Over the weekend, I was brewing up some mad lemonade. ‘Cause well, that’s the summer thing to do. Since I’m limited in my expeditions outdoors, it’s just watching the sun skim over the horizon, blossoming its rose petals across the evening sky, in my backyard, sipping on homemade lemonade. If you’re curious about my recipe, I’ll include it at the bottom of this post.
Thomas Keller. An individual probably best known, among many others, for his achievements with The French Laundry. Needless to say, I was enamored by his talk. But the fireworks in my head didn’t start going off until the 12:46 mark.
Yesterday evening, I sat in our backyard, sipping homemade lemonade and sketching out my weekly creative endeavor (why). Between sips and furtive glances upwards, I hoped to catch a glimpse of NEOWISE. But alas, I forgot to pray to the weather gods in the morning.
Disappointed, I packed up to head inside. As if by a stroke of fate, my phone buzzed. You know, this story would be more dramatic if my disappointment was telepathically transmitted to my friends. Tongue in cheek, I apologize if I got your hopes up. But, it was merely the influx of messages after my timed “Do Not Disturb” mode switched off. Yet one of these blips came from a good ol’ swim team pal into our group chat. Lo and behold – an HD cross section in time of the exact comet.
I propped my cell above my head, positioned just north of the horizon. And unable to hold my smile back, I stuck around for a while longer.
So what?
You’re probably wondering: How the hell does yesterday’s smile have to do with “You will be what you eat, you are what you excrete”. As the title of the post so kindly suggests. Trust me it does. Admittedly, probably not the greatest of blog post titles, but, hey, it rhymes. Which might be the lamest excuse you’ve heard this month. But I digress.
You will be what put in your body. You are already what comes out of your body. Literally. Well, I’m sure my cousins who are molecular cell biologists will point out some (or many) of the nuances I missed. But we don’t have to count the cards.
The same is true for your personality. You build your personality based on the inputs in your life from when you’re younger. Your personality is subsequently evidenced by what you say and do.
And, I can say the same for education, biases, and so on. For the purpose of this post, I’d like to underscore one other – relationship-building. Or as most others understand it, networking. But I have a mild allergic reaction to that nomination.
Friday last week, I jumped on a phone call with a founder who reached out to me after checking out my blog. In my deep fascination on how she found and learns from her mentors, she shed some light as to why she feels safe to ask stupid questions. The TL;DR of her answer – implicit trust, blended with mutual respect and admiration. That her mentors know that when she does ask a question, it’s out of curiosity and not willing ignorance – or naivety.
But on a wider scope, our conversation got me thinking and reflecting. How can we build psychological safety around questions that may seem dumb at first glace? And sometimes, even unwittingly, may seem foolish to the person answering. The characteristics of which, include:
A question whose answer is easily Google-able;
A question that the person answering may have heard too many times (and subsequently, may feel fatigue from answering again);
And, a question whose answer may seem like common sense. But common sense, arguably, is subjective. Take, for example, selling losses and holding gains in the stock market may be common sense to practiced public market investors, but may feel counter-intuitive to the average amateur trader.
We’re Human
But, if you’re like me, every so often, I ask a ‘dumb’ question. Or I feel the urge to ask it ’cause either I think the person I’m asking would provide a perspective I can’t find elsewhere or, simply, purely by accident. The latter of which happens, though I try not to, when I’m droning through a conversation. When my mind regresses to “How are you doing?” or the like.
To fix the latter, the simple solution is to be more cognizant and aware during conversations. For the former, I play with contextualization and exaggeration. Now, I should note that this isn’t a foolproof strategy and neither is it guaranteed to not make you look like a fool. You may still seem like one. But hopefully, if you’re still dying to know (and for some reason, you haven’t done your homework), you’re more likely to get an answer.
While sipping on my morning green tea, I’m inspired by Venture Stories’ recent podcast episode where Erik was interviewing Charles Hudson of Precursor, where they codify Charles’ investment thesis, markets, business models, among many other topics. A brilliant episode, if I say so myself! And it got me thinking.
Some market context
In the past few months, I’ve been chatting with a number of founders who largely seem to gravitate towards the subscription business model. Even pre-COVID, that seemed to be the case. And this notion was and is further perpetuated where a plethora of VCs turned their attention to XaaS (X-as-a-service).
