Innovation Footprints

What if . . . ?

Organizational Behavior

#ChainReaction: Who Will Own The Age of Cryptocurrencies?

by

Brian + His Pencils

Notes:

  1. This blog post represents my opinions only.
  2. My first blog post in the #ChainReaction Series is #ChainReaction: Notes on Centralized, Decentralized, and Distributed Systems.

As I read The History of Money, I have started understanding the monetary and currency systems of the past. It is becoming clear to me that we are inevitably going to transition from the current age of paper money and into the age crypocurrencies. It’s just a matter of time. I also think, the move towards a decentralized cryptocurrency regime will give way to a more centralized system because the alternative would lead to socioeconomic chaos and disorder which would be too destabilizing to society. So fiat cryptocurrencies are the future. This still leaves plenty room for privately issued digital tokens that are used to fulfill various other functions in global trade and commerce, just not as a decentralized substitute for what we consider money today. The social engineering behind money is a centralized function. To get to the age of fiat cryptocurrencies we need cryptography that is so easy to use that “even a caveman” could use cryptocurrencies without even having to think about it. So regulations, social psychology, and technology have to move well beyond the current state of the art. I am thinking a lot about this because trade finance is a massive pain-point in global supply chain networks, and distributed ledger technology offers a promising way to attack some of the issues that cause trade finance to be a choke-point for global trade and commerce.

If the history of commercial banking belongs to the Italians and of central banking to the British, that of paper money issued by a government belongs indubitably to the Americans.

– John Kenneth Galbraith, From The History of Money

Who will own the age of cryptocurrencies?

#ChainReaction: Notes on Centralized, Decentralized, and Distributed Systems

by

Brian + His Pencils

This blog post is the first in a series of blog posts I will write as part of my effort to take an inventory of what I am learning about supply chains, digital tokens, and distributed ledger technologies.

I expect these blog posts to be frustrating for most people to read because I suspect they will come-across as disorganized, and confused. That is a reflection of the complexity of the topics I am trying to learn.

If you feel I have got something completely wrong, please do not hesitate to let me know. As Marcus Aurelius puts it;

If anyone can refute me—show me I’m making a mistake or looking at things from the wrong perspective—I’ll gladly change. It’s the truth I’m after, and the truth never harmed anyone.

First, some context; I am a seed-stage VC who has been studying supply chain for sometime. I believe that the greatest technological shifts of the next 3 or 4 decades will happen at the intersection of supply chain, industrial processes, data and analytical decision-making. I believe this shift will transform the way global supply chains function in many different industries.

If you follow technology and business news then you know what some of the trends are that will lead to the kind of shifts I believe we are about to witness. They are; increasing efficiencies in industrial automation, exponentially faster, more powerful, and cheaper computing technology, the proliferation of electronic sensors capable of capturing large amounts of data in almost any industrial or non-industrial setting one can imagine, software that is capable of analysing huge troves of data in order to aid people in making decisions about complex processes and systems, and ubiquitous computing. The list goes on. A more recent addition to any list of ground-breaking technological developments is Bitcoin and its related technologies, including the Bitcoin blockchain, as well as other cryptocurrencies and their accompanying blockchains or distributed ledger technologies.

There is currently a lot of ongoing enthusiasm, and perhaps, even hype, about Bitcoin, the Bitcoin blockchain, other cryptocurrencies or digital tokens, and their accompanying blockchains or distributed ledger technologies. Mainly, the excitement is around the belief that this group of technologies has the potential to “disrupt” any number of existing business or social structures. Personally, I agree with the following statement by Marco Iansiti and Karim R. Lakhani;

True blockchain-led transformation of business and government, we believe, is still many years away. That’s because blockchain is not a “disruptive” technology, which can attack a traditional business model with a lower-cost solution and overtake incumbent firms quickly. Blockchain is a foundational technology: It has the potential to create new foundations for our economic and social systems. But while the impact will be enormous, it will take decades for blockchain to seep into our economic and social infrastructure. The process of adoption will be gradual and steady, not sudden, as waves of technological and institutional change gain momentum. 1Iansiti, Marco, and Karim R. Lakhani. “The Truth About Blockchain.” Harvard Business Review. February 17, 2017. Accessed February 04, 2018. https://hbr.org/2017/01/the-truth-about-blockchain.

