Counter-Strike and the art of HR

Shortly after I joined Fannin, we decided to ramp up our internship program. The program had already been running in a desultory fashion for several years (when the company was called AlphaDev in its previous incarnation), with people ending up as interns more through a series of coincidences and connections rather than from a concerted effort by the leadership. The need for interns was also few and far between - usually a few kids from Rice University or the Texas Medical Center would drop by in the summer to work in the small handful of portfolio companies. But when AlphaDev underwent its metamorphosis and emerged as the sparkling, brand new Fannin, with more funds in the kitty and a stated goal of rapidly expanding its portfolio of companies in its first couple of years, we knew we had to have more hands on deck. I was then a Principal, and as part of the leadership, we sat down to chalk out what the ‘internship program’ would look like.

Since our first call for interns received more applications than positions, we decided on a simple interview process. We put together an 'interview board' of sorts composed of a few of the top brass, invited the applicants over, and asked them to come in one at a time to face the music. However, this approach was quickly abandoned. For one, the total man hours spent per interview candidate sometimes became too much, because a long anecdotal story told by the candidate, while immensely enjoyable to one interviewer, could very well bore the others to tears. For another, it was felt that more could be got out of personal one-on-ones than in a group session. I also suspect that it was done as a kindness to the candidates. Melissa, who was interviewed in this manner (and would later go on to become one of our first Entrepreneurship Fellows, and then Principal), later recalled the process as 'terrifying'.

Accordingly, our next round of internship interviews were all done one-on-one. On the whole, this was a success - the interviewees seemed more at ease, and there was latitude on our part to delve deeper into aspects which intrigued us more. Occasionally, there would be discoveries of unexpected common grounds - a shared acquaintance, frustration with the same things, or even a book we both enjoyed. However, the problem with this approach became clear once we convened to discuss the candidates. It transpired that we had focused on different things during the interviews, and comparing notes became an exercise in comparing apples to oranges. (It also transpired that I was a singularly inexpert interviewer - instead of asking about things like past entrepreneurial experience and instances of leadership, I had spent most of the interviews commiserating with the candidate about the difficulties of transitioning from a fellowship to an academic position, or discussing the best Chinese takeouts at the Medical Center.)

Atul, our Managing Partner, proposed a solution: to create a common scorecard for all interviewers. After much discussion, we articulated 6 critical areas to focus the interviews on. I cannot reproduce the scorecard here, but broadly, they related to communication skills, scientific skills, interest in entrepreneurship, examples of leadership, etc. Each candidate was given a score from 1 to 3 for each skill area based on the interviewer's perception and internal standards. Scores were added up, then compared between interviewers. After a few hiccups (a couple of times I mistakenly reversed the scoring order, and occasionally forgot to record the scores after the interview), we settled into a reasonable standard operating procedure for these interviews.

Over the next couple of years, we interviewed hundreds of highly talented students, researchers, postdoctoral fellows, and even sometimes assistant professors and business professionals. We made small tweaks to the scorecard, slightly changing the description of the focus areas, allowing half scores (like 1.5 and 2.5) and so on. We also allowed interviewers the power to supersede the group opinion once-in-a-while: a sort of Presidential veto power in reverse. And always, we would meet to review the process and discuss what's working and what's not.

This retrospective review of the process showed us that there were other important factors we were missing with this approach. Every once in a while we would get candidates who did well on the scorecard, but were not the ideal fit for the role. These were pretty painful cases - as anybody who has been part of such a team will attest. We belatedly recognized that the scorecard, while an excellent tool to judge ability, would sometimes fail at predicting fit. And fit was of paramount importance to ensure that everybody benefits from the time spent together.

But what constitutes 'fit'? Looking back at all the great people I've had the pleasure of working with, I cannot think of any set of parameters that uniformly describes them all. But, reflecting on this conundrum, and calling on all my experience (primarily composed of comics, computer games, fantasy fiction and cricket) I realized that somebody had already solved the problem!

I wonder if you have ever played the computer game called Counter Strike, specifically the challenge mode called Condition Zero? If you haven't - my deepest condolences: it's based on Half Life, one of the top 5 most popular computer games in the world, and probably still the most popular first person shootout game ever. If you do belong to that unfortunate minority, here's what happens in Condition Zero: you choose your team, and then race to defeat virtual terrorists in increasingly difficult scenarios - each one in a different terrain and against a different opposition team.

