In short
Deep-tech and complex-systems hiring is different because the candidate pool is small and identifiable rather than large and searchable. Success depends on approaching a known set of people credibly, assessing depth properly, and accepting a longer timeline — not on advertising harder.
Key facts
- Pool size
- Often tens of relevant people, not thousands
- Sourcing method
- Direct approach, not job-board applications
- Timeline
- Longer than a generalist software search — plan for it
- Common blocker
- A brief written by someone who cannot discuss the work
The pool is a list, not a funnel
In quantum, photonics, robotics, embedded, autonomous systems and scientific software, the set of people who can genuinely do a given role is often small enough to enumerate. Many are not looking, and most are approached badly and often.
That changes the job entirely. Volume tactics do not work. What works is identifying the right people, understanding their work well enough to have a real conversation, and giving them a reason to take yours seriously.
How it differs from a generalist software search
| Dimension | Generalist software | Deep tech / complex systems |
|---|---|---|
| Candidate pool | Large, continuously refreshed | Small, identifiable, slow to change |
| Sourcing | Advertising plus outreach | Direct approach, network and referral |
| Assessment | Broadly standardised patterns | Domain-specific, needs a real expert |
| Timeline | Weeks | Often longer — build it into the plan |
| Failure mode | Too many weak applicants | Silence from the few people who matter |
What makes an approach credible in these markets
- Evidence you understand what the person actually builds.
- A specific problem to own, not a list of technologies.
- Honest information about stage, funding position and runway.
- A realistic salary and equity position, stated early.
- A process that respects their time and gives fast, specific feedback.
Plan the timeline before you plan the hire
If a search in one of these markets will take longer, that should be reflected in the hiring plan and the runway conversation rather than discovered halfway through. Sequencing a critical technical hire before a more replaceable one is usually the right call.
It is also worth being explicit about what you will do if the search takes longer than hoped: contract cover, scope reduction, or hiring adjacent and training into the domain.
Common questions
- Can we just advertise the role?
- You can, and occasionally it works. But in small specialist markets the people best suited to the role are usually employed, not searching, and will only ever be reached by a direct approach.
- Do we need a domain expert on the interview panel?
- For the technical depth criterion, yes — someone who can probe the work properly. If you do not have one internally, arrange one before the process starts rather than after a candidate is in it.
- Is it realistic to hire deep-tech talent pre-Series A?
- Often yes, but on a different proposition: ownership, the problem itself, and equity rather than salary. Be direct about the trade-off — the strongest candidates in these markets can evaluate it perfectly well.
Talk it through
A short, direct conversation about the role, the market and whether the SUS model fits what you are trying to do.
Arrange a conversationAny percentages or figures shown in this article are illustrative examples used to explain the model. They are not quoted rates, market benchmarks or salary data.