I wrote part I of this post in 2011, and I feel even more strongly about it today. I generally keep this blog away from politics (don’t we have enough of that running around?), but periodically, I find some common sense, centrist piece of information worth sharing. In this case, I just read a great and very short book, Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, by former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, that, if you care about the polarization and fractiousness going on in our country now, you’d appreciate.

If nothing else, the shattered norms and customs of the last several years should point people to the fact that our Constitution needs some revision. Not a massive structural overhaul, but some changes on the margin to keep it fresh, as we approach its 250th anniversary in the next couple decades.

You, Too, Can Take Six Weeks Off

Note:  I have been really quite on OnlyOnce for a few months, I realize.  It’s been a busy stretch at work and at home.  I keep a steady backlog of blog topics to write about, and finally today I’ve grabbed a couple minutes on a flight to knock one out.  We’ll see if this starts me back on a more steady diet of blogging – I miss it!

I’ve written in the past about our sabbatical policy at Return Path, from what it is (here) to how much I enjoyed my own (here), to how great it is when my direct reports have been on Sabbatical so I can walk a few miles in their shoes (here and here).

But recently, a fellow CEO asked me if there was a special set of rules or advice on taking a sabbatical as a CEO.  My quick answer to his specific question was:

Well, first, you and your co-founder can’t take them at the same time. 🙂

But I have a longer list of thoughts as well.  It’s not easy, but as I’ve said many times, it’s important and wonderful.  Some tips:

• You have to make sure your balance sheet is strong and you’re not raising a round of financing
• You’re best off doing it a week or two after a Board meeting (and obviously, don’t miss one)
• You need everyone on your team to know about it and get excited for you!  They will rally/rise to the occasion more than you think
• You have to do a total disconnect, otherwise it doesn’t count.  Literally turn off email.  But make sure the team knows they can call you if there’s a true emergency
• Put someone in charge of keeping a running list of things that happened and be in charge of your “re-boarding”
• Put one person clearly in charge while you’re out, or tell your senior team that they’re responsible for collectively being in charge – either can work as long as you’re clear about it
• Be prepared to cancel or shift your plans if an emergency comes up before you leave

This last one is important.  I’ve postponed sabbaticals twice, and while it’s been a little tumultuous both at work and at home, it’s been better than going on a sabbatical and interrupting it with work, which I’ve also done.

Speaking of which…I’m coming up on my 17^th anniversary, which in our book means it’s time for another one!

The 90-Day Reverse Review

Like a lot of companies, Return Path does a 90-day review on all new employees to make sure they’re performing well, on track, and a good fit.  Sometimes those reviews are one-way from the manager, sometimes they are 360s.

But we have also done something for years now called the 90-Day Reverse Review, which is equally valuable.  Around the same 90-day mark, and unrelated to the regular review process, every new employee gets 30 minutes with a member of the Executive Committee (my direct reports, or me if the person is reporting to someone on my team) where the employee has a chance to give US feedback on how WE are doing.

These meetings are meant to be pretty informal, though the exec running the meeting takes notes and circulates them afterwards.  We have a series of questions we typically ask, and we send them out ahead of time so the employee can prepare.  They are things like:

-Was this a good career move?  Are you happy you’re here?

-How was your onboarding experience?

-How do you explain your job to people outside the company?

-What is the company’s mission, and how does your role contribute to it?

-How do you like your manager?  Your team?

-Do you feel connected to the company?  How is the company’s information flow?

-What has been your proudest moment/accomplishment so far?

-What do you like best about the company?

-If you could wave a wand and change something here, what would it be?

We do these for a few reasons:

-At the 90-day mark, new employees know enough about the company to give good input, and they are still fresh enough to see the company through the lens of other places they’ve worked

-These are a great opportunity for executives to have a “Moment of Truth” with new employees

-They give employees a chance to productively reflect on their time so far and potentially learn something or make some course correction coming out of it

-We always learn things, large or small, that are helpful for us as a management team, whether something needs to be modified with our Onboarding program, or whether we have a problem with a manager or a team or a process, or whether there’s something great we can steal from an employee’s past experiences

This is a great part of our Operating System at Return Path!

Child Prodigies, or Misspent Youths?

