostrich, "What's yours?" "I'll have the same," says the ostrich. A short time later the waitress returns with the order "That will be $9.40 please," and the man reaches into his pocket and pulls out the exact change for payment. The next day, the man and the ostrich come again and the man says, "A hamburger, fries and a coke." The ostrich says, "I'll have the same." Again the man reaches into his pocket and pays with exact change. This becomes routine until the two enter again. "The usual?" asks the waitress. "No! , this is Friday night, so I will have a steak, baked potato and a salad," says the man. "Same," says the ostrich. <>Shortly the waitress brings the order and says, "That will be $32.62." Once again the man pulls the exact change out of his pocket and places it on the table. The waitress cannot hold back her curiosity any longer. "Excuse me, sir. How do you manage to always come up with the exact change in your pocket every time?" "Well," says the man, "several years ago I was cleaning the attic and found an old lamp. When I rubbed it, a Genie appeared and offered me two wishes. My first wish was that if I ever had to pay for anything, I would just put my hand in my pocket and the right amount of money would always be there." "That's brilliant!" says the waitres! s. "Most people would ask for a million dollars or something, but you'll always be as rich as you want for as long as you live!" "That's right. Whether it's a gallon of milk or a Rolls Royce, the exact money is always there," says the man. The waitress asks, "What's with the ostrich?" The man sighs, pauses and answers, "My second wish was for a tall chick with a big ass and long legs who agrees with everything I say."

THE HUSBAND STORE

A store that sells husbands has just opened in New York City , where a woman may go to choose a husband. Among the instructions at the entrance is a description of how the store operates. You may visit the store ONLY ONCE !There are six floors and the attributes of the men increase as the shopper ascends the flights. There is, however, a catch . . .. you maychoose any man from a particular floor, or you may choose to go up a floor, but you cannot go back down except to exit the building! So, awoman goes to the Husband Store to find a husband . ...
On the first floor the sign on the door reads:Floor 1 - These men have jobs and love the Lord.
The second floor sign reads:Floor 2 - These men have jobs, love the Lord, and love kids.
The third floor sign reads:Floor 3 - These men have jobs, love the Lord, love kids, and are extremely good looking. "Wow," she thinks, but feels compelled to keep going.
She goes to the fourth floor and sign reads:Floor 4 - These men have jobs, love the ! Lord, love kids, are drop-dead good looking and help with the housework. "Oh, mercy me!" she exclaims, "I can hardly stand it!"
Still, she goes to the fifth floor and sign reads:Floor 5 - These men have jobs, love the Lord, love kids, are drop- dead gorgeous, help with the housework, and have a strong romantic streak.
She is so tempted to stay, but she goes to the sixth floor and the sign reads:Floor 6 - You are visitor 4,363,012 to this floor.
There are no men on this floor. This floor exists solely as proof that women are impossible to please.Thank you for shopping at the Husband Store. Watch your step as you exit the building, and have a nice day!Please send this to all men for a good laugh and to all the women who can handle the truth! Remember Greed is one of the seven deadly sins.You have to learn to be grateful for what you have to get more. When youare ungrateful you end up with nothing.

Useful Laws.... Enjoy

Lorenz's Law of Mechanical Repair: After your hands become coated with grease, your nose will begin toitch.
Anthony's Law of the Workshop: Any tool, when dropped, will roll to the least accessible corner.
Kovac's Conundrum: When you dial a wrong number, you never get an engaged one.Cannon's Karmic Law: If you tell the boss you were late for work because you had a flat tire,the next morning you will have a flat tire.
O'brien's Variation Law: If you change queues, the one you have left will start to move fasterthan the one you are in now.
BELL'S THEOREM When the body is immersed in water, the telephone rings.
RUBY'S PRINCIPLE OF CLOSE ENCOUNTERS The probability of meeting someone you know increases when you are withsomeone you don't want to be seen with.
WILLOUGHBY'S LAW When you try to prove to someone that a machine won't work, it will.
ZADRA'S LAW OF BIOMECHANICS The severity of the itch is inversely proportional to the reach.
BREDA'S RULE At any event, the people whose seats are furthest from the aisle arrivelast.
OWEN'S LAW As soon as you sit down to a cup of hot coffee, your boss will ask youto do something which will last until the coffee is cold.
HOWDEN'S LAW You remember you have to mail a letter only when you're near the mailbox

