I help mentor CEOs on executive hiring all the time. One common refrain I hear when we’re talking about requirements for the job is about something I like to call The Mythical Playbook. If I only had the exec with the right playbook, thinks the hiring CEO, all my problems in that executive’s area would be magically solved.

I once hired a senior executive with that same mentality. They had the pedigree. They had taken a similar SaaS company in an adjacent space from $50mm to $250mm in revenue in a sub-group within their functional area. They had killer references who said they were ready to graduate to the C-level job. They had The Playbook! 

Suffice to say, things did not go as planned. I ignored an early sign of trouble, at my own peril. The exec came to me with a new org chart for the department, one with 45 people on it instead of the 20-25 who were currently there. I believed the department was understaffed but was surprised to see the magnitude of the ask. When I pushed back in general, the response I got was “I plan to overspend and overdeliver.” Hmm, ok. I don’t mind that, although a more detailed plan might be useful.  

Then I pushed back on a specific hire, pointing to a box in the org chart with a title that didn’t make sense to me. The response I got was “Yeah, I’m not entirely sure what that person does either, but I know I need that, trust me.” Yikes. 

There are two reasons why The Playbook is mythical. 

The first reason there’s no such thing as a Playbook for executives is that every situation is different. No two companies are identical in terms of offering or culture or structure. Even within the same industry, no two competitive landscapes are the same at different points in time. If life as a senior executive were as simple as following a Playbook, people would make a zillion dollars off publishing Playbooks, and senior executive jobs would be easier to do, and no one would get fired from them.

Now, I’m not saying there isn’t value in analogous experience. There is! But when hiring an executive, you’re not solely looking for someone who claims to know all the answers based on previous experience. That is a recipe for blindly following a pattern that might or might not exist. The value in the analogous experience is in knowing what things worked, sure, but more importantly in knowing when they worked, why they worked, under what conditions they worked, what alternatives were considered, and what things fell apart on the road to success. A Playbook is only useful if it can be applied thoughtfully and flexibly to new situations.

The second reason there’s no such thing as a Playbook when it comes to hiring executives is that the person who might have written the Playbook is actually not available for your job. Most CEOs start a search by saying, “I want to hire the person who took XYZ Famous Company from where I am today to 10x where I am today.” The problem with that is simple. That person is no longer available to you. They have made a ton of money, and they have moved beyond your job in their career progression. What you want is the person who worked for that person, or even one more layer down…or the person who that person WAS before they took the job at XYZ Famous Company. Those people are much harder to find. And when you find them, they don’t have the Playbook. They may have seen a couple chapters of it, but that’s about all.

In the end, the department I referenced above was more successful, but not because of adherence to the new exec’s entire Playbook. The Playbook got the department out over its skis – we overspent, but we did not overdeliver. The new exec ended up leaving the company before they could implement a lot, and that person’s successor ended up refocusing and rightsizing the department. That said, the best thing the department got out of the exec with the Playbook was their successor, which was huge — one element of a strong exec’s Playbook is how to build a machine as opposed to just playing whack-a-mole and solving problems haphazardly.

(Note – I am using the singular they in this and in other posts now, as Brad. Mahendra, and I chose to do in Startup Boards. I don’t love it, but it seems to be becoming the standard for gender neutral writing, plus it helps mask identities as well when I write posts like this.)

I wrote a little bit about the experience of being a multi-time founder in this post where I talked about the value of things like a hand-picked team, hand-picked cap table, experience that drives efficient execution, and starting with a clean slate. The second lap around the track (and third, and fourth) is really different from the first lap.

Based on what we do at Bolster, and my role currently, I spend a lot of time meeting with CEOs of all sizes and stages and sectors of company, as they’re all clients or prospects or people I’m coaching. Lately, I’ve noticed a distinct set of work and behaviors and desires among CEOs who are multi-time founders and operators that is different from those same things in first-time founders. Not every single multi-time founder has every single one of these traits, but they all have a majority of them and form a pretty common pattern. I’ve noticed this with non-profit founders as well as for-profit ones.

• They have an Easier Time Recruiting team members and investors. That may sound obvious, but there are significant benefits to it. They also tend to have Much Cleaner Cap Tables, because they lived the horrors of a messy cap table when they exited their last company without thinking about that topic ahead of time!
  
