Your Hiring Strategy Is Broken (Here's Why)

Neil and Eric break down the real hiring mix between sourced candidates and job ads, why executive hiring should come from your network, and how overwhelmed recruiting teams change the playbook. They share practical LinkedIn recruiting tactics, the “open to work” signal they use when evaluating acquisitions, and why culture is a 60-day moving average. Plus, a sharp debate on services vs SaaS, why bad hires compound into the “Bozo explosion,” and a quick shout to MP Digital, Ubersuggest, and Answer The Public at npdigital.com. Key takeaways: -Sourcing wins for director-plus hires. -Job ads can uncover surprising talent fast. -Bad hires compound into massive output loss. Chapters: (00:00) Hiring sources vs job ads (01:54) Executive roles: hire by network (06:55) “Open to work” acquisition signal (08:50) Culture is a 60-day average (15:47) MP Digital and SEO tools (16:09) Services business vs SaaS (22:30) Organic social and YouTube audit (23:39) B players and Bozo explosion

• 0:00Speaker 00

  Finding customer information shouldn't mean digging through emails, call notes, and spreadsheets. HubSpot's Starter Plan brings all of those details together, so it's easier to track what's happening with every deal and what to do next. It pulls information from calls and emails. Then it gets to work, logging and summarizing them. Right after your call ends, HubSpot pulls next steps from your call notes and drafts suggested follow-ups. And it stays up to date for you, so you can build demand, win more deals, and spend less time on repetitive work. Your records, insights, and next steps are ready for you to act on. And you don't have to miss a beat searching for any of it. Try the Starter Plan for $10 a month. Learn more at hubspot.com. A question for you. So what percent, and you might not know this, but what percent of people for MP Digital right now of new hires are sourced versus, you know, coming through a job ad?

• 0:44Speaker 01

  I have no idea.

• 0:47Speaker 01

  I'll tell you this. I do know this interesting fact, okay? So we were recruiting some people right now for some of our tools. Uber Sess and Answer the Public. So then Mike starts hitting up our recruiting team or someone on our team. I don't know who it was. And they were just like, "Hey, I need help with these roles." And they're like, "We don't have the time." And Mike's like, "What do you mean, we don't have the time?" They're like, "We're already overwhelmed. We have like 48 open roles right now that we're working on." And he's like, "Oh." So then Mike just started doing it himself and started recruiting.

• 1:24Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 1:25Speaker 01

  But with that many open roles, there's no way that it's being filled by network. It's, I'm assuming a lot of it is just going out there and recruiting. But on the flip side, I was talking to my CEO about an internal role for our organization. So we're in, I think, 28 countries. I don't know all of them by heart, but let's call it 28 countries that we classify internally. For marketing, I think we use a little bit less. I know we have people in like 35 or something like that countries.

• 1:56Speaker 01

  But we're in, call it 28 countries. We have, at this point, a good amount of global clients that pay us for different regions. Some of those clients, we communicate all together and we're doing one cohesive plan.

• 2:12Speaker 01

  Some of those clients were not because they split up their marketing by region and each person has their own say and they want their own team and they want to do whatever they want, right? So we had to mold and adapt to the organizations. But we were thinking about hiring one person whose job is to work with all the big organizations we have and their only job would be to land and expand. So if you're a company like McDonald's, who we don't work with, but I'm going to use them as an example because we don't work with them. Their job would be like, oh, we have Brazil here and we have Europe here.

• 2:48Speaker 00

  We used to work with McDonald's.

• 2:50Speaker 01

  We want to go and network with the people at McDonald's and try to get the relationships for the rest of Europe, then get them from North America, then get them from Canada and work with them for not just a cohesive strategy, but more so work with them to sell within the company and more of a global role who not just builds relationships with clients, but also is in sales. So when we have roles like that, that are more, you need someone who's just really good, high level.

• 3:18Speaker 00

  You're talking executive level.

• 3:19Speaker 01

  Yeah, high level is a bad term. Executive level is the correct terminology for that. When we're looking for someone who's executive level, like those roles, we tend to pull them from our network. We tend not to do recruiting for it because we just see too much failure. Because like even if you're using recruiting, whether it's executive level or low level, no matter how good you are, you're not going to have a hundred percent success rate. Maybe three out of five or four out of five workout if you're lucky. With the executive roles, we don't like ratios like that. So we really try to go within our network if it's super important because imagine hiring someone to deal with all our existing customers and cross-sell

• 3:59Speaker 01

  and up-sell. You hire a wrong person, not only may you not generate any revenue and not only are you paying this person money, which is a cost, but no, even even worse. If the person sucks, they can ruin your relationship with your biggest clients and then they can cost you a ton of money.

