Kevin Vogelsang

Yesterday, I talked a little about Hunter vs Farmer theory.

I’d say many entrepreneurs are absolute hunters.  They like high stake missions, go after opportunities, etc.

But this offers a paradox, can a hunter build a business?  Once they get a hold of the opportunity, they’ll eventually need to start farming: getting the details right, being methodic, etc.  (You could say the same paradox exists for venture capitalists.  They have to hunt down investments, but they need to farm their portfolio).

The entrepreneur deals with this by putting the right people in the right place.  The personnel needs of a company change over time.

They also deal with this by doing what they need to do, making the right decisions, and keep going until they get they get the kill.

This is why truly great hunters are relentless. Relentless hunters turn the “farming” aspects into part of the hunt;  they do this by hunting down the right personnel and by seeing farming as another step in the longterm hunt.

-Kevin
3.4.2010

Image by CyboRoZ via Flickr

Imagine you’re stuck on an island.  Just you, a few others, and the wilderness of the island.

You’re primary source of food is fish. You catch the fish by sticking them with a sharpened stick.  It takes a long time to catch fish this way.  You miss a lot.  It’s tough to hit them hard enough.

You have a few minutes a day that don’t have to be focused on getting food and water.  During this time, you look for rocks that you could use to make a pointed tip.  Eventually, you achieve this.  You then are able to find the right plants to attach it to your “fishing spear.”  Catching fish is a little more efficient now.

You now have more time to experiment with the plant fibers you discovered in search for a way to create the fishing spear.  Eventually, you learn to make a net.  Catching fish can now be done by anyone.  You’re now able to pass the fishing task off to someone that is less capable.

You can now spend your time surveying the island.  You find rocks that can be made sharper.  You discover deer on the island.  You learn how to kill the deer.  You have a new source of food and materials.  You’re now able to make canoes, which are much faster than wooden rafts.  You can now travel faster and go farther.

~

This is an example of the compounding returns of knowledge.

We observe it now, more often than ever.  Technology is created that enables non-specialists to perform a needed task on a larger scale (like the fishing net in the example.)  Technology also allows us to discover new technology.  We see this in fabrication, software, and soon, in brain-scanning preparation.

We also have empirical proof that it exists.  Ray Kurzweil has collected some incredibly interesting data on the exponential acceleration of technology. (You can find videos of Ray talking about this phenomena on Ted Talks.)

However, we tend to forget this phenomenon on the level of the individual level.  When we learn and gain new skills, we gain resources.  And resources can lead to more resources.  People think about this more in terms of monetary investing.  But it’s true elsewhere.

So what does this mean for us?

If you spend a little more time working, and study just a little harder each day, you’ll find yourself much further along.

-Kevin
2.25.2010

Today, Fred Wilson wrote  a post, “Nature vs Nurture and Entrepreneurship”, about the traits of an entrepreneur.

The following exchange occurred in the comments:

Kid Mercury:

IMHO the answer to who wins the beef between nature and nurture is always both. i’ve changed so much in my life (used to be a lazy person trying to find ways to work part-time and get by) but events in life have transformed me….

Aviah Laor:

“trying to work part time and get by” is an early symptom of an entrepreneur

I found this interesting.  I’d never heard anyone acknowledge that “just getting by” had any relationship to entrepreneurs, much less entrepreneurs being lazy.

After pondering the comment a little further, I realized it’s more about efficiency than just “getting by” or being lazy.  Kid Mercury’s instincts were forcing him into a certain behavior.  I think the attitude is better described by, “I’m not going to expend resources on this, because my time/energy is needed elsewhere.”Although, the individual probably isn’t conscious of this reasoning at the time.

Of course, my opinions are rooted in a model of humans being patterns, although these patterns are malleable.  Moreover, just as the animals do, humans have instincts.

Entrepreneurs are hunters.  They go out and and chase things.  They see how things work by using them.  They go at it until they make it happen.  They hate when things don’t work.  They want a high-stakes mission.

Thus, they have no patience for frivolous usage of resources that do not aid the hunt.  And that’s good.  Neither do startups.

-Kevin
2.19.2010

I probably still count as a new entrepreneur.  But, I’ve been around startups for several years and  founded one.  That’s a significant difference from someone who’s just setting out on pursuing an opportunity, so humor me.

The Big Question that everyone seems to miss is the most obvious.  Amidst all the excitement, new entrepreneurs forget to ask: “Why do I want to do this?”

