partnerships-hiring

{
  "skill_name": "partnerships-hiring",
  "evals": [
    {
      "id": 1,
      "prompt": "I'm the CEO at Brackwell, a seed-stage B2B SaaS company (18 people, 3 AEs, sales-led). I've personally been spending about 15 hours a week on partner inbound and outbound for the past year, and partner-led deals have brought in roughly $310k in ARR so far. Neither of my co-founders has any partnerships background. I want to open a req for a VP of Partnerships who can own the whole thing so I can get out of it. Can you write me the role scorecard and the job posting? We'd post it on LinkedIn next week.",
      "expected_output": "A calibrated first-dedicated-hire recommendation that pushes back on the VP title, names the two startup-hire failure modes, surfaces the founder-led revenue timing signal against the stated $310k, resolves the shape of the work, points sourcing inside the existing sales org first, and delivers a scorecard with quantified outcomes.",
      "files": [],
      "expectations": [
        "Recommends against a VP-level title for this first dedicated seat and names the 'too senior' failure mode: a hire who expects to set strategy and lead a team when the actual need is hands-on execution",
        "Names the second failure mode explicitly: too generalist with no real go-to-market reps, so the hire cannot prioritize which early motions will actually work",
        "Describes the first dedicated hire as a versatile generalist who can build the program from scratch and cover every partner type at once, rather than a specialist",
        "Notes a sales or account-management background as a plus because it buys credibility with the sales team and fluency in the deal-to-close process",
        "Surfaces the founder-led revenue signal for formalizing the seat (the ~$500k+ figure cited) and compares it against Brackwell's stated $310k",
        "Resolves or asks whether the intended work is a few deep, high-touch integrations versus many light-touch partnerships before writing the req",
        "Directs sourcing to the existing sales/BD organization first, identifying whoever already fields partner inquiries informally, before posting externally",
        "Every scorecard outcome is a quantified measurable outcome, with no vague responsibility such as 'build partnerships' or 'grow the ecosystem'"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 2,
      "prompt": "Halvora (Series B, ~140 people, B2B analytics) is opening a Director of Partnerships req. Our comp committee meets Thursday and the board member chairing it wants one number from me: the market rate for this title in the US. He does not want a range with caveats, he wants the figure we're going to anchor the band on. What do I tell him?",
      "expected_output": "A refusal to produce a single settled market-rate figure, with the 2-3x source disagreement demonstrated using named sources and their populations, a pointer to the field's own specialist compensation database, and a warning against comparing incomparable populations.",
      "files": [],
      "expectations": [
        "Refuses to supply a single blended figure as the market rate for the title",
        "States that published benchmarks for partnerships titles disagree by roughly 2-3x on the same title",
        "Cites Salary.com's Director of Partnerships figure at roughly $206-215k",
        "Cites PayScale's roughly $74k average for the same title, with a 10th-90th percentile base range of about $44k-$142k",
        "Explains the gap as methodology and population: Salary.com skewing toward tech/VC-backed self-reports at the senior end, PayScale's sample skewing wider and including smaller and non-tech employers under the same title",
        "Points to Partnership Leaders' compensation database/calculator as the field's own practitioner-submitted benchmark and advises checking it live before publishing a range",
        "Warns against quoting Levels.fyi total-comp figures (around $226k median for tech-sector partner managers, including equity) against Salary.com base-salary figures as if the two were comparable",
        "Attaches a named source to every compensation figure presented"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 3,
      "prompt": "We're at Tindrel, a B2B SaaS company that just crossed 400 active affiliates, and we're hiring our first dedicated Affiliate Manager. We already run a loop for channel hires that works well and I'd rather not reinvent it. Here it is: (1) recruiter screen, (2) hiring manager round, (3) a case study where we hand the candidate a deal-registration clash between a partner and a direct rep and ask how they'd resolve it, (4) a CRM and analytics round, (5) panel. Just swap in an affiliate-flavored version of the case study in stage 3 and give me the question bank. Also tell me how to structure the offer.",
      "expected_output": "A refusal to reuse the channel-manager case studies for this hire, an explicit statement that no comparably documented loop pattern exists for affiliate manager roles, a loop rebuilt from the role's own outcome metrics, and the three-part affiliate compensation structure with its bonus bands.",
      "files": [],
      "expectations": [
        "Declines to reuse the channel-conflict / deal-registration case study for the affiliate hire, on the grounds that the day-to-day differs enough that it would test the wrong thing",
        "States plainly that no comparably documented interview-loop pattern exists for affiliate manager roles, rather than presenting an invented one as established",
        "Builds the loop from the role's own outcome metrics instead of importing the channel-manager pattern",
        "Assesses program performance the candidate has personally owned",
        "Assesses commission-economics literacy",
        "Assesses affiliate network and tooling fluency",
        "Proposes a three-part compensation structure for the affiliate role: base salary, a performance bonus, and commission tied to revenue managed through the program",
        "States the performance-bonus band as roughly 10-30% of base at junior/mid level and 30-50% at senior level"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 4,
      "prompt": "Orlenda is a Series C infrastructure company. Our Head of Alliances left and we're backfilling at a senior level - this person will own three named technology alliances and sit in front of our exec team monthly. I've got a full panel available, sales and product both want in, and there's no rush on the timeline. Design the interview loop end to end with the actual questions and exercises, and tell me how to score it.",
      "expected_output": "The documented channel/alliance loop stage by stage, including both named judgment probes verbatim with their scoring logic, a two-sided negotiation role-play with hidden constraints scored on structure rather than outcome, and independent-then-mechanical scoring.",
      "files": [],
      "expectations": [
        "Opens the loop with a recruiter/HR screen and includes hiring-manager round(s) with cross-functional stakeholders from sales, marketing and product sitting in",
        "Includes a technical/tooling round covering CRM, KPI and analytics fluency",
