• The dangers of relying on collective intelligence revealed!
  Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence Founding Fathers, Patriots, Mr. T. Honored (From The Onion — hilarious)
  (tags: Humor Social_Networking wikipedia Technology history onion)

Counter Cliche:  How Much Paranoia is Too Much Paranoia?, Part II

After the original posting, one of my readers wrote in with the following question:

I was one of the first employees at a pre-funding enterprise social networking company, after having consulted on doing their business plan for them (not coming up with it; mainly turning the CEO and CTO’s engineer-speak into English). 

So with all that background, when you say “open book” to your employees, can you break that out some more?  I have an idea of what I think that means, and what it doesn’t, but I’d love to hear your thoughts on it too.

My thoughts on this are quite simple.  We are willing to share everything internally other than compensation.  We publish detailed monthly financials and reporting to the team, and we ask that they treat the information as extremely confidential.  We have had only good things come from this level of openness with our team.  Good ideas, good esprit de corps, and a radical reduction in fear of the unknown (the old "Looks like we had a bad quarter, does that mean I need to look for a job now?  Are we running out of money?"). 

In fact, I know one other CEO who goes so far as to publish an only-slightly modified version of his Board books to the entire company.

Transparency is a good thing.

Doing Well by Doing Good, Part II

At Return Path, we feel strongly that companies can and should make the world a better place in several different ways.  Certainly, many companies’ core businesses do that — just look at all the breakthroughs in medicine and social services over the years brought to market by private enterprises, including my friend Raj Vinnakota, who I wrote about in part I of this series last year.  But many companies, including Return Path, aren’t inherently “save the world” in nature (although some people in online marketing would have you believe that we are!), and those companies can still make a difference in the world in a few ways:

1. Organize projects in the local community for their employees to help out/work at

2. Allow employees to take a limited amount of paid time off for community service work

3. Provide matching gift programs so employees’ donations are enhanced by the company

4. Donate money or services to charitable organizations they believe in

As a relatively small company, we have to pick our battles here.  We currently have a policy for #2 above that allows employees 3 days per year of paid time off for community service work.  And today, we are announcing a comprehensive program for #4 above in association with the Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis.  This choice was inspired by our long-time employee and friend Sophie Miller, who was diagnosed almost two years ago now with MS (and is doing great)!

Read the details of what we’re doing with Accelerated Cure in the full press release here.

• This is going to be BIG! – I noticed that you are also not using LinkedIn
  Charlie O’Donnell from Union Square Ventures has a great post about LinkedIn, its limitations, and some things it could do to be MUCH cooler and more useful.
  (tags: VC Technology Media Social_Networking)

CEO Diary:  What Makes a Great Day?

5:30 a.m. – run (have to keep up with Brad)

8:45 a.m. – networking coffee with former main contact at large strategic partner; now CFO of another company in the industry

9:30 a.m. – work time/email/read newsletters, Wall St. Journal online, various RSS feeds

10:30 a.m. – internal meeting to discuss mothballing a product feature that’s hard to maintain and doesn’t generate much revenue

11:00 a.m. – internal meeting to clarify roles and responsibilities between account management and  client technical operations

11:30 a.m. – brainstorm 2006 strategy with head of one of our lines of business

1:00 p.m. – great sales call on a Tier I prospect with new sales person; business almost certainly forthcoming!

3:00 p.m. – meet with head of sales and hea of HR to discuss candidate for sales position and potential changes to sales compensation structure

3:30 p.m. – review draft of new (revolutionary!?!?) corporate web site; do deep dive on critical headlines and copy points with team members

4:30 p.m. – status meeting with new head of marketing,including quick stand-up meeting on PR strategy for upcoming trade show with one line of business head and product manager

5:30 p.m. – work/email/planning next Board meeting agenda/blog posting

7:00 p.m. – dinner with CTO

Energizing (frenetic?).  Diverse in terms of functions/departments covered.  Good balance of internal vs. external.  Some items high level, some more detailed.  Mix of brainstorming vs. decisions vs. status checks.  Some social mixed in with hardcore work.  This is why I love my job!

Counter Cliche:  It’s Fun at the Top!

Fred’s VC cliche this week is a good one — that CEOs have the weight of the company on their shoulders, otherwise known as "it’s lonely at the top."  He’s right in a lot of ways, and his two suggestions for dealing with it are good.  To those, I’d add a third suggestion, which is to create a peer group of other CEOs that gets together periodically to talk, share ideas, and blow off steam.  It doesn’t need to be something formal like YPO or YEO — just have a quarterly dinner roundtable with a handful of other local CEOs you know and respect, whether from your industry or not. 

