I gave a lecture on “Profitable Exiting” at the 30th Annual Venture Capital Institute in Atlanta on Tuesday. This is the major professional education event for the venture capital industry, co-sponsored by the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) and the National Association of Small Business Investment Companies (NASBIC).
I had never been to a VCI event and didn’t really know what to expect. I was pleasantly surprised – I sat through several high quality lectures from very credible folks – aimed at an audience of 180 or so VCs. Most of the attendees were younger and/or relatively new to the venture business, although there were a number of corporate VCs in the audience also. The VCI event was extremely well organized and the content was substantial – covering a wide range of issues faced by VC firms and entrepreneurs. I was pleased to be involved in what I thought was successful event that definitely helps educate new VCs on the business they are in.
The speaker before me was Lewis Jaffe who is known for rescuing PictureTel as it was going down the tubes. Lewis gave a fun speech about how to turn around a company and used what he did at PictureTel as an extensive example to support his approach. In addition to being content-rich, Lewis’ speech was clever and engaging as he presented much of his management theory in simple, accessible, and entertaining ways.
One of his slides started out as a question. “If there are five frogs on a log and four decide to jump off, how many frogs remain on the log.” Of course – the instinctive answer of “one” is wrong. Five frogs actually remain on the log, as deciding to jump and jumping are different things.
In an entrepreneurial context, intentionality is important, but results are what really matter. Lewis reinforced this in a memorable way – as the point he was making is “just because you decide, doesn’t mean you do.” He stressed that one of the main problems he sees early in his tenure as CEO of a company that is failing is paralysis – everyone has ideas about what to do, but no one is willing or able to do them.
Remember – just because a frog decides to jump, doesn’t mean he will. Be careful not to confuse intentionality with results in your business (or your life.)
Several months ago, I posted an article that I’d written for the Kauffman Foundation’s Entreworld web site called “Financial Fitness for Entrepreneurs.” It discussed some of the basic financial issues entrepreneurs starting a company should pay attention to.
ChangeThis just republished the article as one of their manifestos. It’s in a very friendly format – if you liked it, please feel free to circulate it. If you haven’t read it, take a look. And – if you have any comments about topics you think I missed, feel free to post them here or email them to me.
I’m really proud of my Uncle Charlie (Charlie Feld – EVP of Portfolio Management at EDS.) He’s one of the most extraordinary managers and leaders I’ve ever met and had the pleasure of working with (and investing in.) He’s got an incredibly challenging task in front of him as he works with Mike Jordan and the rest of the EDS leadership team to turn around an IT institution that’s had a rough few years and in Jordan’s words, “I knew this company, and I knew the founders. This was the Marine Corps,” says Jordan, a former Navy officer. “But when I came here it was the Girl Scouts.”
Charlie has an easily accessible column on Leadership in CIO Magazine. His most recent article concerns the three skills a leader needs to get the job done: (1) Partnerships Need Reinforcement, (2) Decisiveness Demands Confidence, and (3) To Get Focused, Get Together. Part of the magic of Charlie is that his management theory isn’t impenetrable academic stuff or theoretical philosophy based on qualitative and quantitative analysis of a large data set – it’s common sense in simple language and concepts based on deep experience. And – it all holds together. Other articles in this series include “How to Read the Signs” and “How to Build a Great Team.” Go read them – they are short and worth every minute.
As I grew up, I heard from my dad, my uncle, and their dad (who we called – simply – Jack) to tell it like it is. Jack used to say “I’m surrounded by typhoons (he lived in Florida – we never made it to “tycoon status” with him) – just spit it out and say it.” Charlie exemplifies this and provides a model that all CIOs, IT leaders, and managers can learn from.
Jeff Nolan from SAP Ventures has an excellent post titled Pick Your VC Carefully. This is a must read post for anyone that has either taken or is considering taking venture capital money.