Why? Pre-COVID, the general understanding was that consumers were:
More expensive to acquire,
And, harder to retain,
…which I shared in one of my February posts. I’d even heard some investors say: “Consumer social is dead.” Although I personally didn’t go as far as to illustrate the death of a vertical, I had become relatively more bearish on consumer than I did when I started in venture. Clearly, we were wrong. The question is: how much of this current situation will still hold true post-COVID? And honestly, your guess is as good as mine. But I digress.
Given the presumption that the consumer industry was faltering, many VCs re-positioned their theses to index more on enterprise and SaaS models. Models that had relatively fixed distribution channels and recurring revenue. It became some form of ‘guarantee’ that their investments could make their returns. And as the demand for startups shifted, supply followed.
The Business Models
Though there seemingly has been an overindexing of subscription models in the consumer space, I’m still an optimist for its future. The important part is to follow consumer behavior.
What do their consumption patterns look like?
What do their purchasing patterns look like?
How do customers think about value?
Here is a set of lens in which I think about business model application:
Subscription
“One-off”
Continuous consumption patterns >3-4 times in a month (Ideally, >3-4 times per week)
Discrete consumption patterns ~1-2 times a year Extremely episodic in nature
Proactive, expectant behavior
Reactive behavior
Examples: Food Groceries Music Education
Examples: Moving homes One-off Conferences Travel Car
Note: The examples are generalized. The business models will depend on your target market. For example, travel for the average family may not happen on a recurring basis, but travel for a consultant happen weekly (pre-COVID).
The Extremes of Gross Margins
Of course, I can’t talk about business models without talking about profits. The ultimate goal of any business model is to realize returns – gross margins. Unfortunately, there’s no silver bullet on how you price your product. While you find the optimum price (range) for your product A/B testing with your customers, here’s a little perspective onto the two extremes of the spectrum.
If you have insanelyhigh margins, expect lots of competitors – either now or in the near future. Expect price-based competition, as you may most likely, fight in a race to the bottom. Much like the 1848 California Gold Rush. Competitors are going to rush in to saturate the market and squeeze the margins out of “such a great opportunity”.
If your margins are incredibly low, as Charles said on the podcast, “there better be a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.” You need extremely high volumes (i.e. GMV, “liquidity” in a marketplace) to compensate for the minimal cut you’re taking each transaction. A fight to monopolize the market. I’m looking for market traits like:
Growing market size.
Ideally heavily fragmented market where you can capture convoluted, antiquated, and/or unconcentrated processes in the status quo.
Why unconcentrated? Don’t underestimate the power of your incumbents’ brands and product offerings. Like don’t jump in ad tech if you’re just going to fight against the Google and Facebook juggernauts, who own 80% of the ad market.
For example, payments or food delivery. Food delivery is one where you have to reach critical mass before focusing on cash flow/profitability. I get it. It’s a money-eating business… until network effects kick in. Sarah Tavel wrote a Medium article about this where she explains it more elegantly than I have.
In closing
I’ve seen many founders end up taking their models for granted or sticking to a single generic revenue structure. But the best founders I meet make this a very intentional part of their business. Sometimes, even having different revenue streams for different parts of the business. If that’s the case for you too, Connie’s piece about multimodal models may be worth a read.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
As a footnote, I wasn’t able to predict the COVID crisis, so my thoughts in this last piece are as evergreen as an oak tree is. Specifically, my lack of foresight on increasing startup valuations and the return of consumer social.
Despite that, the final 2 questions of the piece are still very much pertinent now.
For the most part, founders are pretty cognizant of this X-factor. B-schools train their MBAs to seek their “unfair advantange”. And a vast majority of pitch decks I’ve seen include that stereotypical competitor checklist/features chart. Where the pitching startup has collected all the checkmarks and their competitors have some lackluster permutation of the remaining features.
There’s nothing wrong with that slide in theory. Albeit for the most part, I gloss over that one, just due to its redundancy and the biases I usually find on it. But I’ve seen many a deck where, for the sake of filling up that checklist, founders fill the column with ‘unique’ features that don’t correlate to user experience or revenue. For example, features that only 5% of their users have ever used, with an incredibly low frequency of usage. Or on the more extreme end, their company mascot.
To track what features or product offerings are truly valuable to your business, I recommend using this matrix.
“The optimal strategy is to assume that everybody that is competing with you has found some unique insight as to why the market is addressable in their unique approach. And to assume that your competitors are all really smart – that they all know what they’re doing… Why did they pick it this way? And really picking it apart and trying to understand that product strategy is really important.”