But the counter to Fred’s cliche is that while yes, it can be lonely at the top, it can also be a ton of fun.  Having the weight of the company on one’s shoulders also means having the ability to do some exciting things:

– Being social and interacting with people all across the organization, at all levels, to really understand what’s going on

– Being multi-disciplinary and working on projects with all departments to make sure things are in sync

– Periodically getting out of the organization and understanding what’s happening in the outside world, with customers, suppliers, partners, and investors

I’m sure there are others, and I’m certainly lucky to have an investor who has sympathy for the "weight of the company" problem — but there are many days where the weight is completely overshadowed by the fun!

Why I Love My Board, Part II

I’ve written a few things about my Board of Directors over the years, some of which I note below.  Part I of this series isn’t particularly useful, though there’s an entertaining link in it to a video of Fred that’s worth looking at if you know or follow him.

Today, we are happy to announce that we are adding a new independent director, Scott Petry, the founder of Postini and now a senior email product leader at Google (read the official press release [here]).  Scott’s a fantastic addition to our already strong Board, and the process of recruiting and adding him has made me reflect a bit on my Board and its strengths and weaknesses, so I thought I’d share a couple of those thoughts here.

I think Return Path has cultivated a very high functioning Board over the years, and I feel very fortunate to have the group that we have.  Here are the top five things I think make our Board special, in no particular order.

1. We have great individuals on the Board.  Each of our individual Board members — Fred Wilson, Greg Sands, Scott Weiss, Scott Petry, and Brad Feld (now officially an observer), (in addition to me) — could anchor a super strong Board in his own right and have all served on multiple Boards of related companies.  And not only do these guys know their stuff…they do their homework.  They all come to every meeting very well prepared.
2. The individual Board members are different but have different experiences and personalities that complement each other nicely.  Among the three VCs on the Board, two have operating experience, one as a founder and one in product management.  Among the two industry CEOs, one has more of a business development focus, and the other has deep technical expertise.  Some directors are excitable and a bit knee-jerk, others are more reflective; some are aggressive and others are more conservative; some have extremely colorful metaphors, others are a bit more steeped in traditional pattern recognition.
3. We have built a great team dynamic that encourages productive conflict.  I assume a lot of rooms full of great directors of different types are so ego-laden that people just talk over each other.  Our group, for whatever reason, doesn’t function that way.  We are engaged and in each others’ faces during meetings, no one is afraid to voice an opinion, and we listen to each other.  Some of this may be the way we spend time together outside of Board rooms, which I wrote about in The Social Aspects of Running a Board. Some is about just making sure to have fun, which I wrote about in The Good, The Board, and The Ugly (Part I, Part II, Part III), I talk about other aspects of running a good Board, including making sure to have fun – that post includes an entertaining picture of now-Twitter CEO Dick Costolo and a few of his friends from his FeedBurner days.
4. We are deliberate about connecting the Board and the Executive team, and the rest of the company.  We encourage every director to have a direct relationship with every one of my direct reports.  They connect both during and outside of meetings, and they have gotten to know each other well over the years.  This is much more helpful to us than a more traditional “hourglass” structure where all connections go through the CEO.
5. We run great meetings.  We send out a single, well-organized document several days before the meeting.  Board members do their homework.  We focus on current and future issues more than reporting on historical numbers, and we no longer do any presentations — it’s all discussion (I also wrote about a lot of this here in PowerPointLess).

Welcome to the Return Path family, Scott P – we are delighted to have you on board our Board!

Book Short:  Sloppy Sequel

SuperFreakonomics, by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, wasn’t a bad book, but it wasn’t nearly as good as the original Freakonomics, either.  I always find the results of “naturally controlled experiments” and taking a data-driven view of the world to be very refreshing.  And as much as I like the social scientist versions of these kinds of books like Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point and Blink (book; blog post), there’s usually something about reading something data driven written by a professional quant jock that’s more reassuring.

That’s where SuperFreakonomics fell down a bit for me.  Paul Krugman has described the book in a couple different places as “snarky and contrarian.”  I typically enjoy books that carry those descriptors, but this one seemed a bit over the top for economists — like a series of theories looking for data more than raw data adding up to theories.Nowhere is this more true than the chapter on climate change.  It’s a shame that that chapter seems to be swallowing up all the public discussion about the book, because there are some good points in that chapter, and the rest of the book is better than that particular chapter, but such is life.