        "Includes, at this senior level, a multi-department panel built around a mock 30/60/90-day plan or a mock partner business review",
        "States that the senior panel stage should evaluate cross-functional, general-manager-style leadership rather than deal execution alone",
        "Includes the judgment probe asking whether the candidate would close a deal in January the exact same way they closed it in December just to finish the quarter on target",
        "States the strong answer to that probe is no, and scores for whether the candidate treats the relationship rather than the quarter as the unit being optimized",
        "Includes the probe asking the candidate to walk through the last partner they de-prioritized and how that conversation went, noting that no answer signals the candidate has never operated with real prioritization discipline",
        "Specifies the negotiation role-play as a two-sided simulation with hidden constraints or interests the candidate must surface through questioning, briefed short rather than fully scripted",
        "States the role-play is scored on how the candidate structures terms, handles objections and finds a rational walk-away point, never on whether they 'won' the simulated negotiation"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 5,
      "prompt": "Calmwood Systems, about 4,200 employees, enterprise software. We currently have three alliance managers - one each for AWS, Azure and GCP - plus a fourth covering two GSI relationships. We just finished rolling out a PRM platform with account-mapping built in, and our CFO's position is that the tooling should let us consolidate down to one alliance manager covering all three hyperscalers plus a coordinator. I need to either write that consolidated req or make the case against it by Friday. Draft whichever is right.",
      "expected_output": "A rejection of the consolidation, distinguishing administrative headcount from named-relationship headcount, justifying the per-hyperscaler split by program mechanics, and calibrating the enterprise scorecard to depth rather than breadth.",
      "files": [],
      "expectations": [
        "Rejects consolidating the three named hyperscaler relationships into a single alliance-manager seat",
        "States that a platform investment such as a PRM or account-mapping tooling substitutes for administrative headcount, not for named-relationship headcount",
        "Justifies per-hyperscaler headcount by each hyperscaler running its own program mechanics, tier ladder and certification/compliance load",
        "Names certified-headcount tracking as an explicit director-level job responsibility at this tier",
        "Calibrates the enterprise scorecard to screen for depth against one hyperscaler or partner tier rather than for generalist breadth",
        "Does not reuse a startup-generalist scorecard template with the numbers changed for these enterprise seats"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 6,
      "prompt": "Quick one. Nesport is a Series B sales-led B2B company. We're opening a Senior Partner Manager req. On the org chart the role reports to our CMO, because that's where the headcount budget sits and the CMO fought for it. But the whole point of the hire is partner-sourced revenue - I want the scorecard to read like a standalone revenue function, because that's what it really is in spirit. Write me the scorecard and the posting, and tell me what to put in the comp section.",
      "expected_output": "A scorecard written to the actual reporting line rather than the aspirational one, with the marketing-reporting measurement consequence and the staffing-imbalance risk named in both directions, quantified outcomes, and an explicit attribution-model decision behind variable pay.",
      "files": [],
      "expectations": [
        "Writes the scorecard mission naming the actual reporting line (the CMO / marketing) and its real metric, rather than the aspirational standalone framing the user asked for",
        "States that a role's real measurement follows its reporting line, not its title, and that a partnerships role under marketing gets measured like a campaign function",
        "Names the staffing-imbalance risk of reporting into marketing: business development gets over-rotated toward campaign and asset work and under-rotated on deal structuring",
        "Names the mirror risk of reporting into sales: program work gets crowded out by deal-sized work",
        "Tells the user to answer the reporting-line question honestly rather than aspirationally, or to move the reporting line if partner-sourced revenue is the non-negotiable metric",
        "Every outcome on the scorecard is quantified rather than written as a responsibility",
        "Names explicitly which attribution model - sourced, influenced, attached, or delivered - triggers any variable pay, and states it must be decided before the posting publishes"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 7,
      "prompt": "Dravnik Networks sells network security hardware and software through MSPs, VARs and two distributors. We're hiring a Channel Manager to own that reseller base - fully remote, open to anywhere in North America. My plan is to blast it out to the five biggest partnerships job boards and a couple of the affiliate marketing communities I'm in, then let the applications roll in. Give me the sourcing plan and a list of where to post.",
      "expected_output": "A sourcing plan correcting the board-spray assumption, routing the reseller/VAR req to the right community for its sub-discipline, raising the board's geography question, and replacing title-only search with function-keyword search.",
      "files": [],
      "expectations": [
        "States that the Partnership Leaders Job Board is the field's one dedicated board and that no second equivalent board exists, so the 'five biggest boards' plan has nothing to spread across",
        "Explains that a partnerships req gets proportionally less benefit from board-spray and more from community and referral channels than a req in a field with multiple dedicated boards",
        "Routes this reseller/VAR/distributor-facing req toward the traditional IT-channel community side, naming CompTIA/GTIA and ChannelCon",
        "Warns against posting this reseller/VAR req into affiliate-focused communities, since a req posted to a community matched to the wrong sub-discipline under-returns",
        "Raises the job board's Canadian candidate-pool question, advising a decision on whether the remote posting welcomes Canadian candidates before it goes live",
        "Recommends combining title keywords with function keywords such as deal registration, co-sell or MDF, because title fragmentation makes a title-only search under-return",
        "Names Partnership Leaders as a place to cross-reference a candidate's visibility in the field against their resume claims"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 8,
      "prompt": "Bellhaven is a consumer budgeting app, about 900k users. We're hiring a Referral Program Manager to own our refer-a-friend program. For the final stage I want a take-home: give the candidate our real Q3 relaunch problem, have them come back with three incentive options, full payback projections against our actual CAC, a rollout plan, and present it to our exec team for an hour. That doubles as a work sample and gets us real thinking on a live problem. Design the full loop around that, plus the scoring rubric.",