So, I have something I need to confess. Another ‘secret’ of mine. There’s a follow-up question. After my initial ‘unique insight’ one, if I suspect the founder(s) have fallen in their own bubble. Not saying that they definitively have if I ask it, but to help me clear my own doubts.
“What are your competitors doing right?”
Or differently phrased, if you were put yourself in their shoes, what is something you now understand, that you, as a founder of [insert their own startup], did not understand?
In asking the combination of these two questions, I usually am able to get a better sense of a founder’s self-awareness, domain expertise, and open-mindedness.
I met a founder (let’s call him Stan) recently who was about to close on his first big executive hire into a team less than 10 strong. Naturally, I asked what the rest of his team thought of that person. Stan replied, “I haven’t asked them yet.”
So, I subsequently followed up, “Were they able to meet him?”
“He’s been by our office, and I’m sure he’s had the chance to chat with them already.”
When he said that, two things stuck out to me:
Stan’s use of “I’m sure…” implied neither that he was sure nor that he took care to verify.
He seemed to have skipped a fundamental step in building a team. And by transitive property, how it would define his team’s culture.
The Culinary Parallel
Synonymously, a day later, my friend asked me, “How do you come up with your ideas for flavor mad science?”
You’re probably here thinking: “What the hell does this have to do with team-building and culture?” But bear with me here. I swear there’s a parallel.
Although, like all of my ideas and insights, I can’t say any of my flavor experiments are truly original, I always start off at the drawing board with flavor maps. And, you guessed it! Not even the concept of flavor maps is original. A few years ago, an amazing chef taught me this very trick of how he concepts new recipes every season at his critically acclaimed restaurant.
So, what’s a flavor map?
The idea of a flavor map is to start with a core ingredient – the star of your dish. And then slowly add other flavors and elements onto your diagram one by one. The catch is that every new flavor you add has to pair well with every single other flavor on that diagram.
Two flavor maps where I used green tea as the (co-)core ingredient.
Personally, I just try to think of a dish that I enjoyed, or know many other people enjoy, as the basis for a drawing a line between a pair. The reason I do so is that many generations of experts before me have already done the legwork to make these flavors work. And I’m just iterating off of their discoveries.
The more scientific approach is through flavor networks – specifically food-pairing and food-bridging. In summary, food-pairings are when you combine two ingredients with the same flavor molecules, like cheese/bacon or asparagus/butter. The most bizarre one in a 2011 Harvard study is probably blue cheese/chocolate, which share 73 flavors. On the other hand, food-bridging is when you take two ingredients that don’t share any flavors, like apricots/whiskey, and bridge them with an ingredient that shares commonalities with both, like tomatoes.
Yong-yeol Ahn and his colleagues explore the nuances of flavors and recipes in their 2011 research, which you can find here. But if you want the abridged summary, there’s a great one on Frontiers. Yet, as one of the co-owners of a critically-acclaimed molecular gastronomic restaurant told me not too long ago, take the research with a grain of salt. Food science is still extremely nascent and lacks consistent data points, especially across cultures.
Looping Back
Just like a complete flavor map has all of its ingredients working in cohesion with one another, a strong team needs to hold the same level of trust and respect. I’m not advocating that you need to agree with everyone on your team. In fact, disagreement on warranted grounds is better. But to be a well-oiled machine, a team can only be agile if you reduce the unnecessary friction that may exist now or arise in the future.
Although it is important that every team member can ‘food-pair’ with every other member, what I believe is more important is to have a fair mitigation system to ‘food-bridge’ all current and future disagreements. A system to resolve disputes and to prioritize tasks at hand. To have not only trust in each other, but also in the system design.
The cherry on top
Of course, I don’t know if Stan just forgot to set up times for his team to meet with the potential hire between his various tasks of running a business. Or if he had something he wanted to hide from his team. Regardless, his decision, or I guess, lack thereof to do so, would be detrimental to the delicate string of trust that connected his team to him.
To his and every other founders’ credit, there are often matters that seem obvious to an observer, but less so, when one has skin in the game – some degree of emotional attachment. And the deeper one is in the weeds, the harder it may be to follow rational behavior. Loosely analogized to the boiling frog problem. That said, some actions are excusable. These can often be caught by either a mentor or a close friend/family member. But there are a handful that aren’t. The same can be said on a macroscopic perspective as well. Between friendships. Lovers. Coworkers. You name it.
