This article was first published at startupiko.com, by Iris Shoor the founder & CEO of Oribi (TLV Partners portfolio), after a large survey Oribi’s team conducted over the past two weeks. We thought that it should be also distributed over Medium and our publication at a shorter piece.

A new job is fun and exciting. The way to it… not so much. We were all once in that position — it demands lots of energy and strength to interview at various places, answer endless personal and technical questions, and in many cases get ‘no’ for an answer. So, it may not be a great pleasure but nevertheless, the process can be done in a respectable and sensitive manner.

Here are the answers and the conclusions. I must admit, many of them surprised me and raised super valid points I didn’t consider myself.

What matters most to you in the interview process?

Transparency. The subject that came up the most was transparency. Many candidates feel during the process they have no idea where they’re standing, what the next step is, how much they impressed the company, what the interviewing company considers problematic and so on. Even when we asked about the most successful of processes, the matter of transparency repeated over and over again.
At eye level. True, we are talking about a job interview but still we really don’t want to feel like we’re taking a test. Another subject that came up from most of the questionnaire repliers was that an interview is a two way street — they would like to have a pleasant conversation, rather than being bombarded with questions, and would like to have enough time left to ask questions about the company.
Professional interviewers and seriousness. Many of the negative feedbacks referred to the HR departments. Many shared stories about initial interviews done by HR where the interviewer could not specify the job sufficiently or asked questions that are too generalized. A repeated subject that emerged was that the interviews lacked professional seriousness (not thorough, questions not related to the job) and caused candidates to recoil. The matter of seriousness referred also to the process itself: a clear definition of each step of the process, explanation about the essence of each interview, ending each step with explaining the next one, and if you commit to a timeline- make sure to meet it.

Initial brief Zoom interview — to the point or rather insulting?
In Oribi, like many other companies, the first interview would likely be a brief Zoom interview (in pre-Covid times as well) of 15–30 minutes. We asked whether it’s perceived as a practical move to check for a basic fit or an insulting one that doesn’t allow the applicant to express him/herself.

80% think that a short interview is great, respects the time of both parties and is enough to get a first impression. 20% think it’s degrading and doesn’t leave one sufficient time to present oneself.

• Explain the essence of the interview beforehand. Many supported the brief interview but emphasized the importance of proper communication about it beforehand. They mentioned that if they would show up to such an interview anticipating a comprehensive one, they would feel degraded. As long as it is emphasized that this would be a reciprocal interview for initial introduction and examination of whether the job prescribes to what the candidate is looking for — that’s excellent.
• Don’t neglect to leave sufficient time for questions. Even though the goal is for this interview to be short and to the point, the candidates too hold the right to use it to decide whether they want to proceed to the next stage or not.
• Brief interview? Make sure to go over the CV before it. Some of the repliers mentioned that despite the fact that the interviewers had had their CV beforehand, they still insisted to “waste the time” asking them to specify their professional experience. Since it’s meant to be brief, it’s better to ask more practical questions rather than having them read their CV out loud.
• Zoom rules of conduct. A lot of anecdotes came-up about initial (along with advanced) interviews where basic Zoom etiquette was not upheld. For instance, interviews that didn’t begin on time (if being late is a big no-no for the candidate it should be so for the interviewer as well), interviews conducted with the camera turned-off, and interviewers texting (or Whatsapping) while conducting the interview.

Since it’s meant to be brief, it’s better to ask more practical questions rather than having them read their CV out loud.

How many interviews overall should a respectable process include?
According to the majority of repliers, the number would be 3–4.

A subject related to the number of interviews, which came up several times, is of the optimal time gap between them. The preference was to squeeze them in the shortest amount of time possible. More than few, described processes where all the interviews were squeezed within 2–3 days as very positive experiences. On the other hand, some mentioned that for them the interviewing process in general is very stressful and it would be difficult to have several interviews conducted one after the other. It seems that the bottom line is that compressing the interviews into a short amount of time is the best option, but regarding to holding a few of them in the same day — it’s worth asking the candidate whether it’s something that would work for them or not so much.

