Seeking Junior GTM Engineer Role or Mentorship Opportunity to Apply Go-to-Market Systems Knowledge | RevGenius

jonatan
·
·
eva, the honest version: theoretical knowledge is the wrong currency in this one. nobody hires a gtm engineer on what they know, they hire on something that actually ran. pick one narrow workflow, build it end to end against a real list, and write up what broke and what you did about it. that writeup will open more doors than the title would.
Eva M.
·
·
That’s fair, and honestly, exactly the kind of feedback I needed. I’ve already worked on real operational workflows, automations and systems, but I haven’t packaged any of them specifically as a GTM Engineering case study. I’ll pick one narrow workflow, rebuild and document it end to end, including what failed, what I changed and the actual outcome. Thank you for being direct. This gives me a much clearer next step than simply trying to position theoretical knowledge as experience.
jonatan
·
·
that's the right move. if you want a concrete one: take a list of a hundred companies, enrich it, and write down the rule for what makes a row unusable rather than what makes it good. most people build the happy path and then discover half the rows were junk. the reject criteria is the part a hiring manager actually reads, because it's the part they've been burned by.
Dheeraj
·
·
jonatan I'm beyond curious what a good writeup actually looks like. I've run outbound for my project for a while now, sourcing, enriching, sequences, calls, but none of it's ever been documented as anything. Is packaging it up standard practice in GTM eng hiring, or is it more of a workaround when you don't have a formal arrangement to show for it?
Jared R.
·
·
Eva M. came here to give the feedback jonatan gave, saw your awesome response. create your own tests and use cases, do the work, recalibrate based on results, and then show what you've done in the arena.
👍1
Jared R.
·
·
asking somebody to hire you and teach you about the gap they're trying to address by hiring you, is realllllly hard on the leader bringing you in.
🙇1
jonatan
·
·
it's standard, it just doesn't get called that. nobody hiring a gtm engineer can tell from a resume line whether you can actually build the thing, so the writeup ends up being the only evidence that survives the screen. people who already hold the title get to skip it because the company name does the same job. everyone else has to show the work, and that gap is what makes it feel like a workaround when it isn't one. the thing that makes one read as real rather than as a portfolio piece is the failures. what you tried that did not work, what you threw away, what you would do differently. a writeup with no dead ends in it reads like it was assembled after the fact for the interview, and the person reading it has usually been burned by exactly that.
🙌1