“Shoot for the moon, even if you miss it you’ll land amongst the stars”
I have to admit when I first heard of the Canadian Olympic Foundation’s goal of “Owning the Podium” at the 2010 Olympics I was a bit taken back, it just didn’t seem very “Canadian” to me. And even though I don’t believe the Canadians will own the podium (I don’t think it’s feasibly possible right now) they will definitely have more golds than the last two Winter Olympic games (I want to say ever but am too lazy to do the research).
This got me thinking about “failure”, I think “failure” shouldn’t have such a negative connotation. Stay with me, failure when you’re trying to achieve something basic that sucks. Failure when you’re trying to achieve something extraordinary and special that’s not something people should look down on. Whether in sports or in business, setting ambitious aims and then doing everything possible to achieve them should be seen as courageous and honourable.
This reminded me of Don Dodge’s post about goal setting at Google. Setting goals that seem impossible and then working your butt off to make something happen is not only fun, but it means your going to take more risks and be innovative in your approach to things. Unfortunately a lot of large organisations focus on “measurable and achievable” results that don’t really have much impact and then hurdling the low bar. Not enough organisations set out objectives that are out to change the world.
So while Canada won’t “Own the podium” it did have the right idea and should be heralded for trying to achieve something so ambitious. Are you working on something that ambitious?
After writing my last post, I circulated it to a mailing list and had a bunch of nice responses. There was some interesting conversation and some interesting ideas, which is always a good thing. One interesting email came from a business school classmate of mine who’s working on an interesting concept to disrupt an industry that needs disrupting. The classmate said we should talk when I’m next in London over a coffee and joked (I hope) after signing the right documents.
I laughed. But then I thought what if he’s serious about the documents. I was tempted to send him to a search of “Why I don’t sing NDAs” on Google. It’s mostly from VCs who see hundreds of ideas and can’t be held risk being held legally accountable if they back one business and not another. There are some great posts on this from Guy K and from Brad Feld.
But it’s not just about VCs, as someone who spends a lot of time talking to a lot of people, from big companies, agencies and entrepreneurs, I don’t feel comfortable signing NDAs either. Even at Y! right now if someone asks me to sign an NDA I try and avoid it if possible – either by looking for an alternative company or by saying No.
Why do I feel this way? On principle, if you’re spending time trying to legally protect your ass that’s time that could be better spend executing. Also, if you’re asking for a signed NDA odds are your not talking to that many people, that – in my opinion – is a mistake. Talking to people helps grow the idea, helps define direction and helps companies pivot. Open is still better than closed. A lot of my thinking has been framed by recent discussions about patents in software, check out Brad Feld’s writing on patents – which I also feel are slowing down discovery and innovation.
At the same time, some people need a feeling of trust between two parties. I like to suggest having a FriendDA* in principle. A FriendDA means basically that neither party will be a jerk. We’re sitting down with an understanding of trust and not out to screw each other purposefully. If there are any conflicts of interest we’ll point them out early rather then afterwards and we’ll communicate as best we can about actions we’re taking. If one of us messes up the FriendDA, the other party has the right to tell everyone he knows that the party which messes up is a term that rhymes with crass pole.
*If you need an official FriendDA form check out friendda.org.
There’s an interesting post on some dude’s (or dudette’s for that matter) posterous about MBA’s and start ups. The post starts off talking about a conversation that was overheard at some café in the valley where a couple of MBAs are going off about joining a start up and the fast lane to riches. The writer (or ghostwriter as the name of the blog suggests) goes off talking about the skills you need and how MBAs covet connecting rather then getting work done. It’s generated a couple of tweets and a lively discussion on the London Business School start up mailing list, so I thought I would comment.
Now let me say this first and foremost, I am an MBA so I’m a bit biased. And I’ve talked about this subject before and pointed to Mark Suster’s post on MBAs and start ups, which I really believe is a real must read for people thinking about MBAs and are interested in start ups / venture capital.
I know about 5 MBAs I went to school with who are either now working with or have started a start up. I know a bunch more that went to B school the last few years after myself and are doing the start up thing. I also know a couple of ex-Yahoo!’s who have left Yahoo! to start really successful, venture funded and in some cases acquired start ups who happened to have MBAs as well. There’s also a bunch of friends I have in North America who are MBAs who are working in or have started companies. So it is possible to have an MBA and do the start up thing well – in fact I believe that so strongly that I’m leaving Yahoo! in the next few months to do start my own company. Then there’s Loic Le Meur, Ballmer (though he left after one year at Stanford), Zuck might not have an MBA but bet your socks that Sheryl Sandberg does, and if you really want a list press me and I’ll put together a hundred start ups who have MBAs at the core.