• 4:16Speaker 00

  Yeah, I look at the time, the time lost as because the, the, imagine having the right person, you would have compounded, you would have started to compound and the money you make long-term, it's just, it's. A bad hire costs what? At least, at least, I think it's like two times their salary or something like that. But I look at the time investment as like, if you find the right person, like Michael Exon, for example, right? It's working pretty quickly. But imagine if you wasted a year, you wouldn't waste a year, but imagine if you wasted a year with that CEO that wasn't working out.

• 4:42Speaker 01

  Yeah, it would've been expensive.

• 4:44Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 4:44Speaker 01

  But it's not just that the time loss of the compounding effect. Imagine that they're dealing with a book of business that's sixty million dollars. And they ruined the relationship with a third and you now lost twenty million dollars of revenue. Forget the compounding effect, you just lost twenty million in revenue.

• 4:59Speaker 00

  I think the acute pain to stab in the side is like you lose the revenue, right? But long-term, you lose a lot more too, because that year, like, imagine all the bad relationships or the bad hires that they made too. So it starts to eat you like a cancer, right? So the reason, so going back to this question, the reason why I'm asking you this question, I was messaging one of our friends this morning. And so I do agree, like, the best people you're gonna find, like ninety-five percent or so are going to be sourced, right? And that's always been my philosophy. But for lower level roles, what percent of people do you think are being sourced from, either being sourced or job ads?

• 5:33Speaker 01

  For a lower?

• 5:34Speaker 00

  Yeah, let's say it's a director or something like that.

• 5:37Speaker 01

  Yeah, uh, just estimate.

• 5:41Speaker 01

  Director or higher or director and lower?

• 5:43Speaker 00

  Director or lower?

• 5:48Speaker 01

  Maybe...

• 5:51Speaker 01

  It's easier if I do one level below a director.

• 5:54Speaker 00

  That's fine, that's fine.

• 5:54Speaker 01

  If I do one level below a director, I would guess that we're probably recruiting like seventy, eighty percent of them.

• 6:01Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 6:01Speaker 01

  If it's director and higher, my guess is...

• 6:04Speaker 00

  When you say recruiting, job ads?

• 6:06Speaker 01

  Job ads, HR, following up with people. If I say it's director and higher, my guess is we try to use our internal network for at least seventy percent, sixty, seventy percent.

• 6:17Speaker 00

  Yeah, so that's that's always been my philosophy, right? Like, you got a source, like, and that's that ratio seems right. But I was thinking about it this weekend. I was like, OK, um, the the team is like strapped, right? For for and then our recruiting is pushing. But they're strapped for for talent right now. And I'm like, well, recently, we spent not the not a lot of money on LinkedIn ads. We spent $2,500 and we got um two people that are kind of mid level, I would say, right? Um, and those two people seem to be working out. I'm like, why don't we just spend more on ads? And so I was really annoyed at just like hearing about how like, oh, you know, we're we're overwhelmed and this and that on recruits. So I just like threw up a bunch of job ads over the weekend. And all of a sudden, some some are even director level two. These are the people that have actually the two promotions at two different companies. I was like, oh, we're actually talking to some amazing people.

• 7:01Speaker 00

  And it's not even costing us a lot of money. And so all that to say is like, I was really against turning on uh job ads. But um, you know, from what we're seeing so far, I don't think you're going to find like the COO type or the executive types or even SVP types. But it's worth it. And the our mutual friend that I was talking to this morning, they actually have the LinkedIn version that shows you um who's open to jobs and it shows you the entire network, right? I know you're probably paying for that, too. Um, and funny thing is, he shows me screenshots of who's looking at my company, too. So, yeah, anyway.

• 7:29Speaker 01

  When we go and look to acquire a company, we look to see how many of their employees are looking for a new job.

• 7:37Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 7:37Speaker 01

  Because if you start like, there was a company that we saw in Europe.

• 7:40Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 7:41Speaker 01

  Um, and no joke, I think it was like seventy something percent of their employees were open to work and looking for a new role.

• 7:51Speaker 00

  Seventy percent.

• 7:51Speaker 01

  Seventy plus percent.

• 7:52Speaker 00

  What's what's your bar for this?

• 7:54Speaker 01

  Our bar?

