Revisiting Paul Graham š¤š
On not grading exact-domain experience over learning ability, overcoming (inescapable) inertias of scale, and adding some (lived) nuance to Paul Graham's take on solo founders.
Welcome to the thirty-eighth edition of The Baton. A fortnightly newsletter that brings you three, hand-curated pieces of advice drawn from the thoughtful founder-to-founder exchanges and interviews taking place onĀ RelayĀ and the interwebz. So, stay tuned!Ā
In this edition, youāll find instructive and inspiring pickings from the brains ofĀ Airplaneās Ravi Parikh, Scale AIās Alexandr Wang, and Podiaās Spencer Fry.
#1: When hiring for sales, donāt overrate ārelevantā experience ā Airplaneās co-founder, Ravi Parikh, on why domain experience is often a deceptive, imperfect proxy for sales recruitment. (Source: Relay)
I believe people overrate relevant experience in the same field. Itās really tempting to be like, āoh, weāre Heap, we should hire reps from Mixpanel or Amplitude or something like that.ā
Thatās great. Theyāll perhaps ramp a little bit faster.
But the right reps honestly can learn most products pretty quickly.
If you hire, letās suppose, Iām making things up here a little bit, but letās say you hire someone from a direct competitor, whoās in the same space as you.
Theyāll probably do a great job in your interview process, especially if itās sort of product centric, but you donāt actually know their ability to ramp on your product. You only know their ability to have existing current knowledge of the space.
Your product is inevitably going to be somewhat different from the product theyāre coming from. So I donāt want to give too much detail because I donāt want to name specific people, but we have hired people who had a lot of ārelevantā experience.
And then their ability to just get that 20% more to learn Heap, specifically, was actually a lot more difficult than I thought it would be.
I donāt know if it took them two years to learn all that stuff. Whereas thereās other people that may have come totally out of the industry. Todd, our first sales rep came from Square. Square and Heap have no relationship with each other.
Different deal sizes. Different products.
Yet he figured Heap out within a couple of weeks.
And to me, itās that slope, that rate of learning that matters a lot more than the knowledge that they come in with today. Especially for your early sales reps, who donāt have all that scaffolding and support.
If you hire from the same industry, youāve actually diminished your own ability to discover their rate of learning, in some sense. Because they will come in and feel very knowledgeable compared to the average person youāre interviewing.
Thatās not to say that you shouldnāt hire from the industry. Itās just that you should have that potential shortcoming in mind. And then sort of interview around that. Design an interview where they have to demonstrate their ability to learn something quickly.
#2: Fending off an orgās organic march towards stagnation or āhow not to suck as you grow bigā ā Scale AIās co-founder and CEO, Alexandr Wang, lists the five core cultural fallacies that inevitably impede original thought (and thus, progress).Ā (Source: Rational in the Fullness of Time)
There are a number of crutches in organizations which reinforce lazy thinking. At Scale, it is our job to constantly fight these artifacts of the physics of large organizations.
The first is that people tend to be polite in large groups (ānice syndromeā). Thereās nothing wrong with being polite, but failing to challenge othersā beliefsābecause you believe they will find it rude rather than righteousāis lazy thinking.
On important matters, it is imperative that you uphold others to be precise and verifiable in their thinking, and raise the flag when it is not trueā¦
The second is that people often become shielded from outcomes and therefore do not see any data. Otherwise sensible people, when isolated from data, will fall prey to lazy thinking (āphilosopher syndromeā).
When organizations get big, functions become siloed, and it is no longer automatic for every individual to be in the feedback loop of a metric which enforces active thinkingā¦
The third is that āsomeone else is thinking about itā, which implies you can be lazy in your thinking. While it is a comforting thought to trust that others that are smarter or more focused can think about all of the problems, this often leads to a tragedy of the commons where nobody is thinking about it.
