Whoa, it's been a month since my last post! I'm sure there's a way to keep up the blogging while swamped with my startup work, just need to make time to find it ;)
One of the tasks that is occupying me is getting additional funding. We're currently in a boot-strapping mode and with a tiny team, it takes longer to get the boots-strapped, so to speak. A judicious infusion of funds will fuel growth very nicely. But, where the funds come from make a difference - in fact, where I should choose to spend my time looking for funds is important too as time is a precious commodity. Given our social entrepreneurship leanings, it is not surprising that what we do for our business and how we do it is just as important as how profitable it will be, so we'd want investors who'd support that.
This HBR case study is a timely one about an entrepreneur assessing whether she should take angel funding with strings attached - the strings and the way the deal is proposed are relevant to the decision. The article itself does not proffer an answer, allowing the reader to make his/her own call. The comments are thought-provoking, covering the gamut from 'of course, take the money' to 'run away from this!'. My own position is that every choice an entrepreneur makes is based on what s/he wants from the venture - money, meaning or both, with the last one requiring more subtle balancing and compromising. Check out the article here for a quick exercise which may reveal something about your own priorities!
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.
A true entrepreneur
I was sent this link a little while ago and thought it was one of those too-good-to-be-true stories: poor kid in rural India fails school but ends up building a profitable business and is greeted by Presidents. But the story of Masukhbhai Prajapati is one of a true entrepreneur who showed enormous passion and perseverance. Some other classic entrepreneurial characteristics that he showed are:
The 21st century needs more people like Mansukhbhai - not just more college dropouts creating social games online. His advice to entrepreneurs is universal - 'put your heart and soul into what you do' is one of them - and while he may not be a billionaire, his success is unquestionable as is his social impact. In my book, he is the real deal and you can read his fascinating story here.
- He didn't let himself be defined by the environment he was born into
- He could innovate outside the box and outside the 'normal' for the world he lived in
- He continued despite many failures
The 21st century needs more people like Mansukhbhai - not just more college dropouts creating social games online. His advice to entrepreneurs is universal - 'put your heart and soul into what you do' is one of them - and while he may not be a billionaire, his success is unquestionable as is his social impact. In my book, he is the real deal and you can read his fascinating story here.
Entrepreneur in control
I saw 'The Social Network' on opening day - something that I used to reserve for the Rings or Potter series (yes, truly nerdy). It is an excellent movie for anyone, and has special relevance to entrepreneurs, especially of the tech variety, who're sure to be doing some 'what if it were me?' noodling, though they are light years removed from the super-smart 19-year old Harvard student that Mark Zuckerberg was at the time he started Facebook.
Without getting into the fact/fiction debate - probably a foundation of fact with generous dollops of 'dramatic treatment' to make it entertaining - there were a couple of scenes which hinged on the choices made by Zuckerberg which could arguably be what made Facebook what it is today and these choices typified the kind of entrepreneur he was/is.
The first was when after agreeing to work with a couple of other students on a social network idea, Mark essentially (vastly) improved on the idea and decided to strike out on his own (with a different co-founder). What would other entrepreneurs have done here? Personally, I'd have given it the old college try (!) and spent some time to see if I could influence the others. Doing this without giving up the details would not be easy, but it is doable - it is establishing your role in the team, as well as assessing the vision of the team, before signing on. But in reality, as a founding entrepreneur, you're going to find that it is easier to go start your own venture than get folks with their own company to come around to your point of view, and this is a very understandable choice. The questionable behavior here is probably the timing, not the choice itself.
The other was pushing out the co-founder. There are many stories of friendships ruined by starting businesses together, but setting that aside, in the movie it was supposedly the difference in approaches/vision that prompted the CEO to push aside the CFO (with a little help from lawyers, VCs, advisors, etc. - probably some dramatic license being exercised there). This is a situation which in all likelihood happens more often than not as business prospects change once the company actually gets off the ground. In this case I'd spend a lot more time/effort to bring the co-founder to my way of thinking and also make it clear that we cannot afford active, unproductive dissension in the management team for long. I'd assume this would vastly increase the chances of getting us both in sync, but if not, yes, I think it is better to break off the relationship, though presumably with more grace and fairness than in the movie version.
Ultimately this about an entrepreneur who wants to stay in control of the vision and execution - Zuckerberg wants Facebook to go the way he intends it to and to do that, he made choices to ensure he has the control. It is not inherently bad or evil, neither is it automatically a good business move. This doesn't work for everyone, as some startups have imploded due to the founder's tunnel vision. It is just that Zuckerberg is that kind of entrepreneur (very much like Jobs) and everything worked amazingly well for him, because maybe he's just that smart?
Without getting into the fact/fiction debate - probably a foundation of fact with generous dollops of 'dramatic treatment' to make it entertaining - there were a couple of scenes which hinged on the choices made by Zuckerberg which could arguably be what made Facebook what it is today and these choices typified the kind of entrepreneur he was/is.
The first was when after agreeing to work with a couple of other students on a social network idea, Mark essentially (vastly) improved on the idea and decided to strike out on his own (with a different co-founder). What would other entrepreneurs have done here? Personally, I'd have given it the old college try (!) and spent some time to see if I could influence the others. Doing this without giving up the details would not be easy, but it is doable - it is establishing your role in the team, as well as assessing the vision of the team, before signing on. But in reality, as a founding entrepreneur, you're going to find that it is easier to go start your own venture than get folks with their own company to come around to your point of view, and this is a very understandable choice. The questionable behavior here is probably the timing, not the choice itself.
The other was pushing out the co-founder. There are many stories of friendships ruined by starting businesses together, but setting that aside, in the movie it was supposedly the difference in approaches/vision that prompted the CEO to push aside the CFO (with a little help from lawyers, VCs, advisors, etc. - probably some dramatic license being exercised there). This is a situation which in all likelihood happens more often than not as business prospects change once the company actually gets off the ground. In this case I'd spend a lot more time/effort to bring the co-founder to my way of thinking and also make it clear that we cannot afford active, unproductive dissension in the management team for long. I'd assume this would vastly increase the chances of getting us both in sync, but if not, yes, I think it is better to break off the relationship, though presumably with more grace and fairness than in the movie version.