• They have a Big Vision. Once you’ve had an exit, whether successful or not or somewhere in between, you don’t want to focus on something niche. You want to go all-in on a big problem.
  
• They are interested in creating Portfolio Effect. A number of repeat founders want to start multiple business at the same time, are actually doing it, or are creating some kind of studio model that creates multiple businesses. Once you have a big team, a track record with investors, and a field of deep expertise, it’s interesting to think about creating multiple related paths (and hedges) to success.
  
• They are driving to be Efficient in Execution and Find Leverage wherever they can. One multi-time founder I talked to a few weeks ago was bragging to me about how few people he has in his finance team. At Bolster, our objective is to build a big business on a small team, looking for opportunities to use our own network of fractional and project-based team members wherever possible.
  
• They are Impatient for Progress. While being mindful that good software takes time to build no matter how many engineers you hire, repeat founders tend to have fleshed out their vision a couple layers deep and are always eager to be 6 months ahead of where they are in terms of execution, which leads me to the next point, that…
  
• They are equally Impatient for Success (or Failure). More than just wanting to be 6 months ahead of where they are in seeing their vision come to life, they want to get to “an answer” as soon as possible. No one likes wasting time, but when you’re on your second or third company, you value your time differently. As a friend of mine says in a sales context, “The best answer you can get from a prospect is ‘yes’ – the second best answer you can get is a fast ‘no’.” The same logic applies to success in your nth startup. Succeed or Fail – you want to find out fast.
  
• They are Calm and Comfortable in Their Own Skin. At this stage in the game, repeat founders are more relaxed. They know their strengths and weaknesses and have no problem bringing in people to shore those things up. They know that if things don’t work out with this one, there’s more to life.
  
• They are stronger at Self Management. They are more efficient. They exercise more. They sleep more. They spend more time with family and friends. They work fewer hours.

Anyone else ever notice these traits, or others, in repeat founders?

A couple weeks ago, I blogged about some innovations we’d made in People practices around basic benefits. But that post raised questions for me like “Why do you spend money on things like that when all people care about is their salary? When they get poached by another company, all they think of it the headline number of their base compensation, unless they’re in sales and think about their OTE.”

While that is hard to entirely argue against, one thing you can do as you layer in more and more benefits on top of base salary, you can, without too much trouble, produce annual “Total Rewards Statements” for everyone on your team. We did this at Return Path for several years when we got larger, and it was very effective.

The concept of the Total Rewards Statement is simple. At the beginning/end of the year, produce a single document for each employee – a spreadsheet, or a spreadsheet merged into a doc, that lists out all forms of cash compensation the employee received in the prior year and also has a summary of their equity holdings.

For cash compensation, start with base salary and any cash incentive comp plans. Add in all other classic benefits like the portion of the employee’s health insurance covered by the company, any transit benefits, gym memberships or wellness benefits, 401k match, etc. Add in any direct training and development expenses you tracked – specific stipends, training courses, conferences, education benefits, subscriptions, or professional memberships you sponsored the employee attending. All of that adds up to a much larger total than base salary.

If you have some other program like extensive universally available and universally consumed food in the office (or a chef, if you’re Google), you could even consider adding that to the mix, or perhaps having a separate section for things like that called “indirect benefits” so employees can see the expenses associated with perks and investment in their environment.

Finally, put together a summary of each employee’s equity. How many options are vested? Unvested and on what schedule? What’s the strike price? What’s the value of the equity as of the most recent financing? What’s the value of the equity at 3 other reasonable exit values? Paint the picture of what the equity is actually likely to be worth some day.

Yes, you could do these things and still lose an employee to Google or whoever offers them $50k more in base salary. It happens. But if you’re doing a great job with your culture and your business and people’s roles and engagement in general, having a Total Rewards Statement at least makes it easy for you to remind employees how much they *really* earn every year.

This post was inspired by Startup CXO and was originally published by Techstars on The Line.

If you’re new to the Chief Customer Officer role, we’d like to share some advice we wish we had learned earlier in our careers. There are a few common misconceptions about customers and the service organization. If you don’t realize these as misperceptions, you can spend a lot of time dealing with issues that are not real, but perceived. We have identified five of these common misperceptions, although we are sure there are more.