And, luckily for Stan, this falls under the former.
#unfiltered is a series where I share my raw thoughts and unfiltered commentary about anything and everything. It’s not designed to go down smoothly like the best cup of cappuccino you’ve ever had (although here‘s where I found mine), more like the lonely coffee bean still struggling to find its identity (which also may one day find its way into a more thesis-driven blogpost).Who knows? The possibilities are endless.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups!
Product-market fit is fluid. Just because you’ve attained it once doesn’t mean you’ll have it forever. The market is constantly changing. And that means the intersection where supply meets demand will always be changing as well. That said, regardless of how and where you move to, you’ll always have a subset of your customers who aren’t happy. Who might miss the old ways. Who might wish for something else entirely.
To put it into perspective, I’m going to quote Casey Winters (his blog), the current Chief Product Officer at Eventbrite:
“Product-market fit isn’t when your customers stop complaining, it’s when they stop leaving.”
Retention and its Touch Points
If you run a business, you’re going to have a leaky funnel. Your job is to minimize the leaks. Double down on not just adoption, but especially retention. What does that mean? Engagement and the often, overlooked category, for many early-stage teams, re-engaging those that have become inactive over a set period of time. Whether 30 days or 7 days. It depends on what solution your product is providing for the market and how frequently you normally expect them to use the product. For example, for most consumer apps, as investors, we expect a minimum of usage for 3 days out of the 7 calendar days a week. So I characterize inactivity aggressively as after a month of inactivity.
In the past few months, since the health and economic crisis began, the conversation has shifted from ‘growth at all costs’ to profitability. And similarly, from an overemphasis on adoption to a better understanding of retention.
Speaking of retention, 2 days ago, the afore-mentioned Casey Winters and Lenny Rachitsky published their homework on the the dichotomy between good and great retention, which you can find here and here, respectively. Their research provides some useful touch points about “golden” numbers from some of the smartest people in the industry. Of course, as their research suggests, everyone’s “golden” number is different. At different points in time.
So, how are you tracking how lovable your product is?
One of my favorite ways to track what keeps users coming back for more is the Depth vs. Breadth graph. Plotting how long people use certain features and how often they click into it. You can easily substitute length of time (depth) with the number of actions taken for each product feature you have. Or as you grow into having multiple product offerings, this graph works just as well.
Below are just a few examples of breadth and depth metrics:
Breadth
Depth
# of logins/week
# actions/session
Session count
Session time length
D1/D2/D7/D30 sessions
# concurrent devices logged in
Platform-specific sessions
DAU/MAU
# paid users/ # total
The above graph should also help you better optimize your features/offerings. For instance, let’s say you’re a startup in your growth stages. Going by Reid Hoffman‘s rule of thumb for budgeting, spend:
70% on your ‘popular‘ product offerings,
20% on your ‘niche‘ product offerings,
And 10% exploring your any hidden gems in your ‘broad‘ quadrant.
In closing
If you have your finger on the pulse about what your customers love about you at all times, you’ll be able to create a more robust product. As a final note, I want to add that while this piece has been dedicated to what your customers love, please always keep in mind what they hate as well. And why they hate what they hate. Who knows? You might discover a larger secret there.
Last week I spent some time with my friend, who joined me in my recent social experiment, brainstorming and iterating on feedback. Specifically, how I could host better transitions between presentations. She left me with one final resonating note. “Maybe you would’ve liked a creative writing class.”
I’ve never taken any creative writing courses. I thought those courses were designed for aspiring writers. And given my career track, I never gave it a second thought. Well, until now. I recently finished a brilliant fictional masterpiece, Mistborn: The Final Empire written by #1 New York Times bestselling author, Brandon Sanderson. So, that’s where I began my creative journey.
In my homework, I came across his YouTube channel. One of his lectures for his 2020 BYU writing students particularly stood out. In it, he shares his very own Sanderson’s Laws.
The three laws that govern his scope of worldbuilding are as follows:
Your ability to solve problems with magic in a satisfying way is directly proportional to how well the reader understands said magic.
Flaws/limitations are more interesting than powers.
Before adding something new to your magic (setting), see if you can instead expand what you have.
Outside of his own books, Sanderson goes in much more depth, citing examples from Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and more. So, if you have the time, I highly recommend taking one and one-fifth of an hour to hear his free class. Or if you’re more of a reader, he shares his thesis on his First Law, Second Law, and Third Law on his website.