Ultimately this about an entrepreneur who wants to stay in control of the vision and execution - Zuckerberg wants Facebook to go the way he intends it to and to do that, he made choices to ensure he has the control. It is not inherently bad or evil, neither is it automatically a good business move. This doesn't work for everyone, as some startups have imploded due to the founder's tunnel vision. It is just that Zuckerberg is that kind of entrepreneur (very much like Jobs) and everything worked amazingly well for him, because maybe he's just that smart?
Crazy like an entrepreneur
There was a recent NYT article about a young entrepreneur who could be described as 'hypomanic' - "grandiosity, an elevated and expansive mood, racing thoughts and little need for sleep" - and how these very qualities which could signal a borderline mental disorder are what could be best for an entrepreneur.
Sure, entrepreneurs are often called 'crazy' - they take risks, are overly enthusiastic about their ideas which don't seem practical, and have enormous confidence in their abilities to pull off something that looks iffy at best. Steve Jobs famously exhorted would be entrepreneurs to 'stay foolish'. So it should be nothing new - but this article focuses on what may be an extreme version of it. There is some of the next Zuckerberg glamor/clamor with investors hunting for brainy (and arrogant?) college dropouts with grand ideas for the next big thing a la Facebook. It doesn't seem to apply to entrepreneurs who go after ideas like the next generation fuel cells or a new heart valve or a better way to offer customer service - the stuff that may need deeper education or experience along with fire and faith - it is more about the brilliant college dropout with a tech game-changer. The entrepreneur profiled fits the bill of brilliance, obsessiveness, exhibiting single-mindedness from early childhood etc. Of course, he doesn't have any interest in a social life either. And while all entrepreneurs have to give up much of their 'ordinary life' to work on their startups, giving up all of it doesn't seem to be a smart move. Focus is necessary, tunnel vision is not, and entrepreneurs need people skills too, though the examples mentioned in the article don't seem to display much of the latter. Steve Jobs is cited as an example of another hypomanic entrepreneur and described as 'a despot and a control freak' - probably not the dream boss for most people.
There's the suggestion that highly successful entrepreneurs are not only extremely passionate and driven, but that the top priority in their lives is their venture, not the people, not even their families (many of them are young and single when they start). You can read the article here, but in my view, the world also needs, and offers hope for, entrepreneurs who are not going to be the next Zuckerberg or Jobs.
Sure, entrepreneurs are often called 'crazy' - they take risks, are overly enthusiastic about their ideas which don't seem practical, and have enormous confidence in their abilities to pull off something that looks iffy at best. Steve Jobs famously exhorted would be entrepreneurs to 'stay foolish'. So it should be nothing new - but this article focuses on what may be an extreme version of it. There is some of the next Zuckerberg glamor/clamor with investors hunting for brainy (and arrogant?) college dropouts with grand ideas for the next big thing a la Facebook. It doesn't seem to apply to entrepreneurs who go after ideas like the next generation fuel cells or a new heart valve or a better way to offer customer service - the stuff that may need deeper education or experience along with fire and faith - it is more about the brilliant college dropout with a tech game-changer. The entrepreneur profiled fits the bill of brilliance, obsessiveness, exhibiting single-mindedness from early childhood etc. Of course, he doesn't have any interest in a social life either. And while all entrepreneurs have to give up much of their 'ordinary life' to work on their startups, giving up all of it doesn't seem to be a smart move. Focus is necessary, tunnel vision is not, and entrepreneurs need people skills too, though the examples mentioned in the article don't seem to display much of the latter. Steve Jobs is cited as an example of another hypomanic entrepreneur and described as 'a despot and a control freak' - probably not the dream boss for most people.
There's the suggestion that highly successful entrepreneurs are not only extremely passionate and driven, but that the top priority in their lives is their venture, not the people, not even their families (many of them are young and single when they start). You can read the article here, but in my view, the world also needs, and offers hope for, entrepreneurs who are not going to be the next Zuckerberg or Jobs.
Staying true to your mission - continued
I while ago I'd written about Zappo's change to stay true to their mission of customer service (you can read it here). While that is certainly true for the big stuff, like business models, for an early stage entrepreneur it is also important to keep the focus on the day to day happenings that define the company. Unfortunately it is harder to do when you're being the Swiss army knife of your venture and switching from strategist to tactician constantly.
For example, we believe that customer focus is necessary in all aspects of business and the team supposedly has that down. But recently I was reviewing an overview document for a customer pilot - a document that I'd read and given feedback on at least a couple of times before - and since it was ready to go to the customer, I decided to look at it from the viewpoint of one. That's when I realized that while the main content was fine, the header had an internal focus, not a customer one. Instead of being titled something like 'Hot Stuff Program Pilot' where the customer could relate to and get excited by the 'hot stuff', the header was 'Pilot for XYZ Organizations' referring to the type of orgs that would do the pilot. Presumably it was not obvious as three different people, other than me, had reviewed it with the express intent of maximizing customer impact, and not one had caught the fact that all the header was doing was notifying the customer that this document was for them. Until I looked at it the way the customer would, I didn't see that we should draw attention to the program instead so we could have the customer at 'hello' (alright, the header). Maybe time pressures had something to do with it - but startups cannot use that as an excuse unfortunately. True, a larger company would have this kind of stuff covered under rules and guidelines developed by experienced staff who have time for building processes, but startups should, and can, get similar results by remembering the focus that they believe in.
Small things have a big impact, and when it comes to customers/users, the entrepreneur probably has to do some micro-managing (including of one's self!) until customer focus becomes second nature to everyone. The good news about having a small slip-up like this is that it makes for an excellent cautionary tale that everyone can relate to and makes it so much easier to do the right thing. That's another thing for the founder/entrepreneur to do: collect and tell stories!
For example, we believe that customer focus is necessary in all aspects of business and the team supposedly has that down. But recently I was reviewing an overview document for a customer pilot - a document that I'd read and given feedback on at least a couple of times before - and since it was ready to go to the customer, I decided to look at it from the viewpoint of one. That's when I realized that while the main content was fine, the header had an internal focus, not a customer one. Instead of being titled something like 'Hot Stuff Program Pilot' where the customer could relate to and get excited by the 'hot stuff', the header was 'Pilot for XYZ Organizations' referring to the type of orgs that would do the pilot. Presumably it was not obvious as three different people, other than me, had reviewed it with the express intent of maximizing customer impact, and not one had caught the fact that all the header was doing was notifying the customer that this document was for them. Until I looked at it the way the customer would, I didn't see that we should draw attention to the program instead so we could have the customer at 'hello' (alright, the header). Maybe time pressures had something to do with it - but startups cannot use that as an excuse unfortunately. True, a larger company would have this kind of stuff covered under rules and guidelines developed by experienced staff who have time for building processes, but startups should, and can, get similar results by remembering the focus that they believe in.