How to say ‘no’? How would you prefer to receive a negative response?

Surprisingly (to me at least) 40% said they would rather get a phone call, while 60% said an email would be better. I usually send-out an email since I don’t want to catch them in a bad time to talk and prefer to write down my feedback in an organized manner. Seems that many people feel a phone call is better and more dignified.

Of course, a crucial point mentioned was that it’s best to return with a negative response as soon as possible. Many repliers shared how some companies for which they interviewed never came back with any answer at all, while others replied weeks after the final interview.

A common request was not to get the decline from HR. They had been in contact with people from the company and would like to get the reply (along with feedback) from them rather than receiving an email from just someone whom they had never spoken to.

The most frequently mentioned subject in regards to the declining response was the importance of a detailed feedback. Many candidates view the feedback as an important tool for them and a demonstration of respect for their time. Some also wished generic responses such as “we’ve decided to proceed with other candidates” to be excluded.

I’d like to add my own point of view as an interviewer: I 100% agree that a feedback should be granted and to be as detailed as can be. However, in many cases that could be rough. I often feel that I am highly impressed by some candidates and the good connection is there, but then a slightly more compatible candidate comes along and we decide to proceed with him/her instead. Meaning that there are cases where there is no actual negative feedback to be given, just a better candidate that’s out there. In other cases there are feedbacks that could be difficult to share: lack of chemistry, a sense of lack of seriousness from the candidate, candidates giving long and convoluted answers for each question and make it hard to get a concrete answer. So, even though in some cases giving a feedback is hard, mostly you can and should provide one.

How would you react if you had been asked to give a feedback about the interviewing process after being declined?

70% considered the request for feedback about the process, even if they were not accepted, as a blessed initiative. 30% viewed it as a complete waste of time and even an insult. What was interesting about the replies we got was that each side was very firm regarding the positivity/negativity of such a request. The 70% find it necessary, respectable and lovely, while the 30% were completely against the idea and couldn’t understand how something more could be demanded from them after they were rejected.

Respect for one’s time? How about a gift? Some shared that in certain companies in case they weren’t accepted they received a gift certificate for the time they have “wasted” on the home exam. This was highly regarded even though the sum of it was of course minimal, but it showed the recognition for the time and work that was put into it.

If you’d like to continue and read the full article it’s >> here!

Thanks,

If you want to read more of our blogs — visit our publication page.

The rise of new industries and the disruption of old ones strongly rely on the venture capital paradigm. Hence, like corporates, we must acknowledge our influence on the markets and take responsibility

Economies are dualistic creatures. On the one hand, they develop according to the current market forces in a given ecosystem. On the other hand, they create and influence the environments and societies they inhabit. Sometimes this complex interplay becomes unhinged, and the economy loses touch with — well, reality. The “CEO’s Letter” published last year (Long before Covid-19 came) is a case in point. The letter, signed by The Business Roundtable, a group of CEOs of nearly 200 major U.S. corporations including Apple, Amazon, IBM and JP Morgan, declared that maximizing shareholder profits can’t remain the sole objective of business enterprises, who need to align themselves to more diversified goals. The letter was a wake-up call, and the start of a conversation. Another adjustment of a great economy.

I would like to argue that like corporations, venture capital firms play an important role in building new industries that influence the economy and mold society. Hence, they must take an active stance on societal issues.

Venture capital firms are an odd beast. Not a company, not really a financial institute, quite fashionable and sometimes even glamorous — for young startups. Venture capital firms manage large sums of money, usually with very minor bureaucracy and regulation, and are considered knowledge hubs for technological innovation and the advancement of budding tech companies. Their mandate is clear — to create yield for investors. However, VCs shaping the future (mostly through technology). The rise of new industries and the disruption of old ones strongly relies on the venture capital paradigm. Some even argue that VC is eating the world. Hence, like big companies, they (we) must acknowledge their influence on the markets and take responsibility.

