Hire the Slope, Not the Checklist [76]
The episode explores how to evaluate candidate gaps during hiring by distinguishing between closable skill gaps (language, product knowledge, demo ability) and non-closable character gaps (curiosity, initiative). The key principle is that hiring managers should standardize gap remediation into offer packages with clear ownership, budget, timeline, and accountability rather than hoping gaps resolve organically.
Summary
Leading Pre-Sales episode 76 examines the hiring challenge of determining which candidate deficiencies should disqualify someone versus which gaps are worth funding. The narrative opens with a story of a Lisbon-based engineer with non-native English who performed poorly in a scripted demo format but excelled when moved to a whiteboard problem-solving approach. This illustrates how interview format can obscure candidate capability.
The hosts discuss standardization in hiring: one perspective emphasizes consistent format and rubric across all candidates for defensibility and comparability, while another argues that offering format choices (scripted demo or whiteboard) while maintaining consistent evaluation rubrics achieves both fairness and consistency.
The central argument is that skills have a slope—they can be improved through investment and time—while character traits (curiosity, drive to understand customer problems) cannot be purchased. The episode presents the example of funding English-language tutoring as a line item on the onboarding plan rather than a perk, signaling genuine investment.
Critically, the speakers emphasize that naming a gap without funding it signals indifference. Successful gap funding requires: (1) naming the gap explicitly, (2) identifying a remedy, (3) allocating budget, (4) assigning an owner, and (5) setting a review date. One director's experience with a mid-market SE transitioning to enterprise demonstrates how pairing with a senior mentor and establishing review milestones can mitigate hiring risks.
The episode concludes with the recommendation that leaders should decide in advance—while calm—which gaps they will not fund, preventing post-hoc rationalization when under hiring pressure.
About this episode
Ava almost passed on her best hire because a scripted demo in his second language buried him. She and Nate work out how to separate fundable gaps from structural ones \u2014 and how to attach a remedy, a budget, an owner and a date before day one.
Key Insights
- The speaker claims that skills have a slope and can be funded (language proficiency, product knowledge, demo ability), whereas character traits like curiosity and the drive to understand customer problems cannot be purchased.
- The speaker argues that naming a gap without providing remedy, budget, owner, and timeline is not actually funding a gap but rather hoping, and that this distinction is essential to prevent abandonment of development plans during busy periods.
- The speaker observed that personal bias significantly influences hiring decisions—their own multicultural background made language barriers seem obviously closable, while their VP of Sales perceived the same gap as disqualifying, demonstrating how individual experience shapes hiring criteria.
Topics
Transcript
Hey there and welcome to Leading Pre-Sales, the show for solution engineering leaders who want to build teams that drive revenue and not just demos. My name is Tim and I'm the co-founder of SE Rockstars and together with Jan, we've coached over 350 solution engineers and their leaders across several dozens of companies. Every conversation you hear on this show is based on real coaching situations, real challenges, real problems that as e-leaders like you are dealing with right now. None of this is made up. We use AI to bring these stories to life through our two hosts, Nate and Ava, but the insights come straight from the trenches. Each episode gives you one actionable takeaway you can…
Full transcript available for MurmurCast members
Sign Up to AccessMore from Leading PreSales | The Solution Engineering Leadership Show
The Long Leash: Why Great SEs Drown After Promotion [75]
Promoting high-performing solution engineers to management roles without structured onboarding and coaching creates hidden risks, as confident new managers mask their gaps and struggle silently. The episode outlines a practical framework including 90-day phase plans with named milestones, explicit commercial training, and mentorship from status-indifferent advisors to prevent newly promoted managers from becoming overwhelmed and ineffective.
Your Best SE Won't Leave Over Money — They'll Leave Over the Ceiling [74]
Top SEs leave due to unmet career ambitions and unclear ceilings, not primarily over compensation. Leaders must have honest conversations twice yearly about what employees are optimizing for and whether that opportunity genuinely exists in the organization within 18 months.
The Training That Made Me Quit [73]
A solution engineering leader describes how excellent enablement training on value-based selling fundamentally changed his approach, but ultimately led him to quit when the organization's operating systems remained misaligned with what he'd learned. The episode explores the critical gap between training people and restructuring the systems they work within.
Hire the Second Version, Not the First [72]
The episode discusses redesigning SE hiring to evaluate coachability rather than polish by introducing a two-stage interview process: an initial coaching session with one manager, followed by a panel evaluation one week later, scoring the gap between versions rather than absolute performance.
Retire The Technical Win Trophy [71]
The episode critiques celebrating technical wins too early in the sales cycle, arguing that a technical checkpoint means nothing if the deal ultimately fails. The hosts propose redefining technical wins as validation that you're still in contention (one of 2-3 vendors) and establishing specific post-POC activities rather than retiring the metric entirely.