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.

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.