If you agree with the preceding statement, then you should also agree that, perhaps, before one dives into the intricacies of digital tokens and distributed ledger technologies it is useful to study centralized and decentralized systems in a broad, general sense. Therefore, though I will ultimately migrate to discussing centralized systems, decentralized systems, and distributed systems in relation to information technology systems, at the outset I am thinking more broadly in terms of social structures that exist in economic, political, and cultural organizations.

At the end of this process, I hope to have developed a good frame of reference for understanding why and how digital tokens and distributed ledger technologies will combine with other prevailing advancements in technology to cause the transformation in global supply chains that I believe is upon us. I hope this helps me see what is coming next – in a manner of speaking, and that the knowledge I will develop in the process helps me make better investment decisions.

If you have read any articles that discuss Bitcoin and its accompanying technologies, then you will recognize the recurring themes of centralization versus decentralization. So perhaps the place to start is in understanding when centralized structures should be desired and maintained versus when decentralized structures should be desired and maintained.

The following discussion is motivated by, and borrows heavily from, “Centralization and Decentralization: The Compunications Connection” by Stephen H. Lawrence. 2Lawrence, Stephen H. “Centralization and Decentralization: The Compunications Connection.” Accessed February 4, 2018. http://www.pirp.harvard.edu/pubs_pdf/lawrenc/lawrenc-i83-2.pdf. I am basically paraphrasing pages 6 – 26. In that paper there’s a quote from “The Computerization of Society”, a report prepared for the French Government by Simon Nora and Alain Minc;

It allows the decentralization or even the autonomy of basic units. Better still, it facilitates this decentralization by providing peripheral or isolated units with data from which heretofore only huge, centralized entities could benefit. Its task is to simplify administrative structures by increasing their effectiveness and improving their relations with those under their jurisdiction. It also allows the local municipalities more freedom. It reinforces the competitiveness of the small and mid- size business vis-a-vis the large enterprises.

Centralized Systems

A centralized system is a system in which a master-node makes decisions or performs systemwide functions on behalf of all the other nodes within the system – subordinate-nodes. Subordinate-nodes only follow instructions issued by the master-node. It should be obvious that centralized systems depend on a reciprocal relationship of trust between the master-node and every subordinate-node. Centralized systems are also described as command-and-control systems.

Advantages of Centralized Systems

  1. Returns to Scale: Centralized systems generally benefit from increasing returns to scale, meaning that the system generates outputs at a rate that is proportionately greater than the rate at which it consumes inputs. More specifically, the value of a centralized system’s outputs should be proportionately more than the value of the inputs consumed by the system. This happens because resource-intensive decisions and functions can be performed by the master-node only, without burdening the entire system with performing those same functions. As a result, as the system grows, the per-capita system costs can decrease substantially. Increasing returns to scale are generally closely associated with increasing efficiency.
  2. Optimization: It is easier to optimize the outputs of a centralized system given a set of inputs because the effort that goes into optimizing the system’s output need only be expended by the master-node and not by every node within the system. As a result, in a centralized system optimization contributes to the system’s overall efficiency.
  3. Standardization or Uniformity: The hierarchical structure of centralized systems makes it easier to maintain standardization or uniformity within the system. Such standards are determined at the level of the master-node, and then they are implemented and enforced at each subordinate node according to rules established and maintained by the master-node. Standardization and uniformity ensures that the entire system operates as one unit, rather than as a collection of disparate, non-uniform, non-standardized entities. In certain instances, standardization and uniformity may be especially useful qualities if the system is to serve its intended purpose.
  4. Criticality or Importance: A centralized system is preferred when there is a disproportionately high cost associated with the commission of errors or mistakes at the level of a subordinate node. In other words, centralized systems are prefered when the weight of responsibility for avoiding mistakes is high, and the costs of this responsibility are borne by the master-node.
  5. Coordination & Interdependence: Centralized systems perform better when one must account for economic externalities. An economic externality is a positive or negative consequence that is borne by an entity which did not participate in taking the actions that led to that outcome. In other words, it is easier for the master-node in a centralized system to also account for systemwide externalities before choosing an action that is implemented by all the subordinate-nodes in the system.