An MBA can stand in your way as well. I remember hearing James Hong (who started Hot or Not) saying that he didn’t like saying he had an MBA because he was worried that people might think he was a prick (or something like that). A lot of MBAs have an ego problem. I remember being at B school, and I was working at the same time, and thinking “man, some of these people are really egotistical for not having done very much”. But then success breads ego so there’s not much you can do about that. There’s also the costs, doing a start up can mean having to take a reduced (if any) salary, and with a B school debt that can be difficult. There’s also age, coming out of B school people are in their late 20s early 30s and there’s pressure to have a family etc and doing that while working in a start up can be a difficult balancing act.
Here’s the solution that worked for me, I went to work for a big brand in a space I was interested in, I made some investments, I saved and I paid off debt – I was also lucky. Now I’ve got some runway. I’m able to leave the security of having a full time gig to go for it myself. I’m not saying that this is the only solution, but if you’re committed to doing the start up thing you can find a way.
A lot of people say you can’t teach entrepreneurship, I don’t prescribe to this theory. I agree that you can’t teach passion or tenacity, creativity or dedication, all of these things you need to be an entrepreneur, but you can teach fundamentals and the basics around starting a sustainable business and I do believe Business School can do a good job with this. The right Business school also does give you a solid network and this can help you succeed as well but it’s not a panacea, it doesn’t guarantee success or the right job in the right company – that takes hard work.
I came across an interesting post from a couple of professors from London Business School today, the post talks about rewarding decisions not just the results they create. I’m not sure about this. I think there needs to be a mix of results and behaviour but rewarding decisions can cause a state of analysis paralysis as people pay more attention to the rationale behind every decision.
Results can be driven by luck, timing, by poor decisions by competition and by a whole host of other factors. But results are outcomes and outcomes are crucial to an organisation’s success. If you’re rewarding decisions and your results keep suffering your not going to be in business for long.
At the same time if you’re rewarding results only people can take short term views in order to make success happen in the short term rather than long term (sustainable) success.
Companies need to blend a number of different factors to make sure their rewarding the right behaviours. Decisions and results are important, but so are other factors like supporting other parts of the business, innovation and depending on the business a number of different things.
At the same time companies need to reward employees with more than just monetary rewards on performance, providing a good working environment, flexibility, and overall a strong sense of mission and vision which employees can get behind and really want to deliver. You can’t put a price tag on that.
I’m a couple of pages into Guy Kawasaki’s “The Art of the Start”, it’s an easy read that’s giving me some decent food for thought. One of the concepts that I really liked was the idea that some people look through microscopes and some look through telescopes.
In a big company, which has an established product and market share you’re forced to spend a lot of time looking through the microscope, reviewing costs and making sure your getting the best margin possible. In some companies you spend so much time looking through the microscope that you miss out on innovation and a revolution can catch you with your guard down.
In a new venture you spend a lot of time looking through the telescope. Figuring out issues a market might have and developing a solution that starts a revolution.
A great company looks through both and knows when to look through the microscope and focus on moving the needle and when to look through the telescope and build a new product or service that swings for the fences.
It’s interesting to watch companies like facebook and twitter make the transition from telescoping to microscoping. Not always with the best of results. The best and most sustainable companies continue to look through. I think Google and Amazon do a great job of looking through both, developing solutions for problems while focusing on maximising their product that is their cash cow.
I’ve spent the last three years spending the majority of my time looking through a microscope and I’m looking forward to being able to do a lot more telescoping. But that doesn’t mean the microscoping will stop, as we’re going to be bootstrapping and relying on savings and – where possible – grants, I’m not going to have a choice but to focus on the detail. It’s all about balancing the microscope and the telescope.
I’m sorry it’s been a while. Not sure you missed me like I missed you, but being ill, travelling loads and doing my first speaking engagement in years (at Ecole Hotelier Lausanne, which went really well), not to mention continuing to try and be a better dad and husband have meant that you’ve had to take a back seat.
Leave it to those crazy French Canadians to try an experiment like getting all your news from social media for five days (coverage from the Guardian and The Toronto Star). The problem with this experiment is that Social media as a tool depends on your connections. More so today than ever before, who you friend and follow is really important to how successful you’ll be using social media for anything.
If you’re following CNN, the Guardian, BBC news and other news outlets on Twitter I think you’re likely to be pretty informed. But it all depends on who you follow! If you’re not connected, not following, not friending then don’t rely on the medium for your news.
The same goes with any task oriented participation through social media. If you want to get a job through twitter, follow people in HR, conduct searches for words like “job” “hiring” etc. Use Linkedin for the job hunt and you should be okay using just social media for leads (I’d never just use any one medium for a task like this, but that doesn’t change the fact that you could do it pretty successfully).
The lesson is social media can be good for almost anything, but if you don’t participate and commit, it’s likely to be good for nothing. It’s a tool, and like any tool it’s only as good as the person wielding it.
I’ve been lucky to work and meet some really smart people in the business world. Some people who are really creative, innovative, intelligent, analytical, strategic etc etc etc. But there’s a real differentiator that some of them have which others don’t, being nice.
