Keeping Commitments

Today’s post is another in the series about our 13 core values at Return Path, about making commitments.  The language of our value specifically is:

We believe in keeping the commitments we make, and we communicate obsessively when we can’t

Making and keeping commitments is not a new value – it’s one of Covey’s core principles if nothing else.  I’m sure it has deeper roots throughout the history of mankind.  But for us, this is one of those things that is hard wired into the social contract of working here.  The value is more complicated than some of the other ones we have, and although it is short, it has three components that worth breaking down:

• Making commitments:  Goal setting, whether big company-wide goals, or smaller “I’ll have it to you by Tuesday” goals, is the foundation for a well-run, aligned, and fast-paced organization
  
• Keeping commitments:  If you can’t keep the overwhelming majority of your commitments, you erode the trust of your clients or colleagues and ultimately are unable to succeed
  
• Communicating when commitments can’t be met:  Nobody is perfect.  Sometimes circumstances change, and sometimes external dependencies prevent meeting a goal.  The prior two parts of this value statement are, in my mind, pay to play.  What separates the good from the great is this third piece — owning up loud and clear when you’re in danger of blowing a goal so that those who are counting on you know how to reset their own work and expectations accordingly
  

It’s worth noting on this one that the goal is as relevant EXTERNALLY as it is INTERNALLY.  Internal commitments are key around building an organization that knows how to collaborate and hand work off from group to group.  External commitments — from meeting investor expectations to client deliverables — keep the wheels of commerce flowing.

I’m enjoying articulating these values and hope they’re helpful for both my Return Path audience and my much larger non-Return Path audience.  More to come over time.

Across 22 years and two companies now, our system of giving performance feedback has evolved significantly. I thought I’d take a pass at chronicling it here and seeing if I had any learnings from looking at the evolution. Here’s how things evolved over the years:

• Written performance reviews. The first year of Return Path, we had a pretty standard process for reviews. They were more or less “one-way” (meaning managers wrote reviews for their direct reports), and they only happened annually.
• Written 360 reviews. We pretty quickly moved from one-way reviews to 360s. I wrote about this here, but we always felt that being able to give/receive feedback in all directions was critical to getting a full picture of your strengths and weaknesses.
• Live 360 reviews. In addition to the above post/link, I wrote about this a bit further here and here. The short of it is that we evolved written 360s for senior leaders into facilitated live conversations among all the reviewers in order to resolve conflicting feedback and prioritize action items.
• Live 360 reviews with the subject in the room. I wrote about this here…the addition of the subject of the review into an observer/clarifying role present for the facilitated live conversation.
• Peer feedback. At some point, we started doing team-based reviews on a regular cadence (usually quarterly) where everyone on a team reviews everyone on a team round-robin style in a live meeting.

The evolution follows an interesting pattern of increasing utility combined with increasing transparency. The more data that is available to more people, the more actionable the feedback has gotten.

The pluses of this model are clear. A steady diet of feedback is much better than getting something once a year. Having the opportunity to prioritize and clarify conflicts in feedback is key. Hearing it firsthand is better than having it filtered.

The biggest minuses of this model are less clear. One could be that in round robin feedback, unless you spend several hours at it, it’s possible that some detail and nuance get lost in the name of prioritization. Another could be that so much transparency means that important feedback is hidden because the people giving the feedback are nervous to give it. One thing to note as a mitigating factor on this last point is that the feedback we’re talking about coming in a peer feedback session is all what I’d call “in bounds” feedback. When there is very serious feedback (e.g., performance or behavioral issues that could lead to a PIP or termination), it doesn’t always surface in peer feedback sessions – it takes a direct back channel line to the person’s manager or to HR.

The main conclusion I draw from studying this evolution is that feedback processes by design vary with culture. The more our culture at Return Path got deeper and deeper into transparency and into training people on giving/receiving feedback and training on the Difficult Conversations and Action/Design methodologies, the more we were able to make it safe to give tough feedback directly to someone’s face, even in a group setting. That does not mean that all companies could handle that kind of radical transparency, especially without a journey that includes increasing the level of transparency of feedback one step at a time. At Bolster, where the culture is rooted in transparency from the get go, we have been able to start the feedback journey at the Peer Feedback level, although now that I lay it out, I’m worried we may not be doing enough to make sure that the peer feedback format is meaningful enough especially around depth of feedback!