• 7:55Speaker 00

  Yeah, your bar, like, what percent is too much?

• 7:58Speaker 01

  Uh, so our general rule of thumb is we want less than 10% of the people working in a company open to like looking for a new job.

• 8:08Speaker 00

  Yep, yep. Which is interesting, because before, when it was a shit show five years ago, right? Four, five years ago, so many people were looking, right? This time, it's less than 10%.

• 8:19Speaker 01

  Yeah, yeah. And the reason this is important metric, people like saying like, oh, look at our employee retention numbers, they're really good.

• 8:27Speaker 00

  Yep.

• 8:27Speaker 01

  And we see that data. So that company that we're looking at that had that high percentage, we told them. And they said, no, no, no, this is inaccurate. Look at our employees right now and look how long they've been with us. So we verified the data. And they were correct. Their employees actually have a long tenure.

• 8:46Speaker 01

  But if a lot of your employees are looking for a new job, it means something's wrong.

• 8:51Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 8:51Speaker 01

  Okay? And a lot of them may have a high tenure because they suck. And they can't find jobs in other places.

• 8:59Speaker 00

  True.

• 9:00Speaker 01

  So we don't just like taking someone's data and seeing how long their employees are there for. We actually like looking at who's looking for a new job because if enough people are.

• 9:09Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 9:09Speaker 01

  It tells you that um either i- if their numbers are low or the retention in the company is good. That means that they're probably not good and they can't find jobs.

• 9:18Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 9:19Speaker 01

  But it usually also means there's something wrong with the company culturally.

• 9:22Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 9:22Speaker 01

  For that many people to look for a new job, it's just they're not sharing it and you're not gonna find out.

• 9:27Speaker 00

  You know, so that's why I say culture is like a, it's a 60 day moving average. So you can't say we had a good culture last year or two years ago.

• 9:33Speaker 01

  Yes.

• 9:33Speaker 00

  It really is what have you done in the last 60 days and how are you behaving right now? And that is a good microcosm of how your culture is right now. It's a culture is a very recent thing. And by the way, I asked perplexity this morning, I was walking back from the gym, just this question like, what percent of talent is sourced by marketing agencies versus using job ads? And how about B two B SaaS, right? And so job ads basically generate the majority of applications of 40, 50% of hires in many markets. This is not just for agency. Agency account for only a single digit share of total applications and even a smaller share of hires overall. In B two B SaaS, um agencies are used uh less often. I think it's like um for senior and niche GTM engineering hires. So that's what it is at a high level. But I think your your metric is good.

• 10:16Speaker 00

  70% if you're talking director plus should be sourced. Yeah, if we're talking executive, if we're talking executive level, probably all of it, almost all of it.

• 10:24Speaker 01

  For executives, we try to source all of it. It doesn't always work that way for us when we're expanding to other countries.

• 10:30Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 10:30Speaker 01

  Cause it's sometimes you don't know. But dude, I remember uh we acquired a company in Southeast Asia called uh uh Search Guru. Uh I think this was like a year ago or something like that, maybe a little bit more than a year ago. And I ended up going down there, met up with the founders. We put someone in place from our end to go and run that. It was someone that we did not quote unquote, get within our network. And we ended up hiring him. And no joke, I meet him. I talked to him for 10 minutes. I tell the person who's leading up the whole region APAC, I'm like, they won't work.

• 11:10Speaker 00

  Yeah. Why?

• 11:12Speaker 01

  Uh. So when I was like, hey, this company that we bought, there were certain individuals within the organization that I saw that had, that needed some improvement. And what I mean by needed improvement, like when we're in client networking, they decided to play ping pong instead of uh, talking with potential customers. And I don't think it was ping pong, but some other game like that, some office game. So that really irks me. I'm like, that's a no go with me. So then I go up to all the customers.

• 11:45Speaker 00

  Like the leader was doing that.

• 11:46Speaker 01

  Not the leader.

• 11:47Speaker 00

  Employees.

• 11:47Speaker 01

  Employees.

• 11:48Speaker 00

  Interesting.

• 11:49Speaker 01

  So then this person that we hired, they're like, oh, we need to coddle them. And I'm like, no go. You, they're like, if you just rip off the bandage and you're too harsh, it's going to be a culture shock. It's going to create too many problems. And then I'm like, this is a no go. I get that, but they're being too nice instead of just fixing. And that day, if you have someone paying you, forget about culture or anything else, your job is to do best for that customer. You need to change whatever you need to for that customer to make sure they're extremely satisfied. And we did eventually end up ripping the bandage. And whoever didn't like that philosophy did not exist.

