What does a lean startup experiment actually look like?
A lean startup experiment is a small test of the one assumption that would sink your idea if it turned out to be wrong. The two experiments below do exactly that. Each one names a hypothesis, builds an “easy button” MVP — a short online referral form — recruits 5–10 employees from the empathy interviews, and tests a single riskiest assumption: will people refer a candidate? If they won’t, we pivot the MVP.
This case study demonstrates how to structure and execute a behavioral experiment for an employee referral program. It shows how to identify the problem, formulate hypotheses, design minimal viable products (MVPs), and test risky assumptions in a methodical way that delivers valuable insights.
Experiment #1: "Refer for the Future!"
Testing whether employees will refer candidates without an actual open job position available.
Experiment #2: "Refer for the Present!"
Testing whether employees will refer candidates when prompted with specific open job positions.
The Problem: "Failure to Align"
Knowledge of a job opening and knowledge of a person to refer are two very separate but vital events that can lead to a referral. Because they take place at different times and in different places, it's no wonder that the two events often fail to connect, even when the fact of an opening and a candidate simultaneously exist.
Experiment #1: "Refer for the Future!"
Hypothesis
If we remove the necessity of an open job for an employee to make a referral, and we offer a guaranteed interview as currency, we believe that employees will refer people to specific job titles because they aren't constrained by the limits of an open job window and see the guaranteed interview as a mitigating factor in the decision process around personal risk.
Additionally, employees will take an opportunity to share additional relevant information regarding qualifications about the referral.
Minimum Viable Product (MVP)
"Easy Button" to capture good candidates without the constraint of open positions to fill. Employee can enjoy the satisfaction of referring, still be eligible for financial rewards, and receive perks not ordinarily offered with the current referral system. Perks will center around mitigation of personal and professional risk of referring.
Riskiest Assumption
"Employees will refer a candidate without an actual open job." If employees will not refer, then we will pivot on our MVP.
"Employee has knowledge of a candidate" is also an assumption in this experiment, but evidence from our empathy work suggests that it presents less risk—as several subjects revealed that they had candidates "banked" for the next opening.
Test Subjects
5-10 employees identified in our empathy interviews.
Experiment Design
Email selected employees a link to an online referral form, where they can refer up to three people without an actual job currently open. Keeping fields simple, only require desired job, first and last name, current employer, and one method of contact (email, phone, or address). Explanatory email explains our "pilot" program and offers a guaranteed phone interview for the referred as soon as a job opens. Also assure that any referral bonuses that are offered at that future time will apply with no additional work on their part.
Experiment within the Experiment
Within the referral form, give referrer a field to add relevant information about the referral, or to share a story demonstrative of the referral's qualifications for the job.
Potential Additional Results
- Experiment employees share email with coworkers and additional referrals are received from those employees.
- May see referrals outside of the expected proximity factors of the referrer.
- Employee may fill out the form more than once to refer more than three people.
Delivering Value to the Customer
Hiring Specialist for each area will save referrals and email referrer a thank you. If there is some idea of how long until the next hire, Specialist should share that with the employee. Making a reference in the email to something interesting in the "relevant information" field would also help deliver value for the effort.
Experiment #2: "Refer for the Present!"
Hypothesis
If we prompt a (specific job title) to refer for an open position, we believe that the employee will refer to a specific job because they already have candidates in mind from their daily work. Additionally, employees may take an opportunity to share additional relevant information regarding qualifications about the referral.
Minimum Viable Product (MVP)
"Easy Button" to capture good candidates without the constraint of knowledge of open positions. Employee can enjoy the satisfaction of referring, still be eligible for financial rewards, and receive perks not ordinarily offered with the current referral system. Perks will center on mitigation of personal and professional risk of referring.
Riskiest Assumption
"Employees will refer a candidate when prompted to do so with a job opening." If employees will not refer, then we will pivot on our MVP.
"Employee has knowledge of a candidate" is also an assumption in this experiment, but evidence from our empathy work suggests that it presents less risk—as several subjects revealed that they had candidates "banked" for the next opening.
Test Subjects
5-10 employees identified in our empathy interviews.
Experiment Design
Email selected employees a link to an online referral form, where they can refer up to three people for a job currently open. Keeping fields simple, only require desired job, first and last name, current employer, and one method of contact (email, phone, or address). Explanatory email explains our "pilot" program and offers a guaranteed phone interview for the referred. Also assure that any referral bonuses that are offered will apply with no additional work on their part.
Experiment within the Experiment
Within the referral form, give referrer a field to add relevant information about the referral, or to share a story demonstrative of the referral's qualifications for the job.
Potential Additional Results
- Experiment employees share email with coworkers and additional referrals are received from those employees.
- May see referrals outside of the expected proximity factors of the referrer.
- Employee may fill out the form more than once to refer more than three people.
Delivering Value to the Customer
Hiring Specialist for each area will act on referrals and email referrer a thank you. Making a reference in the email to something interesting in the "relevant information" field would also help deliver value for the effort.
These experiment designs demonstrate how to systematically test assumptions with minimal resources. By comparing the results of both experiments, we can determine whether the timing of job openings is a critical factor in employee referral behavior.
Frequently asked questions
Why do employee referral programs stop producing referrals?
Because knowledge of a job opening and knowledge of a person to refer are two separate events. They happen at different times, in different places, so they often fail to connect even when an opening and a good candidate both exist at the same moment. That gap is the “failure to align,” and it's the problem both of these experiments attack.
What is the riskiest assumption in a lean startup experiment?
The riskiest assumption is the one belief that stops your idea cold if it turns out to be wrong. In the first referral experiment it's this: “Employees will refer a candidate without an actual open job.” A second assumption — that the employee already knows someone worth referring — carries less risk, because several people in the empathy interviews said they had candidates “banked” for the next opening.
What does the MVP look like in an employee referral experiment?
The MVP is an “easy button”: a short online form that lets an employee refer up to three people. It asks only for the desired job, first and last name, current employer, and one way to reach the candidate. The referrer stays eligible for financial rewards and picks up perks aimed at lowering the personal and professional risk of putting a name forward.
What's the difference between the two referral experiments?
“Refer for the Future!” removes the open job from the equation and offers a guaranteed phone interview as currency once a job does open. “Refer for the Present!” prompts the same kind of employee with a position that is open right now. Run both, compare the results, and you learn whether the timing of an opening is what really drives referral behavior.
How many people do you need to run an experiment like this?
Five to ten employees, pulled from the empathy interviews you have already done. You're testing one behavior, not sizing a market, so a small group of the right people beats a big group of strangers. Both experiments here use the same 5–10 subjects, which keeps the whole test cheap enough to run twice.
What happens if employees don't refer anyone?
You pivot the MVP. Both experiments say so outright: if employees will not refer, the design changes. That's not a failed experiment — it's the cheapest way to learn your idea needed a different shape before anyone built it.
Ready to Run Your Own Behavioral Experiment?
Get personalized coaching to apply these principles to your specific innovation challenge. Start with a free 15-minute consultation.