This week, I've mostly been fretting that my new COO shares my disdain for contracts.

Let me ask you something. If someone doesn't do something that you don't actually care about, are you still justified in working yourself into a tizzy about it?

I'll elaborate: I realised this week that Fixer, my super-duper ass-kicking COO-designate who's due to start next month, hasn't actually asked to see his contract, with confirmation of his salary/ bonus/ options/ notice periods etc.

Now, here was my dilemma. Personally, I think contracts are the most tedious, soul-destroying things in the universe (how lawyers cope them with all day is beyond me). So if the situation had been reversed, I probably wouldn't have asked for it yet either. We'd agreed a deal, and shaken hands on it, so if I trusted the person hiring me (and if I didn't, I wouldn't be taking a job like this), I'd have seen the contract as a formality. In fact, if I hadn't even signed it when I started the job, it wouldn't massively bother me. In my eyes, the agreement is the important thing, not the piece of paper.

On the other hand, that's kind of why I'm hiring a COO. I might think contracts are deathly dull, but they're also quite important - so I deliberately hired someone who was likely to take more interest in them than I do. What's more, this guy is a qualified City lawyer: he spent around half early twenties sweating away in those horrible datarooms eating pizza and checking over contracts for corporate deals. So you'd think he ought to be pretty hot on this stuff (or, I suppose, ready to commit hara-kiri the next time he sees one).

Naturally I tried to convince myself that this was actually a good thing; that he clearly had so much confidence in my word that he didn't need the contract. Or perhaps - and this is one for any lawyers among you - I'd technically already agreed a contract with him when I wrote his salary number down on the back of that napkin in Starbucks (ever the pro, I am). But neither of these stopped me fretting about it. Was this indicative of a previously unseen slapdash, lackadaisical approach? Had I hired the wrong guy after all?

I stewed over it for a good 48 hours or so, and then, being the bad stewer that I am, decided to call him about it. 'Oh, hi SD,' he said, when he picked up the phone. 'I was about to call you later, I've just got back from my holiday.' (Holiday? Did he mention that? Maybe he did, come to think). 'Listen, sorry to be such a bore but I was wondering if you'd had my contract drawn up yet? No rush, of course, just a formality anyway - it's just that old habits die hard, I suppose...'

And that was that. I wonder what proportion of my life I spend pointlessly worrying about things that never actually happen?

My HR manager manages to turn a good news day into a headache day.
 
I don't know if it's just me, but I've always found as an entrepreneur that business has a habit of biting you in the bum just when you think you've got it sussed. And so it was this week. The good news first: Fixer accepted my offer, and is starting in August. It sounds like the other place offered him slightly more money, but it was a fairly boring industry (I won't say which) and he thought he'd learn more working for us (though he might just be saying that last bit to butter me up). I was obviously thrilled - mostly because he's great (even if I did pick him up in a bar), but partly because I'm ludicrously competitive, even in things like salary auctions that I actively dislike.
 
So there I was, patting myself on the back about how clever I was to wait for the right person rather than hiring the first one to come along, and about how well he'd complement/ spur on the rest of my senior team, and about how much time I'd be freeing up for myself once I handed over all this stuff to him, when my HR manager asked for a meeting. Where she proceeded to tell me that Fixer's appointment made it absolutely impossible for her to continue in her role at the company, and that I'd clearly demonstrated just how little I value her contribution. And so on and so forth.
 
I have to say - to my shame - that this took me entirely by surprise. I may have mentioned previously that this girl is a little on the bonkers side. But in the previous conversations I'd had with her about it, I'd thought she was actually quite pro the idea of someone coming in at COO level, because it would give HR a bit more strategic clout. And at no point had she ever seriously suggested to me that she wanted to be considered for the job; if she had, I'd have gone through the whole interview process with her (don't get me wrong, there was no chance in hell of me ever giving her the job, for the reasons mentioned above - but I'd have jumped through all the right hoops).
 
But it turns out that I was apparently expected to gather all of this without her needing to actually say anything. And although this might sound unreasonable, I feel like she had a point. She's not exactly subtle, so the fact that I missed her cues altogether suggests the old emotional intelligence may have gone awry slightly during this process.
 