• 12:31Speaker 00

  You know what I would say?

• 12:33Speaker 01

  Or did not stay with the organization.

• 12:35Speaker 00

  My key takeaway from this, listening to Neil's story. So when I worked at W Promote, I remember there was a period of time where the CEO walked by and I was actually playing one of the cornhole. So we had like cornhole and like all these like Google given like things, right? In the office. And then people would just do it in the middle of the day, things that you didn't like. And I never understood why we had that. In my mind, I'm like, why would I ever do that? But hey, if everyone's doing it, I'm going to. Do it too, right? So I remember a period of time, I was like drinking like a soda or something and I was playing cornhole and he walked right by. But he was like down with it, right? I'm like, okay, that's him. I would never, I don't think I'd do that at my org. Um, and when I had the, the office in downtown, we, we never had like games like that, right? And so I think what you're saying though is like, this is what, this is how you run things and this is how it is. I don't, I don't think what we're saying is like right or wrong, you know?

• 13:14Speaker 01

  Correct. And some people like this lax lifestyle. I'm a big believer that I want to work with amazing individuals who are just obsessed about their work.

• 13:25Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 13:26Speaker 01

  And I was talking with the startup, uh, yesterday and they're gonna go public. This startup is not paying me. This startup has a lot of issues with their marketing, so I'm talking with the founder. I myself couldn't help but not dig through their website and send a ton of notes of what's wrong and what needs to be fixed. And then when I get a slow response, what do I do? I go call the founder and then I'm like, hey, this needs to be fixed. Who do I need to talk to to get this fixed? I'm so obsessed about having their marketing flows and conversions, uh, optimized that I can't stop even though they're not paying me. So much so, I started texting the team and the founders and some of the people in marketing.

• 14:11Speaker 01

  I'm like, can you please send me data on your existing pricing pages and your flows and what you test and what converted? And then I'm dissecting and they're telling me the numbers, I'm like, this doesn't add up. If you get X amount of setups and this is the conversion rate and you're telling me this is your LTV, your revenue would be higher by like three, four X than what it currently is. Something's off. I'm like, I need your real conversion numbers and it needs to be accurate. So I can tell you what changes to make, cause the changes you're telling me that you made that decrease your conversion don't seem right. And I think you actually got a data problem, cause your numbers aren't adding up.

• 14:44Speaker 00

  Yep.

• 14:45Speaker 01

  And that's obsessive personality. We both have it, at least when it comes to work.

• 14:50Speaker 00

  Yep.

• 14:51Speaker 01

  I want people who love what they do.

• 14:53Speaker 00

  It's okay. When I was, uh, 25 years old and I told Neil that a girl broke my heart, he just stared at me. And he just went, anyway, he just went back to talk about work.

• 15:03Speaker 01

  Yeah, that sounds alright.

• 15:04Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 15:05Speaker 01

  Now I'm a little bit better, just a little bit.

• 15:07Speaker 00

  Yeah. It's okay, we get better over time.

• 15:10Speaker 01

  No, actually, I'm a lot better now because I want to hear the story.

• 15:13Speaker 00

  Yeah, yeah, yeah. You like the stories now for your entertainment. But, so let me finish on this recruiter piece and we'll move on here. So, smart recruiter technology benchmark shows referrals account for 16% of hires in tech. Okay, 129% above global average. And then, this is interesting to me because I think if you're running like, if you're San Francisco, you're running like, you're running like an AI company or something like that. I think the bar for your talent is way higher. And the competition for engineers is way higher too, right? And you need best of the best and you've raised all this money. And so, I actually think, my opinion, when you're a service-heavy business, what ends up happening is because people are the business,

• 15:55Speaker 00

  people start to cut corners. That's what I've seen. And I've seen like with these agencies, they hire so quickly. But then, I posted something recently, I got a nice graph, I don't know if you saw this, but every B player you hire, it's like you think you can afford to hire B players, but you can't. Because by the time, if you hire like 100 B players, okay, you actually have decreased your output by 100%, okay?

• 16:16Speaker 01

  Yes.

• 16:16Speaker 00

  That's what it is. And I have a graph for this and I think you would actually like it. But, this actually leads to one of my points here before I pull up that graph. Let me ask you a question here. Would you rather have 100 million dollar services business versus a 1 million dollar software business? And I'm gonna give you a little more context here, okay? So let's say one business is in the, we were talking about this the other week. Let's say it's in the home health niche, right? Or in the nursing home niche, okay?