I can assure you, the value of independent and critical thought is alive and well, and it is very dangerous to assume that all the hard problems are being implicitly thought about by some nonspecific other person.
The fourth, and perhaps most hidden, is that organizations believe in clean abstraction layers, and confuse them for reality. Most things are illustrated by clean system diagrams or state machines which uphold a pure view of the world.
The world is, in fact, extremely complex and convoluted, and almost every abstraction layer has an edge case which breaks itā¦
The last form is incrementalism. It is easy to fall into the trap of making changes which are too small to yield large impacts, but convince yourself that you are making meaningful progress towards goals.
In technology, progress is yielded through meaningful changes that leap forward the power of the product. Lapsing into small, incremental changes as oneās primary contributions is a sure way to fall into mediocrity.
Incremental changes are necessary for the success of a product, but also mean certain death if there are no big leaps forward.
When we are successful at Scale, it is usually the result of active thinking. The great victories are all due to deep active thinking coupled with force of will. The periods of failure are rarely due to lack of will, but more often lazy thinking.
#3: What itās really like being a solo founder ā Podiaās founder and CEO, Spencer Fry, offers a necessary corrective to the pervasive notion that thereās something inherently lacking in single-founder-led ventures.Ā (Source: Spencer Fry)
Much has been written about the disadvantages of being a solo founder.
Paul Graham was certainly one of the first to write about it publicly in 2006 when he published his article, Startup Mistakes, with āSingle Founderā as the first in a long list of mistakes.
ā¦
Iām only a sample size of one, but Iāve also co-founded three startups, each with successful exits, and solo-founded my most recent startup [Podia], so I believe Iām in a unique position to compare and contrast the pros and cons of single founder-dom.
ā¦
Paul says: itās a vote of āno confidenceā
Paulās first argument is that not having a co-founder is a vote of āno confidence,ā explaining, āit probably means the founder couldnāt talk any of his friends into starting the company with him.ā
I donāt think itās fair to assume that not having a co-founder means that you failed to convince your friends to join you. For the vast majority of solo founders and solopreneurs, more often than not, you werenāt looking for a founder to begin with.
Plenty of people start businesses every day, and those who choose to start it solo are making a conscience choice to do so. Itās surprisingly easy to find a co-founder these days, but just because itās easier to get one doesnāt mean you want one.
With [Podia] as an example, my experience, track record, and network meant that I could have easily convinced a friend to work with me, but I didnāt want to. I wanted to start it on my own.
Whatās worse? Bad co-founder fit
Having a co-founder just because people tell you that you should, often leads to co-founding companies with people who you barely know.
And oftentimes, those two (or three) people fail to set expectations up front, or have those difficult conversations about equity, responsibilities, and what they want the startup to be.
They fail to do these things because they donāt know each other well enough to have those talks. They go into it starting their business rosy cheeked and full of smiles, until something goes wrong.
A few months into the relationship, they find themselves frustrated, exhausted, and wishing they hadnāt gotten in bed with their new co-founder.
But by that point, itās too late, and the company that you could have started as a solo founder is now partially owned by someone you no longer want to work with. Vesting works to an extent, but how do you determine who goes forth with things?
ā¦
My favorite part of being a solo founder is that at the end of the day, the buck stops with youā¦
Thatās not to say that people you work with arenāt accountable for their roles, but you hired them, set the expectations, managed them in most cases, and are responsible for them at the end of the day.
You can only blame yourself if something goes wrong.
Note: Next week, weāre really looking forward to hosting Spencer for 2022ās first Relay AMA. Having started his maiden software business back in 2003, Spencer has decoded most puzzling signals that starting up beams at founders. You can ask him all about: His decision to fundraise for his latest (4th) venture, Podia, after having bootstrapped all his previous efforts, why todayās goals donāt matter, the KPIs youāve not considered yet, mastering exits and building for the long run, and more! If youād want in on the AMA, just respond to this email and weāll send over an invite. :)
Until next time,