My definition of nice is polite, making time for people, thinking about people, following up, introducing people to other people, and generally being considerate and good.
I like to believe there’s no such thing as a zero sum game in life, because unless you kill something totally there’s a chance that someone related to/involved in that game will have another interaction. With people this is really the case, you’re associate today could be you’re Managing Director in a few years time. There was a great post on Rajesh Setty’s blog where he’s done some research to show that actually being nice is a key to success (hat tip to Guy Kawasaki). It’s not about winning a short term battle, it’s about long term success.
I get motivated by people who’ve jacked me in the business sense, when someone steps on me I take names and I have a pretty long memory.
However, when someone’s nice and goes out of their way to help make things happen for me I would bend over backwards to return the favour. I’ve had a phenomenal couple of months as I plan my next adventure and have met so many really smart NICE tech people that I’m pretty excited about the upcoming year. Which is why I like to think helping, being good, and being nice is a better long term strategy, it builds a positive energy and inertia that can be hard to stop.
Two incidents this morning have me thinking about personal anthems.
I was driving in to work today and heard the Ting Tings “Shut up and let me go”, and it really resonated with my current professional situation. Then as I was reading about the Jets win over the Chargers (and celebrating a bit as this means my beloved Colts won’t be playing the Chargers who always seem to have their number) I read that Braylon Edwards playing Jay Z’s “On to the next one” as a team theme song.
I love music, I used to write a newsletter to friends with new songs to listen out for back in the day, When I’m not listening to podcasts I’m listening to music at work , at the gym, at home, and everywhere in between, and there are some times when a song inspires, pumps and gets people over the hump.
Right now songs that have me inspired (sorry I’m on a bit of a hip hop tip these days) are Successful (by Drake), Empire State of Mind (both the Jay-Z and Alicia Keys and the sans Jay-Z versions), Lily Allen’s F*ck you and of course the Ting Tings Shut up and Let me go.
Are there any songs that have you inspired these days? Feel free to send me tweet or a facebook message if you have song suggestions. I’ll put together a Spotify playlist and will post it via Twitter / Facebook if there’s a decent amount and mix of tracks.
I’m really enjoying using the Amazon Kindle application on the iPod Touch. I’ve downloaded 3 books and read 1 full book and am halfway through the second. Reading books on an eReader is not something I thought I would really enjoy – at least not as much as I have so far. In the past I argued that books won’t die. I still feel this way, but after seeing a Kindle, and using the Kindle app on the iPod/iPhone and hearing the bee request a Kindle, I’m starting to think this eBook thing might be bigger than I thought.
BUT, we’re really early in the industry today. So, when I see a piece of research claiming that Amazon will “win the eBook war” because they have 90% of eBook market share today it makes me laugh. To me it’s the equivalent of saying that Napster would win the digital music war because 90% of music downloads were done with Napster over 10 years ago. Or that Yahoo! would win the search war, or that Aol would win… whatever it was Aol was trying to do.
Don’t get me wrong, I think Amazon has a great chance at really killing it in the eBook industry, I would never bet against Jeff Bezos. Problem is I would never bet against Apple and Steve Jobs and I would never bet against Google and Eric, Sergey and Larry either. I think all of these companies have a chance to really redefine how books are read digitally.
Lot’s of rumours about an Apple Tablet machine have been circulating with lots of people talking about how they could launch an iTunes for books, like they’ve extended iTunes into movies. This could be pretty compelling. And if Google partners with Sony, Barnes & Noble and others to have a Book finder type tool, that could also be pretty powerful.
I have no idea what will happen with eBooks in the next couple of years and I really doubt that anyone else can truly predict this either.
Okay, this is going to be my last post around cultures in Europe, I promise (fingers crossed behind my back just in case).
Tech Crunch UK Europe (sorry Mike) has a post up about Spartoo.com raising 12M Euros today, calling the company the “Zappos of Europe”, sure Zappos and Spartoo both sell shoes, have an s and a p in their name, but I’m not sure if Spartoo could really classify as a Zappos.
Here’s why, Zappos has a phenomenal culture and has bread a cult like following with it’s customers and partners. I’m neither of these and they still sent me a Zappos culture book for 2010 where every employee has written a paragraph or more about Zappos culture. Zappos will return your purchase and will make it a pretty good experience. I personally don’t know if Spartoo does this well – anyone?
I don’t believe that Zappos bottom line was the reason they were purchased, I believe Amazon wanted to learn and leverage the Zappos attitude to it’s customers and employees and it’s approach to social media. I think Zappos will teach Amazon a lot about customer service, and Amazon will teach Zappos a lot about costs and distribution.
The real learning might even be on international operations, and if that’s the case and Amazon helps bring Zappos to Europe and the rest of the world, I wouldn’t want to be Spartoo.
