Find your perfect weirdo

Companies have been quietly getting bigger and bigger over the course of the last century. The need to scale has demanded standardization, and therefore interchangeability. This has led firms to think about the people within their organization as replaceable units.

Even the terms we use, such as “human resources”, “headcount”, or “talent acquisition” turn people into generic inputs rather than specific humans.

Every growing organization today suffers from a profound lack of self-knowledge. Corporations spend millions of dollars on McKinsey decks that tell them who they are. They commission culture surveys, run leadership offsites, and hire consultants to map their org structure and diagnose dysfunction. They do all of this because they genuinely don’t know what’s happening inside their own org.

What’s wrong with hiring today

Nowhere does this play out more dramatically than in hiring. And these are the culprits:

Generically good isn’t good enough

There is no such thing as a “good hire” that would function perfectly in any company. There is only a good hire within your specific context.

If the person you’re bringing on wouldn’t fail in another environment, you’re doing it wrong, or at least not being ambitious enough. Most companies go about hiring as if it were a popularity contest, gathering logos and pedigree signals, optimizing for candidates who look impressive on a slide rather than ones who fit the particular shape of what they're building. They look for “top talent” from MIT and Google because they lack the conviction in being a good picker of people and, as a result, miss out on finding the diamond in the rough. This fear is what holds people back from building truly great organizations.

The companies that hire well develop an opinionated culture and look for the person who matches it exactly. The misshapen fit that belongs nowhere else.

Why two-sided marketplaces suck

A recruiter is structurally two-sided. They’re paid by the company, nominally serving the candidate, and therefore accountable to neither. The incentive turns into a volume game: do one generic search across many clients, surface the same candidates everywhere, and bag the $ when something eventually sticks. The middleman benefits from information asymmetry without improving the outcome for anyone.

This is why there is no “Big four” of recruiting. The model doesn't compound because precision, the thing that would make it actually work, requires knowing a company deeply enough that you can only do it for a handful of clients at a time.

The wrong questions get you the wrong people

When a hiring manager sits down to write a job description, they list out the general requirements: years of experience, list of tools, and a handful of responsibilities copy-pasted from the last person who held the role. The issue is that there are hundreds of thousands of people that would match this description, and probably only a few who actually fit what the org is looking for.

Example: the right engineer for a food tech company isn’t a candidate with “5+ years, strong systems background”. You should be looking for a strong engineer, yes, and also the person whose side hustle is writing reviews for hole-in-the-walls, who hacked into their neighborhood restaurant waitlist just to skip the line, and has that infectious curiosity that unlocks the potential of that particular team.

That person exists, but most companies never find them because a) they didn’t have the right tools to gather the insight for what they were actually looking for, and b) the technology that successfully scours the planet for her didn’t yet exist.

The onus is always on companies

And just in case we didn’t drive it all the way home, the responsibility of figuring out what company a person is a match for should never fall on the candidate. Most people are stuck in jobs they're an okay fit, not a phenomenal fit for. The assumption has always been that fixing this is the applicant’s problem: share your experiences better, apply harder, and so on. But the onus should be on companies to get opinionated enough about who they want, who they don't want, and to be more selective, more opinionated, and to proactively reach out to the best people.

The best, most talented people are just out in the world building and doing their thing. Companies should come to them without the nightmare of perpetually logging in. Just agents talking to agents to find the perfect match.

Human motivation is a criminally underutilised asset. Reallocate people to places where they're uniquely fired up and everyone wins.

Bullish on headhunting, bearish on headhunters

The best method for hiring has actually existed for centuries, and it’s called headhunting. Someone with exceptional taste and deep context to what the organization needs goes into the world to look for the right match. Conceptually, this has always worked. The problem is that it’s bounded by one person’s capacity and context. Until now.

Superposition builds and deploys an agent directly into your organization with the mission-critical role of hiring your people. It gathers the right context: who you are, what you care about, the essence of your culture, and goes out in the world to find the perfect weirdos that belong there.

Every night it dreams, consolidating what it learned and getting more opinionated across every company it's ever worked with. It builds a taste for what great actually looks like that no single human headhunter could accumulate in a lifetime.

And unlike every recruiter before it, it only works for one side: the company.

Define your soul, run your company

Hiring to us is what books were to Amazon, aka our wedge and the most high-impact target for unlocking how a company operates at its best. Hiring is where organizational vagueness has the most visible and expensive consequences. It is the place where every company is forced to answer, however badly: who are we, and who do we need?

Deploying the Superposition agent means encoding the soul of your company into an entity that absorbs and builds on it. Hiring is just its first capability. Over time it becomes the system you use to bet the chips correctly. Instead of paying millions of dollars to consulting firms for retroactive reports, it will tell you who to hire, when to hire, and where to deploy an agent instead of a human. It finds the people, and it builds and hires the agents that do the work alongside them.

Soon, organizations will operate with a smaller, more dense core of exceptional humans working alongside a swarm of these purpose-built agents. We’re killing the middle manager whose main value-add has been an information sluice gate rather than an executor of work. Instead, every person will be precisely picked and every agent is trained to support these super-ICs. In this reality, Superposition is the central entity that holds the company’s soul and context, keeping everyone aligned and in the know.

In this world, culture is the full f****** operating system of a company. Those who can define who they are with enough precision will hire humans and build agents that carry that specificity into everything they do. The ones who stay generic will get generic hires, generic agents, and generic outcomes.

So don’t be generic. Be like Roger, and get specific.