Jonathan Romley 🇺🇦

We are an executive search firm who recently paid another search firm $30,000+ to help us hire our newest search partner. If we're such great recruiters, why the heck did we pay someone to help us hire?? Read on: It’s tempting to think, as a search firm (Shortlist Search), that we need to cobble our own shoes. After all, we’re great at finding the right-fit leaders for our clients; surely we should do the same for ourselves? But after nearly a year of trying on our own, we finally bit the bullet and signed an agreement for another search consultant to go out and find us great global search consultants. Doing it ourselves faced the following challenges: 1) It’s difficult to prioritize internal hiring when paid client work already has us chasing our tails at 110% utilization; why not focus on clients and pay someone else who specializes in these hires to help us? 2) It can be awkward to “sell ourselves” to new senior search partners; why not let someone else rave about us and get possible candidates excited from a more objective stance? 3) It can be challenging for us to get all the relevant information as efficiently as possible; why not let someone else ask the sometimes awkward questions about compensation, availability timeline, and priority factors / deal-killers? After all, you shouldn’t hire a search firm and pay all that money (I know we seem expensive!) just to have someone send you some profiles/CVs. There are cheaper/easier ways to just get a list of names (hello GenAI). Instead, hire a search firm to do the many other things that are often harder, more time-consuming, and more important: ** Reaching out to passive (i.e., not actively looking) candidates to entice them and sell them on the opportunity ** Making dozens of first calls to sort the wheat from the chaff and see who’s really interested (or capable of being “sold”) ** Managing more efficient information flow on sensitive topics between candidate and employer, such as comp expectations, offer negotiation, personal circumstances ** Supporting the overall process and admin which often gets delayed or lost in the shuffle when employers DIY And yes, of course, finding good-fit candidate profiles is also very important 🙂 So we were happy to pay tens of thousands $$$ — and we’re likely to pay it again as we have more amazing search leaders in process, as we keep growing Shortlist Professionals into the very best firm we can be. (Pic here with our newest Shortlisters climbing a mini-mountain at our recent team retreat...)

132

7 Comments

Been meditating a bit on quality of delivery and what that looks like in retained search. Success in executive recruiting is determined, in large part, by tenacity and consistency of execution on fundamentals. Pound for pound, these two factors usually determine which search partners and which companies attract and close the best executive talent. One of the things we push extremely hard on at Artisanal Talent is the importance of clear, quantifiable “scorecard” attributes that you must screen for when building an interview slate (for example, revenue growth from X-Y, specific segment or vertical focus, knowledge of your buyer, stage-relevance, etc). This is a basic tenant that many founders and even experienced CEOs breeze past or skirt around. At times this stems from not wanting to be “boxed in”, at others, from a lack of clarity on what is driving the hire to begin with. In any case, a thesis on the quant items a candidate MUST bring to the table is a prerequisite for any successful search. This candidate thesis can (and usually does) evolve, and/or completely change over the course of the search. In fact, this happens more often than not as founders and CEOs gain insights from their initial slate of meetings. Without a clear / quantifiable thesis at search kickoff, you end up scanning an inch deep and a mile wide, and the process usually falls apart. Not good for anyone involved, and damaging to your external talent brand as the hiring company. Fundamentals like this are the difference between winning and losing. Other examples include arming your search Partner with a clear value prop in the market to cut thru the “noise” (better yet, ask them to pitch your own company to you!), a frictionless and consistent process for candidates, the list goes on. I'd love to hear what other “ground game” items / fundmentals do others see as critical for success in executive recruiting!

