Google Recruiter Mike Junge on Startups, the Biggest Mistake Job Applicants Make, and Why It Pays to be Nice

Michael Junge is a recruiter on staff at Google, focusing on hiring executive level talent for the company. But he’s also written a new book for a broader readership, about mastering the job search process in the digital age.

Called Purple Squirrel –  a insider’s term that recruiters apply to hard if not impossible-to-find talent — the book comes out in a couple of weeks. Hoping to find out why Junge wrote it, what lessons it holds, and what outsiders can learn from Google’s recruiting process, I caught up with him yesterday. Following is a transcript of our conversation, edited for length.

First, I should tell readers you’ve just let me know you can’t answer any but the broadest questions about Google. I guess this means I have to crumple up a list of penetrating questions I’d prepared for you.

I’m really sorry. The company doesn’t like discussing its processes publicly, and while I have the full support of the Leadership Recruiting team [at Google], this isn’t a Google-sponsored project.

It’d be strange if it were. You wrote a book for job seekers, from a place – Silicon Valley – where there isn’t enough talent for the jobs that exist, at least on the engineering front.

It’s true that at a high level, companies, including Google and Facebook, are dealing with a shortage of talent at the elite engineering level that they pursue. Talent attraction and retention is a very big issue right now, particularly in the software space.

Can I ask if Google’s reorganization under Larry Page makes it even more so? If I were an engineer, I might be worried about particular groups or projects being killed off.

In general, I don’t think that’s an issue for Google. From the perspective of hiring senior talent, I haven’t seen that as a problem.

What about convincing young engineers to work at a company that’s already as richly valued as Google?

A lot of big employers deal with that issue by looking at the bigger picture. The number of startups that have a positive payout is [pretty miniscule]. Meanwhile, big, successful companies tend to build wealth and success and stability by focusing not on a short-term payouts but a long-term success cycle. But I’d prefer not to discuss Google specifically.

How about this: What’s one of the biggest mistakes job applicants make, at Google and elsewhere? When you have someone interviewing right there in the office, where do they tend to go wrong?

One of my pet peeves is that people often say things to recruiters that sound horrible, including terrible things about past bosses and coworkers and other off-the-wall comments that they assume won’t hurt them in their job search.

That’s interesting. So they wrongly see you as a confidante?

Recruiters have a mixed reputation. A lot of people see us as a necessary evil; others see us as a powerful ally. It’s interesting how that plays out in people’s attitudes and behaviors and the way they interact with us. The reality is that we’re trying to make sure we’re hiring the best people, including people who have the best attitude as well as skill set. Anytime someone tells me, “I would never say this to a hiring manager, but…” whatever comes after the “but” does not advance their cause.

What are other red flags for you during the recruiting process?

Generally, people who are perpetually late for phone calls, or who get wrapped up in little details [can make poor hires]. You can also learn a lot, usually later in the process, by how someone handles the negotiation around their salary. I’ve seen people become very emotional when we start talking about money. I’ve also seen them make commitments and then back out. One specific red flag is not being willing to share salary history, or misrepresenting salary history.

Is that a deal killer?

It can be if a candidate blatantly exaggerates his pay. If someone making $80,000 says they are making $110,000 in order to get a better offer, that can be [a conversation ender].

What do people underestimate when it comes to competing for a job?

Attitude. One of the things that Google —  and most major companies — look at is personality among two or three key defining attributes that they’re evaluating. In general, friendliness is very highly sought after. It’s hard to overstate how much impact that can have on the hiring process.

What of the fine line between confidence and arrogance?

It’s a tough balance. You have to sit with someone one on one to see where they fall on that spectrum. But I’d say to try to come across as confident but humble. Being brilliant is fantastic, but it’s an inherited attribute. So answer questions with confidence, but don’t act like you’re the best thing since sliced bread.

And when it comes to engineers? Perhaps very wrongly, I’d gather that personality matters a little less.

There’s some truth to that. Longer term, I’d say there’s no substitute for doing things that are helpful [in your current job]. Employers are always trying to check references to validate that you’re good at what you do. So it’s really important to figure out how to listen to the people around you and to go out of your way to be helpful. The more of a difference you make to the people you interact with – your bosses, your colleagues, your customers – the more money you’re going to make, the more job opportunities you’re going to have, and the more people will be interested in hiring you. And I think that transcends any specific field or practice.