A Great American Experience

President Obama signed into law today a bill called the JOBS Act.  I haven’t read the full text of the law, but based on abstracts, my opinion of the JOBS Act is that it’s great for the startup community, but even greater for growth companies. I am less familiar with the Crowdsourcing components of the bill, but certainly that will make it easier for pure startups to attract micro capital.

The Sarbanes-Oxley reforms that make it easier and less costly to go through an IPO and be a public company will really enable growth companies like Return Path and many others in the Internet industry to go public a little earlier and with less difficulty. Tapping the public markets like that will enable the thriving Internet sector, which is one of the few truly high-growth segments of the economy, to grow even faster and create even more jobs.

Even better — George, Jack, and I were invited to attend the bill signing ceremony and speech in the Rose Garden at the White House!  Below are three pictures, one of the signing, one of the three of us, and one of me and Scott Dorsey, our friend and CEO of Exact Target, who we ran into there.

It was a great experience for the three of us overall.  Seeing the White House, the President, and a positive product of the legislative process up close and personal was great.  Hearing the President’s speech, which was a complete pep talk about the virtues of entrepreneurship and small businesses as the growth engines of the economy, was very inspirational.  And overall, the whole thing made all three of us so proud of everything that all 300+ of us, and our very strategic and patient investors and Board members, have accomplished at Return Path these past dozen years.  We ARE part of the global growth story.  And we should all be excited about that!

What a View

We’ve done 360-degree reviews for five years now at Return Path.  Rather than the traditional one-way, manager-written performance review, we instituted 360s to give us a “full view” of an employee’s performance.  Reviews are contributed by the person being reviewed (a self assessment), the person’s manager, any of the person’s subordinates, and a handful of peers or other people in the company who work with the person.  They’re done anonymously, and they’re used to craft employees’ development plans for the next 12 months.

The results of 360 are a wonderful management tool.  Mine in particular have always been far more enlightening than the one-way reviews of the past.  The commonality in the feedback from different people is a little bit of what one former manager of mine used to say — when three doctors tell you you’re sick, go lie down.

I know a lot of companies do 360s, but we had two great learnings this year that I thought were worth noting.  First, we automated the process (used to manual in Excel and Word) by using an ASP solution called e360 Reviews from Halogen Software.  It was GREAT.  The tool must have saved us 75% of the administrative time in managing the process, and it made the process of doing the reviews much easier and more convenient as well.  I strongly recommend it.

Second, we started a new tradition of doing Live 360s for the senior staff here.  All people who filled out a review for a senior staff member were invited into an hour-long meeting that was moderated by a great organizational development consultancy we work with, Marc Maltz and Nancy Penner from Triad Consulting.  The purpose of each meeting was to resolve any conflicting comments in the reviews and prioritize strengths as well as development objectives.  We also did a very quick session where the senior staff did “speed reviews” in person of the rest of the company’s leadership team that tried to accomplish similar objectives in a much more compressed time frame and format.

So far (we’re in the middle of them — actually, the team is doing my review as I write this), the results are wonderful.  We’re going to end up producing MUCH crisper and more actionable development plans for our senior staff this year than we ever have in the past.  And the tone of the meetings has been incredibly supportive and constructive.  Having an outside moderator made a huge difference.

And yes, just in case you’re wondering, it is a little bit unnerving to know that a room full of 15 people is discussing you.  Especially when you can hear them all laughing through the wall.  🙂

How to Quit Your Job

I sent an email out to ALL at Return Path a few years ago with that as the subject line.  A couple people suggested it would make a good blog post in and of itself.  So here’s the full text of it:

ALL –

This may be one of the weirdest emails you’ll see me (or any CEO write)…but it’s an important message that I want to make sure everyone hears consistently.  If nothing else, the subject line will probably generate a high open rate.  🙂

First off, I hope no one here wants to leave Return Path.  I am realistic enough to know that’s not possible, but as you know, employee engagement, retention, and growth & development are incredibly important to us.