59

6 Comments

I’ve witnessed first-hand the allure of raising large rounds of venture capital early on after being both in the founder seat raising VC $ and now in the VC seat guiding early stage founders. The social and financial pressures are real. The consequences of growing too quickly without a clear handle on product-market fit are just as real! It's easy to get caught up in the fundraising race early on when all of the headlines usually glorify large VC rounds, but *the truth is*: sustainable business and product growth should always come before scaling for the sake of headlines. Think of your financing strategy mindset like conditioning for a marathon—not a sprint. Early mindset training determines how far and how well you’ll go. Some of the following principles are helpful to keep in mind before going all-in on venture capital…. 💡 Clarity on Product-Market Fit is Key. Before chasing meaningful VC $, focus on getting clear and deep validation from your customers and end users. The best companies first go deep, refine their offering, and build a loyal customer base. ⏳ Patience Pays Off. Rushing to raise venture capital may seem to fuel growth, but it can cloud your understanding of what truly resonates with your customers—and what should actually come next on your roadmap.. Prioritize learning over scaling in the early stages to ensure your product is solid. 🔑 Sustainable Growth > Growth for Growth’s Sake. Raising too much capital too early can force a growth trajectory that doesn’t align with your product roadmap AND customer base– and in a worst case scenario, you may lose sight of your end vision. It’s important to know when to scale and when to double down on improving your product and operation with the end goal of growing your customer base in a quality first manner. 🛠️ Build Your Foundation First. Strong, sustainable businesses are built on solid foundations: loyal, happy customers, enduring metrics, and product-market fit. Use your capital wisely, and ensure every step of growth is backed by data-driven decisions– beware vanity metrics! Along the building journey, ask yourself: Can your product generate consistent revenue and meet customer needs before raising more? 🚀 Keep your focus on building something durable—and truly loved by your customers. Curious how others are approaching this—what’s your litmus test for knowing when it’s time to scale?

74

35 Comments

🚨 The venture model is changing. Slowly—and then all at once. Why small teams, capital efficiency, and sharp judgment are the new edge in VC. For years, venture was a scale game: Raise fast. Burn fast. Grow faster. And in a world of infinite-margin software, it worked. But AI is rewriting the rules: 🔺 Costs are higher 🔻 Margins are lower ⚡️ Growth is faster—but not stickier Suddenly, the old playbook looks… dated. Here’s what I’m seeing shift—and what it means for the next generation of VC firms: ✅ Capital efficiency isn’t a constraint—it’s a competitive advantage ✅ Growth isn’t a moat—retention and feedback loops are ✅ Small, sharp teams outperform consensus committees ✅ Insight is the new edge—research is free ✅ Trust moves faster, but the bar is higher Founders are raising less and doing more. Startups are hitting revenue and profitability faster. And the most compelling checks may come from the smallest funds—with the highest conviction. I’m building a fund around these principles. If you are too—founder, investor, or operator—I’d love to connect. 👇 Link to full post in the comments.

200

32 Comments

David and I met with several of the top venture firms over the past 48 hours. Every talent partner said the same thing: "This is the most competitive market for top engineers they've ever seen." (And these are people who lived through the dot-com boom) And the founders who are winning? They’re not winging it, they’re running a repeatable, aggressive, enterprise-grade sales motion. Here’s what they’re doing: - Their hiring process is lightning fast and ruthlessly buttoned-up. - Their biz ops teams own the process so founders can focus on closing, not chasing scheduling threads. - They're closing candidates over lunch/dinner before their onsite. - Top investors are looped in to help close. - And yes, there's more than ramen in the office. Pop-tart protein bars? Underrated. Should be mandatory. If you’re treating hiring like an HR function, you're already losing. The winners treat it like pipeline, high-intent leads, fast follow-up, no dead air, and a killer close. Engineers know they have options. Your job is to make them feel like there's only one worth saying yes to.

44

8 Comments

Introspection #3 The founder syndrome is a real thing and no one prepares you for it. The shift from founder to CEO is really hard. At first, everything runs on emotion. You build with your gut and with your heart. Your founding team are like close friends. And every decision is deeply personal. But then comes growth. And with it, comes something else: Founder syndrome. It's that precise moment where your attachment starts to work against you. Where your passion risks slowing down your progress. Basically, it's where emotional attachment and personal biases hinder growth and sustainability. It's the moment you have to start leading differently. → Less from instinct. More from insight. → Less about who’s been here the longest. More about what the company needs now. You now have dozens of stakeholders, and your original team is now just one of them. You don’t lose your heart. But you need to learn combining it with clarity. Research from MIT Sloan emphasizes the balance: 👉 ”Successful leaders integrate emotional intelligence with analytical decision-making, ensuring their companies thrive without losing their humanity.” They call it the balance between emotional intelligence and analytical leadership. I just call it growing up as a founder. -- I'm Sven, the founder of Tropos AR. I f you’re building in AR or just want to stay ahead of what’s coming… Follow me for insights, use cases, and behind-the-scenes looks at real AR projects. Or connect with me if you want to chat 😉