Small things have a big impact, and when it comes to customers/users, the entrepreneur probably has to do some micro-managing (including of one's self!) until customer focus becomes second nature to everyone. The good news about having a small slip-up like this is that it makes for an excellent cautionary tale that everyone can relate to and makes it so much easier to do the right thing. That's another thing for the founder/entrepreneur to do: collect and tell stories!
Entrepreneur's breed
I like Randy Komisar's writings on entrepreneurship. His book 'The Monk and the Riddle' was a big hit among startup circles, not in small part due to its people, not just business, focus. He knows how to employ 'hooks' to involve the reader and get a point across, and one of the more appealing ones is the tie-in between types of entrepreneurs and dog breeds.
Randy posits that in the early stages the entrepreneur should be a 'retriever', to go out and find people, money, partners etc. Entrepreneurs have to sell their vision at this stage, though I should say the only thing our retriever sold was his own adorable self - but I guess that could work rather well for an entrepreneur too. At the next stage Randy opts for the 'bloodhound' that will sniff out the best value proposition option to build a business on and later moves on to the 'husky' that can do the 'heavy lifting' of growing the business to a huge success.
Does this mean that every startup should have three different CEOs at different stages? It is hard to say, considering there are so many stellar examples of entrepreneurs who just grew with their companies (Gates, Jobs, Ellison, Dell), but many startups, especially venture-funded ones, do bring in a different 'breed' when the company shifts to a different stage.
Personally I believe that a single breed, or a single strength, is not sufficient at any stage, and especially so in the early stages when the entrepreneur needs to wear so many different hats and be a leader, manager, prospector, evangelist, negotiator and even designer/developer in many cases. You can read the rest of the interesting interview here, but my vote for the best breed for an entrepreneur goes to the 'mutt' - a sturdy mix of all the qualities you need for the startup and the scrappiness to make it work!
Randy posits that in the early stages the entrepreneur should be a 'retriever', to go out and find people, money, partners etc. Entrepreneurs have to sell their vision at this stage, though I should say the only thing our retriever sold was his own adorable self - but I guess that could work rather well for an entrepreneur too. At the next stage Randy opts for the 'bloodhound' that will sniff out the best value proposition option to build a business on and later moves on to the 'husky' that can do the 'heavy lifting' of growing the business to a huge success.
Does this mean that every startup should have three different CEOs at different stages? It is hard to say, considering there are so many stellar examples of entrepreneurs who just grew with their companies (Gates, Jobs, Ellison, Dell), but many startups, especially venture-funded ones, do bring in a different 'breed' when the company shifts to a different stage.
Personally I believe that a single breed, or a single strength, is not sufficient at any stage, and especially so in the early stages when the entrepreneur needs to wear so many different hats and be a leader, manager, prospector, evangelist, negotiator and even designer/developer in many cases. You can read the rest of the interesting interview here, but my vote for the best breed for an entrepreneur goes to the 'mutt' - a sturdy mix of all the qualities you need for the startup and the scrappiness to make it work!
Write on!
I was thrilled to read one of the more unusual pieces of advice for an entrepreneur: write. Sure, entrepreneurs are asked to blog, tweet, update their LinkedIn profiles, have a dynamic Facebook page etc. to promote their startups. That is writing as marketing. But, when you're in the early stages that may not always be the best advice, until your business is ready for that kind of visibility and promotion. If it is going to take you time to build your venture, you may be better off not publicizing your interim incarnations and 'low-funding-slow-growth' patches. It is important for the early stage entrepreneur to remember that what you post reflects both you and your company and will impact future funding and customer acquisition. Do you really want a potential VC reading about the gory details of how you raged when a customer reneged or how you were ready to throw in the towel when you read about a new competitor's funding? No, you're better off saving that for the tell-all you're going to write in your retirement when revealing your flaws/flubs only adds spice to your success story and doesn't have a chance of derailing it.
So what else can an entrepreneur write about when it is for 'self-improvement'? Something like this post ;). Seriously, pick an area, or two, of interest and just have a go at it. The writer suggests that writing is a good way to hone critical thinking skills and I couldn't agree more. One of the primary reasons I write this blog is to force myself to branch outside of the bizthink/bizspeak mode - all PowerPoints and path to profitability. It has had many side benefits too: it makes me a better communicator, it's proven to be an effective way for investors/partners to learn more about how I think, and has helped potential team members understand what to expect from me. And amazingly, and most gratifyingly, there are some readers who appear to be getting some value out of it.
You can read the writing post here, but I'd extend that advice it to everyone, not just entrepreneurs. Writing is all good and has no downside, as long as you remember when it shouldn't be public.
So what else can an entrepreneur write about when it is for 'self-improvement'? Something like this post ;). Seriously, pick an area, or two, of interest and just have a go at it. The writer suggests that writing is a good way to hone critical thinking skills and I couldn't agree more. One of the primary reasons I write this blog is to force myself to branch outside of the bizthink/bizspeak mode - all PowerPoints and path to profitability. It has had many side benefits too: it makes me a better communicator, it's proven to be an effective way for investors/partners to learn more about how I think, and has helped potential team members understand what to expect from me. And amazingly, and most gratifyingly, there are some readers who appear to be getting some value out of it.
You can read the writing post here, but I'd extend that advice it to everyone, not just entrepreneurs. Writing is all good and has no downside, as long as you remember when it shouldn't be public.
The road to entrepreneurship
Prerna Gupta provides a textbook case for why people choose to be entrepreneurs. Unsatisfied in spite of her high-paying, high-perk consulting job? Check. Bored selling something that didn't excite her for another (VC) company? Check. Hated working in a 'conventional structure'? Disliked having a boss? Miserable sitting in an office working on 'someone else's creation'? Check, check, check.