But for the purpose of this post, the short form of the 3 laws suffices.
The First Law
Your ability to solve problems with magic in a satisfying way is directly proportional to how well the reader understands said magic.
The same is true in the world of entrepreneurship. Your ability to successfully fundraise is directly proportional to how well the investor understands your venture. Or more aptly put, how well you can explain the problem you are trying to solve. This is especially true for the 2 ends of the spectrum: deep tech/frontier tech startups and low-tech, or robust anti-fragile products/business models. Often times, the defensibility of your product comes down to how well people can understand what pain points you’re trying to solve. You may have the best product on the market, but if no one understands why it exists, it’s effectively non-existent.
Though not every investor will agree with me on this, I believe that too many founders jump straight into their product/solution at the beginning of their pitch deck. While it is important for a founder to concisely explain their product, I’m way more fascinated with the problem in the market and ‘why now?’.
You’re telling a story in your pitch. And before you jump into the plot (the product itself), I’d love to learn more about the setting and the characters involved (the underlying assumptions and trends, as well as the team behind the product). As my own NTY investment thesis goes (why Now, why This, why You, although not in that particular order), I’m particularly fascinated about the ‘why now’ and ‘why you’ before the ‘why this’. And if I can’t understand that, then it’s a NTY – or in millennial texting terms, no thank you.
My favorite proxy is if you can explain your product well to either a 7-year old, or someone who knows close to nothing about your industry. Brownie points if they’re excited about it too after your pitch. How contagious is your obsession?
The Second Law
Flaws/limitations are more interesting than powers.
Investors invest in superheroes. The underdogs. The gems still in the rough. And especially now, at the advent of another recession and the COVID crisis, the question is:
How much can you do with what little you have?
And, can you make the aggressive decisions to do so?
I realize that this is no easy ask of entrepreneurs. But when you’re strapped for cash, talent, solid pipelines, are you a hustler or are you not? Can you sell your business regardless? To investors? New team members? Clients/paying users?
On the flip side, sometimes you know what you need to do, but just don’t have the conviction to do so, especially for aggressive decisions. You may not want to lay off your passionate team members. Or, let go of that really great deal of a lease you got last year. You may not want to cut the budget in half. But you need to. If you need to extend what little you have to another 12-18 months, you’ve got to read why you should cut now and not later. Whether we like it or not, we’re heading into some rough patches. So brace yourselves.
But as an investor once said to me:
“Companies are built in the downturns; returns are realized in the upturns.”
The Third Law
Before adding something new to your magic (setting), see if you can instead expand what you have.
And finally consider:
Can you reach profitability with what you have without taking additional injections of capital?
Can you extend your runway by cutting your budget now?
But if you need capital to continue, do you need venture capital funding? I’m of the belief, that 90% of businesses out there aren’t fit for the aggressive venture capital model.
How scrappy are you? How creatively can you find solutions to your most pressing problems? And maybe in that pressure, you may find something that the market has never seen before.
In closing
Like a captivating fantastical story, your startup, your team, your investors, and especially you yourself, need that compelling narrative. The hardest moments in building a business is when there’s no hope in sight – when you’re on the third leg of the race. In times of trial, you need to convince yourself, before you can convince others. To all founders out there, godspeed!
And as Sanderson’s Zeroth Law goes:
Always err on the side of what’s awesome.
If you’re interested in the world of creative writing or drawing parallels where I could not, check out Brandon Sanderson’s completely (and surprisingly) free series of lectures on his YouTube channel.
Are these jellyfish friendly or not? Will they “bite”?
As colorful and as beautiful jellyfish are, we are still scared of the possible danger that each possess. So, most of us only admire them from afar. And for many of us who have seen some, we’ve watched them float gracefully in dark blue aqueous solutions across a sometimes distorted film of glass. These beautiful mysteries of the deep blue.
To Touch the Jellyfish
Much like my fascination every time my parents brought me to the aquarium as a kid, I’ve been fascinated with the people around me. Especially about the thin, sometimes distorted, film between these exceptionally fascinating souls and me. The distortion created as a function of society’s, as well as their own, efforts.
Exactly a year and two months ago, I embarked on a journey to host small-scale social experiments, like:
Hidden Questions. A game where no one else knows the question, except for the person answering it. And where the person answering has the choice of sharing the question that inspired the answer or taking it to the grave by taking a shot of hot sauce (about a 700,000 on the Scoville scale, for reference) or a variable number of Beanboozled beans.