Misperception #1: The service organization fully controls churn (customer attrition)

In a lot of organizations you’ll see the service organization be measured solely on customer churn. If you really think about it, there are many elements that come into play that impact churn, including

• How the customer is sold
• The quality of the product
• How easy it is to onboard the customer
• How easy it is to use the product
• How easy it is for the customer to understand what kind of value they’re getting out of the product

Of course, the service functions do have a critical role, but they’re not the only functions in a company that impact churn. The responsibility for churn also lies with sales, engineering, marketing, and other teams. One reason why you need a C-level senior person in charge of all service operations is because you need someone who understands the customer experience broadly and that person has to work cross-functionally to ensure customer retention.

Misperception #2: The service organization is just a cost center

In many businesses, if a function isn’t generating new revenue, it’s seen as “second class.” From our perspective revenue retained is revenue gained and the service organization has a big impact on retaining revenue. In addition, the account management portion of a service organization is often in charge of up-sale and cross-sale opportunities which can be huge areas of growth. CCOs should work within their company to alter that misperception of service as a cost center because the service organization can have a huge impact on revenues.

Misperception #3: Service teams should focus on responding to defections

I’ve recently found a situation where the customer success team is built to focus on the clients who have raised their hand and said, “I want to leave.” This reactive approach drives low job satisfaction and isn’t the “best and highest use” of a service team’s time. By the time a customer is frustrated enough, or isn’t seeing the value enough, that they want to leave — you’ve missed a window of opportunity. The right focus should be proactively helping customers reach their desired business objectives. If you can do that, most customers will stay. That’s the theory behind the rise of the customer success team and that’s what great companies are doing today.

Misperception #4: Service’s job is to “paper over” gaps in the product

There is a widespread practice of covering for product issues by throwing service at the problem. That certainly can work, but it’s not optimal. The superior approach is to focus the service team on becoming a trusted advisor for customers, helping those customers achieve their desired outcomes. To do that, the CCO will have to work cross-functionally with the product team, the marketing team, and the sales team to drive a more friction-free customer experience.

Misperception #5: Service is boring and tactical

There is a wide-spread misperception that working in the service organization is boring. It’s mundane, it’s tactical, it doesn’t appeal to people who think strategy is grander than tactics. I don’t agree with that at all. A great service organization starts with a strategy. It starts with an understanding of customer segmentation. It includes thinking about the different customer personas and how to define an appropriate and valuable customer experience. That core strategy actually takes a while to develop. Once the strategy takes hold, it is core to driving retention over time. And, while a lot of people perceive that the service organization jobs are boring, or just answering trouble tickets or reacting to client problems, that’s not the whole role. It is a strategic role as well. 

The Chief Customer Officer has a big impact on the success of a company, especially startups and scaleups, and their function touches nearly every aspect of a company. To give your company the best chance of scaling, the Chief Customer Officer should understand, pinpoint, and manage misperceptions so that they can devote their time, energy, and resources to the real problems that help customers.

Last week, I blogged about Bolster’s Board Benchmark survey results, which really laid bare the lack of diversity on startup boards.  There are signs that this is starting to change slowly — one big one is that of all the board searches we are running at Bolster, about ⅔ of them are open to taking on first-time directors; and almost all are committed to increasing diversity on their boards.  

This is also something that I would expect to take some time to change.  Boards are small.  Independent seats aren’t necessarily easy to open up.  Seats don’t turn over often.  And they take a while to fill, as CEOs are thorough in their recruitment and selection process.

My new mantra for Startup Boards is simple:  1-1-1.  

1 member of the management team.

Then 1 independent for every 1 investor.

Simply put, this means you should grow from having 1, to 2, to 3 independent directors as your board grows from 3, to 5, to 7 members.

Here are four tough conversations you may have to have along the way, with some suggestions on how to navigate them.  All of these conversations need to come with a point of view of why independence and diversity matters to your company, a lot of empathy, and appreciation for the value the person brings to the table. 

