Why are we here again?
I should probably do a better job of controlling my meeting schedule. I don’t and as a result end up with too many ‘networking’ meetings (i.e., where I’m on the receiving end of the networking). I have two observations about these interactions: Left to their own devices, people tend to ramble . . . ramble . . . ramble. The conversation lacks focus, direction and purpose. Sometimes this is fun; most of the time it’s a waste of time. 2) Most people don’t seem to know what they want to get out of meetings like these. This clearly contributes to the rambling – there’s no focus because there’s no clear end point or goal. To speed things along a bit, I’ve been starting these meetings of late with a simple question: “What do you want to get out of this meeting” Turns out this isn’t something that most people come prepared to answer, which I think explains why I was encountering the two problems described above and reinforces the need to start meetings this way. I’m starting more and more meetings with this question (or the answer to it if I’m the one initiating the interaction) – not to be callous, but to get things started with an outcome in mind. Plenty has been written about how to make meetings more efficient, but for me, other than skipping them altogether (which tends to make them much more efficient – at least for me), this has worked better than just about anything I’ve tried to speed things along. Especially those pesky “networking” introductions . . . This post reminds me of my Networking 101 post from last year. Worth taking a look at if you haven’t read it yet. See point 3 for another description of what I’m talking about here.
July 10, 2006· 2 min read
TLAs
In a recent note Bill writes: I love your blog, but if you’re going to use TLAs (three letter acronyms), you need to spell out the first reference so the uneducated (like myself) know what you’re talking about. When you write about NOLs, us neophytes from Colorado think you’re talking about spending three days alone in the wilderness. 😉 He’s right. I sometimes forget how insular venture/finance/technology can be. In one of my very first ever business experiences – a training session at Morgan Stanley – I spent an hour listening to a Morgan associate (who happened to be the assignments associate from the group I was about to start working with) talk about the “Morgan way of doing DCF analysis” all the while thinking “I’m totally screwed. There are 100 people in this room and I’m the only one who has absolutely no clue what DCF stands for, let alone whatever subtlety he’s talking about that is the ‘Morgan way’.” (Turns out DCF stands for discounted cash flow analysis – something I have gotten intimately familiar with over the years). …
July 6, 2006· 1 min read
What DON’T you do?
Companies – and start-ups in particular – spend a lot of time working through market analyses, product positioning and the like, trying to figure out how to tell the world what it is that they do (and differentiate that from what everyone else does). It is, of course, a very worthwhile and important effort. One thing few companies spend much time on, however, is the opposite question – what do you NOT do. Not the broad question of what you don’t do (we don’t make toasters is not very helpful), but focusing in on the gray areas between what you clearly do and clearly don’t do and deciding where you draw the line. I watch companies struggle over decisions (product extensions, sales targets, delivery methods, etc.) or get slowly pulled off track as they chase down revenue and partner opportunities that are just a little bit off track (enough to reap havoc across an engineering or delivery organization, but not enough to be clearly out of bounds). Have the conversation first – know what’s in bounds and what’s out of bounds and how to tell the difference.
June 8, 2006· 1 min read
Feedback
There was a great article in last weekend’s New York Times Magazine by Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt (of Freakonomics fame) that talks about the role practice plays in becoming truly great at something. They walk through research that suggest that while people clearly have some natural level of ability or affinity towards certain skills, it’s the hard work and dedication they put into the practice of their chosen art that ultimately sets them apart. There’s a feedback loop here – people tend to work harder at those things that they are good at (because they enjoy it more). There was one paragraph in particular that struck me and it relates to something that I’ve been thinking about that every business does, but most in my view do poorly. Deliberate practice entails more than simply repeating a task — playing a C-minor scale 100 times, for instance, or hitting tennis serves until your shoulder pops out of its socket. Rather, it involves setting specific goals, obtaining immediate feedback and concentrating as much on technique as on outcome. If you believe this, then you have to scratch your head at how most businesses and managers offer feedback to employees – through annual or semi-annual reviews. There are two problems with this approach: 1) the feedback is stale (and negative feedback easily rationalized by its recipient as memory fades and more importantly the time for correcting poor performance or reinforcing good performance has long passed); and 2) its generally tied to a conversation around compensation – either an annual bonus, pay increase or both. Rather than limiting the majority of feedback to a review period, try giving more consistent feedback (both positive and constructive) on a more regular basis. Get out of a presentation – talk about what worked and what didn’t; finish a sales call or demo, figure out what seemed to resonate with the customer and what can be improved; feel someone in the company did an outstanding job with a task – let them know why it worked so well. Equally important, reviews should be about reviews (and what I’m describing above shouldn’t replace a more formal review process, it should supplement and feed into it). Comp conversations should be about comp. Obviously they are related, but its much more constructive to review an employees performance when the outcome of that meeting isn’t about money (but rather about the improvement of performance).