      "expected_output": "A rejection of the take-home as unpaid client-style work with a bounded replacement, a warning about the title collision with employee-referral recruiting, a loop built from the referral role's own outcome metrics, and independent-then-mechanical scoring.",
      "files": [],
      "expectations": [
        "Rejects the proposed take-home as unpaid client-style work on a live business problem and replaces it with a reasonable, bounded exercise",
        "Warns that the Referral Program Manager title is shared with the employee-referral recruiting track, and confirms candidates are applying to the customer/growth track rather than the recruiting one",
        "Builds the loop around incentive-design decisions the candidate has previously made and the measured effect of those decisions",
        "Assesses cross-team coordination with marketing as part of the loop",
        "Declines to import the channel-manager case studies (deal registration, partner conflict) into this referral hire's loop",
        "Requires each interviewer to score independently with a written evidence note before any debrief happens",
        "Combines interviewer scores mechanically against the scorecard's pre-set competency weights rather than by group discussion"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "trigger_queries": [
    { "query": "how do I hire a partner manager", "should_trigger": true },
    { "query": "write a job description for a channel manager role", "should_trigger": true },
    { "query": "need to design an interview loop for our first alliance hire", "should_trigger": true },
    { "query": "what should we pay a Director of Partnerships", "should_trigger": true },
    { "query": "we're hiring someone to run our affiliate program, what do I ask them in the interview", "should_trigger": true },
    { "query": "our founder is drowning in partner emails, when do we hire someone for this", "should_trigger": true },
    { "query": "build me a scorecard for a VP of Partnerships role", "should_trigger": true },
    { "query": "where do people who do co-sell and MDF work actually look for jobs", "should_trigger": true },
    { "query": "first partnerships hire at a seed startup, should we go senior or junior", "should_trigger": true },
    { "query": "draft a req for someone to own our AWS relationship end to end", "should_trigger": true },
    { "query": "interview questions that test whether a candidate can say no to a partner", "should_trigger": true },
    { "query": "what's a fair comp structure for an affiliate marketing manager", "should_trigger": true },
    { "query": "our channel lead just quit, what does the backfill loop look like", "should_trigger": true },
    { "query": "should our new partnerships person report to sales or marketing", "should_trigger": true },
    { "query": "how many alliance managers do we need to cover three hyperscalers", "should_trigger": true },
    { "query": "posting a creator partnerships role, what should the take-home exercise be", "should_trigger": true },
    { "query": "help me source candidates for an ecosystem role", "should_trigger": true },
    { "query": "we keep hiring the wrong people into partner roles, what are we missing", "should_trigger": true },
    { "query": "job posting for a referral program manager", "should_trigger": true },
    { "query": "what does a good partner manager scorecard actually look like", "should_trigger": true },
    { "query": "designing a negotiation role play to run on a candidate", "should_trigger": true },
    { "query": "is 180k reasonable for a head of partnerships", "should_trigger": true },
    { "query": "our partnerships job post got almost no applicants, what's wrong with it", "should_trigger": true },
    { "query": "who should I put on the panel for a senior alliance manager interview", "should_trigger": true },
    { "query": "hiring bar for partnerships at a PLG company versus an enterprise", "should_trigger": true },
    { "query": "when should we split affiliate and reseller hiring into two separate roles", "should_trigger": true },
    { "query": "need a 30/60/90 exercise for a partner leadership candidate", "should_trigger": true },
    { "query": "what background should our first BD hire have", "should_trigger": true },
    { "query": "how do I break into partnerships as a career", "should_trigger": false },
    { "query": "review my resume for a partner manager role", "should_trigger": false },
    { "query": "am I ready to apply for a Director of Partnerships job", "should_trigger": false },
    { "query": "design the commission structure for our affiliate program", "should_trigger": false },
    { "query": "recruit more affiliates into our program", "should_trigger": false },
    { "query": "onboarding sequence for a newly approved affiliate", "should_trigger": false },
    { "query": "write the terms and conditions affiliates accept when they join", "should_trigger": false },
    { "query": "audit our affiliate payout run before we send the money", "should_trigger": false },
    { "query": "our partner tiers need a redesign, registered silver gold", "should_trigger": false },
    { "query": "build the enablement and certification track for new resellers", "should_trigger": false },
    { "query": "write our channel conflict rules of engagement", "should_trigger": false },
    { "query": "how do we score and review individual partners each quarter", "should_trigger": false },
    { "query": "which cloud marketplaces should we list on first", "should_trigger": false },
    { "query": "model the unit economics of this reseller relationship", "should_trigger": false },
    { "query": "rank our candidate alliance targets by expected value", "should_trigger": false },
    { "query": "plan a joint gtm launch with our new partner", "should_trigger": false },
    { "query": "deal registration policy for our co-sell motion", "should_trigger": false },
    { "query": "shortlist influencers for our spring campaign", "should_trigger": false },
    { "query": "negotiate rates and usage rights with a creator", "should_trigger": false },
    { "query": "what rewards should we give for refer-a-friend", "should_trigger": false },
    { "query": "stop people gaming our referral program", "should_trigger": false },
    { "query": "check this sponsored post against FTC disclosure rules", "should_trigger": false },
    { "query": "which partner categories should we add to the ecosystem next", "should_trigger": false },
    { "query": "map our whole partner ecosystem and find the coverage gaps", "should_trigger": false },
    { "query": "hire a developer advocate for our API team", "should_trigger": false },
    { "query": "design the interview loop for an enterprise account executive", "should_trigger": false },
    { "query": "set up an employee referral bonus program for recruiting", "should_trigger": false },
    { "query": "build a commission plan for our sales reps", "should_trigger": false }
  ]
}

