I might have mentioned that the idea I'm currently developing has 'social impact'. Yes, it could fall under the 'social venture' category and I could be considered a social entrepreneur, though I feel that since I'm aiming to build a for-profit organization, I'm not in the same league as those with a calling for pure service. But, as I'm building software, it appears to be more sensible to go the for-profit route, and plan to support non-profits and other deserving but under-resourced users.
Anyway, since this venture has a social goal, I'm all the more driven to make sure that the early stage team members have the same level of commitment to the cause as I do. And they have to be passionate about this cause - affinity to other causes, while praiseworthy, chill my interest to lukewarm at best.
Case in point. I was recently assessing a candidate who's had the relevant experience and is very interested in getting in at the 'root level' of another startup, preferably one that's capable of 'doing some good'. I really liked his attitude, approach, skills, but noticed a niggling worm of doubt that insinuated itself into my otherwise general feeling of euphoria - the guy was more D-caffeinated than A-buzz when it came to my mission. At the same time I was talking to a couple of others, who had slightly different skills, but were totally fired up - they came back to me with suggestions, questions, what-if's, all indications that they were fully warmed up to this cause. The difference couldn't have been more striking. So, when guy #1 told me that he's leaning more towards another venture in a different space, my first thought was "Whew, thanks!" as it removed the possibility of a wrong choice.
Why was there even a possibility of a wrong choice? Sticking to your mantras is not always easy. No matter how many times I have reiterated that I need people with fire in their bellies, when faced with the possibility of a really good candidate who had everything but that, it was not a (cake) walk-away. I actually spent time considering if I was being too rigid about the criteria - surely he could get converted to the cause if I evangelized strongly enough? Thankfully this miasma didn't last for more than a day.
Maybe this is not so much of an issue if your goal is to squeeze out another one-hundreth of a percent point in productivity for a large corporation (the new new thing in demand chain optimization?). In that case you're looking for those who're committed to, and passionate about, their roles - architect, engineer, sales, biz dev, whatever - but the mission itself, not so much. But if you're looking to do something to help disadvantaged kids for example, you want your team to be revved up about that goal and not itching to tinker with sustainable farming instead. Both laudable, but you can launch only one rocketship - for now.
Channeling the inner entrepreneur who views life as a startup. Musings about people, their spirit, the startup ethos and the entrepreneurial attitude, with an emphasis on education and social ventures. The 'how-to'? Not so much. But definitely the why, the what and the whatever.
Chicken or choice
There's a comment on a previous post (Risk in Business - Part II) where anonymous asks if not jumping into entrepreneurship due to family obligations is being chicken or making a responsible choice. This is so often the subject of much angst and insomnia that I feel like devoting a post, instead of just 2-liner response, to it.
First, I wouldn't recommend anyone put their startup above their family (but at the same level, hmm...). Check out Guy Kawasaki's position that high housing prices foster startups as cheaper housing encourages young people to buy houses sooner, and have kids, and then all thoughts of startups go bye-bye. Seriously, at the end of the day (the day that comes when you're 80 some years old), if you've done a great startup but mucked up your relationships, you're going to be one sad, lonely old soul wishing you had a do-over. No question there.
Second, not everyone is an entrepreneur, just as not everyone's a doctor or athlete or bagpipe player. For another view, check out this blog post by an entrepreneur who's quite spirited about it. In short, having some entrepreneurial qualities doesn't automatically make you one.
