The awards program was emceed by NVTC Hot Ticket Awards Committee Co-Chairs Jennifer Trax of "Smoking Hot Sponsor" Argy Wiltse & Robinson and Mark Spoto of "Smoking Hot Sponsor" Cooley.
The judges for the 2010 Hot Ticket Awards included: Frank Bonsall III, New Markets Venture Partners; Mary Dridi; Jeremy King, Benchmark Executive Search; Edwin Miller, (i)SAGE; myself; and Greg Van Beuren, BB&T Capital Markets/Windsor Group.
Nominations
were gathered for seven categories: Hottest Social Buzz, Hottest
Management Team, Hottest Bootstrap, Hottest Exit, Hottest Venture
Capital Deal, Hottest Emerging Government Contractor, and Hottest
International Company.
The finalists and winners in each category are
as follows:
Hottest Bootstrap (sponsored by PNC Bank)
CFN Services, Inc.
CustomInk.com **Winner**
PointAbout
ODIN Technologies
Hottest Emerging Government Contractor (sponsored by Verizon Wireless)
So while Grotech Companies including Broadsoft, Clarabridge, LivingSocial and Zenoss were well represented in the finalists and winners -- as a judge I was conflicted out of the voting for them. In any case, it was a great night and congrats to all the finalists. Glad to see everyone.
In 2012, I will celebrate my 30th year in white collar employment (yes, I will do so quietly, at my desk, without disturbing others). Over that time, I have been to and sat through a lot of meetings. My time as a young executive at IBM and for the last ten years as a Venture Capitalist have been especially meeting heavy. In all those meetings, I tried to be attentive, to listen well but particularly to observe people for greater meaning beyond their words. As a VC, this is unusually important as one needs to assess an individual or team as much or more than an idea within an hour meeting. So over the years, I have developed a short list of "tells". Tells are signs, signals or indications of something other than what the speaker is saying in any moment. The term, tells, is frequently used within the context of card playing. That someone might characteristically rub their forehead when holding a good hand or scratch their chin when holding a bad hand.
So, here are some of my favorite meeting "tells"
1. Raising of voice
When someone is making a weak argument one of the few ways to make it seem "powerful" is to make it louder. And just like speaking English louder to someone who doesn't understand the English language, the impact of volume doesn't impact effectiveness. It is a lousy argument and I can hear all of it clearly, thank you. I am always impressed with how effective it can be in a large group. People use it because it works well.
2. Assurances
When people "assure" of how reasonable or competent or intelligent they are, they do so for good reason. They have a lifetime of experience from people who have told them they're not those things. What's the difference between me and those people, those people have gotten to know the speaker much better than I. Since I am possibly going to travel the same road, the speaker is ready to assure me of their reasonableness, competence or intelligence.
3. Silent Sams
A lot of people who are quiet in meetings have nothing of value to add to the discussion. Really, they're quiet because they have nothing to add. Still waters may run deep by Silent Sams usually don't run (they sit in meetings passing the time) and they aren't deep (see first point). It is not that there aren't meetings for which they can add value, because there are, but they're not at one currently.
4. First in line
A throw down gambit that "anyone who would disagree with this argument is dumb" which prompts anyone in disagreement to pipe up and be, at least momentarily, first in line of dummies. This is another that works very well, anyone present that is at least mildly under confident of their counter reasoning will be quieted.
5. The 3Q'er: Question Question Quality
The speaker who assails rather than answers questions. From "that's a dumb question" to "that's not a relevant question", the one sure thing is that question isn't going to be answered. Given that it is neither dumb nor irrelevant to the questioner, this is a surprising approach. It is often disastrous be for the speaker's credibility in the room.
6. Stranger in a Strange Land
When someone asserts that they really "don't need" to be here in this meeting, I take it to mean that they suspect that need to be there quite a bit. In Venture Capital, it is quite common for someone to assert that "We're not really raising money". Which is to say, you've come to an odd place in this meeting with me, if you're not raising money. Why then, don't we end the meeting. Because, I am looking to invest in start ups. Yes, I know, they may be following good advice to create foundational relationships by visiting prior to a raise but many do so with the distinct impression that they will never raise money. All of which is to day, they are pretty convinced that they going to have raise money whether they want to or not.
I am sure there are more but these spring to mind.
Start up CEO's tend to focus in their reports on beating revenue targets (if that's the available positive spin) or highlight beating the expense line (clear second place in the positive spin department). It is understandable enough, after all, you put the available good news forward. Sure, it is usually better to be the "beat revenue" story rather than the "beat expenses" story. And, of course, one would always like to tell the both "beat revenue and expense" target story. But that isn't always possible. Then again, how one achieves higher revenues or lower expenses determines whether either the results are good news or bad news. Because either can be good or bad news.
That said, I find that both reports in practice tend to under report the "how" they beat revenues or expenses. As the listener, the how one exceeds revenue or beats expense targets is key. For the qualitative appraisal of a board director of these reports, the how is the focal point. In fact, the "how" may be the most important aspect to the report. The how of current achievements is the window to and foundation of future performance.
First, let's level set our understanding.
It is an American maxim and tired joke about one spouse remarking to the other over an armful full of purchases --- "I saved you money as these items were 'on sale' today". Of course, the non-shopping spouse sees the half empty side of the class that money wasn't "saved" but rather "spent" on the sale items. Either way, across varying time lines, both sides of the argument can be viewed as fundamentally correct. This commonsensical view of getting necessary things cheaper via promotional sales is difficult to oppose for most people.