Any advice to employers about retaining talent, once they land it?

To retain the best talent, you have to have a partnership-oriented attitude. The more value that employees give a company, the more the employer should be willing to reward them back. Many of the best employers have already figured this out or are starting to. When you have great people and they’re doing great work, you have to incentivize them and make them feel good about going above and beyond.

Some companies have used the economy as an excuse not to do more for employees. But the cost of hiring and training a new employee is enormous — from tens of thousands of dollars into upwards of half a million dollars, depending on the skill set of individual. You can save a few thousand bucks short term, but the cost of turning off a good, valuable employee is orders of magnitude higher.

Related Posts


  • I actually don’t think it is appropriate for a recruiter to expect full salary disclosure. In any other business negotiation, it is sheer lunacy for one party to reveal their cost structure or BATNA. Why is this any different than an employment negotiation? I agree – this should be kept very professional, but for a recruiter to assume that they have and should have all the information on cost when making a hire is arrogance. Is the employer prepared to reveal the band of salaries that they have for people they hire with that title? My guess is not.

    • I disagree with folks who want to withhold salary history. If the recruiter asks for salary information, you can always not give it and live with the consequences. They have a right to ask: you have a right to not tell them.

      You might find that your salary history places you above what they were thinking about offering, which may cause them to offer more than expected. If you’ve been working for scraps you should have a context to wrap around that beyond admitting you got paid what you were worth. Tell them you’re worth a whole lot more now because you’re will to work a lot harder if not smarter.

      Finally, it’s simple to just say no to an offer and ask for more or ask for something that can substitute for cash such as added vacation or more options. Cash is king but not everyone needs to e a pawn.

  • [...] to buzzy startups with tons of upside? Google recruiter Mike Junge tells Connie Loizos at …Google Recruiter Mike Junge on Startups, the Biggest Mistake Job Applicants …Private Equity Hub (press release)all 2 news [...]

  • The entire process is a joke!
    When I founded a company this is what I posted on the site as a candidate’s bill of rights;
    One 10 minute pre interview screening to make sure neither side is wasting their time
    One face to face interview not exceeding 1 hour – we’re happy to do it after hours if needed.
    One follow up email should there be additional questions
    The respect of an answer within 5 business days. If you can take the time to come in we can take the time to send you an email to let you know where you stand.
    Your salary history is your business. We won’t violate your privacy with this, your credit history, your medical history, your criminal history or anything else intrusive and personal that should concern us.
    Your GPA is not our concern. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg dropped out of college and they all have done a pretty decent job running companies.

    In most states it is illegal (although not enforced) for a professional reference to say anything more than the facts. This person worked here in this capacity from this date to that date. No personal opinions or the person doing the talking could be sued. Besides, 90% of the time you are talking to a friend or family member, not a former co worker. If the reference says something other than glowing superlatives you know that person is a bastard and shouldn’t be trusted. If they talk about the candidate like they are Jesus or the living embodiment of Steve Jobs it’s useless so there is no reason to call references and ask anything beyond facts.

    It’s no one’s business what a candidate was making at a previous job. It’s about as rude as asking how many people a person has had sex with. None of your damn business! Maybe you went to a low paying company to learn. Now you will get hit for that? What if you took a job in a recessionary period? What if you work in a market that pays low and are now moving to NYC or SF? Your history will hold you back. Start up vs. huge company, etc.

    I wish the Tony Hseihs of the world wouldn’t act like hiring is equivalent to diffusing landmines and the fate of the world hangs in the balance. The fact of the matter is that mis hires are a consequence of doing business. If hiring the wrong person breaks your company you are not ready to hire. You can have 10 interviews, make everyone in the company meet the candidate because you don’t have the courage to make a decision on your own, ask stupid questions about being the size of a grape in a blender and all this other nonsense. In the end it doesn’t make a difference and no one person, even a CEO should be able to destroy a company of any size. Give them 3 months to prove they are up for it or be fired. That’s life. Follow your instincts, stop asking the gotcha questions, respect that people have lives and that you aren’t paying them to come in for interviews. Candidates are either risking their current job or battling for a job because they are unemployed. Either way they don’t have time for McApplications, 10 interviews that last hours or stupid questions about how many golf balls fit into a bus. Show people some respect and stop creating an adversarial, high pressure, hazing experience and your hires and candidates who aren’t’ chosen will have a positive impression of your company and recognize it as a place that they aspire to work rather than just going along with it for the money and resenting the hazing. This is all common sense but it seems to be missing from the job market. We have made a mess of this and it starts with the McApplication given to white collar professional candidates to show off their resume transcribing skills. And then employers wonder why staff has no sense of loyalty, only stays for 2 years on average and worst of all, has no passion, hates their jobs and does the bare minimum. Stop making an environment that sucks the souls out of staff and you will see productivity, enthusiasm and passion go through the roof. I know, all a pipe dream.