Going back to the chicken question, anonymous mentioned having an idea and the urge, but setting these aside to pay the bills. My response is simple, go back to the fundamentals - having an idea is not enough, you have to be passionate about it. Otherwise, it is just something that you're contemplating on lazy Sunday afternoons, along with exotic vacations and fantasy homes. On the other hand, if the idea has real meaning for you, you'll find you can't just set it aside. If you're passionate about it, you'll figure out fairly soon that you cannot sustain your relationships if you don't indulge your passion, however slightly - it is not an 'either/or' but an 'and'. From there, it is not a big leap to think about how to carve out time to develop your idea while keeping your job, how you can find someone else to work with you on it, etc. etc. As I'd mentioned in a previous post Moonlighting, this is pretty much standard operating procedure for most entrepreneurs when they're just getting started. You may have heard of how Wozniak kept his job for a year or so while getting Apple off the ground, and he's not the only one. I personally know a bunch of people who're developing their ideas while bringing home paychecks from their 'regular' jobs, working to get to the point when they can make the switch. There's one young man who's working on his idea, usually late at night, while maintaining a full time job, and helping his wife get her own business off the ground while managing their young family - and he doesn't consider any of it a chore or an energy drain at all, because he's so excited about it. I don't believe this phenomenon is necessarily limited to youth or high-tech startups. There are a lot of middle-aged, and older, folks who don't have the luxury of quitting their jobs, but have goals that they want to pursue, doing the same thing - they don't park their dreams, they just keep it in low gear, and keep working towards the day when they can kick it up.
In my view, not going after your idea is not a matter of being chicken or making a choice to be responsible. It is a matter of not feeling fired up, just slightly warm, at the thought of it.
First, I wouldn't recommend anyone put their startup above their family (but at the same level, hmm...). Check out Guy Kawasaki's position that high housing prices foster startups as cheaper housing encourages young people to buy houses sooner, and have kids, and then all thoughts of startups go bye-bye. Seriously, at the end of the day (the day that comes when you're 80 some years old), if you've done a great startup but mucked up your relationships, you're going to be one sad, lonely old soul wishing you had a do-over. No question there.
Second, not everyone is an entrepreneur, just as not everyone's a doctor or athlete or bagpipe player. For another view, check out this blog post by an entrepreneur who's quite spirited about it. In short, having some entrepreneurial qualities doesn't automatically make you one.
Going back to the chicken question, anonymous mentioned having an idea and the urge, but setting these aside to pay the bills. My response is simple, go back to the fundamentals - having an idea is not enough, you have to be passionate about it. Otherwise, it is just something that you're contemplating on lazy Sunday afternoons, along with exotic vacations and fantasy homes. On the other hand, if the idea has real meaning for you, you'll find you can't just set it aside. If you're passionate about it, you'll figure out fairly soon that you cannot sustain your relationships if you don't indulge your passion, however slightly - it is not an 'either/or' but an 'and'. From there, it is not a big leap to think about how to carve out time to develop your idea while keeping your job, how you can find someone else to work with you on it, etc. etc. As I'd mentioned in a previous post Moonlighting, this is pretty much standard operating procedure for most entrepreneurs when they're just getting started. You may have heard of how Wozniak kept his job for a year or so while getting Apple off the ground, and he's not the only one. I personally know a bunch of people who're developing their ideas while bringing home paychecks from their 'regular' jobs, working to get to the point when they can make the switch. There's one young man who's working on his idea, usually late at night, while maintaining a full time job, and helping his wife get her own business off the ground while managing their young family - and he doesn't consider any of it a chore or an energy drain at all, because he's so excited about it. I don't believe this phenomenon is necessarily limited to youth or high-tech startups. There are a lot of middle-aged, and older, folks who don't have the luxury of quitting their jobs, but have goals that they want to pursue, doing the same thing - they don't park their dreams, they just keep it in low gear, and keep working towards the day when they can kick it up.
In my view, not going after your idea is not a matter of being chicken or making a choice to be responsible. It is a matter of not feeling fired up, just slightly warm, at the thought of it.
Be bop
The entrepreneur's world can seem very simplistic at times, as the same few factors seem to influence almost everything you do.
For example commitment. Just in this blog, I must have used that word in practically every post. I have a particular partiality to the concept - case in point, the post The Right Stuff - as do almost all entrepreneurs (I've already mentioned Paul Graham's views multiple times, for another view check out Anita Roddick). And of course, commitment stems from passion, which is another recurring theme in any entrepreneurial discourse. Keep in mind both of these are non-negotiable for an entrepreneur. Can they be developed? Yes. Taught? No.
As I'm continuing the validation effort (which is pretty much continuous in the early stages), I talk to potential customers of course, but, every now and then I run into 'big guns' and 'luminaries' who want to know about my venture, and I think it may be a good idea to get their input - after all, they're movers/shakers. I had one such encounter recently and found myself sitting there thinking "Huh? What happened here?". Mr. Mover/Shaker was interested in the space and had spent many years developing the interest, but he also had very strong opinions on how things should be done, and bottom line, my idea did not fit into his view - slam!