Disadvantages of Centralized Systems

  1. Information Overload: Centralized systems can experience breakdowns in systemwide performance if the master-node experiences an information overload.
  2. Compulsion: Centralized systems are associated with bureaucracy and lack of freedom – from the perspective of subordinate-nodes. For example, centralized systems do not freely admit new nodes to the system unless such nodes are first approved by the master-node.
  3. Lack of Flexibility: Centralized systems are characterized by an inability to respond with agility and flexibility in the face of changing conditions. This can make centralized systems more fragile in the face of threats to the entire system.

Decentralized Systems

By contrast, a decentralized system is one in which there is no single master-node issuing systemwide instructions that subordinate-nodes must follow. Rather, in a decentralized system every node is responsible for its own decision-making and, is capable of taking whatever actions its independent decisions require it to take relative to agreed systemwide goals. It should be obvious that the trust-relationship in a decentralized system differs from that in a centralized system in an important way.

A decentralized system is one which requires multiple parties to make their own independent decisions.

– Rohit Khare

Advantages of Decentralized Systems

  1. Impartial Standards: Decentralized systems are better suited when the emphasis is on effectiveness rather than efficiency. As a result decentralized systems tend to exhibit standards that stress the results that each node in the system produces and how those results contribute to overall system wide goals rather than how each node accomplishes the desired results.
  2. Initiative/Innovation: Since each node in a decentralized system is free to independently experiment with an eye towards maximizing system wide outputs, there tends to be a higher degree of innovation within decentralized systems. Once a superior method of accomplishing systemwide goals has been identified by one node within the system, other nodes will quickly copy that method if it increases their wellbeing. All else equal, this will lead to a higher level of system wide output.
  3. Responsiveness: In decentralized systems, individual nodes are more responsive to local conditions. This is because each node in the system is free to determine local priorities on an ad-hoc basis given information available to that node even if this information is not available to other nodes within the system. It is not difficult to see how this quality of decentralized systems contrasts with the standardization/uniformity quality that is present within centralized systems.
  4. Simplified Decision-making: Decentralized systems exhibit a simplified decision-making relative to centralized systems. This is because for a given situation, decisions can be made by only the relevant subset of nodes within the system while  non-relevant nodes conserve system resources. In such a situation, simplified and localized decision-making is an advantage of non-relevant nodes are not adversely affected by the decisions that have been made, and the resulting actions that have been taken, by relevant nodes.
  5. Minimize Information Resource Requirements: A decentralized system could be designed such that each node only processes information relevant for its role within the system. This way, systemwide resource requirements can be minimized since each node conserves resources by focusing only on information and activities relevant to its specific functions and does not concern itself with matters outside that sphere of relevance.

Disadvantages of Decentralized Systems

  1. Duplication of Effort: Decentralized systems can be designed such that each node within the system attempts to solve similar problems as other nodes in the same system – leading to duplicated effort. It is easy to see how this can lead to more waste than one would observe in a similar, but centralized system.
  2. Suboptimization: In decentralized systems, a single node or a subgroup of nodes, might decide to pursue activities that increase their own well being at the expense of the well being of the entire system. Trade-offs have to be made within a decentralised system to ensure that suboptimization is minimized by keeping incentives between all the nodes within the system aligned with one other, and with the entire system as a whole.
  3. Less Amenable to Standardized Change: Since each node is responsible for making its own decisions and taking actions independent of a master node, standardization takes a much longer time to diffuse through, and become adopted by the nodes within a decentralized system. As a result decentralized systems characterised by a lack of uniformity, whereas centralized systems are characterized by systemwide uniformity.

In a quest to find examples of decentralization in action within organizations that I am somewhat familiar with, I went looking for a book that discusses the topic. I found that in The Starfish And The Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations, a book by Ori Brafman and Rod A. Beckstrom, where they  introduce us to the major principles of decentralization; 3Brafman, Ori, and Rod A. Beckstrom. The starfish and the spider: the unstoppable power of leaderless organizations. Portfolio, 2006.

  • When attacked, a decentralized organization tends to become even more open and decentralized.
  • It is easy to mistake a decentralized organization for a centralized organization because we are far more accustomed to centralized organizations. It is also easy to vastly underestimate the power of decentralized organizations.
  • A decentralized system does not have central intelligence; the intelligence is spread throughout the system. As a result the best information and knowledge is located at the edges of the organization, close to where things are actually happening.
  • Decentralized, open systems can easily mutate.
  • Decentralized organizations can seemingly appear out of nowhere because they can mutate so quickly, and because they are easily overlooked at the outset.
  • As decentralization takes hold within an industry, overall profits decrease.
  • The power of decentralization comes from the phenomenon that when people are put into a decentralized system they automatically want to contribute, and their contributions are usually remarkably of a high quality relative to what one might find in a centralized system.