The conversation with your co-founder about only one founder/executive on the board.  This one will be the most personally difficult, since you likely have a strong personal bond.  Expect to hear things like “Aren’t we partners in this business?” and “How come my vote doesn’t count?”  Just let your co-founder know that while of course they’re a key partner, the company has a limited number of board seats to fill — each one is a golden opportunity to get an outside perspective on your business and get really good mindshare of an industry expert and create a new brand ambassador.  You already have 100% of the mindshare and ambassadorship your co-founder has to offer.  You can make that person a board observer, you can make sure they’re in all the key board conversations, and you can even give the person some special voting right in your charter or by-laws if you need to.  But do not put them on the board.  It’s obviously easier to do this from the beginning as opposed to removing them from the board down the road, but at least try to have the conversation up front that someday, it’s going to happen (note this could be a different dynamic if the person is a founder but no longer active in the business).

The conversation with an existing VC about leaving the board to make room for new investors or an independent.  This one will be less personally difficult but will require you to be very artful since the VC is likely contractually given a board seat – meaning you’ll have to get them to give it up voluntarily.  You may also want to align with another VC on your board to help the conversation or process along.  Depending on the circumstances at hand, your key points of logic could be one of the following:  (1) you don’t own as high a percentage of the company as you once did, and I’d like to make room for the new lead investor to join the board without compromising our independents or making the board too big; or (2) I’d like to replace you with an independent director who brings operator perspective and comes from an underrepresented group – it’s important to me that we build a diverse board, and it’s not great that we have don’t have gender or race/ethnic diversity on our board in this day and age.  As with a co-founder, you could change this person’s designation to a board observer so they’re still present for key conversations, you’re not changing their Information Rights, which are likely contractually given in your charter, and if required, you can give the person or firm some sort of special voting rights if there’s something they can no longer block (but which they have a contractual right to block) by losing their board vote.

The conversation with a new potential investor about not taking a board seat.  If you have a big new lead investor writing a $40mm check into a growth round, you may not have a leg to stand on.  But new investors who write smaller checks as you get larger, who might only be buying a 5-10% stake in the business…there, you might have some wiggle room to negotiate.  Your best bet is to do it early in the process before you have a term sheet, and do it as an exploratory conversation.  Otherwise, your talking points are the same as talking to an existing investor above. Investors are starting to realize the power of a diverse board, and may be open to this conversation. Some are making this a proactive practice, notably two of my long-time investors and directors Fred Wilson and Brad Feld (and some of their partners at Union Square Ventures and Foundry Group) — and those investors have also been willing to mentor the new, first time board members once they join.

The conversation with an existing independent director about leaving the board when their term is up.  Perhaps you have an existing independent director who is not adding to the diversity of the board, but you already have a full board.  Or perhaps your existing independent director isn’t doing a great job or has grown stale in the role.  Once a director is fully vested, you have an easy opportunity to thank them graciously and publicly for their service, extend their option exercise period multiple years, and affirm that they’ll still take your call if you need help on something.  You should set this expectation up front when you give the director their initial grant.  If they ask why you’re not renewing them, you can simply say something like “We’d like to add some fresh outside perspective to the team.”  One thing to think about, particularly for early stage companies, is only giving new directors a 1 or 2-year vest on their first option grant, so you can make sure they’re a high value director…and so you can have the option of an easy exit (or re-up) in a shorter period of time than a traditional 4-year vest.

The net of it is that as CEO of a venture-backed company, you wield an enormous amount of (mostly soft) power around the composition of your board – probably a lot more than you think.  You just have to wield that power gently and focus on the importance of building a diverse board in terms of both experience and demographics.

Learning to Embrace Sizzle

One phrase I’ve heard a lot over the years is about “Selling the sizzle, not the steak.”  It suggests that in the world of marketing or product design, there is a divergence between elements of substance and what I call bright shiny objects, and that sometimes it’s the bright shiny objects that really move the needle on customer adoption.

At Return Path, we have always been about the steak and NOT the sizzle.  We’re incredibly fact-based and solution-oriented as a culture.  In fact, I can think of a lot of examples where we have turned our nose up at the sizzle over the years because it doesn’t contribute to core product functionality or might be a little off-point in terms of messaging.  How could we possibly spend money (or worse – our precious development resources) on something that doesn’t solve client problems?

Well, it turns out that if you’re trying to actually sell your product to customers of all shapes and sizes, sizzle counts for a lot in the grand scheme of things.  There are two different kinds of sizzle in my mind, product and marketing — and we are thinking about them differently.

