“GitHub wasn’t supposed to be a startup or a company. GitHub was just a tool that we needed.” — @defunkt
.
Before lean startups there was lean manufacturing. And Toyota was the laboratory where many of these lean principles were tested for the first time at scale.
So, I’ve been reading up on some of the first hand experiences that came from that formative time that these lean principles were being implemented. In doing so, I came across an exchange between a Toyota manager, James Wiseman, and his then supervisor, and now Toyota Worldwide chairman, Fujio Cho.
Mr. Wiseman was a seasoned factory manager who had gained tremendous experience outside of Toyota. But when he flexed the muscles he’d developed elsewhere, he found his strengths lacking. Toyota management muscle was developed through an entirely different set of exercises. This contrast was brought home one Friday in his weekly staff meeting:
Every Friday, there was a senior staff meeting. “I started out going in there and reporting some of my little successes,” says Wiseman. “One Friday, I gave a report of an activity we’d been doing”—planning the announcement of a plant expansion—“and I spoke very positively about it, I bragged a little. After two or three minutes, I sat down.
“And Mr. Cho kind of looked at me. I could see he was puzzled. He said, ‘Jim-san. We all know you are a good manager, otherwise we would not have hired you. But please talk to us about your problems so we can all work on them together.’”
This exchange speaks to me on a few levels.
First, it calls to mind how many board meetings I’ve sat through where we spend so much time high 5’ing over all the wonderful things the team has accomplished we never get to the real meat of the meeting. We review hockey stick graphs, we talk about the great partners we have lined up, we oogle over screenshots for upcoming releases.
Startup life is difficult and occasionally we need a little praise just to muster the strength to get out of bed in the morning. But, focusing solely on the positive, while problems build, means we’ll be tackling REALLY big problems together at some point instead of tackling lots of little ones all along the way.
Second, it stresses the importance of trust between a founder and their board (or advisors, investors, friends, significant other). Often, startup founders have never been CEOs before. Many have never even managed people before. Which often leads to the feeling of being in over their heads.
Admitting you’re out of your depth and need help demands a high degree of self awareness and trust from those you’ve surrounded yourself with. As new board members or investors, perhaps we should all echo the words of Mr. Cho to the founders we fund in saying “we all know you’re a good entrepreneur otherwise we wouldn’t have backed you”.
Explicitly establishing and amplifying this baseline of trust between a founder and their funders is a deeply critical component for any highly functional relationship that’s success is predicated on problem solving.
At Toyota the objective was never perfection, it was improvement. By discovering and discussing these problems openly many minds were able to break them down into small, incremental, finely tuned improvements. Which ultimately yielded massively impactful results.
Your startup isn’t Toyota, but the same principles of trust and problem solving apply. And similarly impactful results await those who talk about, and go to work solving, their problems.
[video]
One week after our first date, I knew I wanted to marry AMR.
Two months after our first date I proposed with a $10 cubic zirconia ring (I believe Eric Reis would call that a minimum viable product).
Three and a half months after our first date we were married. That was 16 years ago today.
It was a powerful thing to feel something so instinctual, so clear, at such a young age.
It was the first time I can really remember knowing the unknowable. Putting my trust in an instinct with so many competing data points that should have paralyzed my decision making. But I trusted that instinct and it has made all the difference.
That moment of knowing is one I go back to often. And it serves as an important touchstone for me when making decisions to this day.
16 years ago she gave me the confidence to trust myself and follow that instinct even when it leads down unpopular or unclear paths. Her trust in me makes trusting in myself possible and I owe her everything for it.
So to my best friend, my partner in crime, my biggest cheerleader and my harshest critic, happy anniversary.
And remember, anyone can be a sweetheart for 16 years.