The two most common answers:

1. “For Profit”.  Well, I hope you’re in it for profit, and I hope it’s a big opportunity.  But there’s also a big chance that it will fail and that it isn’t actually a big opportunity.  If you’re a more experienced entrepreneur that has built a business before, and is sitting on some money and some success, this is a perfectly fine answer.  But, if you aren’t, you better be sure to assess the brutal facts before you dive in.  Luckily, people will make fun of your idea and tell you it won’t work enough that you’ll probably just give up.

2. “A lot of people have this problem.”  This is a better answer for a new entrepreneur.  But, my first question in return is, do they?  And how do you know? And does it matter to you enough to be poor/frustrated/stressed/have a 3rd mortgage?

The best answer by far for a new entrepreneur is “I have this problem.  I want this company to exist.” Personal need is powerful.  First of all, you are your customer.  You understand what you need to make.  Second,  if the problem is one that you really want to solve,  it’ll keep you up at night.  You won’t be able to stop thinking about it.  And this is the perfect state to be in, because when you’ve started your company, it’s going to be in the back of your mind all the time then too, so you might as well start getting used to it.

I have to wake up in 4.5 hours.  But, I figured I’d write this post.  I can’t sleep because I have a company on my mind and visions of dreams come true dancing through my head.

-Kevin
2.19.2010

This post is very important to me. It is the 2nd part of a set of posts that began with Our Sphere of Influence. A Sphere of Influence is our realm where we matter most.  Check out the post for further discussion.  These posts hinge on the concept. Do provide your input by commenting.

Technology gives us new capabilities.  Consequently, technology has an important side effect: it makes our Sphere of Influence more accessible to us.  And when a group of people gain access to their Sphere of Influence, communities form.

I don’t think people have thought of it this way, but this is the framework for most community-driven movements:  a group of people focused on their Sphere of Influence that connect with each other.

The initial motivator for getting involved in a community may vary (they may not even be aware of the community), but people recognize their Sphere of Influence within a community of people when they begin to be acknowledged for their work.  This recognition pushes them forward as they realize the importance of their work and realize their work matters.

In the open-source software movement, programmers needed better ways to use a computer, a piece of technology that was highly enabling for them.  They also wanted to have greater control over their tools, to make the tools better, and to learn.  The community pushes this forward as they recognize and appreciate each others work.  They know their work matters and they benefit from the work of others.

The Wikipedian community spends huge amounts of time contributing to Wikipedia.   They may begin by wanting to contribute to the project.  They’re pushed forward when they see the impact/appreciation of their work through recognition and gaining higher command of their realm within Wikipedia.

Technology has another side effect: it makes new Spheres of Influence available. New technologies eventually lead to social changes that cause new communities to form.  A given function becomes democratized and community-driven.

With rapid prototyping technologies becoming affordable, a much greater number of people can take part in designing and fabricating physical things: an open-source hardware community is forming.

The same is also happening with biology research.  There’s a Do-It-Yourself biology community forming completely outside of academia.

Gov 2.0 represents the true democratization of government.  Citizens don’t take part in government by voting for someone. They just implement functions themselves using government resources.

When new Spheres of Influence become available, we’re able to choose one that better suits us.   Entire industries and social constructs are being completely disrupted by technologies that allow  people to do it themselves.  Communities of people form that are willing to do it for free because it’s what they like to do, and its where they feel they matter most.  It’s tough for businesses to compete with, unless they daringly change their business models or create new ones.

But, it’s not impossible for businesses to cope.  The open-source software companies did it….

In the following posts, I’ll talk more about the application of these concepts.

Your comments are important and will help me refine these thoughts as I continue to write about them.  Give me your thoughts by emailing me at KVogelsang11@gmail.com or leaving a comment.

-Kevin
2.8.2010

Education through athletics is incredibly undervalued.

In school, I played varsity basketball, ran track, and played football.  I started playing because it’s what my friends did, I thought I could be good at it, and I wanted to compete.

Eventually in college, I realized athletics was the most important piece of my overall education.  I didn’t fully realize this until a sales class that I took at Sloan.  Bill Aulet was talking about hiring, and one of the main things he wondered about people was “did they play competitive sports?”

In US high schools, class room learning just isn’t that good.  You learn next to nothing about yourself, teamwork, leadership, politics, and performance. You certainly don’t learn toughness.

In the US, athletics is the only arena where performance is closely measured.  There’s stats on everything.  Through the entire education system, it’s also the only arena where you’re judged on your performance.  If you aren’t performing, you lose your job or your starting position.  This is important.

For nearly 20 years, I poured the majority of my energy and focus into athletics.  And it took me 20 years to realize the educational value–the value of understanding the athlete’s mindset.

