Rahul Garg’s Post

Peter Thiel on the difference between the best founders and “professional CEOs” In his book Zero To One, which is approaching its 10-year anniversary, Thiel wrote: “We need founders. If anything, we should be more tolerant of founders who seem strange or extreme. We need unusual individuals to lead companies beyond mere incrementalism.” And while he doesn’t believe there’s a simple magic formula for what a founder looks like, Thiel observes: “A lot of the great companies that have been built over the last two decades were founded by people where it was somehow deeply connected to their identity - their life’s project.” He contrasts this to Silicon Valley in the 1990s when lots of founders were replaced with professional CEOs. Thiel believes it made a big difference when it became more common for founders run the companies. He gives the example of a 22 year old Mark Zuckerberg turning down a billion dollar acquisition from Yahoo: “If you had a professional CEO, it would have just been: ‘I can’t believe they’re offering us a billion dollars. I’m going to try not to be too eager. We better take the money and run.’” Video Source: The Aspen Institute

🤔 to co-found or not to co-found: why does this topic polarize so much? It is one of the questions almost everybody in the industry seems to have a strong - and pretty binary - opinion on: single founders versus founding teams. How to be successful on the way towards #unicorn horizons? 👯 there is the #cofounding lobby on the one side: against all statistics they are sure - there needs to be a team. Single founders are doomed to misery and on their way straight to liquidation disaster. Some VCs even have it defined as an investment requirement to have at least 2 founders on board. Hopefully they can at least offer support as soon as first conflicts knock on the door. 🤺 on the other hand the #solopreneur lobby: it is true though - many statistics indeed point out that conflicts in founding teams belong to the top reasons for startup failures. And recently also big names in the industry such as Céline Flores Willers stated that if you would not dare to do it also alone - better don’t you do it at all. But why is this discussed as an either-or-question? We know that personality types differ and therefore the solution space should be more colourful than a one size fits all. Apart from the question what (and how complex) the founding/business matter is, let us start looking at different personalities: ⏭ 🥒 𝗦𝗼𝗹𝗼 𝗧𝘆𝗽𝗲: highly self-motivated, more risk taking, no struggle (but rather aim) to fully taking responsibility, in best case a subject matter expert with a hands-on mentally and ability to quickly dive into new topics ⏭ 🍒 𝗧𝗲𝗮𝗺 𝗧𝘆𝗽𝗲: strongly motivated by a companion and/or team, preference for shared responsibility, good communication and conflict management skills, high appreciation for idea exchange as base of decision making, lower risk taking mentality Basing a strong opinion only on one’s own clear positioning in one of the two groups does certainly not justify a generalist recommendation or even investment decision. Let’s be smarter here and praise what is best for individuals, by giving advice that puts people back in focus next to business context of the planned - or ongoing - operation.

PSA: People don’t talk about founder integrity enough. You need to know the moral compass of a leader before joining a company — it will matter more for your personal growth than you may realize. Hear me out… If you ask someone what went into their decision to join a startup, they usually say the potential for success of the business. What they don’t think about is this: Is there a risk that the success of the business does not translate to my personal success? People get screwed all the time in the startup world, and it’s actually way more likely to happen when the rocketship is taking off than when it’s crashing. Why do I think this? I don’t just think, I know, I’ve seen it happen to two close friends within the last month — they broke their backs working for a startup and it was *finally* working… and they got fired right before they hit their one-year cliff. The market determines the success of a business, but the moral compass of whoever is in control determines your success within that business. If you joined a company because you believed in the future success of the business, achieving that might be the exact thing that gets you let go. Here’s the math on why: Imagine you were brought in with a 1% equity stake, and then suddenly that company explodes, now that 1% is worth 10X or even 100X what it was initially… but it’s on a vesting schedule, which = you don’t actually own it until after 4 years and often own zero until you have been there for one year (hitting your “cliff”) The company has done so well that new hires for your role are taking on way less risk and would get only a 0.1% equity stake… so you took this risk and you might think it “paid off”… but actually the only thing keeping a founder from firing you and taking back your appreciated equity at that point is their moral compass. I bring this up because I think people are often oblivious to it, and it’s a harsh reality that does happen. And while we can’t stop bad founders from doing this, we can at least realize it can happen and all be more conscious of who we put our trust in. Please keep this in mind next time you’re interviewing with a startup — think about the business, but also the nature of the person you are putting in control of your own outcome.