• 16:40Speaker 01

  For 100 million dollars?

• 16:41Speaker 00

  Yeah, it's doing 100 million dollars a year, okay? So you get to choose this business, right? Which, a lot of it is subsidies from the government, okay?

• 16:47Speaker 01

  Is it profitable?

• 16:49Speaker 00

  It's profitable, okay?

• 16:50Speaker 01

  Little bit or a lot?

• 16:51Speaker 00

  Little bit, little bit. Because the margins on this type of business is like 3 to 5%.

• 16:55Speaker 01

  So 100 million dollars only produces like 3 to 5 million in profit?

• 16:59Speaker 00

  Yeah, yeah, yeah.

• 17:00Speaker 01

  Okay?

• 17:01Speaker 00

  Okay. But also keep in mind, it's government subsidies. We talked about like the 10 grand a month, right? Remember that?

• 17:06Speaker 01

  Yes, where you get paid to take care of parents and stuff like that. Is it that specific business that you want me to compare to the one million dollar software business?

• 17:13Speaker 00

  Yes, yes. So would you rather have that business, right? Your, your cash flowing right now, you have a, you, you, you, you know, a lot of it's coming from government subsidies. Or would you rather have a, a software business that just hit a million in ARR? That is, um, yeah, you get to choose. Frictionless Growth Marketing hosted by Sonya Thompson is brought to you by the HubSpot Podcast Network, the audio destination for business professionals. Frictionless Growth Marketing hosted by Sonya Thompson shows how modern brands grow by removing the friction in their marketing and customer experience that pushes customers away every single day, often without leaders even realizing it. Each episode delivers practical insights, real brand examples, and conversations with marketing leaders showing brands how to win with the new rules of growth,

• 17:55Speaker 00

  identity-driven marketing, cultural relevance, and frictionless customer experiences. Listen to Frictionless Growth Marketing wherever you get your podcasts.

• 18:04Speaker 01

  How old is the software business?

• 18:06Speaker 00

  Year and a half. Two years.

• 18:10Speaker 01

  Two years. So I, I just want to clarify this for everyone listening because they probably don't fully grasp what that hundred million dollar business is. The hundred million dollar business that Eric's talking about, neither him or I do this, just for clarification. But there's businesses out there in the United States where they help you get paid by the government for you to take care of your parents. So if your parents don't have any assets, like homes or anything like that, and they have low income and they already live with you, the government pays you money. So what a lot of people do, and this exists in the Indian community as well, which I'm ashamed of. You know, we, my, I, my family doesn't do it. But what people are doing is these people who are already doing well,

• 18:54Speaker 01

  their parents are, you know, have lived here for a bit. They're taking care of their parents anyways, and they would have, and they don't need help from the government. But because the government offers subsidies, they're just abusing it and getting free money. I believe those kind of businesses are going away. And the reason I say that is a lot of it is scam based versus they actually need the government subsidy. I do agree that there are people who are helping other elderly people that need taken care of and they can't afford it and the person getting paid barely has money. And it's, you know, helping people out. For those people, I think it's great, but a lot of people are making money from this in that hundred million dollar business.

• 19:37Speaker 01

  It's a lot of sham clientele and scammy clientele where they don't need the money. They're just taking free handouts from the government. So I don't like that business and I would not do it. If it was purely legitimate and it was only for people who are needing it and is running at 5%. I would take that 5% margin business because that's five million year over the million dollar software business. It's been around for a year and a half. Just do the fact that if it was legitimate, you could sell that business. And that five million dollar profit business, you probably can get maybe 15 million bucks for. 20 max.

• 20:13Speaker 00

  Yep. But to Neil's point, what we're saying is would you rather go with something that compounds? That's legit or would you rather go with the hustle, right? That can go away at any time. Once the government takes away those subsidies and they're paying attention to those subsidies now.

• 20:24Speaker 01

  Yeah. And in general, in speaking, Eric and I, even if it was a billion dollars, we don't like the hustle type of businesses. Not just because it can't go or not just because it's probably going to go away over time, but because you feel slimy. Business is not just about making money. You want to market a product, run a business that you're passionate about, that you love, not something that's slimy. Cause it's only going to last so long.

• 20:47Speaker 00

  You know what's funny? We did a podcast like two years ago. I was like, the purpose of, of business is to help your customers. And Neil's like, the purpose of the business is to make money.

