Over the past few months, we’ve added 5 new members to our marketing team. 3 of them report into me, and as a closet psychology nerd, it’s been a lot of fun watching how each of them have uniquely gone about their onboarding and integrating into the marketing team + broader company.
Most onboarding advice focuses on listening, learning, and not rocking the boat. But I’ve noticed something with these 3 new hires. They threw that playbook out the window. And here's what they did instead…
Sponsor: HockeyStack
You just closed a $150k deal. The prospect had their badge scanned at an event, saw 94 ads, got 5 calls/emails from a BDR, and read 3 blog posts. Now the CEO asks: "Who gets credit for this deal?"
But what if I told you that isn't the question we should be asking?
For years, this was the question I was trying to answer because for years I operated with the “additive” mindset. What happens if we hire 3 more BDRs? What happens if we add $15k more ad spend? And then I would simply map out the anticipated ROI of that effort through our funnel and add it to our current expected outcomes. Hence "additive."
And then the lightbulb went off. We weren't successful because of one of those specific channels. We were successful because of how we leveraged the interplay between them.
I've had multiple chats with Emir Atli at HockeyStack over the past year about this subject, and this is exactly what they're helping marketers and GTM leaders solve for.
1) They managed up (instead of waiting to be managed)
We're a fully remote company, which means async communication is critical. With new team members, I typically have a few scheduled meetings each week as regular check-ins, and then training/working sessions as part of their larger onboarding.
During these check-ins, we usually cover what they need to know as they ramp, they provide updates on where they’re spending their time, and I help chart out their next few days of plans.
But this week, one of my new hires did something different. At the end of their first full week here, they sent me a Slack message broken out into two sections:
Highlights/good things they were making progress on
The “not so good” AND what they were doing about it
This blew me away. Instead of hoping I wouldn't notice smaller tasks slipping or that things weren’t going perfectly, they flagged it proactively AND came with their solution.
Here's an actual example from one of the “not so good” updates:
"I've spent too much time on the research design. That stalled progress on the audits, competitor analysis, and audience research projects. What I'm doing about it: I significantly dialed down the scope so it's quicker and more iterative vs. upfront planning with no shipping. You can read it here."
Most career advice tells you "don't bring problems to your boss without solutions." But this person took it further - they brought problems I didn't even know were problems + with solutions already in motion.
Remember last week’s newsletter talking about the 5 great traits of marketers? This is a perfect example of #2 on that list: “Good marketers are excellent firefighters. Great marketers prevent the fires from starting in the first place.”
Why this works: This builds trust immediately. I don't have to worry about what's falling through the cracks because not only are they managing both the work and the communication about the work, but it also saves me time having to dig for status updates. They’ve demonstrated that they understand the bar our team operates at and proactively communicates to me where they are and aren’t meeting it. Self-awareness and humility level = 100.
2) They swim with the current (instead of trying to divert the river)
One of our new hires came into a brand new role that requires interfacing with 5 of our leadership team members daily.
Coming into the role, they knew exactly what they needed to do based on the job description + their skillset. But what we often don’t hear about great hires is how they navigate their onboarding period to bridge the gap between the job-to-be-done and the reality of getting things done inside of an environment that already has its own unique dynamics and processes.
Most people in this situation do one of two things:
They wait to be told exactly how to work with each person
They try to impose their own preferred working style immediately
This person didn’t do either.
They spent time observing how each executive operated, what they cared about, how they liked to receive information, how they communicated, and what their decision-making process looked like.
Then this team member adapted their approach to meet each person where they were.
The best way I can describe this is that it’s the difference between putting a rock in the middle of a river to divert it to where you want it to go vs swimming with the current to reach the raft the other team members are on + then making slight adjustments to the direction of the raft once aboard with everyone.
They took their time to build relationships and credibility by working within each person's existing framework. Now don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t perfect the entire time - there was absolutely a learning curve and were feedback loops from “that could’ve gone better”-type conversations. But they adapted. Quickly. And that’s what earned the trust, respect, and willingness to change processes from each member of the leadership team that they were working with.