# Company-type hiring bar

Contents: pre-hire signals · the four company-type rows · the two named startup-hire failure modes · the enterprise staffing-imbalance risk.

## Pre-hire stage: founder-led, no dedicated seat yet

Partnerships work is almost always founder- or CEO-led before any dedicated hire exists. Two named signals for when to formalize the role:

- **Founding-team fit** - if founders already have partnerships/domain expertise, hiring can wait until post-Series A or B; if the founding team lacks it and partnerships are core to growth strategy, bring on a BD/partnerships leader shortly after founding instead.
- **Revenue signal** - dedicate a hire once founder-led partnerships already drive meaningful revenue (the figure cited is $500k+), rather than hiring speculatively ahead of proof.

## Startup, first dedicated hire: generalist, not specialist

The first hire must be a versatile generalist who can build a program from scratch and cover every partner type at once - there is no volume yet to justify specialization. Sales or account-management background is a plus because it buys credibility with the sales team and fluency in the deal-to-close process.

**Two named hiring failure modes:**

- **Too senior** - a hire who expects to set strategy and lead a team when the actual need is hands-on execution.
- **Too generalist with no GTM muscle** - without real go-to-market reps, a generalist struggles to prioritize which early motions will actually work.

Match the hire to the intended shape of the work before writing the req: a few deep, high-touch integrations versus many light-touch partnerships need different profiles - patience and depth vs. speed and breadth.

## Scale-up: dedicated team, motion-specific specialization begins

Dedicated partner-ops headcount becomes common. A dedicated Partner Enablement Manager becomes justified around 20-30 active partners or 15-20% partner-sourced revenue. The specialist/generalist fork becomes a real hiring choice: a traditional partnerships specialist (often ex-AE, deep domain relationships) becomes viable once there is enough deal flow in one lane to justify the narrower hire.

## Enterprise: dedicated headcount per partner tier or hyperscaler

Alliance headcount typically splits by named hyperscaler/GSI relationship rather than pooling into one channel role, since each hyperscaler runs its own program mechanics, tier ladder and certification/compliance load. Certified-headcount tracking becomes an explicit director-level job responsibility. A platform investment (PRM, account-mapping tooling) substitutes for administrative headcount here, not for named-relationship headcount - do not assume tooling lets one hire cover what used to need two.

**Staffing-imbalance risk specific to this tier:** business development gets over-rotated when the alliance function reports into marketing (too much campaign/asset work, not enough deal structuring) and under-rotated when it reports into sales (program work gets crowded out by deal-sized work). This is a hiring-mix warning, not just an org-chart preference.

