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?
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.
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)