Monthly Archives: October 2015

Talent: “The artistic side is always looking for new acts. The business side wants to make sure they aren’t irreplaceable.”

Posted on by

The rules of science dictate that a mirror shows exactly what is in front of it but that doesn’t necessary mean all observers will describe the reflection consistently. We see what we want to see and it was interesting to notice various interpretations of today’s Lefsetz Letter on Grantland. Specifically, what to do with the .01% most talented people (coddle them, don’t coddle them; put them in companies, don’t put them in companies; teams matter more in my industry).

Lefsetz – who comes from record industry and world of media – believes one-of-a-kind, singular talent isn’t just important, it’s the only thing that matters.

“Talent is never going to be manageable. If you want the trains to run on time, go work for the railroad. Talent is as insecure as it is boastful. You embrace talent, you give it wings. This is how Jimmy Iovine succeeded at Interscope, it’s how Mo Ostin and Joe Smith succeeded at Warner, you want to be a magnet for talent, not an adversary. Only cut bait if you’re losing money and you see no way to make it back in the future. As for difficult personalities, it goes with the territory. And when it comes to art, talent is sui generis. There’s only one Paul McCartney and one Max Martin. You can hire someone controllable, you just won’t get the results.”

That’s the star system at work – the ability to take someone who is special and provide a talented support team to help but also to coddle when necessary, because you are dependent on that person.

There are other creative endeavors though which have taken a different approach, specifically believing they can’t build a business around unique talent. Namely, Cirque du Soleil. One of my favorite People Ops articles covered their hiring process (WSJ 2007). They scout the world to hire amazing talent, the type of wonderful performers you would spend hundreds of dollars on a ticket to see. But they can’t hire anyone who isn’t replaceable because they’re building entire shows around these performers. Shows which need to endure and tour.

“But a problem arises when talent is truly unique and either difficult or impossible to replace. If, for example, one enters the words “giant” and “opera” into the database, only one name pops up: Victorino Antonio Lujan, a 39-year-old Argentinian who stands just shy of seven feet and weighs about 400 pounds.”

And in a sentence which would probably make Lefsetz jump out of his seat and shout:

“Working with such singular talent forces Cirque to walk a tightrope. The artistic side is always looking for new acts. The business side wants to make sure they aren’t irreplaceable.”

Starting a Company Is Hard But….

Posted on by

As a seed stage investor to young companies (and someone who has previously worked at a brand new startup), I know it’s hard. Really hard. The type of hard where you joke that if founders could properly calculate the odds of succeeding, no one would ever start a company!

Two recent blog posts have stuck in my head which focus on the exception focus, skill and luck you need to build a startup. The first was Jason Calacanis’ “You Don’t Have What it Takes,” which, as the title suggests, is a plea to the 99% of founders who Jason doesn’t think have what it takes to start a company. And there’s nothing wrong with making that choice. As Jason writes:

“You see, what I’ve learned after 25 years of doing this startup thing is that 99% of people simply don’t have what it takes to lead a startup — and thank God. Leading a startup is a brutal pursuit. Most days are a death march in which you work horrific hours under massive duress waiting for your chance … to join the 80% of startups that die off.”

The second was a reminder from an entrepreneur named Paul Smith that just because you raised funding, you can’t take it easy. In fact, you need to work harder. Also provocatively titled “Your Well-Funded Startup Is Already Dead,” Paul observes:

“This isn’t about working until you burn out. No investor wants to see a team implode. But as a founder, you must understand that your startup is your priority for the next five years. That means you won’t see your friends and family as often. It means relationships will suffer from time to time.”

Paul and Jason are speaking 100% truth and they both note that there’s no shame in not founding a company or needing to take a vacation to recharge. BUT…. these posts have been gnawing at me a bit and I can’t exactly put my finger on it. Starting a company – deciding to absorb that risk – should attract a self-selecting group of founders but I also suspect stressing nothing but the long odds, the sacrifices, creates a barrier to entry for entrepreneurs who don’t have role models or a support system around them.

I’d be really interested to understand how posts like these are understood by a white, male Stanford grad versus an equally qualified founder from a more underrepresented segment. How do we help potential entrepreneurs understand the long road ahead of them while letting them know there’s a support system to help them? Frankly, for the industry and for innovation, it’s better that 1% too many people start companies than 1% too few because you never know, you just never know. And maybe that first time doesn’t work but the second time does….

Ok, Here Are My Fall 2015 Calendar Experiments

Posted on by

Most of you will find this post boring so stop reading. Okay, for those still with me: while sharing a bunch of links around time management I offered to note some of the changes I’m making to my calendar, if anyone was interested. Well at least 12 of you said “yes,” so….

I do a twice-annual calendar refactoring, trying to break bad habits that I may have fallen into and also experimenting with a few changes that I believe could lead to a more productive and happier state. Here are a few examples of what I’m currently implementing across the three basic categories that I look to balance. These aren’t exhaustive statements about my 24/7 but rather tweaks, modifications and resolutions.

My Playbook: Get Better at What I Do at Homebrew

Problem: Projects which require 2-6 hours of work time never get done because there are no work blocks I’m setting aside of that length.

Solution: Every other Friday I’m going to try and set aside 12-5pm to work offsite on 1-2 projects

Problem: Homebrew events strategy was stagnating because the events I wanted to do were getting too big, expensive and complex

Solution: Going back to small, thematic, off-the-record dinners where 8-10 people (from portfolio and outside) get together to discuss a particular topic of interest. Do at same restaurant every time for logistical ease and price negotiation opportunity.

Grow the Pie (hw: my shorthand for being a good tech community member)

Problem: Value time in future lower than time today. Found myself agreeing to meetings 2-6 weeks out because calendar had space, only to be overwhelmed and out of priority when time came.

Solution: If I wouldn’t do it this week, say no. I’ll try other ways to help (over email, phone calls while I drive) but will need to decline more conversations which aren’t in service of our investments or potential investments. I still believe in paying it forward so will need to find other ways to scale. 

Problem: I commit to replying to any cold email at least once, but was increasingly replying just-in-time, which inappropriately raised the priority of these replies.

Solution: I now label and archives these and set aside 60m slots on Tuesday and Thursday nights to respond. So you’ll still hear back from me, just not always within 24 hrs, but hopefully always within three days or so.

Health, Energy & Sustainability

Basically some schedule changes to encourage me to start exercising again, pick up my kid from school more often and be a better husband 🙂