## PLG companies: a different hire under the same title

PLG-motion companies invest disproportionately more in communities, integrations, affiliates, agencies and referral partnerships than in traditional reseller/channel partnerships. Practically:

- Screen for integration/marketplace fluency and developer-facing communication over channel deal-registration process.
- Keep affiliate/creator hiring and referral/reseller hiring as separate tracks once past the earliest generalist stage - strong programs do not merge them into one generalist req.
- The lines are blurring in both directions (pure-PLG companies hiring enterprise sales teams, sales-led companies building self-serve motions) - write the req for which half of the hybrid this specific role actually needs.

# Compensation guidance

Contents: why sources disagree by 2-3x · directional figures with sources · comp structure by sub-discipline · the attribution-model decision.

## No single trustworthy benchmark exists

Public sources disagree by 2-3x on the same title. For "Director of Partnerships": Salary.com reports roughly $206-215k median, PayScale reports roughly $74k average with a 10th-90th percentile base range of $44k-$142k. The gap traces to methodology and population: Salary.com skews toward tech/VC-backed company self-reports at the senior end; PayScale's sample skews wider and includes smaller/non-tech employers under the same title. Never quote one figure to a candidate or in a posting as "the" market rate.

## Directional figures by title (state the source with every number)

- VP Partnerships: Salary.com median ~$215k (2025). Related titles on the same source: Partnerships Lead ~$258k, Partnerships Director ~$207k, Head of Partnerships ~$133k, Partnerships Manager ~$133k, Partnerships Associate ~$78k, Partnerships Coordinator ~$75k.
- Partner Manager (tech-sector, crowdsourced): Levels.fyi reports a median around $226k total comp - a different population (large tech, self-reported total comp including equity) than Salary.com's base-salary figures; never quote the two against each other as comparable.
- Affiliate Marketing Manager: sources range roughly $64k-$125k average base depending on source and progressing to $110-176k at director; a Glassdoor-derived synthesis reports ~$117k total pay once bonus/commission is included.
- The field's own specialist benchmark: **Partnership Leaders' compensation database/calculator**, built from practitioner-submitted data. Check it live before publishing a posting's range.

## Compensation structure by sub-discipline

- **Affiliate Manager**: commonly three-part - base salary, a performance bonus (roughly 10-30% of base at junior/mid, 30-50% at senior), and commission tied to revenue managed through the program. This structure is what distinguishes affiliate/partnerships comp from a flat-salaried marketing role.
- **Channel/Alliance Manager** (enterprise): more often base-plus-variable tied to partner-sourced or partner-influenced pipeline/revenue targets, mirroring quota-carrying sales comp shape.
- **Equity** appears at executive levels (VP/CPO) per the general VP-comp pattern, not as a partnerships-specific feature.

## Decide the attribution model before publishing

The underlying attribution mechanics behind any variable pay - sourced, influenced, attached, or delivered revenue - are contested in the field and not standardized across companies. Decide which model triggers this role's variable pay before writing the posting, and state it explicitly in the offer. An undecided attribution model is a common source of comp disputes once the role is in seat, not just a hiring-stage ambiguity.

## What this means for the posting

Publish a range sourced to a named benchmark (or the field-specific database), state the pay structure (base-only, base-plus-bonus, base-plus-commission), and name the attribution model for any variable component. A posting that states none of these is indistinguishable, to a candidate reading it against this field's own unreliable public data, from one hiding a below-market offer.

# Interview loop and case studies

Contents: the channel-manager loop, stage by stage · case-study design · the two judgment probes · the negotiation role-play · what to build instead for the other three sub-disciplines.

## Channel/Alliance Manager loop, documented pattern

1. Recruiter/HR screen - background and fit.
2. Hiring-manager round(s), often with cross-functional stakeholders from sales, marketing and product sitting in.
3. Behavioral plus scenario/case-study questions on channel strategy and partner conflict.
4. Technical/tooling round - CRM, KPIs, analytics fluency.
5. At senior levels: a multi-department panel, often a mock 30/60/90-day channel plan or a mock partner business review. This stage should feel like a general-manager interview - evaluate cross-functional leadership, not deal execution alone.

## Case-study design

- **Channel conflict resolution.** Present a near-simultaneous deal-registration clash between a partner and direct sales. Score the candidate on process discipline over loyalty: do they pull the deal-registration timeline and CRM activity, bring both reps into one conversation, and treat recurrence as a symptom of unclear rules of engagement - or do they arbitrate by gut feel?
- **Cross-functional collaboration.** Ask how they operate simultaneously with marketing, product and sales. Score for concrete mechanisms named, not "I communicate well" - co-building campaigns so MDF ties to sourced pipeline, a feedback loop carrying partner input into product, clean rules of engagement so partner and direct teams work the same number.
- **Partner onboarding/enablement design.** Ask how they'd evaluate a new partner (expertise, target audience, market reach, compatibility) and what materials/cadence they'd ramp them on.

## The two judgment probes

Ask both explicitly - they are rehearsable but reveal genuine judgment, with no obvious "right answer" a candidate can memorize.

- **"Would you close this deal in January the exact same way you closed it in December, just to finish the quarter on target?"** The strong answer is no - score for whether the candidate treats the relationship, not the quarter, as the unit they optimize.
- **"Walk me through the last partner you de-prioritized, and how that conversation went."** Tests whether the candidate has actually said no to a partner, not just built relationships. A candidate with no answer to this has likely never operated with real prioritization discipline.

