Image via Wikipedia

“I am America. I am the part you won’t recognize, but get used to me. Black, confident, cocky — my name, not yours. My religion, not yours. My goals, my own. Get used to me.”–Muhammad Ali

Ali was an incredible physical athlete, but he was also an innovator of the sport.  He changed the way people fought.

Not only that, his charisma was strong enough that he changed the way people thought.  He was in the head of his opponents and his audience.  He was a champion that people wanted to see win.

He dominated through his feet, hands, and mind.

There are lessons here for any market, not just boxing.

-Kevin
8.6.2010

Image via Wikipedia

Entrepreneurial people are change agents.  They like making things happen.

As an organization gets larger, creating productive change gets more difficult.  Due to sheer size, big organizations have a lot of inertia and are hard to budge.  Additionally, as they take on more and more people, the likelihood of taking on mediocre people gets higher.  This requires more structure, more procedures, more bureaucracy.

Consequently, “entrepreneurial-ness” begins to diffuse away from the organization, change agents begin to go seek more fertile ground where they can have a greater impact.

And you’re left with a big, immobile tank that can’t change directions.  As the world changes, big organizations don’t.  The result is a lot of stupid actions and decisions.

-Kevin
7.23.2010

After working for a month or so in a more “proper job”, one thing that is very refreshing is to see a very clear, large market and having the capabilities to go get it.  Of course, market entry and figuring out how to attack it is always a problem. But, it’s there.

The experience has reminded me of two things: 1) how many stupid startups there are (allow me to unravel that statement at a later date, it needs a lot of unraveling) and 2) my friend Antonio Rodriguez‘s post about “execution context”.  Instead of me telling you about it, I’ve re-posted it here:

Startups and Experience: Context Matters

Chris Dixon had a provocative post on how young engineers choosing to join big companies like Google is bad for the startup ecosystem, a common sentiment among the folks that I have been meeting over the last few weeks here in the rekindled Boston startup scene.

But I’m not sure it is right for one simple reason: for the most part, young founders tend to breed stupid startup ideas. Not because they are themselves stupid, but because they lack the proper execution context.

And while there is a lot of merit to apprenticing at established (funded) startups, I’m not sure that most of these provide adequate execution context either.

So if context truly is king, what does the proper execution context look like? Ideally, the right context exposes one to a whole host of business problems that need solutions because the current ones are being provided by big dumb companies that have grown fat and complacent of the profits produced by innovations whose progenitors are long gone. This is even better when the problems can be solved through new innovation that is itself only possible as technology is shifting.

Let me take a local example: here in Boston we have an existing cluster around storage, anchored by one of the biggest, dumbest tech companies I’ve ever seen: EMC. If I were betting on disruptive startups, I’d much rather take the folks who have spent time selling billions of dollars worth of storage into big companies, government contracts, and just about everyone else. Certainly more so than the folks that have spent burned cycles trying to copy Dropbox or Carbonite because that is the context they understand.

One of my heroes, Alan Kay, said that the right perspective is worth 80 IQ points. In my experience, execution context is not dissimilar.

-Kevin
7.20.2010

Another re-post while I’m busy with work and Vogel Labs.  This is a very important insight.

Earlier today, I stopped into MIT’s Kresge Auditorium for the interview between NPR’s Tom Ashbrook and Google CEO Eric Schmidt.

During the interview, Eric stated (paraphrased), “corporate social responsibility is good for shareholders….the CEO should be focused on it.”

The first thing that came to my mind was management’s primary responsibility: profit maximization.  While this is of course debatable whether this is management’s only responsibility, I would say it is the primary responsibility.

Eric’s statement also reminded me of another concept: the triple bottom line–the idea that a company’s success can be measured economically (profit) , environmentally (planet) , and socially  (people.)  As one would guess, research seems to suggest that companies that focus solely on profit maximization make more money than those that additionally focus on social and environmental issues.

Let’s assume that this is in fact historically true–companies focused on profit maximization make more money.  Do we have reason to believe this has changed (or is changing)?

I think we do.  This is a product of the Information Age.  Nothing is secret on the internet.  When something evil happens, people know about it.  (Heck, I heard about Kanye taking the microphone from Taylor Swift within minutes, and I pay no attention to their music or the VMA’s.)

If nothing is secret, I think social and environmental responsibility do in fact begin to coincide with profit maximization.  As Eric went on to say (again paraphrased), “Social Responsibility gets you better people and better financial returns.”

All else equal, do you want to pay money to an Evil Empire or a company that provides value beyond the product?  And with the internet, I think people are more aware of that “value beyond the product.”