So far I have not said much about distributed systems. Think of a distributed system as a hybrid between a fully centralized system and a fully decentralized system. Businesses that blend the best of both types of organizational architecture in their business model are not that uncommon, and when they do so successfully the results can be overwhelmingly successful . . . But, we can discuss that another time.

In my next post, I will more directly delve into cryptocurrencies and distributed ledger technologies. Till then, you may delve further into this topic by reading Chris Dixon’s “Why Decentralization Matters“.

References   [ + ]

1. ↩ Iansiti, Marco, and Karim R. Lakhani. “The Truth About Blockchain.” Harvard Business Review. February 17, 2017. Accessed February 04, 2018. https://hbr.org/2017/01/the-truth-about-blockchain.
2. ↩ Lawrence, Stephen H. “Centralization and Decentralization: The Compunications Connection.” Accessed February 4, 2018. http://www.pirp.harvard.edu/pubs_pdf/lawrenc/lawrenc-i83-2.pdf. I am basically paraphrasing pages 6 – 26.
3. ↩ Brafman, Ori, and Rod A. Beckstrom. The starfish and the spider: the unstoppable power of leaderless organizations. Portfolio, 2006.

Update #01: White Paper | Towards A Supply Chain Operating System

by

 

This update identifies areas of supply chain technology that will be sufficiently well served by existing relational database management systems, and enterprise resource planning systems. It also outlines areas of supply chain that distributed databases or ledgers are more suited for.

Lastly, to avoid confusion Nahum Goldmann’s contact information is provided at the end. I have been helping him think about this, but as I explained in the original post I am not personally an investor in DLTArray, nor is KEC Ventures an investor in DLTArray.

The update is based on feedback received from people who read the earlier version of the white paper.

Link to updated white paper: DLTSupplyChainPlatformWhitePaper20171017

This is an update to: White Paper | Towards A Supply Chain Operating System. That post has more background related to this.

Link to Nahum Goldmann bio: NGbio

Update #1: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 15:40 EST.

  • Rearrange links to reduce confusion about what people should read first, etc.

 

 

White Paper | Towards A Supply Chain Operating System

by

Note: This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of KEC Ventures, or of other members of the KEC Ventures team.

Supplying the world with nearly everything is an enormous and complex job: there are things to discuss. 

– Rose George (2013-08-13). Ninety Percent of Everything: Inside Shipping, the Invisible Industry That Puts Clothes on Your Back, Gas in Your Car, and Food on Your Plate (p. 142). Henry Holt and Co.. Kindle Edition.

In December 2014, I started monitoring a startup that I hoped KEC Ventures would invest in later, when they raise a round of financing. It was building and marketing compliance software for the freight trucking industry. I got to work learning about the trucking market. Ultimately, we failed to close that investment – despite our best efforts and the eagerness of our team to lead the round about a year after I first began to track their progress. I still feel let down by that founder . . . But, that’s a story for another time.

What I had learned about the trucking industry led me to ask myself; “If this is what’s happening in trucking, I wonder what the shipping industry is like?”

Some of what I have learned is chronicled here;

  1. Industry Study: Freight Trucking (#Startups)
  2. Updates – Industry Study: Freight Trucking (#Startups)
  3. Industry Study: Ocean Freight Shipping (#Startups)
  4. Updates – Industry Study: Ocean Freight Shipping (#Startups)

After I published the 4th article on that list, I got an email from a gentleman named Nahum Goldmann. I was intrigued by his email because even before I read his bio, I could tell that he knew A LOT about the topics I had been exploring – all the activities that have to be undertaken to get stuff from a supplier to the ultimate customer – supply chain.

So what exactly is supply chain? I will delve into that in another post more fully, but before then, perhaps this will help. A Supply Chain is;

A network of connected and interdependent organisations mutually and co-operatively working together to control, manage and improve the flow of materials and information from suppliers to end users.

– Martin Christopher, Logistics & Supply Chain Management: Creating Value-Adding Networks, 4th ed, Pearson Education Limited 2011, page 4.

Supply chain comprises;

  • Supply Chain Management (SCM),
  • Supply Chain Finance (SCF),
  • Supply Chain Logistics (SCL), and some people include
  • Supply Chain Execution (SCE).