Why this works: Change is hard, and people resist it, especially from someone new. But when you meet people where they are first, you build the relationship capital needed to guide them where you want to go. They recognize that you’re trying to make it work with them + not trying to simply impose your way on the group.
3) They defended their judgment (instead of deferring to "experience")
One of our new hires was tasked with leveling up our customer education and engagement. Small ask, right? 😅
In their first month, this meant organizing + hosting a webinar that drew nearly 1,000 customers.
During the webinar, 2 “disgruntled” customers chimed into the chat at various points making negative comments. They were basically trying to use the webinar chat as live customer support for themselves. Wasn’t anything obscene or worthy of kicking them out of the webinar for, but they stuck out nonetheless.
After the event, some members on the customer support/success side of our company recommended that we disable the chat for future webinars to avoid these disruptions.
This is where most new employees would defer to the more experienced team members and agree to disable the chat moving forward. “They’ve been here longer than I have, they must know better.”
But this hire pushed back.
They didn’t agree with this direction. Then they explained why.
They walked through how the chat experience during the webinar benefited 99% of the attendees. That if you pulled out those few negative comments and read the transcript of all of the other conversations that occurred during the webinar, that you would see a grateful + engaged audeince.
They used this to point out that it would be a disservice to disable for all of the attendees moving forward because less than 1% of the participants didn’t behave exactly how we would have liked for them to. They stood their ground on what was right for our customers, even as the newest person in the room.
That said, while they stood their ground, they also met the CS team halfway to find out how we could mitigate this moving forward. Are there other options we can do to allow for conversation to flow while reducing the risk of more negative comments in the future? Are we able to mute/boot attendees if needed? Sounds quite a bit like another example of preventing future problems, doesn’t it 😉
Why this works: Being new doesn't mean your judgment is wrong. Or that existing voices should carry more weight than yours. The beauty of fresh eyes is that they can see things more clearly than people who've been doing something the same way for years.
The Common Thread
All three of these new team members demonstrated a critical trait that we see time + time again in the most successful team members here - they take ownership of their work and the results they’re responsible for.
They own proactively communicating about problems and solutions.
They own figuring out how to work effectively with everyone they need to influence.
They own making decisions based on what's best for customers and the business, not what's easiest or safest.
If you’ve recently started in a new role or will be soon:
Stop waiting for permission. Here's what to do instead:
Week 1:
Proactively set up a communication rhythm with your manager. Create a simple weekly update format covering what's working, what isn't, and what you're doing about the problems. Don't wait to be asked.
First 30-60 days:
Understand how the people you need to work with actually operate. How do they prefer to receive information? What do they care about most? What's their decision-making process? Adapt your approach to fit their style before trying to change anything.
Share your perspective, especially when you see obvious improvements. Remember: you were hired for a reason. You're not being paid to just execute - you're being paid to think. You only have fresh eyes for so long.
The biggest mistake new hires make is thinking they need to earn the right to add value. You were hired because someone believed you could contribute from day one. Validate that belief for them.
If you’ve recently hired someone or will be soon:
Pay attention to how new hires handle uncertainty and ambiguity. The best ones don't need to be managed - they manage themselves and communicate proactively + transparently about what they're learning and where they need help. If they don’t, help set up what the ideal communication style + cadence looks like with you.
Encourage new hires to share their perspective, even if it challenges existing processes. Sometimes fresh eyes see the obvious improvement that experience has made invisible. Whether you’re in a team meeting with them or a 1:1, instead of you immediately jumping in with a recommendation or course of action, ask them what they think first.
Question for readers: What's the best advice you've received (or ignored) as a new hire or hiring manager? Hit reply and let me know - always curious to hear what's worked for others. Who knows, maybe I’ll do a follow up to this with insights from you all as well 👀
Book quote of the week
“In determining the ‘right people,’ companies placed greater weight on character attributes than on specific educational background, practical skills, specialized knowledge, or work experience.”
- Good to Great, by Jim Collins
See you next Saturday,
Sam
P.S. if you liked today’s newsletter or have enjoyed some of the earlier ones, forward this along to a marketer you think would like it as well 🙂 This newsletter grows by word of mouth + I can see which weeks resonate more/less with you all based on how many people do (or don’t 😅) subscribe after reading.