## The negotiation role-play

A two-sided simulation: candidate plus an interviewer or panel member playing the counterparty, set in a business-partnership or vendor-deal context with hidden constraints or interests the candidate must surface through questioning. Give a short brief with a pressure point and one or two optional positions - not a full script. Score on how the candidate structures win-win terms, handles objections, and defends or finds a rational walk-away point - never on whether they "won" the simulated negotiation.

## What has no comparably documented pattern - build from outcomes instead

Affiliate Manager, Influencer/Creator Partnerships Manager and Referral Program Manager loops are not documented with anything specific to their structure. Do not import the channel-manager case studies wholesale - the day-to-day differs enough that those scenarios test the wrong thing. Build each loop from the role's own outcome metrics instead:

| Sub-discipline                          | Build the loop around                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
| --------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Affiliate Manager                       | Program performance the candidate has owned, commission-economics literacy, network/tooling fluency                                                                                                                          |
| Influencer/Creator Partnerships Manager | Campaigns sourced and negotiated, platform-landscape fluency, FTC disclosure-compliance literacy                                                                                                                             |
| Referral Program Manager                | Incentive-design decisions and their measured effect, cross-team coordination with marketing - confirm the candidate is applying to the customer/growth track, not the employee-referral-recruiting track sharing this title |

## Scoring mechanics

Score independently per interviewer with a written evidence note before any debrief, then combine mechanically against the scorecard's pre-set competency weights - a general employment-selection finding, not specific to partnerships, but it transfers directly.

# Sourcing channels

Contents: the one dedicated job board · why sourcing overlaps with the field's communities · the internal-transfer sourcing implication · title-fragmentation search advice.

## One dedicated job board exists

The **Partnership Leaders Job Board** (run by the organization behind the field's largest community and its own compensation database) is the field's one dedicated board - there is no devreljob.com-equivalent second board. This asymmetry matters practically: a partnerships req gets less benefit from board-spray than a DevRel req would, and proportionally more benefit from the community and referral channels below. The board is explicitly candidate-pool-aware: a large share of its base is in Canada, and it asks remote postings to state whether Canadian candidates are welcome - worth deciding before posting if hiring in North America.

## Sourcing overlaps almost entirely with the field's information-ecosystem communities

This is a relationship-driven field where people find roles through the same communities they use to stay current, not through separate "jobs" channels:

- **Partnership Leaders** - the highest-leverage single community for both sourcing and candidate research; a hiring manager can cross-reference a candidate's visibility here against their resume claims.
- **Cloud Software Association** - skews toward tech-alliance and channel-program practitioners; a stronger fit for channel/alliance hires than affiliate or influencer hires.
- **PartnerHacker / nearbound** - skews toward the ecosystem-led-growth and revenue-attribution crowd; useful for sourcing candidates already fluent in the field's current vocabulary shift.
- **Crossbeam/Reveal's ELG Insider and ELG Summit** - candidates active here tend to be partner-ops or ecosystem-tooling literate specifically.
- **CompTIA/GTIA with ChannelCon** - the traditional IT-channel side; a better fit for reseller/VAR/distributor-facing channel-manager hires than for SaaS-native alliance or affiliate hires.

Match the community to the sub-discipline before posting - a channel/alliance req in an affiliate-focused community (or the reverse) under-returns.

## The internal-transfer route is a sourcing implication, not just a candidate tactic

Because so much of this field's entry happens by a sales or BD rep being noticed doing partnerships-adjacent work inside their own company, look inside the sales/BD organization before posting externally for a first dedicated partnerships seat. The person already fielding partner inquiries informally is a validated, low-risk candidate pool the job-board channels above will not surface.

## Search by function, not title alone

LinkedIn remains the generic fallback for both sourcing and candidate self-promotion. Because titles are so fragmented (see the ladder finding), a title-only search under-returns - combine title keywords with function keywords (deal registration, co-sell, MDF, affiliate program, creator partnerships) instead of relying on title match alone.

---
name: partnerships-hiring
description: Employer-side partnerships hiring across the field's four sub-disciplines - channel/alliance, affiliate, influencer/creator, referral. Calibrates the scorecard to company type (startup generalist, scale-up specialist, enterprise per-hyperscaler headcount, PLG integrations-first), builds the channel-manager loop with its named judgment test and negotiation role-play, sources candidates from the field's job board and communities, and gates compensation on live verification since public benchmarks disagree by 2-3x. States plainly where no documented loop exists for a sub-discipline. Use whenever the user asks how to hire a partner manager, write a partnerships job posting, design an interview loop, or source candidates. Do NOT use for candidate-side prep (mbfinotti/partnerships-skills@partnerships-career).
license: MIT
metadata:
  author: Maya-Beth Finotti
  version: "1.1.9"
---

# Partnerships Hiring

Build the artefacts a hiring manager needs to recruit into a partnerships role with the rigor this field's own hiring evidence supports: a scorecard calibrated to company type, a structured interview loop with named case studies and judgment tests, a sourcing plan, and a compensation stance that doesn't pretend the public benchmarks agree.