Investing in product sizzle (e.g., functionality that doesn’t actually do much for clients but which sells well, or which they ask for in the sales process) is quite frustrating since (a) it by definition doesn’t create a lot of value for clients, and (b) it comes at the expense of building functionality that DOES create a lot of value.  The way we’re getting our heads around this seemingly irrational construct is to just think of these investments as marketing investments, even though they’re being made in the form of engineering time.  I suppose we could even budget them as such.

Marketing sizzle is in some ways easier to wrap our heads around, and in some ways tougher.  It’s easier because, well, it doesn’t cost much to message sizzle — it’s just using marketing as a way of convincing customers to buy the whole solution, knowing the ROI may come from the steak even as the PO is coming from the sizzle.  But it’s tough for us as well not to position the ROI front and center.  As our Marketing Department gets bigger, better, and more seasoned, we are finding this easier to come by, and more rooted in rational thought or analysis.

In the last year or two, we have done a better job of learning to embrace sizzle, and I expect we’ll continue to do that as we get larger and place a greater emphasis on sales and marketing — part of my larger theme of how we’ve built the business backwards.  Don’t most companies start with ONLY sizzle (vaporware) and then add the steak?

Stamina

A couple years ago I had breakfast with Nick Mehta, my friend who runs the incredibly exciting Gainsight.  I think at the time I had been running Return Path for 15 years, and he was probably 5 years into his journey.  He said he wanted to run his company forever, and he asked me how I had developed the stamina to keep running Return Path as long as I had.  My off the cuff answer had three points, although writing them down afterwards yielded a couple more.  For entrepreneurs who love what they do, love running and building companies for the long haul, this is an important topic.  CEOs have to change their thinking as their businesses scale, or they will self implode!  What are five things you need to get comfortable with as your business scales in order to be in it for the long haul?

Get more comfortable with not every employee being a rock star.  When you have 5, 10, or even 100 employees, you need everyone to be firing on all cylinders at all times.  More than that, you want to hire “rock stars,” people you can see growing rapidly with their jobs.  As organizations get larger, though, not only is it impossible to staff them that way, it’s not desirable either.  One of the most influential books I’ve read on hiring over the years, Topgrading (review, buy), talks about only hiring A players, but hiring three kinds of A players:  people who are excellent at the job you’re hiring them for and may never grow into a new role; people who are excellent at the job you’re hiring them for and who are likely promotable over time; and people who are excellent at the job you’re hiring them for and are executive material.  Startup CEOs tend to focus on the third kind of hire for everyone.  Scaling CEOs recognize that you need a balance of all three once you stop growing 100% year over year, or even 50%.

Get more comfortable with people quitting.  This has been a tough one for me over the years, although I developed it out of necessity first (there’s only so much you can take personally!), with a philosophy to follow.  I used to take every single employee departure personally.  You are leaving MY company?  What’s wrong with you?  What’s wrong with me or the company?  Can I make a diving catch to save you from leaving?  The reality here about why people leave companies may be 10% about how competitive the war for talent has gotten in technology.  But it’s also 40% from each of two other factors.  First, it’s 40% that, as your organization grows and scales, it may not be the right environment for any given employee any more. Our first employee resigned because we had “gotten too big” when we had about 25 employees.  That happens a bit more these days!  But different people find a sweet spot in different sizes of company.  Second, it’s 40% that sometimes the right next step for someone to take in their career isn’t on offer at your company.  You may not have the right job for the person’s career trajectory if it’s already filled, with the incumbent unlikely to leave.  You may not have the right job for the person’s career trajectory at all if it’s highly specialized.  Or for employees earlier in their careers, it may just be valuable for them to work at another company so they can see the differences between two different types of workplace.

Get more comfortable with a whole bunch of entry level, younger employees who may be great people but won’t necessarily be your friends.  I started Return Path in my late 20s, and I was right at our average age.  It felt like everyone in the company was a peer in that sense, and that I could be friends with all of them.  Now I’m in my (still) mid-40s and am well beyond our average age, despite my high level of energy and of course my youthful appearance.  There was a time several years ago where I’d say things to myself or to someone on my team like “how come no one wants to hang out with me after work any more,” or “wow do I feel out of place at this happy hour – it’s really loud here.”  That’s all ok and normal.  Participate in office social events whenever you want to and as much as you can, but don’t expect to be the last man or woman standing at the end of the evening, and don’t expect that everyone in the room will want to have a drink with you.  No matter how approachable and informal you are, you’re still the CEO, and that office and title are bound to intimidate some people.

