I'm sure there are a couple more important reasons, but this is the one that I'm thinking about now, so #3 it is.
Outside-in thinking. AKA thinking outside the box. Yes, that one, the one that's fast becoming an old saw, hammer or what-have-you, and is a foundation for many high-priced classes teaching organizations to innovate (does anyone still not know how to connect the dots?). Though tired, it is tried and true and most of us believe that's exactly what we'll be doing.
But there's the inevitable knowing-doing gap. Thinking outside the box can't be mandated, and you can't always rely on peppy (Dr. Pepper-stoked?) facilitators leading your team through mind-expanding exercises like associating recruiting to horses (honestly, I did one of those!). To be truly effective you need creative thought not just during dedicated brain-storming sessions, but also when dealing with to day-to-day demands, be they figuring out the right wording for an email to an angel investor or designing a stop-gap solution to a user problem. That's how a startup gets to be excellent, and not just another venture.
What helps, a lot, is an environment that is conducive to unconstrained thinking. One with constant exposure to fresh thoughts. To people who don't think just like you - at least not all the time (watching Top Chef, ok, but Top Model, huh, why?). And having a marked absence of silos is a big factore. A silo, even if one could be established, would surely crumble in a startup due to the small number of heads and the vast quantity of hats to be filled. Not having a silo means you are not isolated with others who are in the exact same function/department, so you are automatically exposes you to other perspectives. Wow, if the finance guy can routinely listen to the product marketing and the development teams (of one each!) haggling over features, just maybe, every now and then, he has an idea that blows the problem away. Often, it doesn't even have to be an idea, just a question, asked from a different point of view, is all it takes to spark a creative solution.
It is not at all far-fetched to think that the architect's casual idea can spark something for marketing or a tester's question changes the user interface. But many assume that technologists can't get inspiration from other functions like marketing because they're, well, non-technical and can't help solve tech issues. Not so. What the outside-in thinking is all about is to get you out of your current rut and look at the big picture, the forest, the planet even - and that, instead of yet another tech deep-dive, may be what you need to see the solution,. If nothing else, it may re-frame the problem and it may not be such a big deal anymore.
Lastly, it's not just that startups are able to solve problems quicker - the solutions are often more creative than they would be otherwise. as they are informed by the diverse experiences of the entire team. Being small is both a bane and a bounty - startups never seem to have enough staff to get everything done, but they sure rock at innovation.
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.
An entrepreneur's take
I've been thinking about this off and on over the past few weeks as the Yahoo-MicroSoft saga was unfolding. There were a lot of opinions out there, some predicting the disappearance (so to speak) of a Silicon Valley Internet legend, but many others wondering about the wisdom of CEO Jerry Yang's refusal to just take the offer. But not being an obsessive blogger, and being somewhat preoccupied with other stuff like work (what's that about?), I hadn't gotten around to sharing my thoughts. Then the MicroSoft offer was taken off the table, ostensibly, and there was another crescendo of opinion, now focusing on the loss to the shareholders, and the predicted futility of Jerry Yang's stated desire to have Yahoo succeed independently. And yesterday I happened to catch a rather sentimental column on the Merc News, one of the few that bemoaned the possible loss of an iconic pioneering company, and I decided that it's time for a post.
First, what's best for the shareholder may not always be what's best for the customer/user, especially when the company is a public giant. In the early stages it is fairly safe to assume that if you do what's right for the customer, you're generally building shareholder value, so Jerry Yang and David Filo could just focus on what they delivered to the user and assume the rest will fall into place. But as you get to the 800-lb gorilla stage, things do change, especially in M&A situations. I'm not a Yahoo shareholder and if MicroSoft's acquisition would have had noteworthy impact on my outstanding mortgage, or savings for my daughter's college, or even paid for a longish luxury vacation, I too might have been irked by the deal falling through - just might though, not sure. But I am a user of Yahoo, as well as Google and MicroSoft, and I use each for different needs. I prefer having different options to choose from and, needless to say, I believe they do better by having to compete. I was so not looking forward to having Yahoo be just another part of the Redmond behemoth which is busy trying to balance its enterprise offerings against the consumer future. The user/customer will be better served by an independent, successful Yahoo.