44

6 Comments

Everyone thinks raising VC is the dream. I can tell you from being in the industry for more than a decade...it’s not that simple. When I raised capital, I didn’t do it to make it to the headlines. I did it because the math made sense. Because the product was solid. Because the market was starved. But here’s the thing that most founders misunderstand: → VC is fuel, not a fix. And fuel only works if you’ve got: The right car. On the right track. With the right driver Most startups don’t fail from lack of funding. They fail from lack of focus and flawed execution. I would love to know… 💭What’s something you learned the hard way about raising money? P.S: Follow me for more honest lessons on conscious leadership and startup funding.

38

31 Comments

The founder of Snapchat just dropped the most powerful fundraising advice I've heard in a long time. In a recent episode of How I Built This with Guy Raz, Evan Spiegel mentioned that in his early days raising VC, he realized very early on that there are 3 things you can optimize for when raising money: 1. The investors themselves 2. The terms you get 3. The valuation First-time founders only get to pick 2. Pick valuation + terms? - Pros: you get to say your startup is worth whatever you want, and you probably didn’t give up seats and your terms are founder-friendly. - Cons: you might not get investors who'll be in the trenches with you when things get tough. Don’t expect them to pick up the phone at 11pm when you need them. Pick investors + valuation? - Pros: you actually like the investors you work with and you get the paper value of your company that you’re looking for. - Cons: you potentially give up certain aspects of control for your company. With Snap, Evan’s early terms allowed his lead investors to block other firms from coming in on the Series A. Pick terms + investors? - Pros: you get founder friendly terms and investors you can count on. - Cons: your valuation isn’t what you wanted and therefore you took more dilution than anticipated. Ultimately, it's up to your priorities as a founder. First-time founders especially: decide before your first meeting what you want to optimize for. Terms, valuation, or the investors themselves. Only you can decide what your startup needs most. Make this choice early so you're not scrambling when you have multiple term sheets in front of you. Fundraising is a means to an end, not the end itself. Every day you're not building is a day you're falling behind. Take the advice of a founder who raised more than $2.6B: Pick 2. Close the round. Get back to work.

618

56 Comments

One thing that smart VCs and angel investors LOVE to see in a company - but that founders rarely think about - is a high level of focus. Not just your team’s focus on the company - focus on a specific customer segment, a single product to sell, and a single strategy to get it to market. Investors want to see that you know what you’re about and that you’re committed to whatever that is. They DON’T want to see all of the different potential strategies, use cases, and other ideas you’ve thought about. ESPECIALLY if you haven’t found product-market fit with your main product. If an investor has operated a business, they know that focus on everything is focus on nothing. They don't define focus by what you spend your time on, but by what you choose not to spend your time on. #startups #venture #VC #founders #fundraising #tech #pitching