On Power and Responsibility

In that capacity, VC firms can influence the success of entrepreneurs by defining the ecosystems that are ripe for business and delineating the ones that are currently considered a waste of time and money. Innovation dances, at least to some extent, to the VC fiddle. VCs have a huge impact on our digital life, our economy, and society at large. They are the ones who often crown the people who will go on to build businesses and markets, define the ideas that are worth pursuing, and how.

But with power comes responsibility. Like large tech companies that are becoming increasingly involved in values beyond profit maximization — i.e., by creating Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) teams, or internal “Doing Good” initiatives — Venture Capital firms should take a stronger stance in the betterment of the ecosystem within which they operate. This doesn’t mean that they should invest against their model, but rather that they need to diversify their investments, be aware of its implications.

We can also discuss the talent who’s responsible for the change. Typically (not always), entrepreneurs that are positioned for funding are a-priori privileged, coming from the backgrounds that gave them the support — financial, emotional, academic etc. — they needed to excel. But VCs need to take an active role in helping more societies to grow entrepreneurs from much more varied backgrounds and populations. Again, not investing in someone just because he/she comes from a certain area — rather work with younger generations and give them the tools and confidence to do so in the future. Such a proactive approach by the private market with the right support by the state will help to create a greater economy and more innovation.

We need to make sure that we are not contributing to the growth of inequality, not jeopardizing the environment. But rather, that we’re using our power and our investment model to create a more inclusive, connected society, that brings together people with a variety of narratives. VC firms need to remain constantly aware of the environment they are building along with their portfolio companies. They need to step in and act.

Connecting the Bedouin Society

There are several examples made by local VCs. to name a few — “Power in Diversity” or the “Olim” program. Here’s another example I can relate first hand.

“Enter” is a training and placement program for the Arab-Bedouin society. The program, which was launched last year, is geared at connecting the Bedouins living in the southern region of Israel to its booming high-tech industry. A preliminary study we conducted found that only ten (10!) Bedouins hold core dev positions in tech companies — out of a population of 300K. This is a staggeringly low percentage which calls attention to the inequality between different populations.

We helped 24 talented women and men to do what they were dreaming of — study coding — and working for a tech company. Our next step is to get into schools and support younger generations.

The Enter Project is just one example. I was lucky enough to be among its founders which include guys from the Bedouin community and tech veterans, and alongside Appleseeds NGO. Funding and support were given by the Ministry of Agriculture, and a few more techies like Mellanox, Dell-EMC, Cadence, Western Digital, DB Motion, Siraj, Natural Intelligence, Datorama (SalesForce), Google Campus, Cisco, Nokia, Qumra Capital. TLV Partners was the first private investor in the project and opened the door for many others.

The free market is alive and kicking. So is big money. But it’s important to stay in touch with the ecosystem big money is erecting — who it favors, and who it favors less. VC firms need to be dominant players in social-economic activities, both as funders and as consultants — for and along with the dozens of companies they’re helping to build and grow.

“We began as an open source project, and we were completely embraced by the community. VCs, however, weren’t impressed”. These are the words of Fred Simon, co-founder of JFrog, speaking about the early days of one of the most successful startups in Israel — last week during a panel discussion about dev communities.

Today it seems like everyone appreciates the value of big and impactful tech communities. JFrog has been a great lesson for the Israeli market in general and VCs in particular, and in the past few years the tech world has exploded with open source tools and developer groups. Furthermore, developers are continuing to become stronger and stronger within organizations, and well-organized communities have more influence than ever before. These shifts have led to big checks to be signed — some were for investments in platforms like Docker which never managed to monetize its popularity, others were for acquisitions — like GitHub by Microsoft.

Microsoft, under CEO Satya Nadella, understands the value of developers community and is really trying to embrace it. In a short blog post, Nadella published on the day of the acquisition, the word community was written six times. “Developers are the builders of this new era, writing the world’s code And GitHub is their home”, he wrote, and continued: “The developer community will only grow in numbers and importance… In all walks of life, we see the power of communities”.