Guiding Founders to Navigate Growth by Getting Out of Their Own Way Even the most astute investors grapple with how to catalyze change in founder-led companies, even when everyone - including the founders - stands to benefit financially and professionally from growing the company. The architects of thriving businesses, founders share the common thread of having built successful enterprises from the ground up—a feat often elusive for many who attempt it. These founder-led enterprises bear distinctive hallmarks, where founders wield significant influence over key business decisions, imprinting their personality on the organizational culture to a remarkable extent. Yet, a recent study in Scientific Reports (October 2023) about the impact of founder personalities on startup success has debunked the notion that founders possess uniform personality traits. Successful founders come in a diverse array of personalities, resulting in the rich tapestry of cultures within founder-led companies. There is no one trick pony for guiding founders through effective business transformation. The key lies in delving deep into understanding what drives each founder personally and professionally and helping them design change strategies they can live with and own.  It is crucial to: 1. Build a trusted relationship with the founder, grounded in appreciation for their successes and acceptance of their larger-than-life human foibles. 2. Treat organizational changes for the founder with the respect accorded to significant life changes, because their company is often a huge part of their identity and life. 3. Tailor change strategies that resonate with a founder's unique perspective, life experience, and personality. Regardless of whether an organization is led by its founder or seasoned professionals, it follows a common trajectory of development and maturity. Sustaining business and financial growth necessitates the evolution of the organizational system—from strategy and structure to roles, processes, metrics, rewards, and people practices. Founders play a pivotal role in either facilitating or impeding this necessary evolution. At a certain point in the company’s growth trajectory, the founder’s willingness to adjust their mindset and relinquish control significantly influences the organization's ability to adapt and thrive. Embracing positive change and getting out of the way become a strategic imperative for founders navigating the complex landscape of organizational scaling and growth.   #Leadership #OrganizationalChange #FounderSuccess #PrivateEquity #PrivateCapital

🚀 Hey LinkedIn fam! Let's talk about Clayton M. Christensen's game-changing ideas on how businesses can stay on top of their game in a fast-changing world! 💡 Here's the lowdown: Spot the Danger: Christensen warns us about the sneaky threat of disruptive innovation. It's when big companies get so good at what they do that they forget about the little guys. Spoiler: those little guys might just end up taking over the market! Get Creative with Structures: Want to avoid getting left behind? Christensen shows us how to shake up our organizational structures to encourage innovation. Listen to Your Customers: Forget fancy gadgets - focus on what your customers need. Christensen's all about solving real problems, not just making cool stuff. Money Matters: Sometimes, our financial systems hold us back from innovating. Christensen helps us figure out how to break free from those chains. New Business, New Model: To really shake things up, you might need to rethink your whole business model. Christensen shows us how it's done. Merge with Caution: Mergers and acquisitions can be make-or-break moments. Christensen gives us the lowdown on how to make them work. Stay Ahead of the Curve: Want to know where the money's gonna be? Christensen's got the scoop on predicting industry trends. 🌟 Oh, and don't forget about his personal advice in "How Will You Measure Your Life?" it's like a pep talk for finding balance in work and life. 💼 So, whether you're a bigwig CEO or a fresh-faced start-up founder, Christensen's got nuggets of wisdom that'll keep you ahead of the game. Let's embrace the change and keep those businesses booming! #DisruptiveInnovation #BusinessTips #GameChanger #ClaytonChristensen