As with all things related to the environment, I turned to my friend Andrew Winston’s blog, where he has a good post about how the authors kind of miss the point about climate change…and he also has a series of links to other blog posts debunking this one chapter.  If you’re into the topic, or if you read the book, follow the chain here for good reading.  My conclusion about this chapter, being at least somewhat informed about the climate change debate, is that the book seems to have sloppy writing and editing at best, possibly deliberately misleading at worst.  (Incidentally, the reaction in the blogosphere seems highly emotional, other than Andrew’s, which probably doesn’t serve the reactors well.)

But I’ll assume the best of intentions.  Some of the points made aren’t bad – there is no debate about the problem or the need to solve it, the authors express legitimate concern that current solutions, especially those requiring behavioral change, will be too little too late, and most interestingly, they show an interest in alternative approaches like geo-engineering.  I hadn’t been familiar with that topic at all, but I’m now much more interested in it, not because it’s a “silver bullet” approach to dealing with climate change, but because it’s a different approach, and complex problems like climate change deserve to have a wide range of people working on multiple types of solutions.  I met Nathan Myhrvold once (I almost threw up on him during a job interview, which is another story for another day), and it makes me very happy that his brilliance is being applied to this problem as a general principle.

As I said, though, beyond this one chapter, the book is good-not-great.  But it certainly is chock full of cocktail party nuggets!

I Love My Job

The picture below is a picture of my dress shoes in my closet at home.  You may note that they all have dust on them.  That's because I didn't put them on once for six weeks.

When we started Return Path back in 1999, we sat down to write our employee handbook, and all I could think was "what things can we add in here that will make this company a unique place to work?"  And one of them was a six week paid sabbatical after 7 years.  It didn't occur to me that we'd even exist after 7 years.  Then for good measure, we said, "7 years and every 5 years after that."

I'm happy to report that everyone who has hit their 7 year anniversary has taken the time off.  Some have traveled around the world, some have rented a house or villa somewhere, others (like me) did a "stay-cation."  Although my sabbatical was delayed (and quite hard to schedule), it was a fantastic experience.  I completely unplugged from work.  Cold turkey.  No email, no calls.  Spending time with Mariquita and my kids, which I never get to do much of, was completely refreshing and energizing.  And everything went fine at work, as I expected.  Business is in the best shape it's ever been in, and my amazingly talented executive team and assistant handled everything without missing a beat.

But back to the subject line of this post.  I figured a few things out while I was away.  One was that I haven't actually become a workaholic over the years despite working hard.  I *could* unplug without feeling aimless.  Another was that it's really nice to be untethered from the Internet, but it's near impossible to go through life now without some minor usage of the web and messaging.  But by far my biggest insight is plain and simple:  I love my job.  It's not that I didn't know that before, but I had more thoughtful time to break that down while I was away:

1. I love what I do:  I consider myself extremely fortunate to love the substance of my job.  The diversity of experiences that I have within a given week or day as a general manager, the interactions with people, shaping the business strategy, travel — it's all right up my alley. So many people out there don't have that match between interest, passion, skill, and reality. 

2. I love who I work with:  I have to admit that I stack the deck here since I do the hiring and firing, but the reality is that my colleagues at work are also my friends.  Not working was one thing.  Not talking to one particular subset of my life for six weeks was something else and just plain weird.  I just missed them and the interactions we have, which always blend the professional with the social. 

3. I love what we are working on:  We have an incredibly interesting business at Return Path.  It's very intellectually engaging, sometimes to a fault.  The spam problem is incredibly complex, and we're coming up with some extremely innovative approaches to reduce its impacts and hopefully someday eradicate it.  We're not curing cancer as I always say internally, but we're also engaged in some high impact problem solving that I just love.

So there you have it.  My work shoes are now dusted off and back in action.  It's great to be back.  We'll see how long I can stay in "mental vacation" mode, how much more time I can try to make for my family now that I'm back in my work routine, and whether the fresh perspective translates into any new actions or decisions at work.  But the best thought of all is that my 12 year anniversary is only another year and a half away!

Innovating in New York City

Last week I wrote about speaking at the NYC Lean Startup Meetup.  One of my other key takeaways from this, which I’ve known for a while and have been meaning to blog about, is just how vibrant the tech startup community is here in New York.  I know others have been blogging about this like mad – Fred has some thoughts here, here, and here, and Charlie has some here and here.  Chris Dixon’s seminal post on this is here. (I even blogged a bit about why NYC is a good place to start a business back in 2006 here.)