It's in choosing the team that things get interesting. Each potential team member is characterized by 3 ratings representing skill, cooperation, and bravery. Since your team size is limited, and since nobody has perfect scores in all three areas, you have to ask yourself: who do I pick? Do I want somebody who is (for example) more skillful, but only moderately brave, and not at all cooperative; or somebody else (say) who will stick by me through thick and thin, but is only moderately skillful and lacks bravery? Or some other combination of the three?

If you think about it, these are the sort of qualities that we are looking for too. A skillful associate can be relied on to competently complete a well-characterized task. A 'brave' team member can be depended on to be a self-starter and work without requiring micromanagement. A 'cooperative' guy is always a pleasure to have in the group, and can be counted on to say 'yes' whatever the task. In brief, the three qualities can be considered orthogonal ones, with utility for each. I'm not sure which HR books the game designers consulted in coming up with this construct, but undoubtedly they were good ones!

Actually, I think it’s not only the Counter Strike/Condition Zero game designers who have read those HR books, but also some very successful authors. Take J. K. Rowling, for example. In Harry Potter’s wonderful wizarding school, the Sorting Hat (undoubtedly, the shrewdest HR manager ever), sorts all incoming students into four houses, according to their abilities. And what were those abilities, again? To quote the Sorting Hat:

“You might belong in Gryffindor / Where dwell the brave at heart,

Their daring, nerve and chivalry, / Set Gryffindors apart;

You might belong in Hufflepuff / Where they are just and loyal,

Those patient Hufflepuffs are true, / And unafraid of toil;

Or yet in wise old Ravenclaw, / If you've a ready mind,

Where those of wit and learning, / Will always find their kind.”  

A-ha! Never thought of old J.K. to be quite the HR savant, did you?

Actually, these divisions may have been around for a long time. Ancient philosophers, more than 2500 years ago, thought that each human psyche is made of different portions of three basic tendencies: Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas. (Originally developed by the Samkhya/Sankhya school of Hindu philosophy, it was later adopted widely across other philosophies). Sattva is the tendency towards balance, harmony, goodness, and purity, while Rajas is passion, drive, and dynamism. Tamas are the negative qualities. The philosophers were emphatic on one point though: nobody is made up purely of one quality or the other, but are a mixture of the three qualities in different degrees. (And if you noticed the coincidence, you are absolutely right: kings (‘Rajah’s) and emperors were expected to have an unusually high degree of Rajas.)

But back to more interesting things, like Counter-Strike. Which team should you choose for your missions? Is there a magic formula that you follow for success?

The answer probably depends at least on two things: the mission, and your style of leadership. In some missions, loyalty and cooperation is required in high degrees; while on others, skill and bravery can do the maximum damage. The armed forces also recognize the use of different skill sets in different missions. In the regular army, cooperation trumps everything, since the moment an army is disorganized, the battle is lost. As fans of naval airfare and 80's action flicks may remember, it is the reason Maverick, though definitely more brave and skillful than Iceman, loses out on the Top Gun trophy to his rival, who understands the value of teamwork in their missions. On the other hand, commando raids probably require men capable of thinking for themselves, since the hazards are uncertain, and communications can often be lost. Remember though, that these are not exclusive qualities: commandos need to have high degrees of cooperation too, and armies certainly don’t prefer mindless robots. It is rather a question of importance and fit.

Interestingly, your leadership style also matters a lot. Do you love it when the whole team works together as a happy family, tackling problems together? Or do you prefer high quality work over everything else, even if the particular team member is a prima donna who is difficult to manage? Or maybe you prefer to break up the project into autonomous units and give people independence in completing the parts? In fact, the team you choose probably tells a lot about you. You are known by the company you keep (or hire).

And sometimes, you probably want a mixture of all kinds in a good team. Leaders, loyalists, and geniuses. After all, (even though JK Rowling disingenuously placed them all in the same house), we do know that Voldemort was only defeated because brave Harry teamed up with loyal Ron and the genius Hermione, don’t we?

'But, wait', you say, 'hold on! What about a host of other qualities? What about ability to communicate well? Or ethics? Or flexibility, or organizational skills, or other such stuff? Where do these come in?'

Well, one answer is: they can all be considered as part of one or the other of the three qualities (how you define ‘skill’ for example). The other answer is: whoever said this was a perfect system? You aren't taking any of this seriously, are you?!

And what about the Slytherins, and the quality of Tamas? I’m afraid that is an altogether darker matter, for another time. 

(Disclaimer: This is intended to be a light-hearted blog post and not a representation of the views of Fannin, the interns, the interviewers, computer gamers, Valve Corporation, JK Rowling or ancient Hindu philosophers. It should be quite obvious that none of these people have approved, embraced, friended, liked or tweeted this post. )