Get more comfortable with shifts in culture and differentiate them in your mind from shifts in values.  I wrote a lot about this a couple years ago in The Difference Between Culture and Values . To paraphrase from that post, an organization’s values shouldn’t change over time, but its culture – the expression of those values – necessarily changes with the passage of time and the growth of the company.  The most clear example I can come up with is about the value of transparency and the use case of firing someone.  When you have 10 employees, you can probably just explain to everyone why you fired Joe.  When you have 100 employees, it’s not a great idea to tell everyone why you fired Joe, although you might be ok if everyone finds out.  When you have 1,000 employees, telling everyone why you fired Joe invites a lawsuit from Joe and an expensive settlement on your part, although it’s probably ok and important if Joe’s team or key stakeholders comes to understand what happened.  Does that evolution mean you aren’t being true to your value of transparency?  No.  It just means that WHERE and HOW you are transparent needs to evolve as the company evolves.

• Get more comfortable with process.  This doesn’t mean you have to turn your nimble startup into a bureaucracy.  But a certain amount of process (more over time as the company scales) is a critical enabler of larger groups of people not only getting things done but getting the right things done, and it’s a critical enabler of the company’s financial health.  At some point, you and your CFO can’t go into a room for a day and do the annual budget by yourselves any more.  But you also can’t let each executive set a budget and just add them together.  At some point, you can’t approve every hire yourself.  But you also can’t let people hire whoever they want, and you can’t let some other single person approve all new hires either, since no one really has the cross-company view that you and maybe a couple of other senior executives has.  At some point, the expense policy of “use your best judgment and spend the company’s money as if it was your own” has to fit inside department T&E budgets, or it’s possible that everyone’s individual best judgments won’t be globally optimal and will cause you to miss your numbers.  Allow process to develop organically.  Be appropriately skeptical of things that smell like bureaucracy and challenge them, but don’t disallow them categorically.  Hire people who understand more sophisticated business process, but don’t let them run amok and make sure they are thoughtful about how and where they introduce process to the organization.

I bet there are 50 things that should be on this list, not 5.  Any others out there to share?

Does size matter?

It is the age-old question — are you a more important person at your company if you have more people reporting into you?  Most people, unfortunately, say yes.

I’m going to assume the origins of this are political and military. The kingdom with more subjects takes over the smaller kingdom. The general has more stars on his lapel than the colonel. And it may be true for some of those same reasons in more traditional companies. If you have a large team or department, you have control over more of the business and potentially more of the opportunities. The CEO will want to hear from you, maybe even the Board.

In smaller organizations, and in more contemporary organization structures that are flatter (either structurally or culturally) or more dynamic/fluid, I’m not sure this rule holds any more. Yes, sure, a 50-person team is going to get some attention, and the ability to lead that team effectively is incredibly important and not easy to come by. But that doesn’t mean that in order to be important, or get recognized, or be well-compensated, you must lead that large team.

Consider the superstar enterprise sales rep or BD person. This person is likely an individual contributor. But this person might well be the most highly paid person in the company. And becoming a sales manager might be a mistake — the qualities that make for a great rep are quite different from those that make a great sales manager. We have lost a few great sales reps over the years for this very reason. They begged for the promotion to manager, we couldn’t say no (or we would lose them), then they bombed as sales managers and refused as a matter of pride to go back to being a sales rep.

Or consider a superstar engineer, also often an individual contributor. This person may be able to write code at 10x the rate and quality of the rest of the engineering organization and can create a massive amount of value that way. But everything I wrote above about sales reps moving into management holds for engineers as well.  The main difference we’ve seen over the years is that on average, successful engineers don’t want to move into management roles at the same rate as successful sales reps.

It’s certainly true that you can’t build a company consisting of only individual contributors. But that isn’t my point. My point is that you can add as much value to your organization, and have as much financial or psychic reward, by being a rock star individual contributor as you can by being the leader of a large team.

Selecting Your Investors

Fred Wilson has been a venture investor and director in Return Path since 2000, first with Flatiron Partners and then with Union Square Ventures.  We’ve been through a lot of wars together.  In a couple of weeks, he and I are team-teaching a class in Entrepreneurship at Princeton, and the professor gave us the assignment of writing two pairs of blog posts to tee up discussion with the class.  This is the first one…and Fred’s post on the other side of the topic is here.  Next week, we’ll address the topic of building a successful CEO-VC partnership once it’s established.

