Don't be yet another Kim Jong-Il of the business world

Posted by Pelle Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:45:15 GMT

Kim Jong-Il the glorious leader of North Korea has long been the laughing stock of most of the world except of course the poor millions of North Koreans who happen to be stuck under his rule.

So why is it that most medium to large companies blindly follow his doctrine? Why are so many startups sliding down the path of becoming North Korea.

You may be thinking now that Pelle has finally lost it. Well bear with me to the end of this, I hope it will make sense.

The visionary leader

A traditional large company has a fearless visionary leader in control of everything. A large company typically has many different product and service lines often in a whole range of different industries. Yet the fearless leader has the majestic vision and good heart that he can see and make correct decisions about all.

The Bureaucracy

Obviously a strong fearless leader has a strong hierarchy of civil servants to make sure his vision and wise thoughts are carried out. In a dictatorship this is the bureaucracy. In a large company these are the layers of middle management and non core infrastructure such as HR, accounting, fancy staff restaurants and security.

Any good dictator has a strong defence. Traditionally companies have handled defence through corporate counsel and security staff.

Nowadays IT is an important part of this. Ensuring that outsiders can’t breach the electronic borders known as the firewall.

Unfortunately it is also very common that these same staff are spending lots of resource making sure people inside the firewall aren’t accessing things out side the network that don’t follow the vision of the visionary leader. After all he does know best and doesn’t want you to harm yourself by that dangerous foreign land called facebook.

North Korea has very strict limits on the amount of visitors (and what kind of visitors can enter the country). God help the poor soul who actually might want to move there. Visionary leaders normally have parts of their bureaucracy known as Department of Immigration/Homeland Security/Control of Foreigners enforce strict limits on this.

The visionary leaders in large companies normally have similar departments although they are known as Human Resources. These often have strict application procedures and the power to deport citizen’s who erroneously aren’t following the vision of the leader.

Planned economies don’t scale

I’m sure we can find and laugh at many such similarities. However where the real and worst similarity is is the fact that no planned economy has ever worked outside of various small communities with a limited scope.

Tribal societies can work quite well with a chief. Most tribal societies are pretty small and everyone know each other, you aren’t going to fuck over the other people in the village as you’ve known them all your life.

Furthermore there tend to be very little diversity of activities within the community. As a leader you can probably grasp when it’s time to plant the rice or go hunting. No need to understand thousands of different separate industries and activities.

When you start introducing more than a small group of economic activities it is pretty much impossible for a leader or even a council such as a Polit Bureau or a Board of Directors to have sufficient insight and wide enough vision to manage it successfully.

The solution utilized by Kim Jong Il and most large corporations it to delegate the planning through the hierarchy. The only problem here is that the business model of people within the bureaucracy is never what ever the business model of the country/company is. Rather it is to move up the hierarchy. It should be noted that I define the bureaucracy as the layers between the visionary leader and the productive citizens/employees.

As a rule of thumb you could say that if there is corporate politics in your country/company you are screwed. Politics happen when unproductive layers (battling middle managers) or slices of the company (like IT, HR, Legal) need to prove their worth and protect their job.

Hack’s for scaling without Kim Jong-Il

For a company to be able to smart and agile you need to have it small enough that either the visionary leader quite literally can keep track of and understand all issues (such as which javascript library to use or pros/cons between say Engineyard and Amazon EC2) or have direct constant access to and respect for those who do.

Now you may be under pressure to grow from investors, this is fine and to be understood. Growth is great and should definitely be encouraged, however growth should be managed and controlled. This is the real job of the visionary leader. For example I can’t stress enough how important it is to keep focus on your business and not spreading into unrelated areas. Can you say Yahoo?

Other important thing for managing growth. Outsource every god damn thing that isn’t directly focused on your core business. Even if it is cheaper to have your inhouse HR, CFO, IT department and wacky staff restaurant outsource it.

Having these non productive departments lead to politics. It is difficult to avoid though as these become team members. While it may be fun being visionary about the wonders of token ring network layouts and the productivity enhancing features of tapas day, the vision should be on the business and the productive team members.

So wait a minute, how do you explain China/Google?

While both are definitely large plan economies they have been successful at creating a creative free enterprise culture within. China by copying Hong Kong into a growing number of enterprise zones, Google by using 20% time.

I think 20% time is probably by far the most important innovation keeping Google afloat with new product development. It’s kind of like telling all your employees that for one day a week they are their own visionary leader.

This way Google have avoided the trap of most large plan economies. “We need to be in the portal/mail/social networking/video space” or Mao’s catastrophic Great leap forward.

Of course Google still has to centrally plan which of the maybe 100 internal social network projects they want to push, but they are able pick one that is already under development and under the leadership of a visionary guy/gal. But picking a well designed visionary project is a lot less risky than designing one by central committee.