But alas, there will be times when for whatever reason, some of you may decide it’s time to move on.  I have always maintained that there’s more than a Right Way and a Wrong Way to leave a job.  For me, there’s a Return Path Way.

I suppose the Right Way is the standard out there in the world of two weeks’ notice and an orderly documentation and transition of responsibilities.  The Wrong Way is anything less.

So what’s the Return Path Way?

It starts with open dialog.  If you are contemplating looking around for something else, you should let someone know at the thinking stage.  Ideally that would be your manager, but if you’re not comfortable starting the conversation there, find someone else — your department head, someone in HR, me.  Let someone who is in a position to do something about it know that you’re considering other options and why.  The worst thing that will happen is that the company isn’t able to come up with a solution to whatever issues you have.  I PROMISE you that no one here in any management position will ever think less of you or treat you differently or serve up any kind of retribution for this kind of conversation.

After the open dialog and any next steps that come out of it, if you are still convinced that leaving is the right thing for you, tell your manager and whoever you spoke to at the beginning of your search process, not at the end of it.  That hopefully gives the company enough lead time to find a replacement and provide for enough overlap between you and the new hire so that you can train your replacement and hand things off.

Why do we feel so strongly about this?

We invest heavily in our people.  I know we’re not perfect — no company is — but we do our best to take good care with everyone who works here.  Hopefully you know that.  And hiring great people is difficult, as you also know.  Losing a well trained employee is VERY PAINFUL for the company.  It slows our momentum and causes at least a minor level of chaos in the system.  And as shareholders or future shareholders (even if you leave – you can exercise your vested stock options), I’d hope that’s something none of you want to do.

I realize the Return Path Way that I am outlining here is unconventional (and potentially uncomfortable).  But Return Path is an unconventional place to work in a lot of ways.

As I said up front, I hope none of you wants to leave…but if you do, please take this request and advice to heart.

Thank you!

-Matt

Now…I sent this out when the company was a lot smaller, when losing a single employee was losing a real percentage of our workforce!  But I stand by every word in the email, even at a larger size.  This kind of dialog is, as I note in the email, both unconventional and uncomfortable.  But just as one of my management mantras here is “no one should ever be surprised to be fired,” another is “we should never be surprised when someone resigns.”  Ultimately, it’s up to each individual manager to set the right tone with his or her team, and also be in tune enough with each of his or her team members, to foster this.

A New VC Ready to Go!

One of the interesting things about being in business for 13 years (as of last week!) at Return Path is that we have been around longer than two of our Venture Capital funds.  Fortunately for us, Fred led an investment in the company with his new fund, Union Square Ventures, even though his initial investment was via his first fund, Flatiron Partners.  And even though Brad hasn’t invested out of his new fund, Foundry Group, he remains a really active member of our group as a Board Advisory through his Mobius Venture Capital investment.

Although our third and largest VC shareholder, Sutter Hill Ventures, is very much still in business, our Board member Greg Sands just announced today that he has left Sutter and started his own firm, Costanoa Venture Capital, sponsored in part by Sutter.  The firm was able to buy portions of some of Greg’s portfolio companies from Sutter as part of its founding capital commitment, so Return Path is now part of both funds, and Greg, like Fred, will continue to serve as a director for us and manage both firms’ stakes in Return Path.

The descriptions of the firm in Greg’s first blog post are great – and they point to companies like Return Path being in his sweet spot:  cloud-based services solving real world problems for businesses, Applied Big Data, consumer interfaces and distribution strategies for Enterprise companies.

I give Greg a lot of credit for going out on his own with a strong vision, something that’s unusual in the VC world.  We’re proud to be part of his new portfolio, and I’m sure he’ll be incredibly successful.  Like Fred and Brad and their new firms, Greg understands the value of being able to write smaller initial checks and back them up over time, he is a disciplined investor, and he is a fantastic Board member and mentor.