Since I was young, I loved reading biographies, mostly historical because I was a history teacher-- Rockefeller, Washington, Lincoln. When I became an investor, I then read a lot of Founder stories. Jessica Livingston's Founders at Work was one of the first books I read on Founders. I then discovered David Senra's Founders Podcast and devoured them; I also enjoy his exuberance for understanding founders and what motivates them. Early stage investing is ethnographic in nature. We often invest before a product is launched. If it is, there is usually scant evidence of product-market fit. We are going mainly off the founder and the market opportunity. What I love most about the job of an early investor is to be that first believer and then to serve as a partner as they build their companies. I had an excuse to write down the qualities I look for in a founder when my son texted me a question-- what are the qualities of successful founders. What follows is a much expanded version of the text I returned to him. And thank you to Steve Blank, Steve Weinstein for all that you've taught me and so many founders via Lean Launchpad.

4 Things We Learned from Reid Hoffman; Co-Founder of LinkedIn and Partner at Greylock -- In the first season of "Letters to a Young Investor", Mario Gabriele interviews legendary investor Reid Hoffman in conversations focused on, you guessed it, investing. Here are the best parts... ♟ Build a Good "Theory of the Game": Before investing, understand the market's development and how a company fits or challenges this view. Reid's love for strategy games influences this approach. It emphasizes the importance of skill, and expects founders to have their theories relative to their businesses. ⚡Pay Attention to "Surge Moments": Distinguish between speculative bubbles and productive effervescence. Surge moments are periods when technology advances rapidly, which may not always yield immediate massive returns but are important for future developments. 📈 The Importance of "Re-Founders": While founders are crucial, the role of "re-founders" who transform and lead existing businesses to new heights is equally vital, with Satya Nadella at Microsoft as a prime example. 🔎 Venture Capital as "Predictive Anthropology": Investing is about predicting society's future needs and how startups today fit into that vision. #linkedin #founders #investing #vc

Why do some co-founders keep up with company growth while others fall behind? Is one person more intelligent than the other? More motivated? I have seen a pretty common pattern over the years: The founder that is the CEO gets a lot of input. Some wanted. Some not. Investors, board members, other CEOs, everyone has an opinion. It can be a distraction, but all this input helps CEOs grow. It helps them keep up with the growth of the business. Non-CEO founders don’t get the same level of input. This is why many of them fall behind. The solution? Get more input. All my CEOs have a CEO peer group. Find one for your functional area. Or create one. For more tips on how to lead your company to a massive exit, join the leading newsletter for startup CEOs https://lnkd.in/gWqQBd-n

What happens when companies stop focusing on Fast Growth and focus on Predictable Growth? TrueSpace’s research shows that they're less likely to fail. In the tech space, investors always push for tremendous growth, but the entreprenuer is the one with the most to lose. It's always a tremendous experience getting to speak to Charles Fred. Ask him about his unique research on companies in the middle tier.

“Stop posting on LinkedIn.” That was the advice I gave a venture-backed CEO last week. For the obvious reasons, let me explain. This first-time CEO runs a business doing millions in ARR in a large, dynamic emerging market with lots of competitive threats ranging from incumbents to other well-financed startups. His postings shared general leadership advice which were fine taken in isolation but they weren’t doing one thing. They weren’t pushing forward his company’s narrative. They were not talking about why his industry was ripe for disruption. Or his company’s philosophy regarding the evolution of the market. Or why they were the right choice in a sea of alternatives. He was not building his company in public. Nor sharing insights garnered from proprietary data from his platform. Nor educating through case studies. None of that. “If you’re going to post, post about those things,” I urged. He argued that his postings were going to show the type of leader he was and that that would end up attracting talent. In reality, the best attractor of talent is winning. If your venture-backed business has not achieved escape velocity and market leadership, you should spend 100% of your time on what directly achieves that outcome. ---------- ♻ Repost to share with your network ✅ Follow me for insights 🧠 No artificial ingredients #ceo #ceos #ceosuccess #ceoinsights