  • Yes, salaries are required for the very simple reason that recruiters are paid to find people to a particular specification, but within a limited salary band. We don’t get paid if we find the most expensive, overpaid candidate, nor for one with the ultimate CV and who gets paid a pittance as both are probably indicative of a candidate with something to hide, or one who is ‘economical with the truth’ by claiming to be Gods gift to the market, but for some reason has no idea of their own worth.

    The recruiter is a gatekeeper – if you don’t get through the gate, you don’t move forward. Many companies who go to the bother of finding a recruiter they trust will in my experience, tell a candidate to take a hike if they will not disclose their remuneration package to the recruiter.

    To the end client, it smacks of the candidate being arrogant and not showing respect for the decision of the client to nominate a proxy to handle the proces and initial selection.

  • Some recruiters may think they protect the doors, but also misjudge a person sometimes and the company the recruiter represents, looses a strong and loyal employee, who might possibly go to the competition and make them stronger….

    • And your point is?

  • [...] Google Recruiter Mike Junge on Startups, the Biggest Mistake Job Applicants Make, and Why It Pays to…, peHUB [...]

  • Of course that can happen Arjan, but you would be unsurprised by how many times unsuccessful candidates disagree with decisions. You can use that excuse in any decision “I was perfect but they couldn’t see how good I was – they have made the wrong choice”

    Its human nature for individuals to not accept there were the better candidates and the recruiter has misjudged them. This also applies to companies who decide not to progress a candidate and the candidate disagrees – again, human nature. People in general don’t like being turned down.

    The client however will, in general, get a candidate they like and are happy with so are happy with the recruiters decisions to exclude someone.

    In my experience, the less competent someone is, the lower their objections. Good people take it on the chin, look for feedback and to find other opportunities. The decidedly average/overpaid are the ones who have little understanding of the their market worth and seek to bypass the recruiter and inevitably find themselves disappointed when the client bounces them out.

  • Agree about BATNA and the great post about the candidates’ Bill of Rights.

    If a recruiter is working within a specific range of salaries for a position, then *they* should state reveal that range and structure the question that way. Also, the salary range for a position with specific skills & experience is usually known. What benefit does knowing the candidate’s salary history provide?

    Turning down down a candidate for a job is acceptable (there will always be better candidates!) and is part of the process. But not treating a candidate respectfully not only leaves a bad impression on that particular individual, but also spreads the word about how a company treats its (potential and actual) employees.

  • The salary question should spark a dialogue.
    If the person is out of range, I typically can let them know up front that they are out of range and let them choose to proceed.

    If they are below or in range, I can proceed with the interviewing process.

    It’s the people who will not disclose anything that have always been burned me. They get to the end and they reject any offer unless it’s theirs, which is typically way above the range for the role.

    I’m not in the job of hiring people below range or as cheap as possible. When I’m hiring, I’m comparing the candidate against the people I already have in place and trying to stack rank the person against the current team and pay accordingly.

    By disclosing the range up front, everyone will gravitate to the top regardless of their talent and feel like they were slighted if they do not get the highest salary in the range. I want to make sure the person gets a good salary where they feel like they got a good offer so they come in and want to prove something. The upper end of the ranges are for people who product consistently year after year with a great attitude.

    BTW: beside the bad attitude and lack of salary disclosure. The only other thing that raises red flags is the constant negotiator. I’m ok going back and forth once or twice on salary, but if we go back a third time, I’m pulling the offer.

    Bill of Rights is cool – I’d be curious how many of those offers end up not getting filled because of mismatched salary expectations. The dreaded day long interviews is unfortunately there because in todays world, we all work cross functionally. Everyone has to work together and you need people to buy into your candidates early for them to be successful.