I’ve always been a big believer in the consistent application frameworks for business thinking and decision-making.  Frameworks are just a great starting point to spark conversation and organize thinking, especially when you’re faced with a new situation.  Last year, I read Tom Friedman’s new book, Thank You for Being Late: An Optimist’s Guide to Thriving in the Age of Accelerations, and he had this great line that reminded me of the power of frameworks and that it extends far beyond business decision-making:

When you put your value set together with your analysis of how the Machine works and your understanding of how it is affecting people and culture in different contexts, you have a worldview that you can then apply to all kinds of situations to produce your opinions. Just as a data scientist needs an algorithm to cut through all the unstructured data and all the noise to see the relevant patterns, an opinion writer needs a worldview to create heat and light. 

In Startup CEO, I wrote about a bunch of different frameworks we have used over the years at Return Path, from vetting new business ideas to selecting a type of capital and investor for a capital raise.  I blogged about a new one that I learned from my dad a few months ago on delegation.  One of my favorite business authors, Geoffrey Moore, has developed more frameworks than I can count and remember about product and product-market fit.

But all frameworks can go stale over time, and they can also get bogged down and confused with pattern recognition, which has limitations.  To that end, Friedman also addressed this point:

But to keep that worldview fresh and relevant…you have to be constantly reporting and learning—more so today than ever. Anyone who falls back on tried-and-true formulae or dogmatisms in a world changing this fast is asking for trouble. Indeed, as the world becomes more interdependent and complex, it becomes more vital than ever to widen your aperture and to synthesize more perspectives.

Again, although Friedman talks about this in relation to journalism, the same can be applied to business.  Take even the most basic framework, the infamous BCG “Growth/Share Matrix” that compares Market Growth and Market Share and divides your businesses into Dogs, Cash Cows, Question Marks, and Stars.  Digital Marketing has disrupted some of the core economics of firms, so there are a number of businesses that you might previously have said were in the Dog quadrant but due to improved economics of customer acquisition can either be moved into Cash Cow or at least Question Mark.  Or maybe the 2×2 isn’t absolute any more, and it now needs to be a 2×3.

The business world is dynamic, and frameworks, ever important, need to keep pace as well.

Happy Leap Day!

One of the better books I’ve read in the last 6 months is James Clear’s Atomic Habits: An Easy & Proven Way to Build Good Habits & Break Bad Ones, which provides a great framework around habits. It’s worth a read, whether you’re talking about business habits/routines or personal ones. This isn’t a book review, but quickly while I have you – here’s a summary of his “laws”:

HOW TO CREATE A GOOD HABIT
The 1st Law: Make It Obvious
The 2nd Law:Make It Attractive
The 3rd Law: Make It Easy
The 4th Law: Make It Satisfying

HOW TO BREAK A BAD HABIT
Inversion of the 1st Law: Make It Invisible
Inversion of the 2nd Law: Make It Unattractive
Inversion of the 3rd Law: Make It Difficult
4th Law: Make It Unsatisfying

Add to that my other key takeaway, which is that you have to tie habits not just to outcomes but to identities, and…great book! Anyway, my story today is about decisions, and I’m going to quote James Clear’s email newsletter here, at the end of which he credits Tim Ferriss for sparking his thinking. So this is, what, third hand thinking. But it’s a great way to think about decisions, something I’ve written about a lot, including here.

I think about decisions in three ways: hats, haircuts, and tattoos.

Most decisions are like hats. Try one and if you don’t like it, put it back and try another. The cost of a mistake is low, so move quickly and try a bunch of hats.

Some decisions are like haircuts. You can fix a bad one, but it won’t be quick and you might feel foolish for awhile. That said, don’t be scared of a bad haircut. Trying something new is usually a risk worth taking. If it doesn’t work out, by this time next year you will have moved on and so will everyone else.

A few decisions are like tattoos. Once you make them, you have to live with them. Some mistakes are irreversible. Maybe you’ll move on for a moment, but then you’ll glance in the mirror and be reminded of that choice all over again. Even years later, the decision leaves a mark. When you’re dealing with an irreversible choice, move slowly and think carefully.