-Kevin
11.4.2009

We often use referrals, a social recommendation from someone we know, as a filter.  Employers, investors, and people in common social interactions use social recommendations all the time.  A friend introduces you to a friend, and you give the person a lot more time than a stranger (and directly or indirectly give them a chance at building a relationship with you).  Employers find people through their current employees.   And investors only listen to people that have been introduced to them.  The stronger the relationship the investor has with the “introducer”, the higher you end up on the investor’s priority list.

But there’s one big implication of our natural usage of social recommendations:  social recommendation makes us very vulnerable to groupthink.  And groupthink is often detrimental.

Take the example of investors.  Investors tend to move in herds.  Why is this? Well here’s one big reason:

People focused on the same topics  tend to be highly networked.  We gravitate to people that are interested in the same things we are.  It gives us something to talk about and provides shared experience.  This makes us happy.  It also causes people to form knowledge communities,  or “guilds” as I call them).  When you have a group of incestuously networked people, social recommendation causes the same ideas and impressions to be passed around.  You then have groupthink herd mentality.

I suppose this is why we have platitudes like, “don’t believe everything you hear.”  The only problem is that we don’t have chance to think about all the things we’re exposed to and analyze them.  Consequently, we’re heavily influenced by our peers, and our thoughts and attitudes change and conform without us even realizing it–particularly the things we’re unable to objectively analyze for various reasons (emotional attachment, time contstraints, etc.)  The memes take over.

I think this is some rather accurate and valuable theory on some of the common social dynamics we experience.  As much as we talk about the importance of recommendations and referrals, we forget about the potential detriments.

Corollary to all of this: Value the guy that seems to never listen to anyone and always has to do things differently. Also read and recommend his blog … often….

-Kevin
6.7.2010

Vogel Labs will be up and running on July 1st.  To make this happen, I’m constantly talking to people about it, why it’s completely different than anything that exists in Boston, why Boston needs it, and why it’s the ideal working environment.  Vogel Labs isn’t about space.  It’s about atmosphere.  Vogel Labs is about community, energy, love.  I kid you not.  Vogel Labs is much bigger than what you’ll find within its walls.

Communicating fluffy concepts like energy and community isn’t easy.  It’s even more difficult too convince someone why it’ll be at a certain place.  It’s also hard to tell someone how valuable it is before they feel it at such a magnitude.  Consequently, I’ve decided to give tangible examples of why the Lab will produce such intangibles and will be bigger than what is within its walls.  Here’s the first one:

Starting February 11th 2011, Vogel Labs will start taking applications for the “Vogel Labs Fellowships.”  The concept is simple: give an ambitious and creative individual (AKA someone who is entrepreneurial)  ~$2500 to pursue whatever it is that matters most to them. They don’t necessarily even need to know what exactly that is, but you can spot passionate people, even if they don’t quite know what the object of their passion is. They would then work in the Vogel Labs space and be exposed to a lot of startups and entrepreneurs at the ground level, meet a lot of people in the Boston community, and build real skills that they are personally motivated to use. (And hopefully they’ll begin the road that leads to a $50 Billion dollar home run.)

Anyone can apply.  Age doesn’t matter.  It’s never to late to start working on something you love.  However, by design, it’s more suitable for students and younger  people.

So how valuable can such a thing be by only supplying such a small amount of money?

The best thing I ever did in the course of my education was to take a summer to pursue what I cared about most.  I didn’t even know what that was at the time, but I had some ideas I wanted to get started on.  Before I even really knew it, I started being an entrepreneur.  I had no clue what I was doing, but I started building valuable skills by just pursuing a wild idea I had that I cared about.

In order to make this happen, I searched high and low for grants at MIT that would allow me to work on what I wanted.   I got lucky.  I was somehow able to get $1500 bucks from the MIT Political Science department.  I then got a part-time job teaching 4th-8th graders at the MIT Edgerton Center math/science stuff for $9 an hour. This was enough to live on.

So why not offer more money?  Part of learning to be an entrepreneur is learning to scrap and claw; a big part of it is learning to be a hunter out in the wild.  This is why you can’t learn how to be an entrepreneur while in school.  You’re too safe.  It’s also why I’ve seen big shot consultants fail when they try to found a company.  Resources are scarcer in the wilderness.  (But this doesn’t mean there isn’t support to take advantage of, you just have to go hunt it down ….or build it yourself.)

So through MIT, the Boston entrepreneurial community acquired an entrepreneur for $1500. Will this be a good investment of community dollars?  I’d say so.  Why did it work?  Because I was able to take this money and use it to find and pursue something that was important to me.  And that’s at the root of it all.