If you’re fortunate enough to have built a really strong early stage company, you will find yourself in the position of being able to pick from a number of potential venture investors.  The better your business and the more exciting the space you’re trying to tackle…the more investors you’ll find circling around you.  Here are a few tips for ending up with the best long-term partner as an investor.

1. Look for VC portfolios that have a lot of “like” companies (B2B, B2C, media, tech, etc.).  One of the strongest points of value that venture investors bring to the table is pattern matching, and you can maximize that by making sure the investor you end up with has seen a multitude of companies like yours
2. Check references carefully.  Don’t be shy – prospective VCs are checking up on you, and you have every right to do the same with them.  When Fred first invested in Return Path, he gave me a list of every CEO he had ever worked with and said “Call anyone you want on the list.  Some of these guys I worked well with, a couple I fired.  But they’ll all tell you what I’m like to work with.”  First prize is the VC who volunteers this information.  Second prize is the VC who gives it to you when you ask.  A distant third price is the VC who gives you two names and ask for time to prep them ahead of time
3. Focus on the person first, the firm second.  Having a good venture firm is important.  But at the end of the day, you’re dealing with a person first and foremost.  That’s who will be on your board giving you advice and measuring your performance.  Better to have an A person at a B firm than a B person at an A firm (of course, even better to have an A person at an A firm).  This means two things – selecting a great person to be on your Board, and also making sure you end up with a person who has enough juice within his or her firm to get things done on your behalf with the partnership
4. Always have a BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement – a fancy way of saying Plan B).  This is probably the most important piece of advice I can offer.  And this is true of any negotiation, not just a term sheet.  It’s often said that good choices come from good options. Sometimes, you have to walk away from a deal where you’ve invested a lot of time, energy, and emotion.  But as an entrepreneur, you can mitigate the number of times you have to walk away by developing good alternative options to a particular deal. That way, if one option doesn’t pan out as you’d hoped, another very good option is waiting in the wings.  If you negotiate with two or three VCs, you’ll have a great backstop and won’t let the emotional investment in the deal get the best of you.  Yes, you will spend twice to three times the amount of time on the process, but it’s well worth it
5. Don’t be swayed by promises of help.  I’ve heard VCs say it all.  They’ll help you fill out your management team.  They’ll get you customers.  They’ll help with your back office.  They’re loaded up with value-add.  If venture investor has staffed his or her firm with support personnel who are available free of charge to portfolio companies (this does happen once in a while), then assume your VC will be as helpful as possible, but no more or less helpful than another investor
6. Handle the negotiation yourself, in person as much as possible.  The best way to get to know someone’s character is to negotiate a deal with him.  This gives you lots of opportunities to look for reasonableness, and to see if he or she is able to focus on the big picture.  The biggest warning sign to look for is someone who says things like “you have to agree on this term, because this is how we always do deals.”  By the way, how you handle yourself in this negotiation is equally important.  The financing is the line of demarcation between you and the VC courting each other, and the VC joining your board and effectively becoming your boss
7. “Pay up” for quality and for a clean security.  There is a world of difference between good VCs and bad VCs (both the individual partners and the firms) that will ultimately have a lot to do with how successful your company can become.  The quality of your VC isn’t more important than the quality of your product or your team, but it’s right up there.  But – and this is an important but – you should expect to “pay” for quality in the form of slightly weaker terms (whether valuation or type of security).  Similarly, I’d always sacrifice valuation for a clean security.  Everyone always thinks that price/valuation is the most important thing to maximize in a deal. However, the structure of the security can be much more important in the long run.  Whether the VCs buy 33 percent of your company or 30 percent of your company is much less important than having a capital structure that’s easy for an outsider to understand and want to join

As with all things, there are probably another dozen items that could be added to this list, but it’s a good starting point.  However, your more important role as CEO is to put your company in a position where you can select from a number of high quality investors, so start there!

Two Ears, One Mouth

Brace yourself for a post full of pithy quotes from others.  I’m not sure how we missed this one when drafted our original values statements at Return Path years ago, because it’s always been central to the way we operate.  We aren’t just the world’s biggest data-driven email intelligence company – we are a data-driven organization.  So another one of our newly written Core Values is:

Two Ears, One Mouth:  We ask, listen, learn, and collect data.  We engage in constructive debate to reach conclusions and move forward together.