As someone who loves hats, has had (and seen) his fair share of bad haircuts, and has a tattoo, I can totally relate!

A Little Quieter Than Usual, For Now

As many of you know, I’m writing a book called Startup CEO:  a Field Guide to Building and Running Your Company, which is due to the publisher in a few weeks.  I’d originally thought the book would be an easy project since the idea was to “turn my blog into a book.”  But then it turned out that for the book I wanted to write, I’d only written about 1/3 of the content on the blog already!

So the past few weeks I’ve been writing my brains out.  I now have a nearly 100,000 word draft, which needs to be edited down quite a bit, charts and tables inserted, outside contributors added in.

For the next handful of weeks, I’m going to post a bit less frequently than usual – probably every other week – as a result.  But once I get through this period, I’ll come roaring back with TONS of new content written for the book!

As part of the new section on Exits in the Second Edition of the book (order here), there’s a final chapter around you as CEO and thinking about what you do next.  I’ll start this post by saying, while am really happy with where I am now (more to come on that!), I am not happy with the way I handled my own “next steps” after the Return Path exit.  I did follow some of my own advice, but not enough of it.  I jumped back into the fray way too quickly.

Some exits leave CEOs in a position of never having to work again – those are good in that they give you more time to think about what’s next and more options for what’s next, but no financial forcing function to do anything.  Some CEOs want to work again in the same field, doing another startup or being hired to run a larger company or focusing on serving on boards and mentoring other CEOs.  Some want to transition to a different kind of work entirely.  

But no matter what your circumstances are, the most important thing you can do after selling your startup is to downshift and take time off.  You probably haven’t done that in years, maybe decades.  You may feel like you only have one gear – ON – but in fact, you can get into new patterns of life and take time to enjoy and appreciate things you may have neglected for years and do some of what Stephen Covey calls “Sharpen the saw.”  Here’s an excerpt from the book about this:

There’s more to thinking about your next step than just clearing your head, of course.  You have to spend some cycles being reflective about the journey you just went on.  Our senior team, including a couple long time alumni, gathered and did what I call the “ultimate post mortem,” reflecting on lessons learned over 20 years.  I spent some time thinking about how to tell my story, what my own narrative was about the journey.  And I came up with my framework for deciding what to do next – that checklist of the things I wanted and didn’t want in my next job, which is detailed in the book, and which I’ll talk about more in the weeks to come as we prepare for the public launch of our new company.  But for now, this is the final teaser post I’ll write about the Second Edition of Startup CEO:  A Field Guide to Scaling Up Your Business. Next week, though, I will write about the sequel my colleagues and I are writing at our new business.

This question has been on my mind for years. In the wake of Georgia passing its new voting regulations, a many of America’s large company CEOs are taking some kind of vocal stance (Coca Cola) or even action (Major League Baseball) on the matter. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told CEOs to “stay the hell out of politics” and proceeded to walk that comment back a little bit the following day. The debate isn’t new, but it’s getting uglier, like so much of public discourse in America.

Former American Express CEO Harvey Golub wrote an op-ed earlier this week in The Wall Street Journal entitled Politics is Risky Business for CEOs (behind a paywall), the subhead of which sums up what my point of view has always been on this topic historically — “It’s imprudent to weigh in on issues that don’t directly affect the company.” His argument has a few main points:

• CEOs may have opinions, but when they speak, they speak for and represent their companies, and unless they’re speaking about an issue that effects their organization, they should have Board approval before opening their mouths
• Whatever CEOs say about something political will by definition upset many of their employees and customers in this polarized environment (I agree with this point a lot of the time and wrote about it in the second edition of Startup CEO)
• There’s a slippery slope – comment on one thing, you have to comment on all things, and everything descends from there

So if you’re with Harvey Golub on this point, you draw the boundaries around what “directly affects” the company — things like employment law, the regulatory regime in your industry, corporate tax rates, and the like.

The Economist weighed in on this today with an article entitled CEO activism in America is risky business (also behind a paywall, sorry) that has a similar perspective with some of the same concerns – it’s unclear who is speaking when a CEO delivers a political message, messages can backfire or alienate stakeholders, and it’s unclear that investors care.

