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.
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.
Top Photo by Hessam Hojati on Unsplash
#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!