Brunches with Strangers. Quite literally, Saturday brunches with strangers. Hosting a cast of people from all walks of life. Like founders, street artists, astrophysicists, concept artists, athletes, criminal investigators, filmmakers, college drop-outs, and much more.
The Curious Case of Aliases. Where players (strangers to each other) under aliases guess each other’s hobbies, occupations, deepest fears, etc. after only playing in a 30-minute game session. For instance, skribbl.io. Cards Against Humanity. Codenames. And Mafia.
And, the most recent addition to my small Rolodex of social experiments, Improv Presentations. A TED talk-like night where people present someone else’s creatively esoteric slide decks, with no context as to what’s in the deck until they’re on “stage”. To the postmortem dismay of my cheeks and core, we saw everything from how to survive a cat-pocalypse to how to master the art of DM’ing using military tactics to how to be a good plant parent.
The Thesis, The Questions
As COVID would have it, the lack of in-person interaction and self-quarantine inspired the last two. Yet, all of which with the same thesis: helping make the world feel a little smaller, a little closer, and a whole lot more interesting. Starting not with the people who bathe in the limelight, but with the people directly around me.
Why is it so hard to be candid with strangers? And sometimes, even harder with family and friends?
Do we need alcohol, drugs, crazy incidents, violence, a lack of sleep, or stress to truly be ourselves?
Though not all-encompassing, people seem to be naturally curious about things, events, status, money, and gossip. Why aren’t people more curious about people – well, as just themselves? Like me, you’ve probably posed and have gotten the question: “How are you?” or “How are you doing?”. And likely, with more times than one is willing to admit, we didn’t really care about what the answer might be. Often times, since we know we’re just going to get a “Good” or “OK” in response.
If you want to have some fun, I highly recommend the next time someone asks you that, say “Terrible”. And watch the computer chip in their brain malfunction for a quick second.
What did I learn?
I won’t claim I found the universal truth or a holistic answer to any of those questions I posed above. Because I haven’t. After all, someone I really respect once told me:
“50% of what you know is true. 50% is false. The problem is you don’t know which half is which.”
So, in my life, my goals are two-fold:
Build a system to help me discern my two halves of knowledge.
Expand the total capacity of what I know.
I will share more on this blog as I am able to draw more lines of regression myself.
But in the context of this post, through social experiments, I’ve discovered that people yearn for psychological safety. Not only does Google’s Project Aristotle share its effectiveness in the workplace, it’s equally, if not more true, outside of it as well. The reason that it’s sometimes easier to share your thoughts and struggles with strangers is that strangers often won’t judge you to the same extent as friends and family do. Frankly, they don’t have much context to judge you from – implicitly and explicitly.
People want fairness. Not in the sense of you get 1 cookie, so I should get 1 too. But a fair system to be judged by. That I will get the same benefit of doubt as you will give to anyone and everyone else. When we all get drunk together, we will all be drunk and we will all relieve ourselves of any filters we may previously have. And though everyone’s drunk personality is different, and frankly everyone will still be judged… For that moment, that night, everyone’s on the same playing field.
The Applications
Let’s take most recent experiment with improv presentations as an example. The initial idea was that everyone should present their own slide decks. As serious or as silly as they might be. But some of my friends were hesitant. In their words, they felt they needed to “impress” or “have better public speaking skills”. Some simply said that they didn’t think they’d “be as good as others”.
Before our first “TED Talks@Home”, I shifted it altogether where we’d all be presenting each other’s presentation. All of us would have no context as to what we’re presenting until we get on “stage”. Whether we were experts on a specific topic or in comedy or deck-making, we’re all jumping into a bottomless pool together. After our second virtual improv night, this past weekend, between muted giggles and visual laughs, one of the presenters told me that it wasn’t as bad as she thought it would be, and that she’d want to do it again.
Luckily, it seems more than 60% of my friends, colleagues, and acquaintances come back to participate in more brunches or game sessions or improv nights. 1 in 4 guests have proactively started friendships outside of the experiments. And about 5% have introduced their new friends to their friend circles. A small handful have also been inspired to start their own. So, maybe I’m doing something right.
Building Communities
The same (psychological safety and fair system) holds true for building communities, creating your corporate culture, and finding and keeping your friend group and your significant other. Although in the context of building communities, but applicable elsewhere as well, I forget who told me this once:
“A strong community has both value and values.”