“Don’t look for the big, quick improvement. Seek the small improvement one day at a time. That’s the only way it happens- and when it happens, it lasts.” — John Wooden
[video]
A few weeks back, David Hornick wrote a great piece in Wired UK titled, Nice Guys Finish First. Eventually. In it, he talks of his life’s goal as that of being a successful VC without having to be a jerk. He cites a recent study which paints the picture of a successful leader as someone combative, authoritarian, dominant. The study stands in stark contrast to his stated goal so David posits another interpretation of the data which has the nice guy coming out on top:
The study reminds me of dating. The girls in my school were attracted to the bad boys. Despite the early appeal of the jerks, however, in the end the girls realised that they were better off marrying the nice guys. I think the same is true in business. Selfish, authoritarian leaders may appear attractive at first. But the appeal will wear off.
What the study gets wrong is the timescale. Sometimes aggression and dominance will characterise a strong leader. But company-building is more collaborative than adversarial. Leaders need to co-operate with employees, partners, distributors, customers etc. As a result, executives who optimise for the confrontational aspects of their job, rather than the collaborative ones, will miss the mark. As tempting as it is to use this study as an excuse to become the bad boy of business, I’m convinced the professors have come to the wrong conclusion. Nice guys don’t finish last. It just takes a while for the true value of positive, collaborative leadership to shine through.
Much as I’d like to agree with David I find this definition of “niceness” lacks nuance. As with most defining characteristics,”niceness” is not a trait in and of itself; rather, it’s a collection of personality traits and interpersonal skills that combine to create a “nice” effect.
A new study adds color to the nuances of nice. In it, researchers found that “agreeableness” was more a determining factor in success that niceness. They define agreeableness as (1 the extent to which you value getting along with others, and (2 the degree to which you are willing to be critical of others.
From an HBS article on the study:
Using earnings data, the researchers found that men who rank high in agreeableness make substantially less than men who are less agreeable. Across studies, this difference was as high as $10,000 per year.
And as for nice guys (and to a lesser extent, nice women) finishing last, let’s recall the two related qualities of agreeableness. Concerning a value for getting along, career advancement requires a willingness to ruffle feathers from time to time. Good leaders need to be able to tell people things that they do not want to hear.
Career success involves being critical. While some managers may want to surround themselves with people who obediently agree, most want those who will find the flaws in a plan before it is implemented. Less agreeable people are prone to give this kind of criticism.
This insight resonates with me. And reminds me of that old Bernard Shaw quote:
The reasonable (or agreeable) man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
I’ve had the opportunity to work with a wide range of entrepreneurs. Most I would consider nice people, some less nice than others. The ones I see get into trouble are the one’s who spend time worrying about what others think. Who incorporate feedback or advice with every iteration. Who agree to things they don’t believe in order to avoid a confrontation or out of fear they will lose their “nice guy” status.
But the founders I’ve seen succeed all seem to share this willingness to be disagreeable. They have conviction around an idea, a feature or a strategy that doesn’t get compromised simply to make others happy.
That doesn’t mean they’re jerks, or that they disregard feedback, on the contrary. They tend to seek out the contradicting view. They value the intellectual exchange. They adapt plans if fatal flaws are discovered. But they understand the difference between making an informed change vs. simply agreeing with someone to end an argument.
I think the definition for agreeableness is a bit squishy, but like many things, you know it when you see or feel it.
Keep the title of this post in mind when that feeling surfaces and act accordingly.
* I use the term “guys” inclusive of women here.
[video]
DHH put up a provocative post the other day questioning the societal norms of the startup culture. This isn’t a new rant for him or the 37signals crew, but he touched on a few things I thought worth amplifying. From the post:
The problem is that most “exciting new company” lore is intermingled with that of Startup Culture™. This means it’s hard to find your identity when it doesn’t match the latest company write-up of How Those Crazy Kids Turned VC Millions Into Billions!!!
Most people will look at that and say that’s not me. I don’t have 110% to give. I have a family, I have a mortgage, I have other interests. Where’s my place in the startup world.
His point is a straight forward one. The canonical startup path is well trod. Build something, get on the VC hamster wheel and don’t get off until you’ve IPO’d or sold for big bucks to someone looking to fill a hole.
Alas, in that quest to change the world or build the coveted billion dollar company, relationships, family, hobbies and overall quality of life must be offered as a sacrifice to to the startup gods in hopes they will find them worthy and bestow the ultimate reward.