My first thought was that I had effectively deluded myself. Here was a very smart, successful person - in the luminary continuum, he'd be a chandelier to my backlit cellphone - who thought my idea was a no-go. Maybe despite all other feedback to the contrary, I should pack it in? But my commitment, that got me this far, wouldn't let me consider that for long. I gave myself an hour to not think before I reviewed what happened (that was hard by the way). I analyzed the response, and came to the conclusion that (a) he had some passions of his own (a) he didn't quite understand what I was talking about - which could be my positioning, or not and (c) my luminary metaphor may have something going for it. The good news is that I ended up getting a lot clearer about what my idea is not and will never be. So the questioning of my vision actually ended up strengthening it.
Coincidentally (or otherwise?), a couple of days after this conversation I attended an event with a speech on volunteerism by Christine Comaford Lynch. While her speech was on volunteerism, she couldn't avoid her other favorite topic, entrepreneurism, and wove a little of it into her speech. One thing she talked about was the 'anti-mentors', those who say you can't do what you want to, and how you shouldn't let them deflect your focus, though you could learn from them. I was listening with a smile on my face as the word 'anti-mentor' made me think of dementor (yes, I'm a JK Rowling fan) and how one could suck away the zest out of you. An extreme metaphor, admittedly. Anyhow, you're entirely capable of not letting that happen. Think of your vision (and your entrepreneurial self) as one of those 'bop bags' you find in kids' rooms (and in many cubicles!). The nay-sayers can't let the air out as you have back-up inflation with your commitment and passion. They can knock you, but you bop right back. Be bop.
For example commitment. Just in this blog, I must have used that word in practically every post. I have a particular partiality to the concept - case in point, the post The Right Stuff - as do almost all entrepreneurs (I've already mentioned Paul Graham's views multiple times, for another view check out Anita Roddick). And of course, commitment stems from passion, which is another recurring theme in any entrepreneurial discourse. Keep in mind both of these are non-negotiable for an entrepreneur. Can they be developed? Yes. Taught? No.
As I'm continuing the validation effort (which is pretty much continuous in the early stages), I talk to potential customers of course, but, every now and then I run into 'big guns' and 'luminaries' who want to know about my venture, and I think it may be a good idea to get their input - after all, they're movers/shakers. I had one such encounter recently and found myself sitting there thinking "Huh? What happened here?". Mr. Mover/Shaker was interested in the space and had spent many years developing the interest, but he also had very strong opinions on how things should be done, and bottom line, my idea did not fit into his view - slam!
My first thought was that I had effectively deluded myself. Here was a very smart, successful person - in the luminary continuum, he'd be a chandelier to my backlit cellphone - who thought my idea was a no-go. Maybe despite all other feedback to the contrary, I should pack it in? But my commitment, that got me this far, wouldn't let me consider that for long. I gave myself an hour to not think before I reviewed what happened (that was hard by the way). I analyzed the response, and came to the conclusion that (a) he had some passions of his own (a) he didn't quite understand what I was talking about - which could be my positioning, or not and (c) my luminary metaphor may have something going for it. The good news is that I ended up getting a lot clearer about what my idea is not and will never be. So the questioning of my vision actually ended up strengthening it.
Coincidentally (or otherwise?), a couple of days after this conversation I attended an event with a speech on volunteerism by Christine Comaford Lynch. While her speech was on volunteerism, she couldn't avoid her other favorite topic, entrepreneurism, and wove a little of it into her speech. One thing she talked about was the 'anti-mentors', those who say you can't do what you want to, and how you shouldn't let them deflect your focus, though you could learn from them. I was listening with a smile on my face as the word 'anti-mentor' made me think of dementor (yes, I'm a JK Rowling fan) and how one could suck away the zest out of you. An extreme metaphor, admittedly. Anyhow, you're entirely capable of not letting that happen. Think of your vision (and your entrepreneurial self) as one of those 'bop bags' you find in kids' rooms (and in many cubicles!). The nay-sayers can't let the air out as you have back-up inflation with your commitment and passion. They can knock you, but you bop right back. Be bop.