The Donkey Story

THE DONKEY One day a farmer's donkey fell down into a well. The animal cried piteously for hours as the farmer tried to figure out what to do. Finally, he decided the animal was old, and the well needed to be covered up anyway; it just wasn't worth it to retrieve the donkey.He invited all his neighbours to come over and help him. They all grabbed a shovel and began to shovel dirt into the well. At first, the donkey realized what was happening and cried horribly. Then, to everyone's amazement he quieted down.A few shovel loads later, the farmer finally looked down the well. He was astonished at what he saw. With each shovel of dirt that hit his back, the donkey was doing something amazing. He would shake it off and take a step up.As the farmer's neighbours continued to shovel dirt on top of theanimal, he would shake it off and take a step up. Pretty soon, everyone was amazed as the donkey stepped up over the edge of the well and happily trotted off!Life is going to shovel dirt on you, all kinds of dirt. The trick togetting out of the well is to shake it off and take a step up. Each ofour troubles is a steppingstone. We can get out of the deepest wells just by not stopping, never giving up! Shake it off and take a step up.Remember the five simple rules to be happy:1. Free your heart from hatred - Forgive.2. Free your mind from worries - Most never happen.3. Live simply and appreciate what you have.4. Give more.5. Expect less NOW --------Be a good Donkey and send it across to all the donkeys you Know…. Think like a donkey…..does this make sense….If you think ‘no’ than something is wrong with your senses…..

Phone Selling Tips

This is a small project I have done on potential of phone calling manners, Thought I can share with you all. Please take positive things from this & you may omit any negative comments I have made.
How many times have you phoned a company with a simple question that would lead to the purchase of a product or service? A time when you had to press the latest game show contest result on your keypad only to be left on hold for 30 minutes. Then to be greeted by somebody who really just wants you to go away and die? Somebody who thinks of you as just another call, a nuisance or interruption to his or her day. Your heart sinks and you feel an overwhelming frustration build up inside you. Your defensive walls are raised at a thousand miles an hour and before you know it, you went from being happy (like picking roses), to looking at engaging in verbal combat with this person. I know myself that there are several companies that I need to phone but keep putting it off as I know that I will be left on hold until the next ice age (well almost). Due to this fact alone I am ready to jump conclusions as soon as a better deal arises. It is not good business. And definitely does not encourage word of mouth.
Say you ring a business and the answer comes back at you with an upbeat "Goooood morning! Thanks for calling ABC Pyramid Builders, this is Mr. X! How can I help you?". Mr.X talks to you as if he has been waiting for your call all day. He listens to you, remembers your name, appreciates your call and tries to help you out as much as possible. Mr. has made you feel good. Ands that's what it is all about.
First impressions last. So if the phone is the first encounter with your business, make sure it's a good one. It is vital that you all in sales team, especially in telecalling team understand this.

Here are some easy to implement phone tips:
Always mention your name and business name(i.e. Mr. xyz from ABC Company) when answering the phone. People like to know with whom they are talking. How do you feel when somebody just picks up the phone with 'Hello'? I know its common practice in our country, but people would appreciate if you mention your name and designation or your company name. It sounds more professional.

Do people keep asking you to repeat your name?If so, it could be the way you say your name. Try and slow down and say it more clearly next time. It will save you time and save people from the embarrassment of asking for your name again.
Don't see the telephone as an interruption!Somebody has taken the time out of his or her day to phone you! It could be your next sale.
Answering your phone after office Hours:Many people I came across, refuse to answer the phone after office hours (not specifically our company Staffs, But there were few) even though they are still at the office. However this is the time when you are most likely to make a sale or bring on a new client as none of your competitors are available. At my earlier career, I can't count the number of times I have answered calls after 5pm and spoken to a client who desperately needed some urgent tax saving plan or was unable to phone during the day due to work commitments. Most business phone calls last no longer than 2 - 5 minutes. Remember that a real person is on the other end, who is more than likely trying to put some bucks in your pocket. Don't let them down.
Remembering namesAs you know, names are very important. In many cases you will forget the persons name during the conversation. Especially if they have an unusual name. Write down the persons name on a pad you keep by the phone. Forgetting a name during a conversation is embarrassing and doesn't show much interest on your part.
Return calls promptly Often a client is promised a return phone call within a set time frame. Your clients are busy just like you and have things to do. It's a good idea to return the call, even if it is to say that you will be calling again later. Your caller will have peace of mind that you are on the case and can go about their business. If you use voice mail or an answering machine, it pays to check the messages often.
Do only one thing at a time If you are talking to a client on the phone, make sure that is the only thing you are doing. Focus 100% on the phone call. Phone calls generally don't take very long. You can check your email or continue working after the call. It is easy to sense that you are not paying attention to the conversation. If you are too busy, either transfer the call to somebody else who can help or return the call at a later time.
No silence please Silence is uncomfortable and people generally don't like being on hold. If you are waiting for your computer to do something, or browsing your manual to find a solution, or anything else for that matter, keep the conversation going with your client. Or offer to phone back.
Dealing with 3 legged 4 eyed bloater monsters If you receive a phone call from one of these angry and abusive bad boys, I suggest you get in touch with a psychiatrist as you could be losing your mind. No seriously. Hear the person out, get all the details, and if you feel yourself getting all worked up and upset, explain that you will fix the problem or come up with a solution and phone them right back. You can then hang up the phone, calm down and think about the situation more rationally. Otherwise you may act on emotions and say something silly and get eaten for dinner. Issues usually arise from misunderstandings, which will be much clearer to you once you calm down. When you are ready, phone back as you promised and sort out the problem.
Keep on smiling Just like in normal face to face conversation, it is important to smile while on the phone. This will help your voice sound happy and friendly.
Conclusion: Your telephone calls are very important for the success of your business. Implementing good phone manner will increase your sales and grow your business. Always remember that most of the phone calls you receive could lead to new sales, especially financial institutions like us, with competitors on every street ends never should miss a call, even if it is from your boss who is expecting business from you because even he can call you to give you a potential lead.
Happy phone selling.....