    Good topic. I could write a paper on all the funny things that has happened in interviews:
    1. Candidate Took call from old boss telling him he was not happy and out interviewing for jobs in the interview process.
    2. Said they were so beyond technical that they didn’t even need to be “hands on” to be effective on the job.
    3. Left midway through interview with no explanation only to call back the next day to see if they could finish the interview process.
    4. Call themselves the godfather of the industry
    5. Swore
    6. Chewed out old boss
    7. Said they will not work after 5:00pm
    8. Cried in the interview in telling life story.
    9. mispronounced company name throughout the interview even after correcting them.
    10. Said they were just practicing their interviewing technique at the end of the interview.

  • As someone who’s received only robo-replies to numerous applications, this is exciting news.

  • I don’t get this salary debate. There are tons of job sites and even government sites that help in job search by supplying average pay for a position. I’ve even seen databases by specific city. So normally a candidate should know what the job they’re applying for is work on the local market, just by doing a little research before hand. Yes some companies pay more for a given position, but generally speaking, it should be easy enough to know what a job is worth.

    If you go into a job interview knowing a position pays 50K and ask for 70K, you’ve either better be super good at what you do or you’ve got to be ready to face the music when they don’t pick you.

    It’s not always a question of money either. Quality of life and the work environment play a big part in making a decision. And all the above mention variables like the company’s size, weather you clicked with the interviewer, does the office look like a jail cell?

    My last interview I thought went splendidly, they asked me at least five times in the 45 minutes if I was interested, had me sign confidentiality clauses and criminal record checks at the end. I’ve worked for our government and the national police, so I’m squeaky clean, but I didn’t get the job. I just figured they person picked a person more appropriate for the job. Maybe they didn’t like my tie. Maybe the other people were more confident with their answers than I was. Maybe they tossed a coin.

    The thing is, we can’t let our ideas and emotions get in the way because it doesn’t always work out. Chin up, and keep going, your turn will eventually come up if you’re a good employee, there’s someone out there that wants you!

  • I think it’s important to keep in mind that the author works and recruits for Google. This is nothing personal against him but over the years there is a certain arrogance and elitist attitude that comes from working for firms like that. It’s not publicly stated but the attitude is “everyone should understand that it’s a privilege and honor to work for us at Google”. So yes Google can be picky and with a $600 stock price has the upper hand when reviewing candidates.

    So this is not about the company it’s about the candidates and where they want to work. If a candidate wants a shot at the Googles and pre-IPO Facebooks be prepared for the elitist attitude, off the wall interview questions, and nit picking resume reviews and just deal with it. Or avoid the Google’s and deal with firms that understand the market for talent is tight and approach strong candidates more equally.

  • Only an American would suggest a Bill of Rights for a candidate.

    I can hear the Lawyers in the USA already rubbing their hands in glee at the litigation possibilities from every no-hoper out there looking to make someone foul up ‘their rights’ as an excuse for a win-fee.

    Yes, candidates like everyone else in society should be treated with respect, but that applies to the candidates behaviour as well. We have all had the mad stalker character who seems to think you are doing an outplacement for him/her and nothing else at all. Bad recruiters with poor follow up go out of business as they should, but really, a Bill of Rights ?

    I am still surprised every day by candidates who are completely unable to cope with being ‘hunted’ and seem to think that the job is theirs by virtue of receiving a call. How about a Recruiters Bill of Rights !

    Your only ‘right’ is to be able to apply for a role and after that the best person wins – not the lawyers.

  • I wholeheartedly agree with Anon Ymous. A Recruiter seems to be stuck with their dogma. I’ve known and worked with good recruiters and bad recruiters, and “A” doesn’t make the “good” list. Seen this runaround so many times with my spouse, friends, and my own hiring AND job-hunting. It’s worse than ridiculous. If recruiters are so great at hiring “the best person” and weeding out inappropriate candidates, then how come every applicant hired over my objections turned out to be a bad hire?

    So a candidate has to meet every single person they might ever interface with? Whatever happened to walking them around the office after hiring and introducing them to people? It’s impossible to know how personalities will mesh in actual work situations during the highly artificial process of an interview series.