Partnerships has no cross-company career ladder and no named posting-quality taxonomy the way sales or DevRel do - that absence is why this skill leans on company-type calibration and the field's few well-documented loop patterns instead of importing a framework that doesn't exist here.

Out of scope, hand off instead: coaching the candidate - mbfinotti/partnerships-skills@partnerships-career is the mirror image of this skill. If the user is job-hunting rather than hiring, say so in one line and route them there.

## Interview

Ask one question at a time, multiple-choice where possible. Skip anything already answered. Questions 8-10 re-rank the artefacts below - ask them before producing anything.

1. Which sub-discipline: (a) channel/alliance and business-partner strategy (b) affiliate program management (c) influencer/creator partnerships (d) referral program management (e) not sure - recommend one from the company's motion.
2. Company type: (a) early-stage startup, this will be the first dedicated partnerships hire (b) scale-up building a dedicated team (c) enterprise with per-hyperscaler or per-tier headcount (d) PLG company where integrations/affiliates dominate.
3. Go-to-market motion: sales-led B2B, product-led (PLG), or a hybrid?
4. For a first dedicated hire: is a founder or someone else already spending 10+ hours a week on partner inbound/outbound today?
5. What does this role need to be measured on - partner-sourced pipeline, partner-sourced revenue, integration/marketplace activations, affiliate-driven revenue, or referral conversion?
6. Reporting line: will this role report to sales, marketing, or its own function? (This changes what the role is actually measured on - answer honestly, not aspirationally.)
7. Compensation stance: will you publish a range, and do you know the attribution model (sourced/influenced/attached/delivered) that would trigger any variable pay?
8. Deadline: this month, this quarter, or no hard date?
9. One-off hire or the first of several where the scorecard and loop get reused?
10. Effort ceiling: how many interviewer-hours per candidate, and is there a recruiter or trained panel?

## Reading the answers

- **Q1 + Q2 decide the scorecard template and the interview format** - load [references/company-type-hiring-bar.md](./references/company-type-hiring-bar.md). A startup hire is screened as a generalist; an enterprise hire is screened for depth against one hyperscaler or partner tier; a PLG hire is screened for integration/marketplace fluency over channel deal-registration process.
- **Q2 + Q4 decide the candidate profile for a first dedicated hire.** Two named failure modes to avoid: hiring someone **too senior**, who expects to set strategy and lead a team when the actual need is hands-on execution; and hiring someone **too generalist with no real go-to-market reps**, who cannot prioritize which early motions will actually work. Match the hire to the intended shape of the work - a few deep, high-touch integrations versus many light-touch partnerships need different profiles.
- **Q5 sets the scorecard's outcome metrics** - never write generic "build partnerships" outcomes; name the actual metric this role owns.
- **Q6 is the single highest-leverage question in this interview.** A role's real measurement follows its reporting line, not its title - a partnerships role under sales gets measured like a sales role, under marketing like a campaign function, standalone like its own P&L. Write the scorecard's outcomes to match the actual reporting line, not an aspirational one.
- **Q7 triggers the compensation gate** in the Quality gate below - published benchmarks for partnerships titles disagree by 2-3x on the same title (see [references/compensation-guidance.md](./references/compensation-guidance.md)), so never quote a single blended figure as market rate.
- **Q8 promotes reusing an existing loop and question bank over designing new ones from scratch.**
- **Q9 decides whether the interview loop stays thin.** One-off: keep it lean. Compounding: build the loop and scorecard properly since they serve every future hire in this sub-discipline.
- **Q10 deletes loop stages rather than reordering them**, the same way sales-hiring treats a tight interviewer-hour budget.

## Workflow

Produce the artefacts in order, validating each with the user before moving to the next.