Best of Jokes

will be glad to share more such things, plz do write to bijugangadar@gmail.com. God Bless.

Tongue in Cheek
"Why did you park your car here?""The sign says: 'Fine for parking!'"
"I want to buy a dress to put on around the house.""Yes, Madam. How large is your house?"
"What are you going to be when you graduate?""An old man"
"I spent three years in college taking medicine.""Are you well now?"
"Do you say a prayer before you eat?""No, we don't have to. My mother is a good cook."
"I've got a surprise for you, honey. I brought a friend home for dinner.""Who wants to eat friends?"
"We are having mother for dinner, darling.""Make sure she's well done."
"I want some rat poison.""Should I wrap it up or do you want to eat it right here?"
"It seems that everything I say to you goes in one ear and out the other.""Well, I guess that's why I've got two ears."
"My father was a Pole.""North or South?"
"May I hold your hand?""No, thanks, It isn't heavy."
"Does water always come through the roof in this place?""No, sir, only when it rains."
"When will you straighten out the house, dear?""Why? Is it tilted?"
"Do these stairs take you to the second floor?""No, you'll have to walk"
"Get out of here! This isn't your house.""That's okay. I'm not myself tonight."
"Now that you're married, you should have some insurance""But why? My wife isn't dangerous."
"I have changed! my mind.""Thank heaven! Does it work better now?"

Walking Economy
A guy is walking down the street with his friend. He says to his friend, "I'm a walking economy."His friend replies, "How's that?""It's like this -- my hair line is in recession, my stomach is a victim of inflation, and the combination of these factors is putting me into a deep depression."

Police
The Speeding Ticket
A man was speeding down the highway, feeling secure in a gaggle of cars all traveling at the same speed. However, as they passed a speed trap, he got nailed with an infrared speed detector and was pulled over. The officer handed him the citation, received his signature and was about to walk away when the man asked, "Officer, I know I was speeding, but I don't think it's fair. There were plenty of other cars around me going just as fast, so why did I get the ticket?" "Ever go fishing?" the policeman suddenly asked the man. "Ummm, yeah... so," the startled man replied.The officer grinned and added, "Ever catch ALL the fish?"

Best Marksman
One of the best marksmen in the FBI was passing through a small town. Everywhere he saw evidences of the most amazing shooting. On trees, on walls, and on fences there were numerous bull's-eyes with the bullet hole in dead center. The FBI man asked one of the townsmen if he could meet the person responsible for this wonderful marksmanship. The man turned out to be the village idiot. "This is the best marksmanship

Family
Missing Husband
A wife went to the police station with her next-door neighbor to report that her husband was missing. The policeman asked for a description. She said, "He's 35 years old, 6 foot 4, has dark eyes, dark wavy hair, an athletic build, weighs 185 pounds, is soft-spoken, and is good to the children." The next-door neighbor protested, "Your husband is 5 foot 4, chubby, bald, has a big mouth, and is mean to your children." The wife replied, "Yes, but who wants HIM back?"

Quick Thinking
A young couple drove several miles down a country road, not saying a word. An earlier discussion had led to an argument, and neither wanted to concede their position. As they passed a barnyard of mules and pigs, the husband sarcastically asked, "Are they relatives of yours?" "Yes," his wife replied. "I married into the family."