Another important thing is openness. China was one of the most closed societies in the world and in some areas they still are. However China learnt that to utilize their number one resource (their vast population) they needed to focus on the globalizing world. As the world globalizes and the world wide economies grow China is their to sell them clothes, shoes and computers.

China’s manufacturing infrastructure has become the base for the unprecedented global economic growth in the past 20 years and the foundation for startups in just about every country in the world (except maybe North Korea).

Google have followed essentially the same approach as China. They realized that their strength was in their vast server capacity they developed for their core search business. It is therefore in Google’s best interest to push the open web and create infrastructure that others can build on. AdSense, OpenSocial and AppEngine are all examples of this.

Of course some countries/companies set up Economic Free Zones in an attempt to copy the more successful countries/companies. An example was Digital’s AltaVista division (where I used to work) and Yahoo’s Brickhouse. However if they aren’t respected by the mother ship and corporate politics cause them to be ignored, they can’t work in the long run.

I should also say that rumors are from googlers that Google may be heading down the path of Yahoo into corporate political hell. It definitely would take a mighty visionary leader to avoid this happening in such a large company, thankfully they have 2. But then so did Yahoo.

Don’t get pushed down the slippery slope

As a startup today you are hopefully on top of your innovative product/service. If you don’t run a tight whip with regards to this focus it is very easy fall into the traps that will send you straight to North Korea.

Many entrepreneurs for example are very young and have no experience in the day to day running of businesses. They therefore often take advise from people older than themselves. You probably wouldn’t take programming advise from a Cobol programmer in building your hot Rails app, but people follow dated advise from the 60s about their business.

The slippery slope goes something like:

  1. Get an office
  2. Buy and configure your own servers
  3. Hire an office manager
  4. Hire an HR person
  5. Hire a finance person
  6. Hire an IT person as the HR and finance person can’t install Office and the programmers are too busy

By now whether you believe me or not have 5 different fiefdoms to require vision and resources. As the company grows these fiefdoms become empires to be protected at all cost.

The server guy has all the reasons in the world why you can’t move to EC2 or AppEngine. So you won’t get that flexibility. The developer’s can’t pick a new language or database as these don’t follow our standards.

The HR department starts implementing policies that she brought with her from her old job.

In general once you have these fiefdoms installed it is very hard for an inexperienced visionary leader to control and manage them.

The fact is that most startups go through this process, because that’s what all the other startups do, without really questioning the need for it.

All of the above points can and should be outsourced relatively cheaply. Let the HR people innovate and be visionary themselves in their own HR startup (the movie industry uses these almost exclusively eg IndiePayroll ).

EngineYard or Amazon provide very good and very different outsourced hosting.

While you can outsource IT. I think that everyone who works in a tech startup should be able to manage their own computer (or at least a MacBook).

I know people have strong opinions about offices. However there are other options besides the obvious such as working out of the visionary leaders SOMA loft or everyone working from home. Most cities now have great CoWorking spaces, coffee shops and even Regus is a good yet expensive alternative.

VC’s and other Grown ups

VC’s and other advisors (such as Mom and Dad) can also be particularly bad at pushing you down the way it’s always been done. They will often push you down the above steps, because thats what you need to scale. Sometimes they will be very insistent on this and you won’t really have a choice. You might end up thinking, they know better than me or this isn’t a battle I’m willing to fight.

There are many risks involved in taking funding, but one of the worst is loosing control. Most people imagine this loss of control as being booted from the CEO spot, but you are way more likely to loose control to a VC financed bureaucracy.

It is important if you have a philosophy on this that you make sure the VC’s understand that being lean and agile is an important part of your strategy and that this isn’t negotiable.

Finding the right size

Popular perception holds that companies must always be growing or they’re dying. There’s either up or down, win or lose, success or failure. I think that’s a harmful dichotomy that leads to the death of perfectly viable companies in their quest for constant growth. DHH

Startups are all about growth. However there may come a time, when you are so successful at what you do that the only way to grow is sideways into other areas. No matter how tempting this is and how good it appears that Google are at it, I think it is a mistake.

Better yet would be to grow by investing in other startups or even encouraging your best employees to go on “80% time” in return for a 20% stake of his dream. This would let you essentially scale into new areas without removing the focus from your business.

Find out more

37Signals seems to follow this philosophy. David gave a talk at Startup Camp where he talked about several strategies that they have taken in not becoming North Korea.

A great slightly academic discussion about the problems with central planning within companies can be found at the EconTalk Podcast: Munger on the Nature of the Firm

Create a Software Development Agreement with our free web service Agree2

Don't indenture employee nr. 4 2

Posted by Pelle Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:50:31 GMT

I wouldn't want this falling down over me

I see Google is creating a Alumni Relations Program to help create a informal network of ex Google employees.