The world is a supply chain.

I spoke with Nahum via skype on July 14, 2017. During the call we discussed a number of topics, among which was an observation I made in my update on the shipping industry; “One product that it appears the industry would gravitate towards is a system of record that connects all participants in the supply-chain, from end-to-end. This would be a platform into which various shipping industry data could be input, and other data can be obtained as outputs . . . Probably most input data would come from other platforms and data repositories, while output data would be fed to different counterparties based on their access rights and information requirements. It seems to me to be a problem suited for a cryptographically-secure, lightweight, multi-tenant, cloud-based ledger or database of some sort that can also provide anonymity for market participants who wish to maintain some level of secrecy from other counterparties with whom they interact through the platform. One can imagine that governments around the world, for example, would want special access rights in order to keep tabs on the movement of goods and people from one place to another.”

As luck would have it . . . I was describing an idea Nahum and other people with whom he has been collaborating have been working on.

Since then, I have helped him to distill their work into a white paper which you can read below. Also, there’s a link to Nahum’s bio.

A few days ago, on August 23 to be precise, I decided that I ought to start attending the supply chain meetup in New York City. To my utter shock, there was none. So I am fixing that. I have launched The New York Supply Chain Meetup (TNYSCM). Within 3 days, we had grown to 55 nodes. 1A member of TNYSCM is called a “node.” My vision is that TNYSCM will become a multidisciplinary community of practice that brings together the wide array of people and disciplines whose full participation it will take to build the global supply chain networks of the 21st century.

By Nahum’s estimates supply chain inefficiencies create a 15% – 20% drag on global GDP. The 2017 projection for global GDP is approximately $80 Trillion. This is a big problem. One of the things I will attempt to do in subsequent research is try to get gather more data on the economic and financial size of the problem.

But . . . Less I get distracted. Here’s the white paper. Also, here’s Nahum Goldmann’s bio. We want your input. My email is at the end of the whitepaper. Hopefully there will be more news to share soon.

For clarification; KEC Ventures is not yet an investor in Nahum’s startup – DLTArray. I am not a personal investor in DLTArray. My involvement is on a purely voluntary basis at this point and is based on my desire to see a large scale supply chain operating system that tightly integrates all the core components that make supply chain networks function come into existence. However, KEC Ventures is an investor in Gem, which is building an enterprise blockchain operating system, with supply chain applications.

Update #1: Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 06:38 EST.

  • Disclose investment relationships involving KEC Ventures, Gem, DLTArray.
  • Clarify my personal involvement

References   [ + ]

1. ↩ A member of TNYSCM is called a “node.”

#NotesOnStrategy: Tips For Early Stage Startup Founders on How To Build A Culture of Accountability

by

Getting from Point A to Point Z: How?
Getting from Point A to Point Z: How?

CULTURE EATS STRATEGY FOR BREAKFAST, OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE FOR LUNCH, AND EVERYTHING ELSE FOR DINNER.

– Bill Aulet

During one of our weekly Monday morning team meetings we were talking about one of the startups in our portfolio . . . Things are going well; the product is pretty good and improving, sales are increasing, revenue is growing etc. It’s preparing to raise a big round within a few months.

There’s one problem . . . Accountability. Things are not happening when they should, people are not doing what they are supposed to be doing. It’s not yet fatal, but . . . A culture of accountability does not exist.

What should they do? The founder/CEO is proposing an approach to solving that problem that I believe is indirect and ineffective. I do not think it will work, and worse I think it will confuse his team and cause resentment and stress the team unnecessarily.

After the meeting, I posted a status update on Facebook asking my friends who are early stage startup founders if they have any nagging questions they’d like me to research and tackle in a blog post . . . A couple brought up team-building, accountability, and culture. One said:

I think organizational building/management/structure, HR, and team building get very short shrift in the startup dialogue, which is a shame. I understand why in the short run, but in the long run I suspect the costs can be high.

– Tayo Akinyemi

I had inadvertently found the topic for my next blog post.