How He Did It
A father brought his son into the doctor because the boy had a matchbox car shoved up his nose. All the while the doctor was trying to remove the car, the father kept saying "I don't know how he did it!" Finally the doctor removed the car, and the father and son left. A few hours later, the father came back with the matchbox shoved up HIS nose. He told the doctor, "I know how he did it!"

Doctors & Hospitals

At the Prison Hospital
Prisoner: Look here, doctor! You've already removed my spleen, tonsils, adenoids, and one of my kidneys. I only came to see if you could get me out of this place!Doctor: I am, bit by bit.
Bad News and very bad news
Doctor : I have some bad news and some very bad news.Patient : Well, might as well give me the bad news first.Doctor : The lab called with your test results. They said you have 24 hours to live.Patient : 24 hours! That's terrible!! What could be worse? What's the very bad news?Doctor : I've been trying to reach you since yesterday.
Good news and bad news
Patient : I'm in a hospital! Why am I in here?Doctor : You've had an accident involving a train.Patient : What happened?Doctor : Well, I've got some good news and some bad news. Which would you like to hear first?Patient : Well... The bad news first ...Doctor : Your legs were injured so badly that we had to amputate both of them.Patient : That's terrible! What's the good news?Doctor : There's a guy in the next ward who made a very good offer on your slippers.
How Much
Patient : How much to have this tooth pulled?Dentist : 90.00.Patient : 90.00 for just a few minutes work???Dentist : I can extract it very slowly if you like.
Daily Routine
Some members of a health club were having their first meeting. The director of the group said, "Now, I'd like each of you to give the facts of your daily routine." Several people spoke, admitting their excesses, and then one obviously overweight members said, "I eat moderately, I drink moderately, and I exercise frequently." "Hmm?" said the manager. "And are you sure you having nothing else to add?" "Well, yes," said the member. "I lie extensively."
Hotels & Offices
Waiter : I've stewed liver, boiled tongue and frog's leg.Customer : Don't tell me your problems. Give the menu card.
Manager: Sorry, but I can't give u a job. I don't need much help.Job Applicant: That's all right. In fact I'm just the right person in this case. You see, I won't be of much help anyway!!
Waiter: Would you like your coffee black?Customer: What other colors do you have?
I went to a bookstore and asked the saleswoman, "Where's the self-help section?"She answered, "If I tell you, it will defeat the purpose."
Getting a Day Off
Smith goes to see his supervisor in the front office. "Boss," he says, "we're doing some heavy house-cleaning at home tomorrow, and my wife needs me to help with the attic and the garage, moving and hauling stuff." "We're short-handed, Smith," the boss replies. "I can't give you the day off." "Thanks, boss," says Smith, "I knew I could count on you!"
Not a Morning Person
John had this problem of getting up late in the morning and was always late for work. His boss was mad at him and threatened to fire him if he didn't do something about it. So John went to his doctor who gave him a pill and told him to take it before he went to bed. John slept well and in fact beat the alarm in the morning. He had a leisurely breakfast and drove cheerfully to work. "Boss", he said, "The pill actually worked!" "That's all fine" said the boss, "But where were you yesterday?"
Can't Wait
A merchant sent an order to a distributor for a large amount of goods totaling a great deal of money. The distributor, noting that the previous bill hadn't been paid, told the collections manager to check it. The collections manager left a voice-mail for them saying, "We can't ship your new order until you pay for the last one." The next day the collections manager received a collect phone call, "Please cancel the order. We can't wait that long."
Consultancy
A Consultancy firm has experts who actually visit different agencies and suggest ways to streamline their day-to-day routines. One such expert was approached by a Public Sector Undertaking to suggest ways to get rid of the clutter. He suggested as a start, that they throw out all correspondence over ten years old. The Director of the PSU loved the idea, and replied, "Good thought but first, we'll have to make three copies of everything we wish to throw out."
Best Deals
Shopkeeper Patel was alarmed when a new business, much like his own, opened to the left of him with a huge sign reading BEST DEALS. Mr. Patel was troubled a second time when another competitor leased the building on his right, and erected a much larger sign, reading LOWEST PRICES. At this point Patel was really depressed, however, he came up with an idea. He put the biggest sign of all over his own shop...it read MAIN ENTRANCE.