I think this is a great idea. I’ve always thought that current employees should be (but rarely are) thought of as potential future ambassadors, business partners and clients.

Alumni such as the PayPal alumni, often go do great things together based on their informal network. Rarely does the originating startup benefit at all from these often very strong networks.

I think the following 2 problems are what causes this.

Tight knit startup cultures and traitors

Good startups have a very strong team culture. We’re all in this together, we’re taking the same risks, working the same hours, living the same dream.

This culture is great and important but it also has the very natural side effect of turning people who leave to pursue other dreams into traitors.

There are these awkward moments before the traitor leaves, where no one really wants to talk about it. After the person leaves, he is a natural scape goat when the server crashes as an after affect of that 3am hacking session a few weeks ago.

All in all it’s about as uncomfortable as a divorce, with many of the same symptoms.

I’m not quite sure how to avoid this. But one way would be to actually discuss these things when the employee starts. Lets realize that it’s a real possibility that employee nr 4 in a hot San Francisco Startup might get a more interesting offer or start his own shop in 6 months time. It has been known to happen.

Rather than all the uncomfortable silences you should rather look at this as an opportunity. Talk openly about where they employee is going and what he’s going to be doing. Encourage him to stop by for lunch in the future, who knows there may very well be something that the 2 startups involved can do together in the future. Even informally.

He should be your ambassador and a potential future partner. You might even want to pay a small monthly retainer for him to help out an hour or two a month in case a problem comes up only he knows how to do.

How stock option vesting affect alumnis

Traditionally startups have been desperate to retain employees for as long as possible. One of the ways this is done is by offering stock options with long vesting periods. This means you would have to stay in the company for say 2 years before you could exercise (sell) your stock options.

This I think is a mistake. I have known many people who really want to move on and do something else often for them selves, but who have felt stuck and bitter due to this contract. You often hear the term indentured servant being thrown around.

What happens is one of 3 things:

  1. The employee sticks out the vesting period, making money from the options. He’s a happy man. However he still might leave shortly after he is able to exercise his options.
  2. The employee sticks it out for the vesting period. His stock options are fully vested but worthless. He is bitter that he wasted 2 years of his life on this, when he said no to other offers or he could have started his own shop.
  3. The employee leaves early for a better opportunity feeling bitter that he left the stock options. Often this kind of employee starts bad mouthing the old startup. The founder was a fool, the VC’s destroyed it whatever. Typical drunk bar talk in the Bay Area.

Now the Alumni program Google has fits well with them as their alumni probably come under the first item above. Their alumni are happy, they made out well and now want to experience new things.

A better solution

I know nothing about stock option law etc. But I can’t help thinking that a more flexible approach to stock options for employees (and freelancers even) might hold part of the solution.

Is it possible to vest someone bit by bit on a quarterly basis? Maybe vest entirely within a year, but from the outset offer bonus stock options if you make it to year 2. That small change itself might make stock options feel more like carrots than shackles. Less bitterness.

Once an employee leaves, why not allow some kind of limited stock option plan as part of being part of the informal alumni network and/or being on retainer.

I know there are all kinds of solutions to this. However I feel that too often very innovative startups keep doing things the way they always have been done in the valley. Without questioning why.

This has been another piece in my blog series Think outside the Rounded Box.

Share your confidential code safely with a Source Code Confidentiality Agreement on our free web service Agree2

Burn your checkbook!! 3

Posted by Pelle Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:41:44 GMT

Please, please, please get with the program. Checks are ancient pre industrial age relics that still hang around in a few places in the world. Unfortunately the worlds most dynamic economy the US is still addicted to checks. This makes this article extremely US centric, but it also affects non US readers who do business with US businesses.

I also want to say that I am not in anyway targeting any specific clients of mine here. This is a generic problem and based on conversations I have had with other US based freelancers. That said, with the exception of one client all my US clients have insisted on using checks.

I am targeting web 2.0 businesses here in particular. We are constantly asking other people to “think outside the box” and do things transparently and online. Paying people with checks is basically the least transparent and online thing we do as part of doing business. There are great alternatives that we can and should use.

What is so wrong with checks you might ask?

Everyone uses them? First the obvious:

  • Snail mail is so 1980s
  • I have better things to do than go stand in line at a bank (thats such an old fashioned activity)
  • Relatively high risk for recipient
  • Slow clearing. In particular for international payments.
  • For international payments the recipient (and his bank) is likely to say “what is this thing you call a check?” (See Jarkko’s experience trying to deposit a US check in Finland)

So why do people use checks?