How often in your life have you been able to focus primarily on finding and pursuing what you care about?  But at the same time, would you say having some time to do this is very important?  It was a full-time endeavor for me that came with heavy costs and a lot of perceived risk. Let’s lower that a bit.

Now, why does this make  “good business sense” for Vogel Labs (which is the only way to make such things sustainable)? Well, it comes down to the spirit of these Fellowships and what the Fellows will embody: ambition, energy, passion, pursuit of something that matters.  Are there people out there willing to pay an extra 50 bucks a year to be around these things and what these people represent?  I think so.  In fact, I know so.  People are already agreeing to pay to be a part of an atmosphere filled to the brim with these intangibles.

-Kevin
6.1.2010

Vogel Labs is located in Porter Square and opens July 1st. You can have a full-time dedicated desk for $350 a month.  If you’d like to come and go and work part-time, it’s a $100 a month.  There is also more traditional office space (dry wall, carpet, sectioned rooms) available on a square foot basis.  We’re working towards delivering free space to the people that really need it.  Come by this Friday at 9:30AM or 3PM to see it.

Does your career or occupation treat you as an asset that increases linearly or exponentially? Does it cause you to be a depreciating asset?  Does it open doors to allow you to experience exponential growth?

I don’t think this is an obvious set of questions.  It’s a thought experiment worth playing with when it comes to decisions.  The difference is huge. Let me make this thought a little more tangible.

Let’s take a professional athlete for instance.  If they invest heavily, and practice hard, they will increase in value.  Perhaps their salary will go up at an exponential rate.  But, ultimately, within the framework of athletics itself, the game causes them to depreciate substantially.  You can’t keep being a professional athlete for very long.  In some sports, only a few years.  Eventually, you can’t play anymore, and you can’t make a living.  Unless you can use this experience to walk through another door, you’re almost back to square one.  Some get the chance for more opportunities (especially the top tier).  A lot don’t.

There are some occupations that treat people very linearly.  For instance, some public school systems give teachers a fixed increase each year.  If you hang around long enough, you’re probably doing quite well.  However, this is fine if you assume you’re only increasing value at a constant rate (although, perhaps the overall value you receive can increase exponentially as you get better at inspiring more children to learn more important things.)

In some jobs, you can experience very high levels of salary growth (consulting, financial services).  But there is a maximum defined by the system and markets.

So what allows you to experience true exponential growth forever (in some form of value)?

Entrepreneurs have the best shot at this hands down.  In fact, that’s at the backbone of entrepreneurship.  Taking very little and turning it into a lot;  turning entropic disarray into wealth.  (Wealth of course can take many forms.) It takes value to make value.  However, it also takes agility.

It seems to me, if you’re good at building and harnessing whatever value you have, and turning a little into a lot, there is no end to the value you can gain.  You can step into new markets.  You can create new things. You can build organizations that let you eat, live, and also work on developing the next big thing. You also gain influence and networks the whole time. You’re doing something new and people notice.

Although some careers are much better for fostering entrepreneurial skills, the good news is that anyone can be an entrepreneur at almost any time.  The bad news is that very few will be good at it, and it’s very hard to get off the ground and to the point where the value created runs wild.  But, once you get off the ground, and make it to escape velocity, you have huge opportunities coming your way.

-Kevin
5.20.2010

We’re going to finish what was started in an abandoned MIT fraternity house.  The Vision of Vogel Labs is on its way, and I’m going to call the round:  Vogel Labs is opening its doors July 1st.  That’s my self-fulfilling prophecy.

There will be plenty to do after that point, but it’s real.  And it’s just around the corner.

I want as many people as possible to see where its home will be soon enough, so I’ve decided to have an Open House this Wednesday, May 19th from 5:30 – 7:30PM. RSVP by leaving a comment on this post saying when you expect to arrive.  Directions are below.

If you can’t quite make that window of time, tell me, and I’ll see if I can make it work for you.  If that day doesn’t work, tell me what day this week will work for you, and I’ll come back to show it again.  I want you to see this phenomenal place.  And even if you’ve seen it already, come back again. It’ll be well worth it. How often do you get a touch of absolute magic in your day?

Come stop by.  Hang out for a while. And be sure to share this invite with others.

-Kevin
5.17.2010

Directions:

The address is 22 Kent St. Somerville, Ma.  (Map)
Email me at KVogelsang11 [ at ] gmail with any questions.  Email me if you’d also like to get my cell phone number just in case you have trouble.

