Note: This blog post also ran in the Society of Professional Journalism’s “Journalism and the World” blog. Click here to see the original post.
I’m starting yet another recruiting cycle tomorrow. This month, I’m looking for a new full-time finance reporter. Next month, I’ll be hiring someone with a biology or life sciences background. Both are entry-level positions — low pay, long hours.
I haven’t even put our the formal announcements yet, but resumes are already coming in.
Today, the CEO of an international events company told me that I’m aiming too low. Instead of increasing head count by one or two people a month, I could be working on an international level, starting new magazines with the resources of a multinational behind me. (He meant, his.)
Tomorrow I meet with another publisher, who also wants to offer money.
So I’m thinking: could I be more effective if I had more money to spend, or would it just get in the way? If I hired more programmers to do the development work, instead of spending time myself playing with the databases (I do love playing with databases). If I hired assistants to handle my email and other routine administrative tasks. If I hired a writer to do my blog. 🙂
I know some dot-coms just floundered when they had too much money. Working within their own resources made them discliplined and focus and helped contribute to their long-term success. But others got cash infusions and just soared.
Is there any way to know which category you’re in, except through hindsight?
Signing off in Shanghai,
Maria