Clean and Green
There was this clean and green activity going on in the town side when a fellow stopped at a petrol station and, after getting the tank filled, he went into a near by "café" and bought a cup of "chai". As he was sipping his hot beverage he watched a couple of men working along the roadside. One man would dig a hole two or three feet deep and then move on. The other man came along behind and filled in the hole. While one was digging a new hole, the other was about 25 feet behind filling in the old hole. The men worked right past the fellow with the "chai" and went on down the road. "I can't stand this," said the man annoyed and heading down the road toward the men. "Hold it, hold it," he shouted at those men. "Can you tell me what's going on here with this digging?" "Well, we work for the green program, " one of the men said. "But one of you is digging a hole and the other fills it up. You're not accomplishing anything. Aren't you wasting the country's money?" "You don't understand, sar! " one of the men said, leaning on his shovel and wiping his brow. "Normally there's three of us--me, Ram and Baldev. I dig the hole, Ram sticks the tree and Baldev here puts the soil back. Now just because Ram's sick, that doesn't mean that Baldev and me can't work."

Little Devils
Teacher: Desmond, your composition on "My Dog" is exactly the same as your brother's. Did u copy his?Desmond: No, teacher, it's the same dog!
Father: Your teacher says she finds it impossible to teach you anything!Son : That's why I say she's no good!
Dad : "Son, how can you call your aunt stupid? Go and say sorry to her."Son : (goes over to the aunt) "Aunt, I am sorry you are stupid.
Teacher: "Spell 'WATER',"Girl : "HIJKLMNO."Teacher: "That doesn't spell 'WATER',"Girl : "Yes, it does it's all the letters from 'H to O'."
Teacher: "How do u think Shakespeare wrote such master pieces?"College student: "With a pencil, maam, either a 2B or not 2B."
Man : How old is your father ?Boy : As old as meMan : How can that be ?Boy : He became a father only when I was born
"Mum, teacher was asking me today if I have any brothers or sisters who will be coming to school." "That's nice of her to take such an interest. What did she say when u told her u are the only child?" "She just said, 'Thank goodness!'"
Teacher: "Where were u born?"Student: "Singapore, Sir."Teacher: "Which part?"Student: "All of me, Sir."
Teacher: "Chong, u missed school last Friday."Chong : "You're wrong, Sir."Teacher: "Wrong, how is that?"Chong : "I was absent, yes but I certainly didn't miss it!"
A teacher was asking her class: "What is the difference between 'unlawful' and 'illegal'?" Only one hand shot up. "Ok, answer, Joan," said the teacher. "'unlawful' is when u do something the law doesn't allow and 'illegal' is a sick eagle."
Teacher : "How come you do not comb your hair?"Ah Kow : "No comb, Sir."Teacher : "Use your dad's then."Ah Kow : "No hair, Sir."
A boy came home from school with his exam results."What did u get?" asked his father."My marks are under water," said the boy. "What do u mean 'under water'?""They are all below 'C'(sea) level"
"An abstract noun," the teacher said, "is something you can think of, but you can't touch it. Can you give me an example of one?" "Sure," a teenage boy replied. "My father's new car."
Feet Ain't Empty
A teacher was giving a lesson on the circulation of the blood. Trying to make the matter clearer, he said: "Now, students, if I stood on my head the blood, as you know, would run into it, and I should turn red in the face." "Yes, sir," the boys said. "Then why is it that while I am standing upright in the ordinary position the blood doesn't run into my feet?" A little fellow shouted, "'It's because your feet ain't empty."

Witty definitions
Now here is a concise and witty description on various isms:
SOCIALISM: You have two cows. State takes one and gives it to someone else.
PURE SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.
COMMUNISM: You have two cows. State takes both of them and gives you milk. PURE COMMUNISM: You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.
RUSSIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk.
FASCISM: You have two cows. State takes both of them and sell you milk.
NAZISM: You have two cows. State takes both of them and shoot you.
PURE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk. REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.
AMERICAN DEMOCRACY: The government promises to give you two cows if you vote for it. After the election, the president is impeached for speculating in cow futures. The press dubs the affair "Cowgate".
BRITISH DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. You feed them sheep's brains and they go mad. The government doesn't do anything.
SINGAPORE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. The government fines you for keeping two unlicensed animals in an apartment.
JAPANESE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. You give the milk to gangsters so they don't ask any awkward questions about whom you're giving the milk to.
BUREAUCRACY: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. After that it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.
CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.
HONG KONG CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax deduction for keeping five cows. The milk rights of six cows are transferred via a Panamanian intermediary to a Cayman Islands company secretly owned by the majority shareholder, who sells the rights to all seven cows' milk back to the listed company. The annual report says that the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. Meanwhile, you kill the two cows because the Feng Shui is bad.
FEUDALISM: You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.
ANARCHY: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors kill you and take the cows.
ENVIRONMENTALISM: You have two cows. The government bans you from milking or killing them.
FEMINISM: You have two cows. They get married and adopt a veal calf.
TOTALITARIANISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and denies they ever existed. Milk is banned.