I just got an email from a reader of this blog with a subject line of "15 year-old entrepreneur" and a series of engaging questions around starting a business (and actually, quite a good idea for one as well).  It got me thinking about being a kid and being an entrepreneur at the same time.  The author of this email is impressively savvy and focused on the world of business and startups.

Ben Casnocha is another one.  Ben is 19, has already started two companies, and has written and published a book called My Startup Life. 

When I was 15, I actually did have an inkling that I was going to go into business someday, and probably even that I wanted to start a business someday.  After all, it’s what my dad did, and what both of my grandfathers did.  But the key words in that sentence are INKLING and SOMEDAY.  I’m not sure it would have occurred to me in a million years to actually start a real business.  I suppose I could have figured out how.  But I wasn’t interested in doing it, or I didn’t have a good peer network of business-minded teens, or something.

It’s interesting to think about whether or not I’d be a better entrepreneur or CEO today if I’d started entrepreneurial pursuits at age 15 instead of age ~25.  Certainly, one makes a huge number of mistakes the first time one does anything, so perhaps better to get those out of the way early.  But I have to imagine that there are some things that one learns with age about dealing with other people that can’t be hurried up just because one starts businesses early.

Anyway, my hat is off to guys like Ben and the even younger guy who wrote into me…I just hope they’re making enough time for more standard teenage fun with their friends as well!

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!

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.

The Rumors of Email’s Demise Have Been Greatly Exaggerated, Part IV

This one could also be entitled “What Are The Bloggers Smoking?”

Reports from last week’s Blog Business Summit like this one are starting to filter in (pun slightly intended).  This one gets a big yawn from me, even more so than the other times I’ve posted on this subject, here, here, and here.  I’m as much of a blogger and a believer in blogs and RSS as the next guy — maybe even more so — but honestly, people, blogs are going to replace email?

I’d like to address a few critical points here head on, although a large part of me doesn’t even want to dignify yet another empty “email is dead” quote with a response.

Basic error #1. The article seems to confuse blogs with RSS feeds.  RSS feeds are data streams coming into an RSS reader application.  Blogs are web sites.  Hello?!?

Fallacy #1. Because blogs/RSS are interesting new media, email will go away.  To paraphrase my colleague Mike Mayor, why is it that whenever something new comes along, its proponents have to bash the current paradigm to make their thing seem more important?  Let’s go through this one — TV came along, and people said radio would go away.  Cable came along, and everyone said the networks were toast.  The fax machine came along, and FedEx was said to be relegated to legal documents that needed to be signed personally.  The Internet came along, and people said everything else was insignificant (newspapers, TV, radio, snail mail).  So yes, new media do arrive on the scene and perhaps make a dent in all prior media, but I’m having a hard time thinking of that one comes in and clocks another one mano a mano.

Fallacy #2. Spam has made email more difficult, therefore email will go away.  There’s a whole industry out there fighting spam.  I know, I know, just because we want the problem to go away doesn’t mean that we can will it away — but filters are working better by the day (did everyone catch this posting about Postini this week?), false positives can be managed down by vigilant clients working with vendors like Return Path, and whitelists, whenever they start really working and charging money to clients to guarantee delivery, will still leave email as the cheapest medium for targeted commercial messaging out there.

Naive belief #1. Spam has harmed email, but blogs/RSS are immune to the same problems.  I’m sorry, do you think the bad guys, or as Fred always calls it, the Internet Axis of Evil (spam, viruses, spyware, DNS hacking, phishing, and the like) are going to leave blogs and RSS feeds alone?  Not a chance.  The bad guys are already hard at work expanding their Axis of Evil.  There’s already comment spam for blogs (or blam, as some call it).  People have and can hijack RSS feeds (no cool name yet).  There’s Instant Messenger spam (spim).  Last week, I heard about a new one that blew me away, which is that someone figured out how to hijack a Voice Over IP phone call and insert an audio ad/porn into the call (spip).

Naive belief #2. Blogs are truly interactive.  Other than a couple of very popular blogs during the height of last fall’s election, I just don’t think this is true for the mainstream.  There are certainly some people who have a little too much time on their hands who spend hours every day blogging, but most people skim most blogs as one-way communication.   While there are mechanisms for commenting, there aren’t ready mechanisms for publishing comments back to the blog audience (thank goodness), so this medium hasn’t turned out nearly as interactive as people had hoped at the onset.  RSS feeds, in case the writer/speaker was confused in this argument, are completely non-interactive.

