'You may have someone with a very high IQ but has low interpersonal skill .. cannot relate to other people very well. Cannot understand other people. This can be a real liability for organisations who are looking for leadership .. looking to promote people with high intelligence' [0]
'... all we'll care about is one measure: how close one comes
to the best founders. We don't care what atoms are in that
molecule ...'
But testing for characteristics of 'high achievers' then correlating test scores against potential applicants is fraught with problems. Is the correlation against the best enough? [1]
I'm sure you might get some correlation but it's pretty unimaginative [2]. So what could be a better tool? What about direct testing of skill? Wouldn't a better technique be simulation? Why not build a 'startup simulator' where applicants are given tools to simulate tasks they actually will have to do? Then you have a controllable scenario where you really can measure results against successful founders.
You could test
- the conception of an idea
- the building of a (simple) prototype
- quickly find an audience
- find a way to make money off it
Wrapped up in a framework [3] where you test the execution of these tasks you could get a better grasp of the
- skills
- determination
- entrepreneurial audacity
- passion
- humour
- leadership skills needed to succeed.
- risk taking, emotional intelligence
There is a long history of simulators in testing & refining of skills, competency and execution are required. Even Captain Kirk at Starfleet Academy trained, passed (and cheated) on simulators.
Who knows it might even be fun.
Reference
[0] Professor Con Stough, Brain Sciences Institute, 'Director, Centre for Neuropsychology, Swinburne Institute of Technology'
[1] But I do like the simplicity of just looking at a simple set of parameters to make a Gladwellian decision.
[2] In a competitive environment the difference between getting the attention of the right candidates could be the tools used to measure how they stack up against the best .. but actually doing something, learning and getting some feedback.
[3] The framework could be a game, or simply a panel of dials. The key thing is you can have a back room with founders, past entrepreneurs twiddling the dials checking to see in RT how candidates handle things like a person leaving, stressing system etc (like the LEM tester in the Apollo missions). It also allows for candidates to learn from failure with less risk & pass on the best decision making skills to candidates that have passed.
'... How about doing this for real? ... Reality is the superior test of whether you are an entrepreneur ...'
True . Ideally yes. But it there may be times when you want to test skills or sub sections of skills, NOW. I've run 8 miles in 2 hours in the past but does that mean I can do it now?
I think the bit I was addressing was suggesting a technique to scale selection through automated means by testing against the best. I agree reality is a better test. But you miss the point about simulation. With simulation you can
- test/be tested/train in compressed time
- test/be tested/train with different scenarios
- test/be tested/train individual components of the process
- test/be tested/train with lower costs
- test/be tested/train in controlled circumstances to allow better measurement
'... having done something is better than simulating it ...'
Pilots fly planes but they also train and test their skills in simulation due to cost, risk and a lot of other factors. People who do things, need ways to test their skills, improve and be tested. Why not startups? In the case of YC, 'done', 'doing' may not be controlled enough to measure against the best (conjecture).
Interesting. I posted a similar post this week on the characteristics found in entrepreneurs ~ http://news.ycombinator.com/comments?id=7459
'... all we'll care about is one measure: how close one comes to the best founders. We don't care what atoms are in that molecule ...'
But testing for characteristics of 'high achievers' then correlating test scores against potential applicants is fraught with problems. Is the correlation against the best enough? [1]
I'm sure you might get some correlation but it's pretty unimaginative [2]. So what could be a better tool? What about direct testing of skill? Wouldn't a better technique be simulation? Why not build a 'startup simulator' where applicants are given tools to simulate tasks they actually will have to do? Then you have a controllable scenario where you really can measure results against successful founders.
You could test
- the conception of an idea
- the building of a (simple) prototype
- quickly find an audience
- find a way to make money off it
Wrapped up in a framework [3] where you test the execution of these tasks you could get a better grasp of the
- skills
- determination
- entrepreneurial audacity
- passion
- humour
- leadership skills needed to succeed.
- risk taking, emotional intelligence
There is a long history of simulators in testing & refining of skills, competency and execution are required. Even Captain Kirk at Starfleet Academy trained, passed (and cheated) on simulators.
Who knows it might even be fun.
Reference
[0] Professor Con Stough, Brain Sciences Institute, 'Director, Centre for Neuropsychology, Swinburne Institute of Technology'
http://www.swin.edu.au/bioscieleceng/neuropsych/stough.htm
[1] But I do like the simplicity of just looking at a simple set of parameters to make a Gladwellian decision.
[2] In a competitive environment the difference between getting the attention of the right candidates could be the tools used to measure how they stack up against the best .. but actually doing something, learning and getting some feedback.
[3] The framework could be a game, or simply a panel of dials. The key thing is you can have a back room with founders, past entrepreneurs twiddling the dials checking to see in RT how candidates handle things like a person leaving, stressing system etc (like the LEM tester in the Apollo missions). It also allows for candidates to learn from failure with less risk & pass on the best decision making skills to candidates that have passed.