I’ve co-invested with a wide range of VC’s in all of the categories Jeff describes. Some have been outstanding partners, some have been horrifying, and some have been in-between (shocking, I know.) However, in almost all cases, I couldn’t have predicted where they would have fallen out based on my shallow perception of their reputation prior to getting to know them. Of course, there’s nothing like working with someone to decide whether they are useful or not, but often that’s not an option – especially for a first time entrepreneur or someone who is developing a new entrepreneur to VC (or VC to VC relationship.)
Partnership is a two way street, so I always encourage entrepreneurs and potential co-investors to talk to anyone about anything concerning me. I try to be completely open book about my strengths, weaknesses, interests, and desires. Surprisingly, very few people go really deep in advance of developing a relationship. Yeah – there’s plenty of “due diligence” – but usually that’s a series of relatively useless reference checks from the “first list of people” that provide little to no insight (I’ve been on the receiving end of a number of these calls lately and it amazes me how much time “serious, experienced people” waste on simpleminded, “check the box” reference calls.) In contrast, I try my hardest to “force” entrepreneurs who are considering working with me to meet with entrepreneurs that have deep (and often – multiple company) experiences with me – a phone call doesn’t qualify – go build a relationship (and – your worst case is that you now have another entrepreneur in your network.)
I’ve learned that I don’t want to work with someone who I don’t have a real feeling for – both in good and bad situations. Fortunately, most everyone now has had some bad experiences (or else they checked out and farmed sheep in New Zealand from 2000 to 2002) so it’s a lot easier to get detailed information about potential business partners. I’ve learned that how someone explains their failure is much more enlightening than how they explain their success, and a real conversation (and potentially shared experiences – but please, not bowling) – rather than a series of “interview questions” – can provide real insight.
A prime example of this done correctly is an experience I had recently with Dave Sifry at Technorati. The company was one that was very interesting to me and in an area that I had both domain knowledge and another investment (NewsGator). My partner – Ryan McIntyre – was uniquely qualified to help this company due to his entrepreneurial experience as a co-founder of Excite and was extremely excited about an investment. I supported Ryan (and shared his excitement) and watched while Dave shook him down pretty hard – spending a lot of time evaluating Ryan, his potential contribution to Technorati, and his cultural and functional fit with the team. However, he didn’t stop there – I spent three hours on the phone on a Saturday talking to Dave in the middle of this process. An hour was “get to know you chit chat”, the balance of the time was a real discussion about where the market his business was in was going, his vision, what I thought about it, why I cared, how I could help, and how I / we thought about companies like his. I’m the back seat driver on this investment (it’s Ryan’s investment), but Dave still went after me hard as part of his evaluation as to whether or not he wanted Mobius as an investor in his company.
While all the usual cliches about people apply, I don’t think “knowing your potential partners before you do a deal with them” can ever be over-emphasized.
Ross Wehner – a new writer for the Denver Post – had a nice article in the paper this weekend titled Colorado high-tech industry shows some signs of revival. There’s been some perception in Colorado that we got hit harder than other states – primarily due to our emphasis on telecomm – although I think Colorado has experienced roughly the same tech dynamics (boom – bust – normal renewal) that other states have seen.
Ross quoted me a few times. When he called to fact check, he said “hey – I ran across this quote from 2000 about bowling – can I use it?” I told him I wish people would forget about it, but it was fair game since I’d said it and it had been printed. I explained to him that the quote was intended to emphasize that people are my highest order sort when I evaluate an investment (e.g. if I don’t like the people, forget it), but that it had been repeated so many times as to have lost its focus. The quote that’s getting repeated is:
Back in the go-go days of the dot-com boom, Feld used to evaluate the people he was funding by taking them bowling. “The reason I chose bowling is because it’s a stupidly absurd sport,” he remembers saying. “You don’t sweat, you wear funny shoes, you usually eat cheesy nachos and then (you) stick your hand in a heavy ball.”