So she did the logical thing: started a tech company with her boyfriend (now husband). Prerna is well aware that success is not guaranteed, yet the risk of failure is not enough to send her back to a safe job working for someone else. She has realized that even the most routine work is more meaningful when it is towards her passion (her startup) and being an entrepreneur has significantly improved her outlook on life.
So should everyone who's unhappy with long hours or selling things they don't care about bail and start a company? Of course not. Most people would be happy to find work they care about, even if it is working for someone else. After all, few entrepreneurs can go at it on their own - they need to build a team that can get passionate about their idea and there are plenty of people who'd bring entrepreneurial gusto to someone else's startup. But when many aspects of your work seem at odds with what you want from your work life, it is clear that you should stop and assess what you should be doing as Prerna did. Clearly Prerna had some advantages that smoothed her road to entrepreneurship: a Stanford degree and being surrounded by the startup culture in Silicon Valley that almost pushes smart young people into starting companies. Another advantage is that she obviously has the ability to face potential financial failure with some equanimity too. Most would-be entrepreneurs may not be so lucky, yet, paradoxically, someone who embarks on a venture even without these advantages may be the true entrepreneur for taking the road, potholes, speedbumps and all.
You can read about Prerna here - it's a good read for all entrepreneurs and entrepreneur-hopefuls too.
So she did the logical thing: started a tech company with her boyfriend (now husband). Prerna is well aware that success is not guaranteed, yet the risk of failure is not enough to send her back to a safe job working for someone else. She has realized that even the most routine work is more meaningful when it is towards her passion (her startup) and being an entrepreneur has significantly improved her outlook on life.
So should everyone who's unhappy with long hours or selling things they don't care about bail and start a company? Of course not. Most people would be happy to find work they care about, even if it is working for someone else. After all, few entrepreneurs can go at it on their own - they need to build a team that can get passionate about their idea and there are plenty of people who'd bring entrepreneurial gusto to someone else's startup. But when many aspects of your work seem at odds with what you want from your work life, it is clear that you should stop and assess what you should be doing as Prerna did. Clearly Prerna had some advantages that smoothed her road to entrepreneurship: a Stanford degree and being surrounded by the startup culture in Silicon Valley that almost pushes smart young people into starting companies. Another advantage is that she obviously has the ability to face potential financial failure with some equanimity too. Most would-be entrepreneurs may not be so lucky, yet, paradoxically, someone who embarks on a venture even without these advantages may be the true entrepreneur for taking the road, potholes, speedbumps and all.
You can read about Prerna here - it's a good read for all entrepreneurs and entrepreneur-hopefuls too.
The work of life
For sure cave people never despaired of finding work/life balance. Back then, just living was work - escaping the pesky predators, chasing dinner on the hoof, having a kid or ten before succumbing to some random illness just because you scratched yourself inappropriately. But civilization happened and over time there rose the concept that work was what you did so you could have a life, sometimes in the literal sense. And then there developed a choice, for a few, where working became 'living', a neat flip from the primeval position.
Entrepreneurs routinely face the question of whether they're spending too much time on work. The irony is that everyone (who can afford the choice) is exhorted to find a way to make a living 'doing what you love', and if you love doing something, the chances are you're going to do it a lot. Most entrepreneurs don't feel they're working - at least not toiling - they're just doing what feels right. But, there's the 'life' part with significant others, spouses, children, parents, siblings - the people who you may feel responsible for in some way. There are many VCs and startup pundits who actively subscribe to the conventional wisdom that the best entrepreneur is someone young and 'unencumbered' - someone who can put 150% into the venture. All young people are not able - or often, not willing - to put in that kind of commitment though. Entrepreneurship is not determined by age but the compelling desire to start a company - and if you have that, lack of encumbrances of course make it easier for the entrepreneur to put undivided attention to the company. But (yes, there's a 'but' here), do you want an entrepreneur whose world view is just the company and nothing else? It is interesting to see how so many CEOs feel they have to show how they have 'full', 'normal' lives with the requisite social, and socially-conscious, commitments, the sports (sometimes extreme) as well as photo-perfect families (unless you're young Mark Zuckerberg of course).
So assuming that the entrepreneur has something outside of the startup that s/he wants to hold on to, there is always the problem of finding balance and the solution is individualized. Here's an older post (lies entrepreneurs tell themselves) which I'd read a little while ago that lays out one entrepreneur's take. While this addresses the day-to-day ongoing balance between work and family, the being-home-for-dinner-two-days-a-week sort of thing, the bigger challenge is when something 'big' comes along and demands a ton of your time as well as emotional and mental focus. This is not as unlikely as we would like it to be, accidents happen, people in your life can get critically ill and it may take something more than a trip to the zoo or a weekend getaway from you. This is when the entrepreneur's mettle is really tested. You can't give up your family responsibilities as there are people depending on you and you can't give up on your company as other people are depending on you too, though in a different way. The only thing you can do is cope. Focus on what's critical for the near term, both at work and home, and let the other stuff slide. And get help - if you had a team that you can delegate to, it would relieve some of the stress while still helping you get things done. It may be difficult to have that kind of support if your startup is in a really early stage, but then again, if it is not quite established you may have more flexibility - and maybe you should start looking for management support sooner then later. It also helps if you have plans in place so your team can continue getting things done even without your constant hour-to-hour involvement. Team + plans in place - not just good for routine productivity but also for crisis times when you can't be there 100%. And while you're juggling all these challenges, remember to take time out for yourself - so you are able to pick up where you left off when the times once again pass from crisis to routine and work/life balance is back to remembering to show up for dinner.
Entrepreneurs routinely face the question of whether they're spending too much time on work. The irony is that everyone (who can afford the choice) is exhorted to find a way to make a living 'doing what you love', and if you love doing something, the chances are you're going to do it a lot. Most entrepreneurs don't feel they're working - at least not toiling - they're just doing what feels right. But, there's the 'life' part with significant others, spouses, children, parents, siblings - the people who you may feel responsible for in some way. There are many VCs and startup pundits who actively subscribe to the conventional wisdom that the best entrepreneur is someone young and 'unencumbered' - someone who can put 150% into the venture. All young people are not able - or often, not willing - to put in that kind of commitment though. Entrepreneurship is not determined by age but the compelling desire to start a company - and if you have that, lack of encumbrances of course make it easier for the entrepreneur to put undivided attention to the company. But (yes, there's a 'but' here), do you want an entrepreneur whose world view is just the company and nothing else? It is interesting to see how so many CEOs feel they have to show how they have 'full', 'normal' lives with the requisite social, and socially-conscious, commitments, the sports (sometimes extreme) as well as photo-perfect families (unless you're young Mark Zuckerberg of course).