I have some experience with situations in which accountability is a problem . . . Dating back to my days as a student at Connecticut College when I ran two businesses on campus to earn pocket money – one was a newspaper delivery business, the other was a deejay business; I respectively had to hold my best friend and my partner accountable, leading to me firing them for failing to keep up their end of our bargain; and again between 2008 and 2012 when I devoted substantial portions of my time to turning around two companies – in that case I did not have the authority to fire anyone, but I had the authority to hold people accountable and I played an important role in setting and getting buy-in for expectations, and then determining who should be held accountable meeting those expectations we had agreed on. I also had to help the senior leadership of the two companies learn how to build a culture of accountability. In addition I helped my mom and my dad run a number of small business while I was growing up, and since 1986 have discussed management and leadership issues my mom is grappling with as she has grown Summit School from 3 kids in our garage to several hundred pupils in Kano, Nigeria. Holding people accountable is hard, but necessary for organizations that want to grow and accomplish important things.

In this post I will first delve into a general discussion about management and leadership, then I will end with tips on how startup founders might foster accountability.

The intended audience for this article is early stage technology startup founders who have no training or prior experience in management or leadership, but who nonetheless need to come to grips with the basics in order to run their startups effectively. Consider this a launchpad from which one might do further reading and independent study.

If you have not already read my posts on team building you can get caught up on high-performing teams first here and then here, what religion teaches us about culture, and how management skill can enable startups to build an impregnable economic moat.

Fundamental Ideas About Leading and Managing Teams of People

One way to distinguish between leadership and management is to remember that; in the grand scheme of things leadership affects issues that are of strategic, relatively long-term importance to a startup, while management by comparison focuses on issues of tactical, and relatively short-term importance.

Things get confusing in startups because founders, who are really defacto leaders also have to fulfill responsibilities as managers till such a point that the organizational structure has evolved and the distinction is clear.

But what does this mean? Concretely? It means that a manager typically will be responsible for implementing a strategy and vision developed by the leader. Leaders focus primarily on creating a vision, developing a strategy to actualize the vision, and nurturing culture. Managers draw up detailed plans, discuss the plans with the leaders to get buy-in and approval, then they execute and implement those plans with the help of people on the teams that they manage.

Every leader is also a manager, but not every manager is a leader.

What is leadership? The definition of leadership that I find most compelling and applicable to early stage technology startups is based on this quote from John Quincy Adams:

If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.

To be a little more specific Kevin Kruse and Dr. Travis Bradberry define leadership as ” . . .  a process of social influence which maximizes the efforts of others toward the achievement of a greater good.”[3. What Makes A Leader? by Dr. Travis Bradberry on LinkedIn. Accessed on Jul 2, 2016.]

In order to become an effective leader one must understand the difference between a leadership model, a leadership philosophy, and a leadership style.

A leadership model is a practical framework that helps a startup founder develop into a competent and effective leader. A leadership model answers the “What?” question.

A leadership philosophy is a values-centric framework about how a startup founder should behave, and the sources from which the founder can derive power as a leader. A leadership philosophy answers the “Why?” question.

Lastly, a leadership style focuses on the reality of how a startup founder fulfills the responsibilities of a leader. A leadership style answers the “How?” question. This is an important issue, because effective leadership rests on authenticity . . . Obvious incongruence between a budding leader’s personality and choice of leadership style is one of the quickest paths to catastrophe.

In the context of an early stage startup, the leader’s tactical goals center on leading the team from one milestone to another. The leaders strategic goals center on guiding the startup through discovery, and ultimately to helping the team navigate its way to becoming a company.[4. A startup is a temporary organization built to search for the solution to a problem, and in the process to find a repeatable, scalable and profitable business model that is designed for incredibly fast growth. The defining characteristic of a startup is that of experimentation – in order to have a chance of survival every startup has to be good at performing the experiments that are necessary for the discovery of a successful business model. A company is what a startup becomes after it completes discovery.]

What is management? According to Mary Parker Follet; “Management is the art of getting things done through people.” Similarly, Harold Koontz says “Management is the art of getting things done through and with people in formally organized groups.” Lastly, Henri Fayol says “To manage is to forecast and to plan, to organize, to command, to coordinate and to control.”

Management is an ongoing process of producing results against pre-existing budgets, forecasts, targets, tactical and strategic initiatives through teams of people, and measuring performance with an eye towards continuous improvement.

I think it is worth reiterating that the function of leadership and management do not always have to be embodied in the same individual, though in the context of an early stage startup it is almost inevitable the the founders function as both leaders and managers.