By Public Transit:
It’s less than a 10 minute walk from the Porter Square T stop.  When you come out of the station, head south on Somerville Ave.  The commuter rail track will be on your right.  You’ll pass a self-serve car wash, StarBucks, and Papa John’s.  You’ll then come to a park on your right with a bunch of basketball courts (which is awesome by the way).  Just prior to the courts, in between a white brick building and the park, is a parking lot.  Walk down into the lot and you’ll see the entrance to the white brick building on your right.  The entrance has a red overhang.  You’ll find me there.

By Car:
It’s easy to find by looking at the map and reading over the above directions.  The entrance is between the basketball courts and a white brick building.

“The man shapes the environment, and the environment shapes the man.”  I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit lately.  I wrote more about it in my essay “Kevin, Why Entrepreneurship for You? (Part III)”:

“The man shapes the environment, and the environment shapes the man.”  My Dad said this to me once.  I’m not sure where he got it, or if it came from a synthesis of his own experiences.  The phrase describes an undeniable phenomenon, and its effects shouldn’t be taken lightly.  The environment influences us, and we in turn exert force on the environment in some sort of tug-of-war over causality.

You see the effects of this concept when studying evolution, start-ups, work environments, and our own living spaces.  You can even observe this somewhat paradoxical concept when studying cells in a petri dish.  You change the substrate that the cell lives on and the cell changes drastically, and consequently, the environment changes.

But what does this really mean?  Primarily, it means we live in a constant state of disequilibrium.  And this creates opportunities, perhaps a dire need, for growth.

(This is a powerful concept.  I also wrote about this implicitly in my post on Co-Evolution.  Curiously, my conclusion in that post was that coevolution leads to balance in the universe.)

The concept has been on my mind as we steadily pull together Vogel Labs.  It’s impossible to find the perfect physical space in the perfect location at the perfect price.

Here’s what I say:  Find the optimum, take what you have, and make it so beautiful that it changes the greater environment. A great group of people can exert a huge amount of force on their surroundings.  Weaker people will say, “you can’t bend reality to your will.”  This may be so, but don’t interpret this to mean you can only throw your hands up in the air and wait; we aren’t bugs being washed down a river,  drowning in the chaos.  Part of reality is the fact that we create it.

And with this attitude in mind, it will be perfect, all in good time.

-Kevin
5.16.2010

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the feeling of a chapter closing behind me.  This is a feeling I think we’ve all had, and when this happens in our lives, it’s always interesting and exciting and comes with a dash of nervous energy.

Well, this week, the new chapter burst open, and the cards started diving into place.

On Tuesday, I took a trip down to New York to meet with Union Square Ventures to interview for a position with them.  Underneath, I knew that a role in venture capital wasn’t for me (for the same reason strategy consulting wouldn’t be either)–you don’t make anything in this sort of job.   However, I think deeply about the land of internet and digital media (and it’s role in education), so I couldn’t just walk away from a great opportunity with a firm that focuses on these exact things.

The interview went perfectly.  But not for the reasons you think. In the middle of the interview one of the partners said to me, “Kevin, you’d be bored here.  This is a staff position.  You should be out evangelizing a startup and making things.”  (When he said “staff”, I actually winced a bit.)  He was absolutely right, and I knew it.  I was quite happy about this.  I got to meet a great group of guys.  I was told that I was “too entrepreneurial” for the position (I laugh to myself a bit as I write this).  I can also stay in Boston, continue building upon this vision of  Vogel Labs, and work at another great job…..

On Wednesday, I accepted a position with Tessella. They’ve carved out a great position for me in a very important space working on things that matter.  The position also harnesses my entrepreneurial nature.

Later on Wednesday, I showed the Vogel Labs space to a great group of people (many from the Beta House).  They were very excited about it. (To give you an idea about how awesome these guys are: one of them owns a giant container that contains a mobile biology lab.  How sick is that?)

Also on Wednesday, I bought a ticket home to Kentucky to visit the family.

On Thursday, I found a lawyer (and a great guy) that agreed to do some pro bono work for Vogel Labs (which is coming up BIG!).  During the conversation, he mentioned that he had enjoyed hearing my perspective on life so much that he had also bought a copy of my book(alright! return on investment!).

On Friday, I bought a car, solidified a trip to the United Kingdom for training for my new job, and loosely planned a few days vacation tacked onto the trip to run around Spain with a friend for a bit.

Today, I showed Jon Pierce the Vogel Labs space, and started figuring out where I’m going to live in two weeks….better take care of that soon when I get a few moments….

-Kevin
5.15.2010