May 12, 2006· 2 min read
How do you sign your e-mails?
For some reason I’ve been paying attention lately to how people sign their e-mails and thought I’d throw out a few thoughts. I’d be particularly interested to hear from people on the strangest sign-offs they’ve received. Below is a list of some of the more common sign-offs along with my take on what they really mean. Cheers! – I’m cool! Best – I don’t want to be locked into a specific sign-off – please interpret as you wish (best wishes, best regards, best cheers, etc.) All the best – When “Best” simply isn’t good enough _C_iao! – I’m cool! and trying to act foreign Sincerely – I took this really great business writing class in high school Thanks – I really do mean thanks (when used correctly) / I can’t think of anything else to say (when used incorrectly, for example at the bottom of a flame e-mail) Hope all is well – Please DO NOT write back with details of whether you are well or not – I’m just trying to be polite Warm regards – I’ve just returned from my latest analyst session and am feeling pretty centered [nothing but your name] – S_ometimes less is more_ [not even your name – just your full signature] – I’m so efficient/important/etc. that I don’t have time to even type in my name With my very cheeriest and best thanks and regards. Here’s hoping all is well …
March 29, 2006· 2 min read
Where was that you went to school?
I’ll admit that I have a bit of a complex about business schools. I never went (sorry – no “Seth J. Levine, MBA” on my business card . . . ) – probably because all of the schools I wanted to go to wouldn’t accept me for college, so I don’t see any reason to give them money for business school. Plus it was the rock and roll late 90’s and I still had dreams of getting rich in the internet bubble (which I did not, although I do continue to receive class action notices for various companies whose stock I owned at the time, much to my amusement). So with that as my clear bias, I have a pet peeve to share with you. I understand why many business schools are named after rich donors (in the same way that many cultural institutions have wings or buildings named after people who gave money in support of them), but why is it that someone tells you where they went to business school, they never actually tell you the name of the school the went to? I think it must be like a fraternity handshake – referring to schools in code. Personally, I think it’s annoying. No one went to Dartmouth – they went to “Tuck”; same is true for UVA (“Darden”); ditto Penn (“Wharton” – this one is even used by undergrads who studied business there); the list goes on. Even schools whose name is in the name of their business school name have to use code (does anyone say they went to business school at Harvard? No – they went to “HBS”). My all time favorite is Stanford. No one goes to Stanford business school – they went to GSB (which is short for Graduate School of Business – said in a way to indicate that really, this is the only graduate school of business in the country worthy of having gone to, so why identify the actual school – everyone will understand). I think I’m going to start telling people who ask that I went to BSOTDCB (business school of the dot com bubble), and then look at them with a blank stare when they ask me what that stands for (and in “DUH. Don’t you already know?”).
February 18, 2006· 2 min read
Good point, Jeff
Maybe this is the reason for so many amusing company names.
February 9, 2006· 1 min read
Follow up to “What’s in a name?”
You can see from the comments to my post on company names yesterday that I actually heard from many of the companies listed (a few wrote me directly and don’t show up on the comments roster, but 3 commented directly). I was actually highly amused by the e-mail exchanges I had on the topic – everyone took it in stride (and thought it was extremely funny). It did get me thinking about how fast information travels in a WEB2.0 world. With one exception that I’m aware of, the people who contacted me were not a regular reader of this blog (despite my wishing that my reach was really that far . . .). Still within a few hours, they had all been alerted to the fact that I had posted about them. There are no secrets in a world that connected . . .I suppose the downside to having a made up company name is that no one knows what you do. The upside is that when someone mentions you on the web, its pretty easy to figure it out (not too many cases of someone writing about the wrong “Nuvvo”, I’d imagine).
January 20, 2006· 1 min read
What’s in a name?
At the risk of throwing stones from a glass house, what’s up with the names of next generation web companies? Catching up on some of my TechCrunch reading this morning I was struck by how crazy the company names were. Here are just a few from posts in the last week: YouTube Kaboodle Tinfinger Fleck YubNub Podzinger Eurekster Nuvvo As Charlie Wood points out – say them together and these names sound “like an incantation.” …
January 19, 2006· 1 min read
More information = good
Here’s a great idea: David Jackson has started posting transcripts from company conference calls on his web site (he’s actually been this for a while, but now has pretty extensive coverage of tech company earnings calls). I try to listen to a handful of earnings calls each season, but invariably I get to fewer than I want to, or miss the key moment of a call – even when I’m listening to the replay (which is almost always what I end up doing). I’d much rather peruse the transcripts. Much easier to consume quickly. Much easier to search. Much easier to quote from (if you’re into that sort of thing). …
January 18, 2006· 1 min read