I’m not sure which of my colleagues first said this to me, but I’m going to give credit to Anita, our long-time head of sales (almost a decade!), for saying “There’s a reason God gave you two ears and one mouth.”  The meaning?  Listen (and look, I suppose) more than you speak.

This value really has two distinct components to it, though they’re closely related.  First, we always look to collect data when we need to understand a situation or make a decision.  To quote our long-time investor, Board member, and friend Brad Feld, “the plural of anecdote is not data.”  That means we are always looking far and wide for facts, numbers, and multiple perspectives.  Some of us are better than others at relying on second-hand data and observations from trusted colleagues, which means often times, many of us are collecting data ourselves to inform a situation.  But regardless, we always start with the data.

Second, we use data as the foundation of our decision-making process.  I heard another great quote about this once, which is something like, “If we are going to make a decision based on data, the data will make the decision for us.  If we’re going to use opinion, let’s use mine.”  And while I’m at it, I’ll throw in another great quote from Winston Churchill who famously said “Facts are stubborn things.”  While we do have constructive debates all across our organization, those debates are driven by facts, not emotion.

Finally, when this value says that “we move forward together,” that is the combination of the points in the two prior paragraphs.  People may have different opinions entering a debate.  Even with a lot of data behind a decision, they may still have different opinions after a decision has been made.  But we work very deliberately to all support a decision, even one we may disagree with, and we are able to do that, move forward together, and explain the decision to the organization, because the decision is data-driven.

Job 1

The first “new” post in my series of posts about Return Path’s 14 Core Values is, fittingly,

Job 1:  We are all responsible for championing and extending our unique culture as a competitive advantage.

The single most frequently asked question I have gotten internally over the last few years since we grew quickly from 100 employees to 350 has been some variant of “Are you worried about our ability to scale our culture as we hire in so many new people?”  This value is the answer to that question, though the short answer is “no.”

I am not solely responsible for our culture at Return Path. I’m not sure I ever was, even when we were small.  Neither is Angela, our SVP of People.  That said, it was certainly true that I was the main architect and driver of our culture in the really early years of the company’s life.  And I’d add that even up to an employee base of about 100 people, I and a small group of senior or tenured people really shouldered most of the burden of defining and driving and enforcing our culture and values.

But as the business has grown, the amount of responsibility that I and those few others have for the culture has shrunk as a percentage of the total.  It had to, by definition.  And that’s the place where cultures either scale or fall apart.  Companies who are completely dependent on their founder or a small group of old-timers to drive their cultures can’t possibly scale their cultures as their businesses grow.  Five people can be hands on with 100.  Five people can’t be hands on with 500.  The way we’ve been able to scale is that everyone at the company has taken up the mantle of protecting, defending, championing, and extending the culture.  Now we all train new employees in “The RP Way.”  We all call each other out when we fail to live up to our values.  And the result is that we have done a great job of scaling our culture with our business.

I’d also note that there are elements of our culture which have changed or evolved over the last few years as we’ve grown.  That isn’t a bad thing, as I tell old-timers all the time.  If our products stayed the same, we’d be dead in the market.  If our messaging stayed the same, we’d never sell to a new cohort of clients.  If our values stayed the same, we’d be out of step with our own reality.

Finally, this value also folds in another important concept, which is Culture as Competitive Advantage.  In an intellectual capital business like ours (or any on the internet), your business is only as good as your people.  We believe that a great culture brings in the best people, fosters an environment where they can work at the top of their games even as they grow and broaden their skills, increases the productivity and creativity of the organization’s output through high levels of collaboration, and therefore drives the best performance on a sustained basis.  This doesn’t have to be Return Path’s culture or mean that you have to live by our values.  This could be your culture and your values.  You just have to believe that those things drive your success.

Not a believer yet?  Last year, we had voluntary turnover of less than 1%.  We promoted or gave new assignments to 15% of our employees.  And almost 50% of our new hires were referred by existing employees.  Those are some very, very healthy employee metrics that lead directly to competitive advantage.  As does our really exciting announcement last week of being #11 in the mid-sized company on Fortune Magazine’s list of the best companies to work for.