I’ve had a little more time for networking and speaking in the past year than the prior year, and I’ve been blown away by how many startups there are here.  Like most things, New York City is such a massive and diverse place that it’s easy to “get lost in the crowd,” and there’s a lot going on.  So startups don’t tend to get the same level of social buzz that they do in Silicon Valley.  But Fred’s stat in one of those links above that over 150 startups were founded in NYC this year compared to over 300 in the Valley is interesting when you consider the geographic density here.  There are many more per square mile in New York.

Despite the geographic density to the startups, the New York startup scene is a long way from being a community.  There are some encouraging signs of late.  Charlie’s establishing a physical presence for First Round Capital is one. NextNY, with over 2500 members, is another, along with various Meetups.  I am learning more and more every day about local incubator-type organizations as well (take that term with a grain of salt).  I thought John Borthwick’s Betaworks was the only one until Charlie told me about Sunshine Suites, TechSpace, and the NYU/Poly program.  But something is still missing.  Some glue to hold it all together.

In the Valley, the startup community is  a cultural thing — plus, startups are part and parcel of a larger tech community.  Most of the big acquirers of internet companies are out there, so the ecosystem keeps cycling through companies and talent and investors.  In smaller cities like Denver/Boulder and Boston (and soon to be Seattle), TechStars fills a good void by providing a high profile “lure the talent here” combined with “meet the money” program. Seedcamp does that nicely in London, which, while it’s a big city, has a much smaller and more dispersed startup community than New York.

Since we’re unlikely to suddenly sprout a bunch of Fortune 500 tech companies in NYC, where’s our version of one of those programs in NYC?  Or is there some other “glue” lurking out there to tie it all together?

Last week, I wrote about the concept of the Operating Philosophy, and how it fits with a company’s Operating Framework and Operating System and defines the essence of who you are as a company…what form of company you are.

While we had a loose Operating Philosophy at Return Path, we never really crisply articulated it, and that caused some hand-wringing at various points over the years, as different people interpreted our “People First” mantra in different ways. So this time around at Bolster, we’re trying to be more intentional about this up front. We have labeled our company a “Mostly Self Managed Organization” or MSMO (pronounced Miz-Moh). We made those up.

Our Operating Philosophy – we are a Mostly Self-Managed Organization, or MSMO (pronounced Miz-Mo, a term we just made up). The MSMO is the product of years of work, research, practical learning, and thinking on our part.  Self-Management has been important to me my whole career as a manager and leader.  Over the last 15 years, the team and I have studied various forms of self-management with interviews and onsite meetings at Netflix, Gore, Nucor, Morningstar, and Zappos.  While we implemented some aspects of it at Return Path, we are trying to take the implementation a step further here at Bolster from the beginning.

Of all those companies, what we’re doing is probably closest to the Operating Philosophy of W.L. Gore & Associates, which you can find written out online without a name but with the description that “individuals don’t need close supervision; what they need is mentoring and support.” The embodiments of the Operating Philosophy at Gore may be different from those we create at Bolster, but the essence of the philosophies is pretty similar.

Why a MSMO?  We employ smart people, and smart people crave autonomy, purpose, and mastery (according to Daniel Pink) and do their best work when they have those things in alignment.  

So, how do we define self-management at Bolster?  We aren’t going to be a DAO.  I don’t think that model works for a for-profit multifaceted corporation – complete Self-Management is too chaotic.  Leadership and mentorship matter and make a difference in guiding strategy, critical decisions, and careers. Holocracies or other unnamed structures like that of Morningstar are ok, but they are so rigidly ideological that they require an immense amount of work-around, or scaffolding, to be practical.

But we aren’t a traditional fixed top-down hierarchy, either.  We are going to run the business in a way that lets people co-create their work and be responsible for driving their own feedback and development with a support structure.  That’s the ideology we have. Letting talented people loose to do their best work is critical; but leadership, judgment, and experience matter, too. If not, why bother having a CEO, or a VP of anything? Why not just pay everyone the same thing and hope they can all figure out the complexities of the business together?

We believe the MSMO is the best operating philosophy to allow high performers to do their best work. 

At Bolster, we are leaning into things like social contracts, peer feedback, career mentorship, individuals translating our Operating Framework into priorities and work, flexible work streams and team leadership, instead of fixed permanent hierarchies, rotating chairs of key company meetings, and market-level-based compensation.  

What we are steering away from are things like traditional titles, micromanaging or overmanaging, traditional performance reviews linked to compensation and complex incentive compensation structures, and fixed organization boundaries and structure.

We’ll see if our MSMO Operating Philosophy works. If not, we’ll iterate on it. That’s the good thing about adherence to an ideology of philosophy as opposed to an ideology of practices. Who knows – maybe the MSMO concept and even its quirky name will catch on!