It always pains me to hear people tell kids that they need to focus on classwork.  Our education system is full of flaws.  But I think one thing we need to value more is motivation. If a student enjoys something (anything) and is willing to work hard it, push them forward.  They’ll learn more doing that than half-ass reading Great Expectations and Frankenstein.  When it comes to valuable experience, my time as an athlete is the most important experience I’ve had, even more important than MIT or any work experience.  It’s where I learned all the core skills everyone should learn.

For business, particularly for startups, the competitive sports team is the closest experience you can get in school: You pick your team and go find a way to win.

-Kevin
2.2.2010

Fear of failure is a powerful motivator, and it shouldn’t be underestimated, otherwise we run the risk of not harnessing it, or worse, letting it paralyze us.

It’s surprising how many successful people were so worried about “not being good enough”.  This feeling of inadequacy drove them to work harder than everyone else and pushed them to the front of the pack and beyond.

Charles Schwab suffered from dyslexia, a learning disability that causes difficulty with reading and writing.  Although he was unaware he had the disorder until he was 40, supposedly, his difficulties caused him to work relentlessly to overcome it.

When we put our name on something, and publicly engage in some task, we can’t let ourselves fail.  We’ve proclaimed it to the world.  This creates accountability to our own pride and others we don’t want to let down.

The danger is that fear of failure stops us from trying.

When taking up a new endeavor, we might be tempted to not tell anyone.  We actually help ourselves by telling everyone we can.  Not only will this motivate us to work harder, we also give others the opportunity to help us.

-Kevin
12.13.2009

A few weeks ago, way back before Thanksgiving, I had the chance to meet Eric Ries, founder of IMVU and author of Startup Lessons Learned.

Eric has some good insights about startups, but I think it all comes back to two basic principles that are broadly applicable:

1) Be careful how you measure progress. You manage what you measure.  If you measure the wrong things, you’ll manage poorly.  Additionally, Eric brought up a good point, “Don’t assume advancing the plan is equivalent to progress.  What if the plan is flawed?” Particularly in startups, but in any context, you need to be adaptive.

2) If a mistake is made, spend an amount of time, proportional to the magnitude of the mistake, implementing systems for preventing that class of mistakes. Don’t make the same mistake twice.  Prevent that class of mistakes by incrementally developing prevention systems.

-Kevin
12.2.09

Last week, I claimed that the idea is trivial in comparison to the team, and I mainly talked about the 3 characteristics of a great team (Shared Values, Understands the Customer’s pain, Embraces their Role).

Now, here’s the reasons why the Team ultimately trumps the Idea:

• Team is the driving force. Let’s assume you have the perfect idea.  It’ll take years to build a company and bring the idea to fruition.  It takes an average of 8 years to reach the 50 million in revenue milestone.  However, hitting this level of revenue is a function of success and great market opportunity.  Therefore, I’d say building a successful company in any market takes an average of 8 years.
• The Idea will change and evolve. The land of startups is a volatile and bewildering place.  Markets change. Completely rational and mutually beneficial business models may not work.  Resources are slim.  And like any animal in the wild, the company must adapt.  The ability to adapt comes from the insight and resilience of the Team.
• The Team embodies the idea. In my experience, a startup is like a snowball.  The lead entrepreneur will probably need some idea to get the ball rolling.  His energy and commitment will attract others interested in the space.  If the team is chosen wisely, the team will consist of the right mixture of people.  Culture needs to be developed.  But the right passions and experience need to be there already.  If things go well, that snowball will slowly gain momentum and turn into a boulder careening down the mountainside–headed for something catastrophic or spectacular.  And along the way, the people will influence the course.  A company needs a shared vision, but getting there will require a stream of ideas.

• You’ll screw something up. Things go wrong. If the team jumps ship as soon as you hit your first storm, so much for that brilliant idea.
• The Idea to Great Teams Ratio. A lot of ideas are floating around out there.   But, there are relatively few functional teams that can execute anything, much less swing for the fences.

-Kevin
11.19.2009

I wrote a guest post for Xconomy, a business and technology blog with about 150K readers, that was published today.  Go check it out and leave a comment.  You’ll find it here.

Just a few notes on the article:

• To clarify, what I went through is a failed team, and a failed team isn’t necessarily a failed company.  Our team worked very hard and I really enjoyed being around my teammates, but, as with any relationship, sometimes things don’t work out.  And as I’ve said, the team is everything.
• To keep it short, I cut out a lot of good stories.  This is a shame.  But, with a little help from my audience here, I’m sure you’ll get them all eventually.
• Katelyn Deimel helped me edit it.  She also took the picture a while back that was used in the post.  Thanks, Kate!
• I still believe in the concept we were working on, and I’ll see to it that it gets carried out.

-Kevin
11.18.2009