    The person who blinks first in salary negotiation loses. That is the first rule of capitalistic business and that is why candidates aren’t forthcoming off the bat. Although it’s important to not waste each other’s time, salaries vary so wildly even in one geographic region that what was normal range in one firm may be wild-eyed crazy talk at another. If a top figure is listed with “DOE” (depending on experience), as is sometimes done at headhunting firms, that is a huge help. Extrapolating that figure to one’s own history and market data will help a candidate arrive at their own first-offer range. Only the extremely arrogant will price themselves beyond their experience. It’s also arrogant on the recruiter’s part to receive the candidate’s figure and shut them out with “you’re out of our range” without discussing the company’s range or giving the candidate to counter-offer. Believe it or not, it has been done successfully!

    What is predominant in my area is a ridiculously long laundry list of requirements that is impossible for any living person to meet, including 10 years of experience in a field that’s only existed for 5. I have sometimes seen job postings of this nature listed for many months. Perhaps hoping to press their case for an H1B to whom they can pay garbage wages?

    Google in particular has always had some very peculiar hiring practices. Pick up Douglas Edwards’ book “I’m Feeling Lucky: The Confessions of Google Employee Number 59″ and you’ll see what I mean.

    • @talent,

      Nothing personal, but you must be a nightmare to work with. I can only imagine you sitting smugly in any and every meeting literally sucking the life out of the room with an increasing array fo cynical, sarcastic, demoralizing comments. Yikes.

      Other than that, I’ll be you’re close to the donuts.

  • All I have to say is that if you are rejecting someone on basis of personality, then you are not hunting purple squirrels. I am hunting for employees that are truly rare. One in a million literally. They could punch me in the gut every morning and I would be grateful to have them on the payroll. The ones I am looking for though can NOT be found by any recruiter. Their CVs would be non existent, and they may not have ever worked in 20 years of adult life. I need true talented misfits. Just misfits with a personal revulsion of anything less than perfection.

  • Love the comments here more than the article itself. And I would have to side with Anon Ymous in that the hiring process in many cases is a joke. And not just for small or medium size businesses, but Fortune 500 as well.

    I recently went through this nonsense with 3 major companies, entertaining the notion of departing the freelance world, and I should have listened to my instincts, because in all three cases, there was NO leadership to be found. Each hiring manager was below me in skill-sets, and deferred the process to others to help him or her make a decision.

    In one case, the interviews (8 total) went on for almost 3 months. All nearly identical in terms of talking with people who knew nothing about interviewing or hiring–all looking for something that they’re not trained to find, positive or negative. I could only imagine some of the thinking that goes on with this crap– “Geee, he seems nice,” or “I thought I saw his eye twitch when I asked that last question.” “He seems tired.” “I wonder if all this interviewing is getting to him–could be a red flag.” “I wonder if we shouldn’t have had him interview with the secretary first?”

    Granted that it is an “employers market” as they say and there are a lot of people looking for work, it was a ridiculous farce and a cruel joke for those job seekers who were also competing.

    What HR and hiring managers are apparently unaware of is that they are giving an inside look at corporate culture, which to me is a great way to scare off the right talent and leave you with mediocre candidates.

    Hope there will be more articles like this.

  • @The Talent, re: the ridiculously long laundry list comment…

    I’m a well-accomplished pro in IT and Service Delivery. That means I’ve seen my share of outsourcing, layoffs, etc., and the resulting job hunts.

    I once was contacted for a position where the requirements exceeded my own experience. Indeed, it was a SQL-CCIE-MCSE-Telcom-hands-on-Director position. After a bit of banter about the expectations, I finally told the recruiter that I didn’t feel qualifed and that Jesus was also busy, then wished him luck in filling the position. It was a good laugher and the recruiter clearly understood, but was working within the guidelines given him.

    Today, I still see exactly what you describe. This is a fair contributor as to why in the US there are 60mm unemployed and over 20mm job openings. I believe HR, and specifically Recruiters, need to protect a company by not only searching out the proper candidates, but helping the hiring managers recognize when a job description, or candidate requirements, exceed what the market can provide.


  • Since past salary is so important… Where does the value of the work to be done come in-? A receptionist can get the average/standard percentage pay increase every year for 10-15 years and suddenly they leave. Do you hire a replacement at the previous starting wage or departing wage-?

    If after several years of wage increases the receptionist goes to a new job and truthfully says they earned $80,000 does that mean they have the experience and skills to command that wage-?

    Using previous wage levels is simply a lazy way to value the talent and experience before you. The work or need of the company is seemingly irrelevant-? It also assumes that the other company was equal or superior to your own in needs and requirements. An “A” in philosophy from the community college is the same as an “A” from Harvard, Princeton, Yale of Stanford-?