– The person who told me this, please come claim this quote
Value is why people initially come out to join a community and admittedly, reach out to be a friend. Whether it’s because of who you know or what you can offer or how you can help them pass the time, it’s the truth. Values are why they stay. And safety happens to be one of those values.
In closing
As always, my findings aren’t meant to be prescriptive. But merely act as a guide – another tool in your toolkit – so that you are better equipped for future endeavors.
Like with people, when one day I get to touch a jellyfish, I don’t care about being stung. But I do want to know where I can touch where I won’t be stung. And subsequently, where I will touch where I know I will be stung. The difference between going in blind and not is that when I get stung, I am prepared to be.
#unfiltered is a series where I share my raw thoughts and unfiltered commentary about anything and everything. It’s not designed to go down smoothly like the best cup of cappuccino you’ve ever had (although here‘s where I found mine), more like the lonely coffee bean still struggling to find its identity (which also may one day find its way into a more thesis-driven blogpost).Who knows? The possibilities are endless.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups!
As much as investors love founders with passion (or obsession) and grit, they also want to invest in founders who have the capacity to grow as individuals as much as their startup grows. And that boils down to how curious and open-minded they are. In other words, how coachable are they? In the past 2 weeks, I’ve had the fortuity to talk to 2 brilliant angel investors – each with their own respective formula for measuring founder coachability.
Formula #1: Assessing Peer Coachability
Last year, I shared a post about the importance of all three levels of mentorship – peer, tactical, and veteran. With the most underappreciated one being peer mentorship. For the sake of this post, let’s call the first angel, Marie. Similarly, Marie finds that peer coachability acts as a useful proxy for founder coachability. And she approaches peer coachability in a very unique way:
What do you and you co-founder(s) fundamentally disagree on?
Following that question, usually 1 of 3 scenarios ensue:
The co-founders can state what they disagree on. And by follow-up question, share how they resolved that disagreement, then how that applies to their framework for resolving future disagreements.
They figure it out on the spot. Better sooner than later.
They say, “Nothing.” And quite possibly, the worst answer they could provide. ‘Cause that means they just don’t understand each other well enough. It’s highly unlikely that given how complex human beings are, that there can be two ambitious individuals who have the exact same outlook on life. Even twins have variations in their perspectives.
Knowing what co-founders disagree on assesses not only how well founders know each other, but also, how they’ve learned from each point of friction. Whether intentionally or not, they become each other’s coaches and push each other forward.
Formula #2: Assessing VC-Founder Coachability
Jerry, on the other hand, tests the waters by offering a controversial opinion about building a business or an insight into the industry, but one he has conviction and experience in. Then, he waits to see how the founder responds. The founder(s) can either:
Disagree, and subsequently walk through where the dissent starts and offer a sequence of data and analyses as to why he/she believes in such a way.
Agree, but still offer how he/she reached the same conclusion.
In either case, Jerry is looking for how mentally acute a founder is and how much room for discussion there is between them. On the other hand, the strike-outs regress to 2 categories:
Disagree, and spend time trying to convince Jerry why he is wrong, rather than working to persuade Jerry to possibly see a bigger picture he might not have considered before. And sometimes, this bigger scope includes a marriage of Jerry and the founder(s) insights.
Agree or disagree, but unfortunately, is unable to substantially back up their claim. Becoming a yes-man/woman in the former, or an argumentative troll in the latter.
The Mentorship Parallel
Unsurprisingly, just like how VCs use these methods to assess founder coachability, I’ve seen mentors use similar methods to assess potential mentees. Many aspiring mentees seek mentorship for its namesake – that metaphoric badge of honor. Not too far from the apple tree when people start a business or come to Silicon Valley to be called a CEO or for their company to be ‘venture-backed’. A category of folks we designate as “wantrapreneurs”.
And unfortunately, many aspiring mentees find bragging rights to be the mentee of [insert accomplished individual’s name]. Yet they don’t actually mean to learn anything meaningful, much less accept constructive criticism. Realistically, no mentor wants to go through that mess. “If you want for my advice, you better take it seriously,” as my first mentor once told me.
In closing
A great VC’s goal is to be the best dollar on your cap table, but they can’t be that Washington if you don’t let them be one. And though it doesn’t call for your investors or board members to micromanage, it does mean you are expected to be candid in both receiving and using (or not using) feedback.