So assuming that the entrepreneur has something outside of the startup that s/he wants to hold on to, there is always the problem of finding balance and the solution is individualized. Here's an older post (lies entrepreneurs tell themselves) which I'd read a little while ago that lays out one entrepreneur's take. While this addresses the day-to-day ongoing balance between work and family, the being-home-for-dinner-two-days-a-week sort of thing, the bigger challenge is when something 'big' comes along and demands a ton of your time as well as emotional and mental focus. This is not as unlikely as we would like it to be, accidents happen, people in your life can get critically ill and it may take something more than a trip to the zoo or a weekend getaway from you. This is when the entrepreneur's mettle is really tested. You can't give up your family responsibilities as there are people depending on you and you can't give up on your company as other people are depending on you too, though in a different way. The only thing you can do is cope. Focus on what's critical for the near term, both at work and home, and let the other stuff slide. And get help - if you had a team that you can delegate to, it would relieve some of the stress while still helping you get things done. It may be difficult to have that kind of support if your startup is in a really early stage, but then again, if it is not quite established you may have more flexibility - and maybe you should start looking for management support sooner then later. It also helps if you have plans in place so your team can continue getting things done even without your constant hour-to-hour involvement. Team + plans in place - not just good for routine productivity but also for crisis times when you can't be there 100%. And while you're juggling all these challenges, remember to take time out for yourself - so you are able to pick up where you left off when the times once again pass from crisis to routine and work/life balance is back to remembering to show up for dinner.
Staying true to your mission
Most startups have to do course corrections and redefine - or 'find' - themselves before they are set on the path to success (sometimes even after, as their business environments may change). In a previous post ('adaptive startup') I'd written that while change is necessary, it is non-trivial and serious attention needs to be paid to the original vision of the venture and how it fits in.
I ran across this story about how a 'little' company called Zappos dealt with having to change their business model right after the dot-com crash. Their CEO Tony Hsieh made the decision to walk away from 25% of their revenue in an unarguably bad economy in favor of a business model that enabled their core mission: exceptional customer service. Zappos is differentiated and hugely successful because of their customer service (I'm a customer and I'll attest to the good-vibes shopping experience) - but it takes guts, dedication and clarity of vision to do what Tony did. Also, it is cool to see a shoe retailer, who came somewhat late to the online market, knocking it out of the park based not on disruptive proprietary technology but on the decidedly low-tech people-dependent customer service. Read the story here - it's a good reminder that business is always about the customer.
I ran across this story about how a 'little' company called Zappos dealt with having to change their business model right after the dot-com crash. Their CEO Tony Hsieh made the decision to walk away from 25% of their revenue in an unarguably bad economy in favor of a business model that enabled their core mission: exceptional customer service. Zappos is differentiated and hugely successful because of their customer service (I'm a customer and I'll attest to the good-vibes shopping experience) - but it takes guts, dedication and clarity of vision to do what Tony did. Also, it is cool to see a shoe retailer, who came somewhat late to the online market, knocking it out of the park based not on disruptive proprietary technology but on the decidedly low-tech people-dependent customer service. Read the story here - it's a good reminder that business is always about the customer.
Dealing with the naysayers
There's probably no idea that will win universal approval before it becomes reality. This is particularly true of visionary, mold-breaking, non-linear, quantum-leap kinds of ideas which will elicit responses ranging from 'nice, but there's no market' to 'in your dreams', most likely in stronger and more categorical terms. It takes unswerving belief in the dream for an entrepreneur/inventor/creator to make it happen which is why passion and dedication are must-haves for any would be entrepreneur.
I'm passing on an interesting post on why entrepreneurs shouldn't listen to 'experts' (you can read the post here and the source it mentions here) - which was both encouraging and amusing. I found the the JK Rowling and the Ford put-downs particularly interesting and can only imagine how they must have felt on hearing them - and applaud their fortitude in forging ahead anyway. Sure, hind-sight is 20-20 and all that, but there's a huge difference between a reviewer who says 'I don't immediately see how it will work, tell me' versus the one who says 'There's no way this will work'. As an entrepreneur, you have to learn to judge your judges, assess your reviewers and know when to listen and when to ignore. Or better yet, know when to push back - if someone says 'no', ask 'why not?'. Maybe they'll have good reasons which are worth listening to and may help in refining your idea/business. Or maybe all they have is an unshakable belief in their own superior knowledge in which case you are better off relying on your own unshakable belief in yourself and moving on to doing something instead.
I'm passing on an interesting post on why entrepreneurs shouldn't listen to 'experts' (you can read the post here and the source it mentions here) - which was both encouraging and amusing. I found the the JK Rowling and the Ford put-downs particularly interesting and can only imagine how they must have felt on hearing them - and applaud their fortitude in forging ahead anyway. Sure, hind-sight is 20-20 and all that, but there's a huge difference between a reviewer who says 'I don't immediately see how it will work, tell me' versus the one who says 'There's no way this will work'. As an entrepreneur, you have to learn to judge your judges, assess your reviewers and know when to listen and when to ignore. Or better yet, know when to push back - if someone says 'no', ask 'why not?'. Maybe they'll have good reasons which are worth listening to and may help in refining your idea/business. Or maybe all they have is an unshakable belief in their own superior knowledge in which case you are better off relying on your own unshakable belief in yourself and moving on to doing something instead.
Happy startup?
I've been thinking about this article off and on ever since I read it a few weeks ago - Ted Leonsis scored on memorability, at least for one reader! The article in Newsweek (you can read it here), was inspired by Google's stance against censorship in China - but talks about building happy companies and the double-bottom-line of profit and 'a positive impact on humanity'.