The other side of the debate is probably best represented by Paul Polman, longtime Unilever CEO, who put climate change, inequality, and other ESG-oriented topics at the center of his corporate agenda and did so both because he believed they were morally right AND that they would make for good business. Unilever’s business results under Polman’s leadership were transformational, growing his stock price almost 300% in 10 years and outpaced their peers, all as a “slow growth” CPG company. Paul’s thinking on the subject is going to be well documented in his forthcoming book, Net Positive: How Courageous Companies Thrive by Giving More Than They Take, which he is co-authoring with my good friend Andrew Winston and which will come out later this year.

While I still believe that on a number of issues in current events, CEOs face a lose-lose proposition by wading into politics, I’m increasingly moving towards the Paul Polman side of the debate…but not in an absolute way. As I’ve been wrestling with this topic, at first, I thought the definition of what to weigh in on had to come down to a definition of what is morally right. And that felt like I was back in a lose-lose loop since many social wedge issues have people on both sides of them claiming to be morally right — so a CEO weighing in on that kind of issue would be doomed to alienate a big percentage of stakeholders no matter what point of view he or she espouses.

But I’m not sure Paul and Andrew are absolutists, and that’s the aha for me. I believe their point is that CEOs need to weigh in on the things that directly affect their companies AND ALSO weigh in on the things that indirectly affect their companies.

So if you eliminate morality from the framework, where do you draw the line between things that have indirect effects on companies and which ones do not? If I back up my scope just a little bit, I quickly get to a place where I have a different and broader definition of what matters to the functioning of my industry, or to the functioning of commerce in general without necessarily getting into social wedge issues. For want of another framework on this, I landed on the one written up by Tom Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum in That Used to be Us: How America Fell Behind in the World It Invented and How We Can Come Back, which I summarized in this post a bunch of years ago — that America has lost its way a bit in the last 20-40 years because we have strayed from the five-point formula that has made us competitive for the bulk of our history:

• Providing excellent public education for more and more Americans
• Building and continually modernizing our infrastructure
• Keeping America’s doors to immigration open
• Government support for basic research and development
• Implementation of necessary regulations on private economic activity

So those are some good things to keep in mind as indirectly impacting commercial interests and American competitiveness in an increasingly global world, and therefore are appropriate for CEOs to weigh in on. And yes, I realize immigration is a little more controversial than the other topics on the list, but even most of the anti-immigration people I know in business are still pro legal immigration, and even in favor of expanding it in some ways.

And that brings us back to Georgia and the different points of view about whether or not CEOs should weigh in on specific pieces of legislation like that. Do voting rights directly impact a company’s business? Not most companies. But what about indirect impact? I believe that having a high functioning democracy that values truth, trust, and as widespread legal voter participation as possible is central to the success of businesses in America, and that at the moment, we are dangerously close to not having a high functioning democracy with those values.

I have not, as Mitch McConnell said, “read the whole damn bill,” but it doesn’t take a con law scholar to note that some pieces of it which I have read — no giving food or water to people in voting lines, reduced voting hours, and giving the state legislature the unilateral ability to fire or supersede the secretary of state and local election officials if they don’t like an election’s results — aren’t measures designed to improve the health and functioning of our democracy. They are measures designed to change the rules of the game and make it harder to vote and harder for incumbents to lose. That is especially true when proponents of this bill and similar ones in other states keep nakedly exposing the truth when they say that Republicans will lose more elections if it’s easier for more people to vote, instead of thinking about what policies they should adopt in order to win a majority of all votes.

And for that reason, because of that bill, I am moving my position on the general topic of whether or not CEOs should wade into politics from the “direct impact” argument to the “indirect impact” one — and including in that list of indirect impacts improving the strength of our democracy by, among other things, making it as easy as possible for as many Americans to vote as possible and making the administration of elections as free as possible from politicians, without compromising on the principle of minimizing or eliminating actual fraud in elections, which by all accounts is incredibly rare anyway.