32

10 Comments

Common wisdom in VC says relationships are a long game, but we've all got a 60-second pitch. Here's what I've learned about relationship-building in an inherently transactional industry.   In business and in life, relationships are important to build the right way. Too often, networking feels transactional and impersonal. No small talk, no curiosity. Just straight into pitch mode.   I totally get it. As a new fund manager raising, I understand the urgency. But it still rubs me the wrong way. I genuinely like meeting people, getting to know them, and being helpful whether that’s investing, offering insight, or connecting them with others in my network.   I see this play out constantly at GP/LP events with family offices, FoFs, and other LPs. You spot the GP laser-focused on LP name tags, making a beeline to pitch. I empathize with both sides, being pitched to and trying to raise. But no matter how badly we want to speed it up, trust has its own timeline.   At the end of the day, everyone wants to feel seen and heard: founders, GPs, LPs alike. That’s why I always start with something personal and non-work related when I meet someone new. It lowers the stakes, softens the interaction, and often uncovers a real connection.   For example: Last night, I was talking to someone from the exact kind of shop every VC is pitching. They mentioned living in Boston. I immediately lit up and asked where (my mom’s side of the family is from there). We went into the usual "so what do you do" and when it was my turn, I said I’m a GP at a new VC firm in NYC and shared a bit about our thesis. Tension hung in the air as, which I found out after the fact, they were waiting for the "ask" of either intros or capital.   When they gently mentioned that our fund might be too small for their VC allocation, I jumped in to clarify we’re targeting different types of LPs where the check sizes make more sense and that's not what this was about. I was genuinely curious about their work on secondaries and learning more about that segment of the market. That changed everything.   Their face lit up, posture relaxed, and the passion came through. We ended up talking for over 30 minutes, discussing the effects of secondaries on the alternative asset market. We exchanged contact info at the end. They said, “Let me know if there’s any way I can be helpful.” I offered the same.   Who knows what may happen in the future. But I walked away with two things I know for sure:   1️⃣ I learned a lot about the current state of the secondaries market from someone who's been deep in it for 5+ years. 2️⃣ I made a meaningful connection with a sharp, kind person I’d gladly reach out to again.   Relationships are a long game. But they’re also full of surprises because you never know what may happen or not happen down the road.   What I do know is that the more genuine you are when building relationships, the more likely things come full circle. #DaringVentures #AuthenticNetworking #GP #LP

80

23 Comments

Since posting our guide on how to price AI software, I've been inundated with founders looking to talk through pricing strategies for their startups. Unfortunately, most are skipping the critical first step.   They are spending lots of cycles iterating on "how" to charge (e.g., usage-based, outcome-based, hybrid, etc).   But they're neglecting the most foundational element: how much to charge. We're finding that with proper ROI frameworks, AI products are able to capture 25-50% of created value, which is significantly higher than traditional SaaS's 10-20%.   Here's how the best founders are achieving these pricing levels:   1️⃣ They bring pricing discussions into the sales conversation early   The worst thing is waiting until procurement to talk about pricing. The role of enterprise procurement departments is to minimize spend, not to assess value. They lack budget categories for 'AI that does the work of 3 people'—so they'll try to squeeze you into their existing software line items.   When prospects seem hesitant to discuss ROI upfront, don't push. Instead, propose a value audit session. Sit down with them after they've used your product for a few months and calculate ROI together based on real usage data.   I've seen founders use this brilliantly during negotiations: "I'll give you a discount, but in six months we need to do a value audit." It's a fair trade that shifts the conversation to outcomes.   Here's a bonus move: always offer outcome-based pricing even if customers don't choose it. Simply presenting it signals confidence and willingness to share risk. When positioned alongside a fixed fee, it makes the fixed fee look fair by comparison.   2️⃣ They calculate ROI holistically, not just hard savings   Most founders focus only on labor reduction or vendor spend cuts. But that leaves money on the table.   Factor in the opportunity cost of time efficiencies. Include potential implementation cost differences compared to traditional SaaS. In many cases, AI products deploy faster and cheaper, which should be reflected in your ROI calculations.   Work with buyers to agree on ROI inputs upfront. Once they've signed off on the framework, challenging the outputs becomes much harder.   3️⃣ They use the "acceptable, expensive, prohibitively expensive" technique   Rahul Vohra used this exact approach from Madhavan Ramanujam’s "Monetizing Innovation" to price Superhuman:   To gauge willingness to pay, ask three questions: 1. "What would be an acceptable price?" 2. "What would be an expensive price?" 3. "What would be a prohibitively expensive price?"   Willingness to pay typically lands near the "expensive" point.   --   I've watched too many brilliant AI founders build incredible products only to leave millions on the table by treating pricing level like an afterthought.   Don't be one of them.   P.S. The complete pricing guide (with the decision framework and tactical playbooks) is live on our website. Link is in comments.

84

13 Comments