First off, I heartily support the goal of building companies that are not only about profit but also about 'doing good'. Though I would add that today one should think about extending it to the triple-bottom-line of profit, people and planet as people and planet, though closely intertwined, could use individual focus. Surprisingly Ted says 'the concept of the double bottom line is unlikely to pop up in business schools any time soon'. Hmm. I'd think otherwise given the interest in 'social enterprises' over the last few years. Stanford and Berkeley, in my neck of the woods, devote a ton of energy to that concept, with classes, seminars etc. - as do the smaller colleges in the area too. So, the idea is not new, though it certainly bears repeating, especially in national conversations. Ted's take is that the way a company's product is built, sold etc. should be done with people's well-being in mind, not requiring the product itself has to be directly impacting it. You could be selling a better way to do robotic inventory stacking which doesn't directly involve people, but how you do it is what matters for happiness.
I've been thinking about how 'happiness' can extend to a startup. One would think it is counter-intuitive, given that most entrepreneurs are under a lot of pressure. Is it possible to build a happy startup environment when everyone is working extra long days? Heck is it possible to be happy when one is doing little else but work? In short, yes. If you're working at what you love, you would be happy even if you're working extra hard (this assumes that your personal life - presumably you have one of those - is not in tatters.) Doing something you love for work is the holy grail. So the entrepreneur could be happy, and most of the entrepreneurs I've met who're passionate about what they're doing definitely wouldn't rather be doing something else. Though they may not be doing the happy dance every minute, they clearly exude excitement. Conversely, if they're not emotionally invested in their venture they don't give off the same positive vibes.
Can an entrepreneur build a happy startup? I believe so, but only if the entrepreneur is passionate and happy to be in startup to begin with. Happiness can be infectious but it is not guaranteed with free food, bouncy balls and tequila Thursdays - though they're all fun. Startups are happy places only for some people - the people who thrive in that kind of environment. The fluid schedules, rapid course corrections, and the necessity of wearing many hats and being responsible for more than your core capability is heady excitement for some and uncomfortable presssure for others who feel the 'fun' is not worth the frustration. You have to embrace the startup life/work style to find happiness there.
There's one more factor for a happy company - money. Money is not sufficient to ensure happiness, but it is necessary - so profit, at a personal and a company level, needs to show up. For a startup this may be the hardest criterion to achieve, but it is the primary goal of the venture after all so it has to show up for it to survive. People-friendly values, a team that embraces the culture, and monetary rewards - happy, happy, joy, joy.
First off, I heartily support the goal of building companies that are not only about profit but also about 'doing good'. Though I would add that today one should think about extending it to the triple-bottom-line of profit, people and planet as people and planet, though closely intertwined, could use individual focus. Surprisingly Ted says 'the concept of the double bottom line is unlikely to pop up in business schools any time soon'. Hmm. I'd think otherwise given the interest in 'social enterprises' over the last few years. Stanford and Berkeley, in my neck of the woods, devote a ton of energy to that concept, with classes, seminars etc. - as do the smaller colleges in the area too. So, the idea is not new, though it certainly bears repeating, especially in national conversations. Ted's take is that the way a company's product is built, sold etc. should be done with people's well-being in mind, not requiring the product itself has to be directly impacting it. You could be selling a better way to do robotic inventory stacking which doesn't directly involve people, but how you do it is what matters for happiness.
I've been thinking about how 'happiness' can extend to a startup. One would think it is counter-intuitive, given that most entrepreneurs are under a lot of pressure. Is it possible to build a happy startup environment when everyone is working extra long days? Heck is it possible to be happy when one is doing little else but work? In short, yes. If you're working at what you love, you would be happy even if you're working extra hard (this assumes that your personal life - presumably you have one of those - is not in tatters.) Doing something you love for work is the holy grail. So the entrepreneur could be happy, and most of the entrepreneurs I've met who're passionate about what they're doing definitely wouldn't rather be doing something else. Though they may not be doing the happy dance every minute, they clearly exude excitement. Conversely, if they're not emotionally invested in their venture they don't give off the same positive vibes.
Can an entrepreneur build a happy startup? I believe so, but only if the entrepreneur is passionate and happy to be in startup to begin with. Happiness can be infectious but it is not guaranteed with free food, bouncy balls and tequila Thursdays - though they're all fun. Startups are happy places only for some people - the people who thrive in that kind of environment. The fluid schedules, rapid course corrections, and the necessity of wearing many hats and being responsible for more than your core capability is heady excitement for some and uncomfortable presssure for others who feel the 'fun' is not worth the frustration. You have to embrace the startup life/work style to find happiness there.
There's one more factor for a happy company - money. Money is not sufficient to ensure happiness, but it is necessary - so profit, at a personal and a company level, needs to show up. For a startup this may be the hardest criterion to achieve, but it is the primary goal of the venture after all so it has to show up for it to survive. People-friendly values, a team that embraces the culture, and monetary rewards - happy, happy, joy, joy.
The frugal entrepreneur
One of the lessons we all have (or should have) learned from the great melt-down of 2008-09 is how to get things done on the cheap. This is especially true for the majority of startups and small businesses that found investors were scarcer than buyers for homes and the seed/startup money had dried up like dew in the desert. For many ventures success in the last 18 or so months has been defined as survival, and that has been possible only by leaps of creative resourcing.
For those who embrace the frugal entrepreneur's path to future wealth and success, 'The Toilet Paper Entrepreneur' by Mike Michalowicz is a good read. It's a light-hearted but spot-on collection of tips and guidelines on building your venture with innovation if not big bucks. (You can also read ReadWriteWeb's post on this book here. I think I've written about the entrepreneurial passion about a zillion times, and was happy to see it features hugely in this book too, as Mike's take is that finding your passion is the first step to launching a successful company. Coming to think of it, have you found any successful entrepreneur who says you don't need passion?
Check out TPE - it could be just the energy shot you need to keep pushing (no pun intended).
For those who embrace the frugal entrepreneur's path to future wealth and success, 'The Toilet Paper Entrepreneur' by Mike Michalowicz is a good read. It's a light-hearted but spot-on collection of tips and guidelines on building your venture with innovation if not big bucks. (You can also read ReadWriteWeb's post on this book here. I think I've written about the entrepreneurial passion about a zillion times, and was happy to see it features hugely in this book too, as Mike's take is that finding your passion is the first step to launching a successful company. Coming to think of it, have you found any successful entrepreneur who says you don't need passion?
