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

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

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

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

Being good at “talking to girls” is an important skill in life.  But, I don’t say this for the reasons you’re probably thinking.

I’ve been going to a lot of meetups and networking events lately, which led me to a few thoughts about social events.

The nature of social events really doesn’t change all that much as you get older.  Some people are talkative.  Some are more reserved.  Some groups mix well.  Some don’t.  These personalities all come to the party to create an interesting set of interactions.

And while the basic nature doesn’t change all that much, the goals/value of social events does evolve.  In middle school and high school, you could say the value of social events are to learn basic social skills (or something like that).  In college, events are more about having fun and meeting members of the opposite sex.  After college, you start seeing more events that are meant to also further business goals.

At a recent networking event, I was briefly contemplating how to get a friend an introduction to a business contact of mine.  For some reason, I realized I was playing the role of the “wing-man”, except in a different context.  Consequently, I then had another realization: being good at “talking to women” (or your preferred sex) is a valuable skill set.  (I think the slang term “hitting on” gets to my meaning more clearly, but I didn’t want to send the wrong message.)

Specifically, I’m referring to being skilled at meeting that one person  you really want to talk to and connect with in a meaningful way.  Now of course, the reason I analogize this skill to “talking to women” is simply because, as a male, this is the first version of this type of competitive social game that I encountered in my life.  Many versions exist.  The point is, being able to connect with that one person in the room that is significant to you (and likely others) is important.

So I guess you could say “talking to” members of your preferred sex is an important part of an education.  And going through this exercise hones skills that have tangible value  in your professional life, if you’re paying attention.

Kevin
10.22.09