<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for MarioLaudi</title><link>http://disqus.com/by/MarioLaudi/</link><description></description><atom:link href="http://disqus.com/MarioLaudi/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:21:15 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: One Red Question: Would you fire average in order to hire great? (POLL) - Red Canary</title><link>http://redcanary.mypublicsquare.com/view/one-red-question115#comment-7292503</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure that early stage companies can afford to manage weak performers in the same manner as mature companies can.  It simply costs too much time, money and attention. I liken startups to professional sports teams where the players know that winning is everything. The rules of engagement are straightforward - performers will be rewarded, while under-performers will be replaced. It's nothing personal.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Not everyone is cut out for startups. Those seeking managers and processes may be better suited to established companies that can afford a management layer and the processes to ensure success for a broader spectrum of people.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">MarioLaudi</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:21:15 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: One Red Question: Would you fire average in order to hire great? (POLL) - Red Canary</title><link>http://redcanary.mypublicsquare.com/view/one-red-question115#comment-7049407</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Given that 50 employees are generating only $5 miillion, I'd be inclined to cull the herd. Sales and R&amp;amp;D are arguably the best areas to in which to find exponential improvements.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I'd start with my sales team and bring in one or two gainfully employed sales professionals who can hunt new business and increase revenue. To make room, I'd cut my weakest sales performers. If I could find a rock star developer I'd do the same with the engineering team.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Would these be difficult decisions? Yes. Absolutely. But, at the end of the day, shortening the bench usually makes a company stronger.  And strong companies dominate their markets and create even more jobs. over time.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">MarioLaudi</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:54:43 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Hard Realities for Soft(ware) Companies - Red Canary</title><link>http://redcanary.mypublicsquare.com/view/hard-realities-for#comment-3899197</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Chris, there's no doubt that tough markets re-affirm the proven leaders and give rise to new ones. The key is to know which ones are worth following.  I'm betting on the leaders who have faced tough times before. These execs tend to run leaner, uber-talented teams that move fast. I'll also bet on youth and intellect, especially with our Web 2.0 companies - if they can find a little cash.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;BTW, I find the best leaders don't move around a whole lot, They prefer to stay in one place and work through challenges. On the other hand, the weaker execs tend to walk away and it shows on their resume. Unfortunately, in a lousy market, there's no where for bad leaders to go and hide. So its important that CEOs keep a careful watch and ensure their troops are led with positive energy, creativity and honesty.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">MarioLaudi</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:14:01 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>