The right stuff.
If you haven't done so already, it's worth checking out Paul Graham's lessons on startups. It is on the mark, though you have to make some allowances for his 'web' focus if you're on a different track. One of the lessons he mentions is that the most important quality for a founder is determination, not brains (well, take it to mean that the founder doesn't need to be a genius or even the smartest one in the team). He posits that losing even a little bit of commitment could kill the venture. In a similar vein, I've mentioned on a previous post, The Balancing Act, how the passion and commitment of the entrepreneur is absolutely critical to stick with the venture through all the tough times and creeping doubts.
Extending the concept, I'm of the mind that you need to have passion and commitment in the early stage team too, not just the founder. Two recent incidents have brought this into focus. First, I've recently started looking for the right partners to launch my venture. I don't have a grab-n-go team (a matter of timing - see post on Trolling for teams), so I have to search and select the right people to join me. I found some really good people who're sympatico and find the idea exciting, but they want funding, and a salary. I too remember the hollow promises of the dot-com bust, and sympathize with the need to not worry about rent money. So, I'm OK with folks keeping their jobs and working on this venture on the side for a short while until we can build some value (read product). But this requires commitment, and that's in lockstep with passion. The idea has to hijack the person's heart and mind so much they start thinking it's theirs, and when they've reached that point, moonlighting while working for equity seems like the smart thing to do. Even if you could get the funding, this might be a good litmus test for commitment.
Just a couple of days ago I was in a discussion with an engineer who's currently in a startup. He was comparing the quality of the people who were there in the early days, when the whole company fit into one room, to those who came on board a few months later, on the heels of a substantial investment. He felt the later arrivals were as smart and competent as the ones already there, but they acted differently. They more often needed to be asked to work weekends (while the early stage team took that as the norm) and they didn't often try to do, or get involved, in everything in the company (once again the early team members had to be in the middle of all that went on). Basically, the first-on-board acted as if they owned the company, while the others acted as employees, albeit ones with vested interests in the success of the company.
It's a heady rush to found a team of passionate, committed people who take ownership, or to be part of such a team where you feel you're personally responsible for the future of the venture (and yes, equity comes in play here too). What's more, such a team is a necessity if you want your venture to end up being something more than an expired domain name and a scratched-out business card down the line. It's worth the founder's while to look for someone with the right stuff and make that the highest priority.
Extending the concept, I'm of the mind that you need to have passion and commitment in the early stage team too, not just the founder. Two recent incidents have brought this into focus. First, I've recently started looking for the right partners to launch my venture. I don't have a grab-n-go team (a matter of timing - see post on Trolling for teams), so I have to search and select the right people to join me. I found some really good people who're sympatico and find the idea exciting, but they want funding, and a salary. I too remember the hollow promises of the dot-com bust, and sympathize with the need to not worry about rent money. So, I'm OK with folks keeping their jobs and working on this venture on the side for a short while until we can build some value (read product). But this requires commitment, and that's in lockstep with passion. The idea has to hijack the person's heart and mind so much they start thinking it's theirs, and when they've reached that point, moonlighting while working for equity seems like the smart thing to do. Even if you could get the funding, this might be a good litmus test for commitment.
Just a couple of days ago I was in a discussion with an engineer who's currently in a startup. He was comparing the quality of the people who were there in the early days, when the whole company fit into one room, to those who came on board a few months later, on the heels of a substantial investment. He felt the later arrivals were as smart and competent as the ones already there, but they acted differently. They more often needed to be asked to work weekends (while the early stage team took that as the norm) and they didn't often try to do, or get involved, in everything in the company (once again the early team members had to be in the middle of all that went on). Basically, the first-on-board acted as if they owned the company, while the others acted as employees, albeit ones with vested interests in the success of the company.
It's a heady rush to found a team of passionate, committed people who take ownership, or to be part of such a team where you feel you're personally responsible for the future of the venture (and yes, equity comes in play here too). What's more, such a team is a necessity if you want your venture to end up being something more than an expired domain name and a scratched-out business card down the line. It's worth the founder's while to look for someone with the right stuff and make that the highest priority.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)