  • Is there any other way to pay?
  • Habit
  • Intentional delays – Hopefully by the time he receives the check, the check I just received will have cleared.
  • Float – earn interest on the money until the victim/supplier is able to clear it.
  • My accountant told me to do so
  • There is not an easy way to send payments electronically in the US
  • It is the cheapest option

Alternatives?

PayPal and ACH transfers are the best alternative for US businesses. For international transactions PayPal is good if it’s available in the recipients country, otherwise SWIFT transfers are available all over the world. If you are worried about cost, ask the payee if he’d be willing to go 50/50.

ACH is only good within the US but is a fairly cheap option. ACH is the network that is normally used for payroll, but it is actually also the backend network used for clearing of checks, so it really is very economical. The downside is that there may be a day or two’s clearing of funds. Ask your bank how to do it. I believe most banks should be able to offer it. My bank Wells Fargo sent me a RSA Secure ID to be able to do ACH payment, which they call DirectPay. To send someone money this way all you need is the name, ABA number and account number of the recipients bank account.

PayPal has been around now for nearly 10 years and is a great option. It’s easy, it’s quick, it’s safe, it’s the Web 2.0 of money. Use it. The downside that the recipient may have to pay up to 2.9% transaction cost. I know personally I’ll happily absorb that cost for the convenience of not having to waste an hour going to the bank. A non obvious benefit with PayPal is that if you can use your credit card and receive air miles, that potentially could add up.

Habit

Not an excuse, get over it.

Intentional delays

First of all the intentional delays might be fine for the struggling cash strapped startup juggling large faceless suppliers such as the phone company etc. However as a startup your core suppliers are likely to be various kinds of human resources such as programmers and designers who you work closely with. I think this is highly disrespectful. Freelancers are just as likely to be cash strapped as you are. The way to deal with this is to be honest with your suppliers.

While we all would like to be paid on time, we all live and understand the realities of being a startup. Give us a heads up with an estimated time of payment and we are probably happier than hearing the “check is in the mail” defense for the 10th time.

Float

This is also an intentional delay and a really stupid one for most startups. Unless you are operating at the scale of a business like PayPal, the few dollars you make in extra interest is really not worth pissing off your suppliers.

My account told me to write checks

I’ve heard this over the years. Checks makes the accountants life easier. Seriously. That is just a load of cr*p. You already handle book keeping and receipts for all sorts of electronic transfers. Besides providing email receipts, PayPal and Banks have this innovative feature called a statement. It has all the information you or your account needs to match transactions with invoices.

As small businesses we often take everything our accountants and lawyers say as gospel, remember they are people just like us. They are however way more traditional thinking and less likely to question status quo, than your average founder of a revolutionary social web 2.0 startup. Question the advise they give you.

There is not an easy way to send payments electronically in the US

See the section on alternatives. There are 2 very good options that you probably already use for other things.

But checks are cheap

Firstly ACH payments are pretty cheap. I already mentioned that many suppliers are happy to absorb the extra transaction cost of paypal.

However checks are not cheap. Ok it might take you a few minutes to write one out and put it in an envelope. However think about the recipient. It costs me about an hours worth of lost earnings to go to my bank and deposit a check. That is a pretty heavy transaction cost for me.

Burn your check book!!

Just say no to the check option. There really is no excuse for you to pay people (yes suppliers are people too) by check. If you have been annoyed at some point having to go deposit a check, stop the cycle and don’t do it for your own suppliers. Almost every other aspect of our life is handled electronically and you as a visionary entrepreneur should know better.

Share your confidential code safely with a Source Code Confidentiality Agreement on our free web service Agree2

Think outside the rounded box

Posted by Pelle Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:32:48 GMT

Living in SOMA San Francisco like I do, you often feel (rightly or wrongly) that you are part of this massive revolution. Earlier it was labelled the “dot com/bomb” revolution, now it’s more likely to be the “social network” or “Web 2.0” revolution.

It can be argued that some of this is nothing more than just another reality distortion field, but with some critical thinking I think these are all part of a longer and very real revolution happening in both society and economics.

You do get some very smart people here (and elsewhere of course) thinking about real innovation in a number of fields. There is one thing though I have noticed and that is outside the world of their exact field of interest (data portability, video sharing, project management etc) the majority of the startups do very little innovation in the day to day aspects of their business.

My plan here is to create a new category in my blog like I originally did with Bootstrappers Anti-Patterns which I’m calling Think outside the Rounded Box, where I will try to talk about some of the silly old habits that even real innovators unfortunately still follow.

These are based on a combination of my own experiences and talking over the last year to lots of different people working with and in the “social network” or “Web 2.0” revolution.

Create a Software Development Agreement with our free web service Agree2