The quote certainly qualified as pithy and memorable since it resulted in me being the recipient of a bowling ball with my name engraved on it, free passes to a variety of bowling events (with the entrepreneurs who wanted to pitch me), an occassional pre-meeting lunch of bad nachos, an a variety of other bowling related items (I have a really nice velour shirt with my name on it.) And NO, I’m not a particularly good bowler, nor do I like bowling very much.
However, I think it’s a bad quote because it doesn’t capture the essense of what I was trying to say, which was “When I evaluate a new investment, the highest level filter for me is the people. Once I get interested in someone, I like to do something unusual with them to get to know them better. Bowling is one of those things …” You get the picture.
I have a close friend – Jenny Lawton – who is a long time, extremely talented, and irrepressible entrepreneur. For a decade she ran a high-end network integration company that was doing Internet stuff well before Internet stuff was cool. She sold that company to a public company that was a large application service provider and stayed on for several years, playing a number of different leadership roles in that company.
She retired (burned out, got tired, decided to move on) and – rather than dive back in to technology – bought a bookstore called Just Books in her home town of Old Greenwich, CT. Several months later, she decided to expand and opened a second book store (Just Books, Too).
Today she announced that she is buying the coffee shop next to one of the bookstores.
Viva entrepreneurship – way to go Jenny! If you are ever near Old Greenwich (or Greenwich where their other store is located), stop in, tell Jenny hi, and buy some books (and coffee) from her.
I was on a board call for a company today that pays their employees bi-weekly (every two weeks). At some point in time there was a rationale for this since this company has a lot of hourly employees and there was a perception that folks would want to be paid every two weeks. So – presumably this was a logical decision at the time.
However, it creates havoc with our monthly reporting and forecasting as we have at least two months per year with three pay periods. This adds an extra pay period to our expense structure for those two months (and lowers it correspondingly for the other months where we only have two pay periods). As a result of this, we are constantly backing out expenses (or adding it back in) to get “apples to apples” monthly comparisons.
The vast majority of the companies I’ve been involved with pay employees semi-monthly (twice a month – usually on the 15th and last day or the month). While you obviously can do the work to “normalize” month to month expenses if you pay your employees bi-weekly, do yourself and your investors a favor and pay semi-monthly. It’s so much easier to deal with.
Fred wrote two stories on the cliche “if it looks too good to be true, it probably is.” I saw it right after I responded to a few comments on my To Participate or Not post and was chewing on the notion of the behaviorial dynamics and mismatch that often occurs between investors and entrepreneurs, even when both sides are behaving as rational actors.
Amy and I have a saying that “The fantasy is better than the reality.” It comes up when incongruent situations appear in our life, where something that hasn’t yet happened appears irrationally magnificent in comparison to something that already either exists for us or something that is also a good thing and more achievable, but not as magnificent. After we chew on it for a while and think about the unintended consequences and side effects, we often conclude that we’ll stay with what we have, but enjoy thinking about the fantasy. Now – I’ve never been accused of not “going for things”, so you need to imagine “big fantasies” here.
This is a corollary to Fred’s anecdotes – which rang true with me this morning.
Last week, I was asked to write up my “Top 10 bootstrapping actions” for a book on bootstrapping that should be coming out later this year. Bootstrapping must be in the air as Fred just wrote about how he teaches about it in his course at NYU Stern and Jerry just wrote about it for his Inc. Magazine column Forget VC Money, Fund Yourself. I recognize the potential dissonance about VCs writing about bootstrapping (or – “how to create a business without taking money from VCs”) – I know Fred, Jerry, and I all feel strongly that VCs are only a small part of the entrepreneurial / company creation ecosystem and the vast majority of companies that get created never take VC money (my first business raised $10 – we had 10 shares of stock at $1 each – and – when we sold it – each share made a share of Google seem like a penny stock – although we only had 10 of them.)
I spent some time with the author – Marcus Gibson – and felt his questions and probing style were very good. Following is my Top 10 list and commentary I gave him to work with.