One of the hardest things about bringing in senior people, I've realised in the last year or so, is that it invariably annoys someone on your current team. And quite right too, since what you're basically saying is that you don't have these capabilities in house. I think it's possible to make perfectly good arguments for why you're going outside, and what's in it for the current staff. But if you get to this point and someone feels like you've blind-sided them (however over-sensitive they may be), then you've clearly done something wrong.
 
In this case, part of the problem is that this girl doesn't understand what the COO job involves. She thinks it's just an HR director role, which is why she's so miffed about not being offered it. So I tried to explain to her all the other stuff that Fixer would be doing - and how it would help her (by providing more support than she currently gets from me). But she clearly thinks this says something about her, and her chances of future progress. And she may be right: the harsh reality of the situation is that although I hope she doesn't leave, it wouldn't be a disaster.

If there's one thing I hate, it's getting into an auction over salaries.
 
Deciding to hire someone is kind of the easy bit (not that I've made it look very easy). The hard bit is actually getting them to sign on the dotted line, for a fee that doesn't leave either side feeling like they've been completely stitched up. After our successful meeting with Fixer last week, we all agreed to offer him the job, but now I have to come up with a deal that he'll go for. And we have a slight problem on that front.
 
The good news is that he definitely wants to leave his current place. Since that's also a start-up - and a not very successful one either - they're not paying him very much. He has some shares/options, I think, but that's not much use to him if the company isn't worth anything. So technically, it shouldn't be too difficult to match or improve his current package. And the chances are that this would still be less than I thought I'd have to pay for this role.
 
Unfortunately, it looks like there could be a spanner in the works. One of his old clients (he used to be a City lawyer) has put him forward for a job as a executive assistant to their CEO. Since I have a friend that went to do this a couple of years ago (when they were all the rage), I'm reliably informed that this isn't about taking dictation and making coffee - you're more like the chiefs of staff they all have in the West Wing. Obviously you get to follow the CEO round wherever he goes, which would be quite fun. And worse still, because it's a moneybags corporate, they're probably going to pay top dollar.
 
Now if there's one thing I hate (well there are lots of things I hate, but in this context), it's getting into auctions. I can't even do eBay. I just think it bamboozles people into paying more for stuff than it's actually worth. And that's particularly true with people. Why should you set someone's salary according to what someone who might be a complete idiot thinks he's worth?
 
I can see why people are tempted, of course. After all, I've spent six months looking for this bloke; it would be a shame to lose him over a couple of grand, particularly given the cost of my time if I have to do the whole process over from scratch. Nor do I blame candidates for trying to play people off against each other: a few grand either way might not make much difference to the company's overall salary line, but it can make a big difference to the person in question.
 
Still, I try not to get sucked in. When these situations arise, I sit down (with the help of an adviser if it's a senior appointment) and work out what I think the person's worth. Then I make the offer, and don't negotiate on it. Some people might say that's a bit inflexible, but for me, it's the only way of making sure you don't pay over the odds. Not that this will be any consolation if he ends up turning me down...

I was quite surprised by how my senior team reacted to my prospective new COO.

This week, I got my prospective new COO (let's call him Fixer, because that's how I envisage him, even if it does make him sound like a hitman) in to meet my senior team, and it was unexpectedly hilarious. I expected a bit of suspicion and posturing, as they weighed up this potential interloper. But it was like watching a group of wild beasts growling at each other in defence of their territory. I half expected them to start weeing on different bits of the boardroom floor.

Now I actually almost hired another COO earlier this year. I didn't bother mentioning it, because while I was still contemplating whether or not to offer, she (for it was a girl) decided to take another job. So it all came to nothing. But we got quite far down the line, in that I met her twice and then got her in to do a similar meet-and-greet with my senior team. As in this case, it wasn't meant to be an interview, as such, but they obviously had carte blanche to quiz her as they liked.

What was interesting this time was that my lot - particularly Ace and Mammon - were much tougher on Fixer than they'd been on the girl. They asked much more difficult and challenging questions, and were much harsher about his weaknesses afterwards. I mean, they weren't negative exactly; they both said they liked him. But they did pick up on potential areas of concern in his answers, which they hadn't done at all with the girl.