• 20:55Speaker 01

  Yes.

• 20:57Speaker 00

  But okay, let me, let me go back to the, the graph here.

• 20:59Speaker 01

  It is to make money. I believe all businesses should end up making money, but if you don't love what you're doing, it's not worth it.

• 21:07Speaker 00

  What if it's a, what if it's like a drug, you're a drug business, you're a drug lord?

• 21:13Speaker 01

  It's too unethical, or I'll give you an example. A publicly traded company hit me up to be the CMO. Okay, whether you want to consider that, owning a business or being part of a business, massive organization, I would have got paid a nice lump sum to go to New York City. They would have paid for a home, a really nice home by Central Park. And I'm not talking about like a two, three million dollar home or a five million dollar home. My upfront fee would have paid for.

• 21:42Speaker 00

  This is recent.

• 21:43Speaker 01

  Depends.

• 21:44Speaker 00

  Couple of years ago.

• 21:44Speaker 01

  Within a few years.

• 21:45Speaker 00

  Yeah, yeah.

• 21:46Speaker 01

  Okay, and I, with stock compensation and everything and performance, I should at least hit eight figures a year. So call it, let's call it 10 million bucks. I'm just rounding, I'm throwing out a number. But most of it was all stock compensation. Okay, even the upfront, it was, you know, stock grants, but then I would use my own money to buy the home, but it was a way to pay for the home. You're following me, right?

• 22:10Speaker 00

  Yeah, yeah.

• 22:12Speaker 01

  And I would have to stay there for a certain amount of time.

• 22:16Speaker 01

  The money wasn't worth dealing with the internal politics and bureaucracy. Forget that I already have something that makes money.

• 22:22Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 22:23Speaker 01

  And it's just, I personally wouldn't be happy working somewhere, even if my current team can maintain my current business and grow it, then in theory I'd be making money from both places. I wouldn't be happy dealing with bureaucracy. I do agree, doing a business or doing marketing, it's about growth and making money. But if you're truly going to be miserable, it's not worth it.

• 22:46Speaker 00

  And plus, your deal, not to give details, but Neil's deal is better. He gets to work on what he wants to work on. And the thing is, if you go work for that company too, you stop the compounding on your business. You slow down the growth significantly.

• 22:57Speaker 01

  Correct.

• 22:57Speaker 00

  Yeah, so, okay, I want to come back to this thing real quick here and then I want to. I want to talk about, I was talking to our, my YouTube team, the strategy team. I was like, hey, what's wrong with this channel, right? Because the reality is Noah's sitting here, maybe Noah's nice about this, but I'm like, there are a lot of good moments that we talk about, right? And I'm like, how are these good moments, whether it's you talking or me talking? How are they not making it, right? So I do want to do like a live audit on how we would attack organic social and where, how I think that also applies to paid media. But let me just show you this over here. So I'm patting myself on the back here with this tweet, okay? So I just said here, look, if you think about B players, right? Let's say an A player is one unit, okay? Let's say a 90% higher still an A player is 0.9 units. You following? Okay, an 80% higher is 0.8 units, okay?

• 23:43Speaker 01

  What is a unit? Like units of value, like?

• 23:45Speaker 00

  Yeah, unit of value. Let's say like, like if I'm a B player, I'm 0.8, right? Just 80%, right? So, but if your company is designed to run on 90% higher, so like A minus players, right? Every B player you hire creates a dilution multiplier of 0.8 divided by 0.9, which is 0.88, okay? So what ends up happening here is if you have this ratio, if you have five B players, it ends up being 0.56 units, okay? And then if you hire 20 B players, it's 0.09, meaning that you've decreased your expected output by 91%, okay? And then Gem and I actually put together this nice little graph over here, okay? And it's just the compounding decay of organizational output. So one is like 0.88, it's not that bad, right? But you're like, oh, I think I can get away with that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And what happens, you have the Bozo Explosion.

• 24:29Speaker 00

  And I literally had the Bozo Explosion five years ago, okay? And it's really hard, very hard to recover from this.

• 24:36Speaker 01

  It's really hard.

• 24:37Speaker 00

  Very hard. I've done it, very hard.

• 24:38Speaker 01

  Hey, you just got a cut.

• 24:40Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 24:41Speaker 01

  So you really got a cut.

• 24:42Speaker 00

  That's where we're going to end because I really need to pee. So goodbye, guys.