1. Run the Interview. State the sub-discipline and company-type calibration in one short paragraph the user can veto.
2. **Artefact 1 - role scorecard.** Build from [references/company-type-hiring-bar.md](./references/company-type-hiring-bar.md):
   - a one-sentence mission naming the reporting line and its metric (Q6)
   - 3-8 measurable outcomes matched to Q5's stated metric, never vague responsibilities like "build partnerships"
   - competencies weighted per sub-discipline and company type - a startup generalist scorecard should not read like an enterprise alliance-manager scorecard with the numbers changed
3. **Artefact 2 - interview loop and question bank.** Build from [references/interview-loop-and-case-studies.md](./references/interview-loop-and-case-studies.md):
   - for channel/alliance hires, the documented pattern applies: recruiter screen, hiring-manager round(s) with cross-functional stakeholders, behavioral/scenario questions on partner conflict, a technical/tooling round, and at senior levels a multi-department panel with a mock 30/60/90-day plan or partner business review
   - include the two named judgment probes explicitly: the "same deal in December as January" question, and the de-prioritized-partner follow-up - both are rehearsable-but-revealing, the field's version of a DevRel-opinion round
   - a negotiation role-play, when warranted: a two-sided simulation with hidden constraints, scored on how the candidate structures terms and finds a walk-away point, never on who "won"
   - for affiliate, influencer/creator, and referral hires: **no comparably documented loop pattern exists** - build the loop from the role's actual outcome metrics (program performance, campaign results, incentive-design decisions) instead of importing the channel-manager case studies wholesale, since the day-to-day differs enough that those scenarios would test the wrong thing
4. **Artefact 3 - sourcing plan.** Build from [references/sourcing-channels.md](./references/sourcing-channels.md):
   - for a first dedicated hire, look inside the existing sales/BD organization before posting externally - the person already fielding partner inquiries informally is a validated, low-risk candidate pool
   - post on the field's one dedicated job board, and treat the overlapping practitioner communities as a sourcing channel in their own right, not just a research source
5. **Artefact 4 - compensation stance.** Build from [references/compensation-guidance.md](./references/compensation-guidance.md):
   - never invent a single market-rate figure; present a range with its source and population, or check the field-specific compensation database live
   - match the pay structure to the sub-discipline (three-part base/bonus/commission for affiliate roles; base-plus-variable tied to a named attribution model for channel/alliance roles)
   - decide and state which attribution model (sourced, influenced, attached, delivered) triggers any variable pay before publishing the posting
6. Run the Quality gate below. Iterate until it passes.
7. If your harness has persistent memory, store the scorecard, the loop design, and the sourcing plan so a repeat hire in this sub-discipline reuses them instead of restarting.

## Company type and sub-discipline calibration

Never treat one scorecard template as portable across company types or sub-disciplines - the full comparison, timing signals for when to formalize the role, and the field's specific staffing-imbalance risk at enterprise scale (business development over-rotated under marketing, under-rotated under sales) live in [references/company-type-hiring-bar.md](./references/company-type-hiring-bar.md).

## Quality gate

Score the artefacts against these checks before final delivery. Iterate until every check passes.

1. The scorecard names the actual reporting line (Q6) and its metric, and every outcome is quantified.
2. The candidate profile for a first dedicated hire avoids both named failure modes: not too senior for hands-on execution, not too generalist with no GTM reps.
3. The interview loop for a channel/alliance hire includes at least one named judgment probe and, where warranted, a scored negotiation role-play.
4. For affiliate, influencer/creator, or referral hires, the loop is built from the role's own outcome metrics, not copied from the channel-manager pattern.
5. No stage asks a candidate to do unpaid client-style work beyond a reasonable, bounded exercise.
6. Sourcing considers the internal organization first for a first dedicated hire, before external posting.
7. The posting states a real compensation stance - a published range with source and population, or an explicit reason it's gated - never "competitive" with nothing behind it.
8. The attribution model behind any variable pay is named explicitly, not left implicit.
9. Every comp or benchmark figure used carries its source and date; no single blended number is presented as settled market rate.

## Common failure modes

Not ranked, deliberately: every row is a defect with one mandatory fix.

| Failure                                                                        | Fix                                                                                              |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| "Wearing many hats" posting with no ownership boundary or stated path          | State the numeric time-split across the role's components, or the ownership boundary, explicitly |
| Buzzword hybrid title with no primary metric                                   | Name the funding motion and the one metric the role is measured on                               |
| Copying an enterprise alliance-manager scorecard for a startup generalist hire | Recalibrate against company type before reusing any prior scorecard                              |
| Applying the channel-manager loop to an affiliate or influencer hire           | Build the loop from that role's own outcome metrics instead                                      |
| Vague compensation, no range, no reason                                        | Publish a range sourced to a named benchmark, or state explicitly why it's gated                 |
| Undecided attribution model for variable pay                                   | Decide sourced/influenced/attached/delivered before publishing the posting                       |
| Sourcing externally first for a first dedicated hire                           | Check the sales/BD org for someone already doing the work informally                             |
| Quoting one blended salary figure as market rate                               | Present a range with source and population, or check the field-specific database live            |

## Reference

- [references/company-type-hiring-bar.md](./references/company-type-hiring-bar.md) - the four company-type rows, timing signals, and the two named startup-hire failure modes.
- [references/interview-loop-and-case-studies.md](./references/interview-loop-and-case-studies.md) - the channel-manager loop, named case studies, judgment probes, and negotiation role-play design.
- [references/sourcing-channels.md](./references/sourcing-channels.md) - the field's one dedicated job board, overlapping communities, and the internal-transfer sourcing implication.
- [references/compensation-guidance.md](./references/compensation-guidance.md) - comp tables with sources, structure by sub-discipline, and the attribution-model decision.
- See `mbfinotti/partnerships-skills@partnerships-career` for the candidate's side of this table.
- See `mbfinotti/partnerships-skills@partner-tiering` for designing the partner-tier structure this role will operate, once hired.
- See `mbfinotti/partnerships-skills@partner-enablement` for the onboarding curriculum a new alliance or channel hire will use to ramp partners once in seat.