Somewhere along the startup continuum between abject failure and Facebook, lies a different kind of business to be built. DHH continues:
Every time I see people crumble and quit from the crunch-mode pressure cooker, I think what a shame, it didn’t have to be like that.
It’s almost like we need another word. Startup is a great one, but I feel like it’s been forever hijacked for this narrow style, and “starting a business” just doesn’t have the sex appeal. Any suggestions?
Historically, people have tried to call these “lifestyle” businesses. But, as anyone who’s actually started and run a business can attest, the imagery of a leisurely lifestyle led business really does this kind of business a diservice. In the comment section of the post, othersuggestions are offered up such as “bootstrappers”. But that doesn’t resonate with me.
The term I’ve had rattling around in my head for a while now is Independents or Indie businesses.
The profile of an indie business would be similar to independent practitioners of any craft. An independent musician, for example, might eschew a major label who may force them to make compromising sacrifices in hopes of making that artist more commercially viable. Instead, the Indie musician takes distribution and promotion into their own hands. This doesn’t mean they will never sign with a label or that they wil forever be left to their own DIY devices. But that when they do pick a a label, they will do so on their terms.
Similarly, Indie businesses will be comfortable playing by their own rules even if they may fly in the face of startup cultural norms. They will chase opportunities in markets that may be small, niche or non-existent instead of jumping on the most fundable fad. They will find ways to operate outside of the traditional venture model through either small amounts of early outside funding or choosing a slower growth path and getting to profitability on the back of a terrific product and happy customers. And they will have a goal to stay independent as opposed to looking for a quick flip or speedy IPO.
I think we’re entering a golden age for Indie businesses. Some will take the shape of long term durable companies, others will take the shape of projects that spin up and wind down to meet bursts of demand or to scratch a passing itch.
With democratized digital distribution and the rise of crowdfunding sources of capital, many companies will be in a position to stay independent and play by their own rules. And I think that’s a very important and powerful development worthy of it’s own word.
via 30andbroke
On my ride to the train station this morning I was tuned into Al Jezera radio. As my mind drifted between the broadcast and my plans for the day I heard the host of the show detailing the role Facebook was playing in an upcoming election in India. A reference point that several years ago would have felt very inside baseball was dropped in passing. As if any cultural event of an significance was going to be well represented on a site that was, not that long ago, just for college kids to poke each other.
Last week while I was in NYC a friend slightly older than me noted that our respective generation was living in an interesting wrinkle in time. We were born into a world without the internet. We remember what rotary phones were. We made mixtapes on actual cassette tapes. We drove to stores to rent movies, buy cds and purchase physical books.
My kids won’t have these analog artifacts as touchstones. Or, in many cases, millstones. They will be the first of a generation born digital and will see the world and it’s possibilities through a very different lens than I will.
Anthony from Hype Machine made the following observation after a recent Skrillex show:
As the room lit up with projections of Call of Duty footage, Nyan Cat animations and sample-heavy bass, I couldn’t stop thinking that this show was among the signs that “Internet culture” is now just culture.
Watching the rise of internet culture crossover into simply culture is a powerful shift. The possibilities of a generation unencumbered by analog thinking presents a huge set of new possibilities and challenges.
Who’d have guessed that an off handed comment from a Skrillex show would capture so much of this moment in time we’re passing through.
I’m not a big football fan, but there was a piece written about Eli Manning that grabbed my attention in the wake of his teams’ Super Bowl victory last night (note- the article was written in August).
Apparently, Manning was asked if he was the same caliber quarterback as his competitor for the Super Bowl ring last night, Tom Brady.
“Are you in the Tom Brady class? Are you in that type of quarterback?” Kay asked.
“Yeah, I consider myself in that class and Tom Brady is a great quarterback,” Manning said.
The article then goes on to say that this is exactly the kind of chest pounding reporters and fans have been waiting for from Manning:
It would have been so easy for Manning to deliver another boring, politically correct answer to make everyone yawn. But instead, he gave us something he rarely does — a strong opinion. He publicly displayed the type of confidence and fire that an elite quarterback needs to show.