It does have limits as an argument, however, within a business context. Because in business, now is qualitatively better than later. Now is better than later in business because the early an investment is made the sooner it pays off. In smaller or start ups, this early is better can be especially true as small companies are always in a race against time.
If one, for example, beats expense targets by delays of hiring (which is commonly the case) this has all kinds of downstream effects. Or by same token, keeps marketing spend lower to create a better present and an undermined future. And there is no delay in hiring that will be felt as directly as a failure to hire sales people. If, for example, a salesperson takes 4 months to become a positive contribution to operations, then delays in hiring salespeople create a hole in time and money that can't be filled. That time and money is lost. Like an airplane flight with empty seats, the revenue opportunity is lost. And there is no chance to get it back. It is quite a repeated, though frustrating, moment to hear a CEO imitating success via lower expenses built on the foundation of reduced marketing or understaffed sales. "Great", I think, "we missed revenue and we will keep missing it". But, I get to hear about how we staying under our expense targets. It is not small consolation, it isn't consolation at all.
By the same token, hitting the current revenue target by emptying the next quarter or heavy discounts isn't a victory. Weakening the future or customer price expectations will cost the company and quickly. To hit a revenue target while greatly exceeding expenses has its clear drawbacks as well.
The net of all of this is today's results don't stand alone. They must represent current achievement but also a clear path to future results. In a start up, where the future holds greater prospects of the company's potential --- today's results are more about the future than the present. Everything done today is building a better tomorrow. If exceeding revenue builds a better tomorrow or exceeding expenses contributes more to a better eventual outcome, pursue the latter.
The differences between larger companies and smaller ones are many and varied. In a large company, the fundamental truths are reasonably well known. The established company knows things like who the customers are, where the customers are, how much they will pay for product, what they like about the product, what they dislike about the product, how much support they need with the product, etc.
In a start up company, not so much. Discovery is key. Communication is vital.
In a start up company, who the customers are and where they are and how much they will pay are all fundamental unanswered questions. As are what the customers like and dislike or will like and dislike about the product. More is simply unknown than known about the market and product. And not only are things unknown, there is usually a limited time to determine the answers.
All this mystery can be quite confusing to employees new to the start up environment. In a large company, there is less need to discover and frequently a great deal of time available to make these smaller discoveries. These formerly large company employees can enter a small business ill-prepared to succeed even though they are fully capable of doing so.
To change that, here are 5 things you should tell them.
Tell your new employees to engage with people who know or should know the answers to the questions above. Ask questions, don't be defensive, accept input, encourage open ended conversations, don't ask loaded questions or preempt responses. Discover as much as possible about customers: their perceptions, their reactions and their thoughts. Always, always, attempt to uncover knowledge, understanding and the truth. This is a voyage of discovery.
2. Communicate whatever you discover widely
Assure your employees that if they believe it to be well sourced, they should communicate whatever is discovered as broadly as possible. For the time being, limit analysis and conclusions. Let the truth stand alone. Find facts and share facts. Let the group form the big picture from everybody's facts. Don't spin or manipulate facts.
3. We are trying to effective, not efficient
Large companies wake up every morning and aim to drive cost out of known working processes through improved efficiency. Small companies should get up everyday to create working processes especially ones that find, sell or service customers. If small companies aren't effective, they don't ever get to try to be efficient. What will work/sell/grow is paramount. Doing it more efficiently comes after, and only after, one has a command of what is going to be most effective.
4. This is a race against time
Tell your employees, "we are in a hurry here", that the small company and they personally need to move quickly. Show me a small company that isn't using time to its advantage and I will show you failure in the making. Smaller size should enable nimble response and agility. Tell your new recruits that if things aren't happening fast enough, they should let you and everyone else know it.
5. There is not them it is just us
The inherent size of large companies and human nature usually gives rise to a "tribal mentality". This mentality conveys that one's first loyalty is to their department (accounting, sales, marketing) or "departmental tribe". And from this, these employees can bring a worldview that departments are tribal or should be -- pitted against one another is the natural state from their point of view. This tribal bias is unavoidable in many large companies. It is ridiculous for a small company. These first time employees need to understand that the tribe is the company, not its departments. In a small company, it is us and us alone. There is no "them" in a small company. And, accordingly, there is no one to blame for our failures. Marketing can't let us down or sales can't fail to deliver -- in a way that everyone in the company doesn't own. It is only us, they must understand, and we -collectively- will succeed or fail.
Many people have told me through the years that they've always wanted to work in a start up. A lot of them view it as much the same as larger company just without the larger company's bureaucracy. And yes, there is or should little bureaucracy, but the differences run deeper and employees that are new to it can benefit from a little explanation.
Chris Dixon, CEO of Hunch.com and noted angel investor, is outspoken and thoughtful about investing in start ups. I appreciate his perspective. Here are some recent interviews.
He talks about mis-alignment within the VC industry, the impact of people and the need for smaller VC funds.
The nominee list is large and there are a lot of deserving companies. Glad to see Grotech's portfolio well represented with nominations for BroadSoft, Clarabridge, Invincea, LivingSocial and Zenoss. It is always a fun evening and usually a sell out event.
Image via CrunchBase
Image via CrunchBase
Image via CrunchBase
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=1b2547f7-d242-4834-96b1-d91ce2261cd7)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=1e3af1b3-2064-426c-836a-bb6fce069354)