Check out TPE - it could be just the energy shot you need to keep pushing (no pun intended).
Power from the people
Lists are ubiquitous and ever popular. They give the illusion of control - if you can just check off these 10 things you'll lose weight, get into your dream college, find your soul mate and build an amazing company from scratch. Ah, if only. But, lists are still useful if you don't treat them as the 'check' kind and I particularly enjoy reading the entrepreneurial ones (by entrepreneurs) to see what truths they hold dear.
For example, I recently read list of tips for entrepreneurs from Kevin Rose, Digg's founder (you can read the list here). While the focus is on web startups, there are many good things on that list and after the first one ('just build it' - can't top that), my favorites are 'hire your boss' and 'demand excellence'.
The 'hire your boss' bit is about hiring people who you'd respect and you'd want to work for, even if you're hiring them to work for you. And the 'excellence' one is to hire passionate people who are as consumed by your vision as you are. In my experiences both at large corporations and startups, I always had the most success when I hired super smart people who were super committed to doing a great job. They were not always the people with the top college or top company pedigrees, but they definitely had a 'spark' and certain common characteristics: early and complete commitment to the goal, quick at learning, uncompromising in quality and integrity but understanding business constraints, and able to consider challenges as just 'stuff to resolve'. Most of all they enjoyed their jobs and it was exciting to work with them.
I've mentioned this in previous posts about having team members with 'fire in the belly' and 'the right stuff'. An early stage startup needs a passionate team even more than an established one as there's more chaos to be endured, more challenges to be met and hurdles to be jumped which would be difficult to manage with a team that's not emotionally vested in the outcome. But even though you may not have your dream team yet when you get started on the venture, figure out a way to do that without compromising on your management team. It is better to take your time, even if you have to work with consultants for a while, and hold out until you find people who mirror your passion instead of taking on those with extensive resumes but the involvement burner set to low. More than money, your startup is powered by people, the ones who're as crazy about your idea as you are - not to mention, it's way more fun than being the lone crazy in the group!
Persistence pays
It's nice to hear about a struggling startup that finally makes it big - it brings a lot more hope than stories about hot shots that are winners right out of the gate, because let's face it, there are more strugglers than shooting stars. I recently read an article about Pandora (which you can read here) about how after 10 years (wow!) of precarious fortunes they're finally raking it in.
Sure, you could say they got a lucky break when they'd come out with an iPhone app to ride the iPhone took off - but luck is often preparedness meeting opportunity. More importantly, they're flourishing because they stuck with it. In older posts about the right stuff for entrepreneurs and the balancing act they'd have to do, I'd mentioned how important it is for an entrepreneur to do everything s/he can to make the venture work. I'd also linked to Paul Graham's essay on startup lessons where #5 was 'commitment is a self-fulfilling prophecy'. The story of Pandora is a great validation of this precept - in fact one of their VCs says that while their pitch itself wasn't interesting, founder Tim Westergren came across as an entrepreneur who wouldn't fail which is why they invested in him.
Pandora is one of my favorite apps and I'm happy that they persisted through so many downturns to finally become a success story that's an inspiration to all entrepreneurs - and it's a safe bet their 48 million+ users are happy too.
Decide to act
I remember the bane of 'analysis paralysis' from my corporate years - there was always one faction that favored lengthy and laborious analysis before even agreeing to a proposal, sometimes to the extent that the proposal became obsolete. While understanding and supporting the need for analysis, I personally preferred the 'do your homework quickly, highlight the risks, plan an escape route and then go for it' approach myself and often had to dig in deep to find patience when faced with endless analysis that I couldn't control.
But for an entrepreneur, quick decisions are a necessity not an option. In an earlier post I'd written about the adaptive startup and why it is important for a startup to change, but there has to be a decision to act first in order to have something that requires change. As an early stage entrepreneur, you have to remember there's no such thing as a perfect product or a perfect market or even a perfect team - you've got to lead with what you've got and make something happen. Granted you may find that you've headed in the wrong direction and you have to make course corrections, but at least you're moving. It's hard to be agile if you're static.
I was reminded of this recently by two things. First, I was contemplating launching a new program but was concerned about the fact that the software was missing a couple of features that I felt to be key and that I didn't have dedicated resources to get started. Most of all I wasn't sure this program would even be successful though on paper it seemed so, and it didn't help that everyone around me was in tactical mode and couldn't meaningfully engage in a discussion in a timely manner. The standard process would have been to take more time to do deeper analysis on viability as well as assess the software changes impact before making the decision to go ahead. All it took was one simple 'aha' moment to remember that the program could be launched as a contained pilot and the software features could be (I was sure they would be) suggestions from the users and prioritized by them. I made the decision to get started and I'm happy to say the program's well on its way and everything is falling into place as part of just getting it done - that includes the resources.
Soon after I'd made the decision, I ran across this post which delivered a virtual pat on the back validating the entrepreneur's need for quick decisions - and by implication, quick action. It is well known that the idea alone is not sufficient for a successful startup, it's the execution of the idea that counts - and execution is all about deciding and doing. As an entrepreneur remember you have a need, a need for speed!
But for an entrepreneur, quick decisions are a necessity not an option. In an earlier post I'd written about the adaptive startup and why it is important for a startup to change, but there has to be a decision to act first in order to have something that requires change. As an early stage entrepreneur, you have to remember there's no such thing as a perfect product or a perfect market or even a perfect team - you've got to lead with what you've got and make something happen. Granted you may find that you've headed in the wrong direction and you have to make course corrections, but at least you're moving. It's hard to be agile if you're static.
I was reminded of this recently by two things. First, I was contemplating launching a new program but was concerned about the fact that the software was missing a couple of features that I felt to be key and that I didn't have dedicated resources to get started. Most of all I wasn't sure this program would even be successful though on paper it seemed so, and it didn't help that everyone around me was in tactical mode and couldn't meaningfully engage in a discussion in a timely manner. The standard process would have been to take more time to do deeper analysis on viability as well as assess the software changes impact before making the decision to go ahead. All it took was one simple 'aha' moment to remember that the program could be launched as a contained pilot and the software features could be (I was sure they would be) suggestions from the users and prioritized by them. I made the decision to get started and I'm happy to say the program's well on its way and everything is falling into place as part of just getting it done - that includes the resources.