Naive belief #3. People will read blogs with an agenda of marketing specific products and services.  The beauty of the blog is that it’s not corporate, and it doesn’t have marketing spin on it.  Blogs are much more journals and publishing tools than marketing vehicles.  Who the heck is going to read a blog on Coke?  Or Nike?  Or Microsoft?  Sure, I might read Howard Shultz’s blog if he had one (his book was good enough), but that’s very different than reading the Starbucks official blog.  Why bother?  Where’s the value there?

Ok, I’m done with today’s rant.  As I said, I love blogging as much as the next guy, but puh-lease!  And for the record, I do believe that RSS feeds and maybe even IM from marketers/publishers will supplement email and in some cases maybe even replace it, but email just isn’t going away any time soon.

Overload

Fred had a great posting last week called The Looming Attention Crisis.  He talks about how he’s at his limit of trying out new technology and consuming information/feeds.  He’s right — except I’d argue there’s nothing looming about the crisis.  Those of us who were early adopters of RSS (perhaps early adopters in general) are in full Overload mode at this point.

The negatives associated with this problem are pretty clear.  One of my very first postings, Present AND Accounted For, talked about the perils of multitasking on interpersonal relationships; that’s probably the biggest negative to the availability of all this information.  Attention, as Fred says, IS in fact a zero sum game. 

The great problem associated with all of this Web 2.0 stuff is that the web is now much more easily a read/write platform, as opposed to the primary read platform it was in the early days.  So now, everyone can have a printing press — but not everyone should.  And those who do, shouldn’t necessarily feel compelled to use those presses all day, every day.

We need some new tools and services to help reduce the Overload factor quickly.  Tips for better organizing information help (thanks, Whit), but they’re not enough.  We need better keywords and searching of the information that’s out there.  We need better tools to help understand which feeds to read and which to avoid — in other words, ways to figure out who shouldn’t have a printing press.  We need better tools to de-dupe information, or better yet to consolidate duplicate information with a clean list of sources.  We need better integration with mobile devices to scan the information during away-from-desk time.  Most of all, we need all of these tools to be integrated before average users can really adopt.

Maybe all of these tools are out there, and I just to find need more time (somehow) to find and implement them.  I’m sure some entrepreneurs far smarter than I am about Web 2.0 will come up with these things before long…and then of course we’ll hear about them 872 times until we implement their solutions.

A couple of months ago, I was doing an internal lunch & learn for senior managers, and the topic came up as to “how do our VC firms work?”  In the spirit of deeply understanding our customers’ businesses in order to better serve them, I thought the same would be true of our investors and Board members – that educating our team on the inner workings and economics of our investors would lead to greater empathy of one of our other key stakeholders.

So with no small amount of help from my long-time investor and director Brad Feld and his colleague Jason Mendelson, whose book Venture Deals: Be Smarter Than Your Lawyer and Venture Capitalist I contributed to in a very small way by writing a series of sidebars called “The Entrepreneur’s Perspective” (that process led to my writing Startup CEO), I pulled together this presentation available on Slideshare entitled How Venture Capital Firms Work and Why You Should Care.

I redacted our cap table and pictures of our VCs, but otherwise, feel free to use it with your own management team, or even your whole company.

Sometimes, There Is No Lesson To Be Learned

We had a very unusual employee situation this week at Return Path.  A brand new senior executive we brought in to the company to be our first ever head of HR and Organization Development resigned very abruptly after only a few weeks on the job, citing a complete change of heart about her career direction and moving on to a government position in economic and community development.  Unfortunately, the person gave no notice and provided no assistance with transition, and resigned by cell phone.  What a disappointment, especially coming from an HR professional!

After getting over my disbelief/irritation/rage (not easy, not a small amount), after communicating this difficult message to the company, and after sending a thoughtful-yet-cathartic note to the person, I sat down to think a little bit about how I could have prevented or at least spotted the situation in advance.

We interviewed the person thoroughly — 10 people internally conducted interviews, and I interviewed the person for almost four hours myself, conducting one of the most rigorous interviews I’ve ever conducted given how critical this position was to our organization at this time.  (The interview followed the Chronological In-Depth Structured interview format from Brad Smart’s book Topgrading — more on that in a future posting.)  I also checked five references on the person, all of which were sterling.  I had one outside person, an executive coach with whom I work, interview the person.  Everything checked out, and the person’s attitude and enthusiasm about the position couldn’t have been better.