    Somewhere in this discussion the famous Peter Principle should kick in and those who continually fail upward should be left behind… The discussion separates the job., skills and experience from past wage performance. Perhaps that explains why the CEO must be involved in the decisions for all fast track candidates.

    I find it easier to hire by telling people what the job is worth -to us- and that we are looking for talented people we can promote at least twice during their time with us. I cannot hire someone who will be doing the same job in five years. That is not fair to the company and certainly not fair to the employee. If a person tells me that they earned $X elsewhere and need that much… and my need does not meet that level then we shake hands and say goodbye. Growing rapidly means hiring more talent than you can afford so that you quickly get to that level and more. Talent from a big structured company is often flailing and lost in an entrepreneurial start-up environment.

    No matter what a person gets paid; unless they earn -that- amount and more every day someone will be asking “Why are they still here?”…. Everybody has to earn their wage in value to the company, every day.

    The only title that need never prove it’s value is “Owner”… But they have already put up the risk capital. Now we need to quickly bring a return, regardless of what we were paid elsewhere.

  • [...] * Google recruiter Mike Junge: The biggest mistake job applicants make [...]

  • I agree with MD. Salary must be discussed in terms of the job responsability, challenges, how much the market pay for that and not based on in your past earns and why not evaluate how much value the candidate aggregated in their past companies(directly or indirectly).
    In my opinion, that’s the rule of the market and should be not different for Google, otherwise the company will quickly lost the employee for another company.

  • [...] When asked Google recruiter, Michael Junge, about what employers looked for in candidates, he responded: [...]

  • [...] I refer to the three stages of a start-up’s life as “the jungle,” “the dirt road,” and “the highway”. The team that is skilled at hacking its way through the jungle is often not as well-suited to accelerate rapidly once a dirt road has been discovered. Yet when more senior, experienced executives arrive, preserving the founding culture, and maintaining alignment is critical. The best companies build teams for scale early on (e.g., hiring great VPs who can be both effective players and coaches as their department grows) and work hard to select for cultural fit (Google’s top recruiter, Mike Junge, had a great interview on hiring best practices in PE Hub, Why It Pays To Be Nice). [...]

  • [...] I refer to the three stages of a start-up’s life as “the jungle,” “the dirt road,” and “the highway”. The team that is skilled at hacking its way through the jungle is often not as well-suited to accelerate rapidly once a dirt road has been discovered. Yet when more senior, experienced executives arrive, preserving the founding culture, and maintaining alignment is critical. The best companies build teams for scale early on (e.g., hiring great VPs who can be both effective players and coaches as their department grows) and work hard to select for cultural fit (Google’s top recruiter, Mike Junge, had a great interview on hiring best practices in PE Hub, Why It Pays To Be Nice). [...]

  • [...] I refer to the three stages of a start-up’s life as “the jungle,” “the dirt road,” and “the highway”. The team that is skilled at hacking its way through the jungle is often not as well-suited to accelerate rapidly once a dirt road has been discovered. Yet when more senior, experienced executives arrive, preserving the founding culture, and maintaining alignment is critical. The best companies build teams for scale early on (e.g., hiring great VPs who can be both effective players and coaches as their department grows) and work hard to select for cultural fit (Google’s top recruiter, Mike Junge, had a great interview on hiring best practices in PE Hub, Why It Pays To Be Nice). [...]

  • [...] I refer to the three stages of a start-up’s life as “the jungle,” “the dirt road,” and “the highway”. The team that is skilled at hacking its way through the jungle is often not as well-suited to accelerate rapidly once a dirt road has been discovered. Yet when more senior, experienced executives arrive, preserving the founding culture, and maintaining alignment is critical. The best companies build teams for scale early on (e.g., hiring great VPs who can be both effective players and coaches as their department grows) and work hard to select for cultural fit (Google’s top recruiter, Mike Junge, had a great interview on hiring best practices in PE Hub, Why It Pays To Be Nice). [...]

Leave a Reply

PEHUB Community

Join the 12493 members of peHUB to make connections, share your opinion, and follow your favorite authors.

Join the Community

Psst! Got any hot tips?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Look Who’s Tweeting

Reuters VC and PE feed

RSS Feed Widget