Now in principle, I don't mind this at all. I need to know Fixer is robust enough to deal with this kind of heat - and he actually coped with it very well, remaining mild and unruffled when the questions were flying (I guess when you're used to the pressure-cooker of a City law firm, two blokes in a start-up don't hold too many fears). And I like them to be harsh in their assessments, because it reduces the chances of me missing something.

However, I couldn't help wondering why they'd given him a much harder time. To begin with, I wondered if it was just because he was a boy, and they were boys. So partly the macho posturing thing (also in evidence when the two of them met for the first time, I might add), but also that they were a bit too polite to make the girl feel uncomfortable, whereas they'd have no qualms about doing the same thing to a boy.  

On the other hand, my (female) head of delivery was much the same. Which leads me to conclude that it may be be more than that... And it's one of the reasons I left the interview feeling even more positive about offering Fixer a job. I think that unlike the other girl, who was a bit less experienced and impressive, they quickly realised that Fixer could be a potential rival - hence the defensiveness. They were comfortable about their seniority to her, but it would be a bit less clear-cut with him; if the day ever comes when I ride off into the sunset with my well-earned millions (fat chance), Fixer would be a viable candidate for the top job. And I completely agree with that. In fact, it's one of the reasons why I like him: I think hiring him would give us a lot more bench strength (if you'll forgive me that nasty term), which in turn will hopefully spur on the current lot to greater heights. Sounds good in theory, anyway.

A funny thing happened this week. I think I may have found my new COO. In a bar.

What happened was that I was at this birthday party on Saturday night at a pub in Marylebone, and found myself at the bar talking to this guy who apparently knew the birthday girl from law school. We'd been chatting for a while, and getting on pretty well, when the conversation turned to current jobs. I did my usual spiel, and then asked the question back, expecting some deathly dull tale of life as a corporate lawyer. But it turns out he got sick of the City a couple of years ago, so he jacked it in and went to work for some friends who were doing a start-up. By the sounds of it, these people were ok on the ideas and big picture stuff, but didn't have much of a clue how to run a business - so he ended up organising all the difficult day-to-day stuff while they sat around blue-sky thinking (which, just to be clear, in my book means they're not proper entrepreneurs).

In other words, he's been doing a kind of COO role. And what's more, on the grounds that he thinks it increasingly likely that this business isn't going to survive for much longer, he's looking for something new to do.

Now I suppose for some people this might have created a dilemma. After all, it's not often that you meet nice men in bars, and so arguably the last thing you should be doing on those rare occasions is trying to recruit them before you've even got to the end of your first drink together. But to be honest, I can't really switch out of entrepreneur mode quite as easily as that. It's kind of my default setting. And I'd much rather have a good COO than a boyfriend. Sad, but true.

So without a moment's hesitation, I said: 'Oh, that's interesting - I'm sort of looking for a COO at the moment'.

'How can you be sort of looking for a COO?' he asked (not unreasonably).

I explained the situation, and then launched straight into my sales pitch - high-growth, entrepreneurial environment, opportunity to get inolved in different things and provide strategic input, blah blah bah. I could see he was interested, so we arranged to have coffee on Monday to talk about it further. And then, unable to go back to our previous conversation having crossed over into recruiter/ jobseeeker territory, I slunk off slightly awkwardly to rejoin my other friends (who, incidentally, were less than impressed: 'Only you could meet a guy at a bar on a Saturday night and turn it into a work meeting,' one of them said - I suspect it wasn't a compliment).

Anyway he came in on Monday, and he was great! We went through his CV - from City lawyer to start-up general factotum - and I was really impressed: he's got just the right combination of big company polish and small company can-do, and has basically been doing a fairly similar job for the last year. Admittedly he's been doing it on a slightly smaller scale, which means he's a bit weaker on some of the people stuff than some of those I've seen, but I felt fairly confident he could handle that side of things comfortably enough. And best of all, he's relatively cheap. Hurrah!

So he's going to come and see a few more people on Friday. Now all I have to do is work out how to explain how I found him - I'm not sure 'I met him in a bar' is really the kind of recruitment policy I want to be advertising.