My conclusion on the lesson learned here?  It’s “Sometimes, there is no lesson to be learned.”  There may be ancillary lessons around handling the situation once it became apparent, but I think the core lesson I’d hope to get out of this — that we could have done something different in the interview process or orientation or first few weeks to prevent or at least spot this ahead of time — appears to be nonexistent.  Hmmmph!

Entrepreneur’s Perspective on Non-Competes

(Note: I just found this post in the “drafts” folder and realize I never put it up! It was written months ago, although I just updated it a bit.)

Bijan Sabet kicked off the discussion about non-competes by asserting that they are a barrier to innovation and that they are unenforceable in California anyway, so why bother?

Fred continued the discussion and made some good assertions about the value of non-competes, summarizing his points as:

Non-competes are very much in the interests of our portfolio companies. But the non-competes need to be tightly defined and the term of the non-compete needs to be paid for by the portfolio company if the employee was forced out of the company. The non-competes should certainly apply to all senior management team members and all key employees (like star engineers and such). It takes a lot of work to build a company. You should not risk all that knowledge and talent being able to walk out the door and set up shop across the street.

Brad and Jason/Ask the VC are generally on board with Fred’s view.

We’ve had non-competes since the beginning at Return Path.  I am generally in agreement with Fred’s parameters, but to spell out ours:

1. Our non-competes are very narrowly defined.  I had a very bad taste in my mouth when AOL acquired my former company, MovieFone, back in 1999 and stuck a 3-year non-compete in front of me that would have prohibited me from working anywhere else in the Internet.  I think the language was something like “can’t work in any business that competes with AOL or AOL’s partners in the businesses they are in today or may enter in the future.”  It was just silly.  Our non-competes apply very narrowly to existing direct competitors of the part of Return Path in which the given employee works.

2. We do not pay for non-competes.  Because our non-competes are very narrowly defined, we don’t expect to pay for someone to sit on the sidelines.  If people leave, or even if people are fired, they have 99.99% of the companies in the world as potential employers. 

3. We are willing to excuse people from non-competes if they are laid off.  Fair is fair.  However, we still expect our confidentiality and non-solicit agreements to remain in full force.

4. Everyone signs the same non-compete.  100% of the people, 100% of the time.  Same language.  No exceptions.  Again, this comes back to how narrowly defined the non-compete is.  It shouldn’t just be limited to senior executives.  Obviously you have to respect local laws of places like California or   Europ which have different views of non-competes.  If these cause in equalities in your employee base by geography, we make an effort to “re-equalize” in other ways.

5. We enforce non-competes in all situations.  I don’t believe in selective enforcement.  That sends the wrong message to employees.  We have had a couple instances where junior people have left and brazenly gone to a competitor.  While we have never blocked someone from starting a new job, we would if there wasn’t another resolution.  Fortunately, in those cases for us, we have contacted the employee and the hiring company and been able to work out a deal — the employee went to work in a non-competitive part of the new company, we struck a commercial relationship between us and the hiring company, etc.

6. We try to play by the rules when hiring people who have non-competes.  I think consistency is important here show to employees.  If we expect people to respect our non-compete, we should respect other companies’ non-competes.  This doesn’t mean we don’t try hard to lure competitors’ people to us when the situation warrants — it just means that if a non-compete is relevant and in effect, we will either make a deal with the other company, or in special circumstances, we will pay the employee to sit on the sidelines and ride out the non-compete.  This is a tricky process, but we’ve had it work before, and we’d do it again for the right person.

Our people and intellectual capital are a huge source of competitive advantage.  They are also the product of massive investment that we make in developing our people.  A good, narrow, non-compete is important for the company and can be done in ways that are fair to employees who are the beneficiaries of the training and development as well as their employment.  I think that’s part of the social contract of a great workplace.  Non-competes don’t stifle innovation — they protect investments that lead to innovation.  I suppose the same argument could be made of patents, some of which make more sense than others, but that’s the subject of another rant sometime.

But at the end of the day, it’s up to us to retain our people by providing a great place to work and advance careers so this whole thing is a non-issue!