But developer communities do not only exist around projects or platforms. Some are just large facebook groups. As Demi Ben Ari, a co-founder of Panorays, said during the panel discussion we conducted a few days ago — “Geeks usually feel uncomfortable at social events. Dev communities are our nightclubs”.

The recent meetup was lively. The panelists frequently disagreed while trying to define a specific model for building or managing a dev-community. The audience was also cooperative and contributed a lot to the discussion.

Jono Bacon: “Measure, But Don’t Obsess | Get Executive Permission | Create a Cross Team Participation | Collaborative Strategic Planning | Be As Open As Possible | Day to day control | Provide Support”

Ben Ari: “A community that is created as a means to generate revenue for a company will most likely fail”

Earlier this year on February 17th, we received an email from one of our portfolio companies offering an introduction to a group of entrepreneurs. This happens fairly often — the email was short and to the point, merely stating that the founders are a group of Ph.D physicists working on something “cool” in quantum computing. Due to the source and intrigue of the intro, we hurriedly scheduled a meeting.

A week later we met with the three founders — Itamar, Yonatan and Nissim. It was one of those meetings (which happen every so often) in which we sat wide-eyed and gaping throughout, truly fascinated by the people and the vision that was revealed to us. It was a meeting that reminded us of how innovative the Israeli hi-tech industry and its people are, how much power academic institutions have in building the future, and helped us realize the importance of the venture capital industry.

The meeting went on for nearly two hours during which we briefly reviewed the fascinating field, and then discussed the company’s methodology — but honestly, we knew within the first fifteen minutes that we wanted to invest. For a number of years now we have held that our early-stage investment strategy is highly focused on people, if for no other reason than the fact that we work together quite a bit during the first stages of building the company. With QM we felt it right away, but of course, it was not enough.

After the meeting finished we were conflicted. We knew that we wanted to invest, but the risks involved began to seep in. This was the stage in which we realized that we were in a sort of reverse due diligence process that occurs in a small percentage of the deals that we do. In other words, the due diligence we set out to do was in order to justify our initial instinctive feeling, as opposed to a process of building up a company and its merits towards an investment offer. It’s unclear that this is the best model, but that is what happened.

One of the main sources of concern surrounding a potential investment in the company is that QM is the first start-up in Israel in the field of quantum computing, or at least the first to raise money. This is a completely new field in terms of technological entrepreneurship in Israel, as the industry is currently concentrated in academia, governments and the large tech giants (Google, Microsoft, IBM and Baidu). Being first is a great privilege — but the process requires a different kind of thinking.

The essential questions that guided us were whether the industry would overcome the enormous technological and physical challenges ahead and produce advanced quantum computers, and whether these would actually present a distinct technological advantage over classical computing. From here we went on to more specific questions about the technology that QM is developing: Will the market develop fast enough so that we do not find ourselves in a position that is too early for the market, and whether their development is different and preferable to the products that are already being developed.

In the pace of rapid changes that we find ourselves in — what is perceived at a certain moment as a distant vision, often becomes reality sooner than expected. We witnessed this firsthand in several of our seed investments, which were perceived as breakthroughs at the time of our investment, but just a year later were leading an emerging market. Therefore, despite the justified fears and the sense that quantum is almost science fiction — we continued on. True — there are still quite a few questions regarding quantum computers, but it’s pretty clear that if it happens it will be huge — all the more so with a group of entrepreneurs like Itamar, Yonatan and Nissim. From our perspective, investing in QM is the essence of the venture capital industry.

Along with Battery Ventures, we invested $5.5 million in QM. It’s a fascinating investment, albeit a risky one. It is exciting to be part of the pioneers’ path in such a fascinating field that the even the country sees as a strategic goal.

In contrast to classical (non-quantum) computers, in which the logic gates are physically embedded in the processor, in quantum computers the logic gates are electromagnetic signals (usually microwave pulses) which are radiated onto the quantum bits.

QM is developing the next generation of quantum controllers — classical processors which are responsible for translating quantum algorithms into pulse sequences.