Secondly, as an entrepreneur, I can totally understand a founder's reluctance to just take the money and run. Based on history, the prognosis for an acquired company, especially the big, established ones, is not very encouraging - the preferred outcome is full assimilation (resistance is futile!), and the persistence of a separate identity is costly. Sure, most startups define success as an acquisition, but the Yahoo folks went the IPO route and have already made their millions (billions). If they're still going in to work everyday it's because they are passionate about the company they've built and they care about its future. So it is not at all surprising that they want to dig in their heels and not fold right away. After all they have the entrepreneurial mojo and could possibly innovate their way to being high-fliers again.
Of course, this is a minority opinion. And other forces, like the the Icahn effort, may make this whole thing moot. Yahoo is an awesome company (and seems to be a nice place to work at too), and this is just one entrepreneur giving props to the guys who built it and understanding where they come from. Maybe it's not too late to buy some stock...
First, what's best for the shareholder may not always be what's best for the customer/user, especially when the company is a public giant. In the early stages it is fairly safe to assume that if you do what's right for the customer, you're generally building shareholder value, so Jerry Yang and David Filo could just focus on what they delivered to the user and assume the rest will fall into place. But as you get to the 800-lb gorilla stage, things do change, especially in M&A situations. I'm not a Yahoo shareholder and if MicroSoft's acquisition would have had noteworthy impact on my outstanding mortgage, or savings for my daughter's college, or even paid for a longish luxury vacation, I too might have been irked by the deal falling through - just might though, not sure. But I am a user of Yahoo, as well as Google and MicroSoft, and I use each for different needs. I prefer having different options to choose from and, needless to say, I believe they do better by having to compete. I was so not looking forward to having Yahoo be just another part of the Redmond behemoth which is busy trying to balance its enterprise offerings against the consumer future. The user/customer will be better served by an independent, successful Yahoo.
Secondly, as an entrepreneur, I can totally understand a founder's reluctance to just take the money and run. Based on history, the prognosis for an acquired company, especially the big, established ones, is not very encouraging - the preferred outcome is full assimilation (resistance is futile!), and the persistence of a separate identity is costly. Sure, most startups define success as an acquisition, but the Yahoo folks went the IPO route and have already made their millions (billions). If they're still going in to work everyday it's because they are passionate about the company they've built and they care about its future. So it is not at all surprising that they want to dig in their heels and not fold right away. After all they have the entrepreneurial mojo and could possibly innovate their way to being high-fliers again.
Of course, this is a minority opinion. And other forces, like the the Icahn effort, may make this whole thing moot. Yahoo is an awesome company (and seems to be a nice place to work at too), and this is just one entrepreneur giving props to the guys who built it and understanding where they come from. Maybe it's not too late to buy some stock...
Trust, fund
Actually, despite the cutesy wishful thinking title, this post is about trusting funding sources - or anyone with a vested interest, and some level of control, in your venture.
About a week ago I read a post about an entrepreneur who had a really bad experience with the VC who was on his board. Click here to read the story - it is not a pretty one. But there is more to it than just an investor who didn't play nice (wonder what he learned in kindergarten?). Unfortunately many first-timers find this out only by going through the knots-in-the-gut-that-are-way-past-Pepto experiences - hindsight being better than Lasik and all that. I don't know the whole story, but an entrepreneur would do well to exercise some caution.
About a week ago I read a post about an entrepreneur who had a really bad experience with the VC who was on his board. Click here to read the story - it is not a pretty one. But there is more to it than just an investor who didn't play nice (wonder what he learned in kindergarten?). Unfortunately many first-timers find this out only by going through the knots-in-the-gut-that-are-way-past-Pepto experiences - hindsight being better than Lasik and all that. I don't know the whole story, but an entrepreneur would do well to exercise some caution.
- First, no one else, absolutely no one else, has the same drive and level of interest in the survival and wellness of your venture as you do. Investors, board members, advisors, partners, customers, even spouse/gf/bf/mom/dad, may genuinely want you to succeed, but their perspectives and stakes are different from yours.
- Go with your gut. If someone rubs you the wrong way, don't take money or advice from them, and most of all, don't put them in any position of influence or control in your company. If your personalities are not in sync, there's no point trying to force fit a match.
- If integrity and fair play are important to you, expect it from everyone who's involved with your company - not just yourself and your team.
- On the same lines, take your time and do the due (diligence that is). Investors have their checklists and talk about investing in 'people'. Have your own checklist to assess who you want to invest in your venture and/or be on your board.
- Don't depend on any one person or entity. Having alternatives (as long as they're not all buddies, partners and of the same ilk) provides balance and a better chance of rational behavior.
- Lastly, learn to just say 'no' sometimes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)