For much of his career, Manning has been criticized on everything from his body language on the field to his leadership skills to his gee-whiz persona in interviews. And now the one time Manning expresses supreme confidence in himself, shows some swagger and answers a question the way he should — like a leader would.
What I found interesting about the article is that it hangs adjectives off leaders that many of the best don’t feel comfortable with- supreme confidence, fire, swagger.
Leadership is a funny thing. Some are born with it, some grow into it and many want it and pretend to ascend to it with shortcuts like an overabundance of unearned confidence, fire or swagger.
One of the most rewarding parts of being an early stage investor is having a front row seat for the personal development of leaders. In many cases, founder’s leadership attributes are blinding obvious to us at the outset. Other times, they’re more subtle and take time to emerge. In each case, the process of becoming a leader is often imperceptible to the person going through the transformation.
Despite all of their progress and personal development, often leaders trap themselves in the mentality they started their venture with. Tho we see their development happening day after day, decision after decision, they don’t.
Then, one day something big happens. And they realize that they have become, in part, the kind of person that others look to for leadership. And that through their process of development they’ve surrounded themselves with people who’ve often believed in them more than they believed in themselves.
The article finishes with a quote from Manning I found telling:
“He (Tom Brady) is a great player. He has grown up and gotten better every year, and that is what I am trying to do.”
That’s what it means to become a leader.
It’s not supreme confidence, it’s not fire and it’s not swagger. It’s doggedly and unglamorously trying to improve day after day, year after year.
The real challenge of becoming a leader is permitting oneself to let go of the old “them” and accepting and owning the person and leader they’ve been developing into all along.
I’ve not been able to shake a recent exchange I had with an entrepreneur.
Though very interesting, their company was quite early, hardly launched and pre-funded. As we talked, their enthusiasm began to bubble and proceeded to boil over. Our conversation soon turned to their very aggressive fundraising strategy and I began to push back on the thinking behind it. After a fair bit of back and forth an exasperated look fell on their faces. Then, in a fit of excitement, their hands hit the table dividing us as they exclaimed, “but we’re going to be a billion dollar company!”
This notion of a billion dollar company is steeped in silicon valley lore. It’s a maxim, a battle cry and a wish rolled into one and tucked under the pillow of every founder each night in hopes the startup fairy will deliver the goods.
Yet, there’s a funny thing about this number.
Quite often, the companies that state it as an early goal fail while those that end up being the wildest of successes, start out with a very different objective.
Of the many companies who have hit, or are marching towards that valuation, a significant number of them didn’t start out with such a lofty goal.
Take, for instance, Tumblr. In a recent interview with the Guardian, David recalled his early ambitions for this service many of us have come to love and rely on:
“I thought I could totally beat the system and have this cool product that I would never need to raise money for, I would never need to sell out, because [Tumblr] would bring all the attention to this [consultancy] business where people would ask us to build them a website,” he says.
Only last year, he says, he could see the computer screen of every Tumblr employee in its New York office. Now the company operates on two floors and is nearing 100 staff. “The real threshold was last year,” he says. “For a long time I did not want to be [employing] more than a dozen people.”
In the pre-funded days of Foursquare I recall a similar conversation with Dennis. As we talked of the potential impact of the service and the kind of company he aspired to build he confided that he never wanted to have more than 10 employees.
Foursquare has over 100 employees now.
This week, on the heels of filing the S1 heard ‘round the world, Eric Reis pointed to the first article written about thefacebook.com. In the article, Zuckerberg talks glowingly of his weekend project and revealed his ambition for it:
While Zuckerberg promised that thefacebook.com would boast new features by the end of the week, he said that he did not create the website with the intention of generating revenue.
“I’m not going to sell anybody’s e-mail address,” he said. “At one point I thought about making the website so that you could upload a resume too, and for a fee companies could search for Harvard job applicants. But I don’t want to touch that. It would make everything more serious and less fun.”
Say you’re going to change the world, say you’re going to disrupt an entire industry but don’t say you’re going to be a billion dollar company. Starting with that as your stated goal, chances are you never will be.