Soon after I'd made the decision, I ran across this post which delivered a virtual pat on the back validating the entrepreneur's need for quick decisions - and by implication, quick action. It is well known that the idea alone is not sufficient for a successful startup, it's the execution of the idea that counts - and execution is all about deciding and doing. As an entrepreneur remember you have a need, a need for speed!
More on asking
A few posts ago I'd written about how important it is for entrepreneurs (probably everyone, but entrepreneurs in particular) to get comfortable asking because in a startup you're going to be in ask-mode much of the time (read more here). Believe me, it gets easier with practice - it may still qualify as one of your least favorite activities, right down there with doing taxes, but you get it over it much quicker.
Recently I ran across this post on the Groundswell blogs (the book's by Josh Bernoff and Charlene Li - more info here) on how to get help from people you don't know. In short, Josh suggests you send an email. He gives a lot more advice, ranging from how to word the subject line to your signature. This is a good 'how-to', informative and with examples. I personally like an email better than a phone call because you give people a chance to think about what you're asking without feeling pressured to respond right away (not to mention that most of the time when you call someone you don't know you end up in the dreaded voicemail zone). For sure you can't ask for help from someone you don't know on Facebook unless it's for a crowd-sourced thing, ditto for LinkedIn. If it is personal involvement you want your options are basically an email, a phone call - or a carefully plotted 'casual' encounter which is clearly entering sitcom territory.
Yes, Josh's suggestion email suggestion is a good one, but if you're an early stage entrepreneur you need to take some more steps. Don't go on and on about your startup - keep it close to the elevator pitch. Do mention common (and well respected) friends/acquaintances if any, preferably in the subject line if you can do a 'referral'. Most importantly don't include links or attachments - unless you want your email to end up slumming in the junk folder. Get a response first and then, when you're past the spam filters, you can send your exec overview or a link to your demo or both. Do ask, do tell, and hope you do get what you want!
Recently I ran across this post on the Groundswell blogs (the book's by Josh Bernoff and Charlene Li - more info here) on how to get help from people you don't know. In short, Josh suggests you send an email. He gives a lot more advice, ranging from how to word the subject line to your signature. This is a good 'how-to', informative and with examples. I personally like an email better than a phone call because you give people a chance to think about what you're asking without feeling pressured to respond right away (not to mention that most of the time when you call someone you don't know you end up in the dreaded voicemail zone). For sure you can't ask for help from someone you don't know on Facebook unless it's for a crowd-sourced thing, ditto for LinkedIn. If it is personal involvement you want your options are basically an email, a phone call - or a carefully plotted 'casual' encounter which is clearly entering sitcom territory.
Yes, Josh's suggestion email suggestion is a good one, but if you're an early stage entrepreneur you need to take some more steps. Don't go on and on about your startup - keep it close to the elevator pitch. Do mention common (and well respected) friends/acquaintances if any, preferably in the subject line if you can do a 'referral'. Most importantly don't include links or attachments - unless you want your email to end up slumming in the junk folder. Get a response first and then, when you're past the spam filters, you can send your exec overview or a link to your demo or both. Do ask, do tell, and hope you do get what you want!
Universal new year euphoria
On New Year's day I was with friends and family (watching the Rose Bowl was our purported goal) and we got into a discussion about how New Year celebrations were unnecessary and forced on everyone when it was just a day like any other. While I'm all for people not being compelled to do anything, least of all wear silly hats and drink copious amounts of faux champagne, I believe there's a lot to be said for marking and yes, celebrating, the beginning of a new year (emphasis on the new). Sure some might feel a perceived peer pressure to have 'epic' experiences on December 31, but that's like any other social expectation which most secure adults should be able to withstand comfortably. What excites me, and what I like to signify and celebrate, is the feeling of newness and the myriad possibilities starting January 1 - because even though it appears to be just a day like any other, it becomes special just by thinking it is so.
The best thing about an observed new year, regardless of the calendar you choose to follow, is the shared perception that it is open to change - of the good kind. Of course you can resolve to change your life starting September 23 or July 17, it is perfectly doable and people do it all the time, but unless that happens to be 'new year day' in your part of the world you'll be the only one doing it. January 1, on the other hand, is when billions around the world are clearing out cobwebs, literally and metaphorically, and gearing up for the good stuff in work, play, health, relationships, spirit, and all things important. There are the best-of and looking-ahead lists, the planning seminars, the health club discounts, the rejuvenation conferences for minds, bodies, careers, the how-to launch your business workshops, sermons, prayers and rituals of renewal - there's a 'fresh start' zeitgeist that generates a heightened sense of hope and determination that could last for weeks after the new year.
This universal euphoria pulls everyone along, and it's a good thing, particularly for entrepreneurs. It helps you reflect and plan, review and re-energize and often provides a convenient point to shake things up and create new goals and programs. And nobody questions the timing - changes are pretty much the norm for the new year and everyone, whether team member, advisor, investor or customer, is primed for it. Yes, the new year may be all in your head, but when it's in all our heads at the same time, it packs a pretty powerful punch and may be just what you need to make the changes you desire.
The best thing about an observed new year, regardless of the calendar you choose to follow, is the shared perception that it is open to change - of the good kind. Of course you can resolve to change your life starting September 23 or July 17, it is perfectly doable and people do it all the time, but unless that happens to be 'new year day' in your part of the world you'll be the only one doing it. January 1, on the other hand, is when billions around the world are clearing out cobwebs, literally and metaphorically, and gearing up for the good stuff in work, play, health, relationships, spirit, and all things important. There are the best-of and looking-ahead lists, the planning seminars, the health club discounts, the rejuvenation conferences for minds, bodies, careers, the how-to launch your business workshops, sermons, prayers and rituals of renewal - there's a 'fresh start' zeitgeist that generates a heightened sense of hope and determination that could last for weeks after the new year.
This universal euphoria pulls everyone along, and it's a good thing, particularly for entrepreneurs. It helps you reflect and plan, review and re-energize and often provides a convenient point to shake things up and create new goals and programs. And nobody questions the timing - changes are pretty much the norm for the new year and everyone, whether team member, advisor, investor or customer, is primed for it. Yes, the new year may be all in your head, but when it's in all our heads at the same time, it packs a pretty powerful punch and may be just what you need to make the changes you desire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)