The Psychological Contract, Theory X, Theory Y and Theory Z – Cliff Notes Version

The psychological contract is a set of tangible and intangible expectations, beliefs, feelings, and emotions that govern the relationship between an individual and that individual’s employer, manager, and leader. The most important aspects of the psychological contract are based on mutual trust and respect.

I like the Iceberg Model approach to thinking about psychological contracts because it depicts quite clearly my belief that the most salient aspects of effective leadership and management are intangible and hidden from view.[5. A diagram of the Psychological Contracts Iceberg Model is available here: http://www.businessballs.com/freepdfmaterials/psychological-contracts-iceberg-diagram.pdf]

I believe that there’s no repairing the relationship between a team member and that individual’s manager or leader if one party believes that the psychological contract has been violated.

Theory X is a management worldview that can be described as militaristic, or command-control-and-punish. Theory X managers subscribe to the belief that people hate work and cannot be relied upon to work responsibly towards meeting tactical goals. As such they need to be motivated through the threat of imminent punishment.

Theory Y is a management worldview that is the opposite of Theory X. Employees can be relied upon to apply self-direction, creativity, and a take-the-initiative attitude to solving problems faced by organizations and teams. There is no need for threats of punishment.

Theory X and Theory Y arise from Douglas McGregor’s work, and were popularised in his book The Human Side of Enterprise.

Theory Z arises from the work of William Ouchi, and combines MacGregor’s Theory Y with Japanese management concepts. It places an enormous amount of trust in the individual. It assumes and expects that individuals will demonstrate  commitment and loyalty to the team and the organization. Ouchi explained Theory Z in the book Theory Z: How American Management Can Meet The Japanese Challenge.

Source Unknown
Source Unknown

On Accountability

In Four Tips for Building Accountability, Rosabeth Moss Kanter says;

The tools of accountability — data, details, metrics, measurement, analyses, charts, tests, assessments, performance evaluations — are neutral. What matters is their interpretation, the manner of their use, and the culture that surrounds them. In declining organizations, use of these tools signals that people are watched too closely, not trusted, about to be punished. In successful organizations, they are vital tools that high achievers use to understand and improve performance regularly and rapidly.

Based on my experience, and Prof. Kanter’s article, here are a few tips for startup founders who are grappling with this issue for the first time.

Ask questions, ask more questions, and then ask even more questions. What seems blindingly obvious to the manager or the leader may not be so obvious to the individual team member responsible for executing the assignment and delivering results. The key to asking questions is to ask lots of them both before work begins, as well as while the work is in process, and after the project has either failed or succeeded. Before work starts leaders and managers need to be certain that their audience has internalized the message that the leader or manager wanted to convey. This ensures that there’s complete alignment of the leaders understanding of the “Why, What, When, Who, and How” they have tried to communicate and that this is understood by the team, as well as by individuals within the team.

Praise publicly, chastise and reprimand in private. While it is important to get work done in the near term. It is also crucial to build individual team members’ self-sufficiency and effectiveness over the medium- and long-run. It is very hard to do this if people feel humiliated in the presence of their peers, especially since the person experiencing the humiliation will often have a strong belief that they are being treated unjustly and unfairly. Note that this belief often bears no relation to “the facts” as the manager or leader might interpret them. For accountability to work people have to feel safe discussing difficult issues, and collaborating with one another to tackle and resolve issues that may feel difficult to discuss. However, if the focus is on learning how to become more successful as a team and as individuals on the team respectively, things become a lot easier. As Prof. Kanter says “The goal is to solve problems, not to hurl accusations or tear people down.”

No pencil, no pad? Poor performance is guaranteed. Take copious notes. In my experience things on the accountability train start falling apart when there’s a high degree of ambiguity. There’s an inexplicable tendency to assume “everyone knows what I mean” or “they will understand what I expect” without clear, direct, and succinct communication from the leader/manager, or worse “they will see that those doing the right thing are progressing and so they too will start doing the right thing.”

Leaders and managers who adopt that approach are failing the most basic and fundamental test of their ability to lead or manage a team. In my opinion it is a sign that they do not want to feel the responsibility of setting clear expectations and dealing with what that process entails. Perhaps they think of themselves as “friends” with the members of the team.

Be that as it may, the founder/leader/manager must communicate expectations, break big goals down into more specific and unambiguous tasks, and provide guidance about expected deadlines and desired results. Shying away from doing this is a red-flag. Inevitably, there will be problems down the line.

Taking notes is one way to ensure that nothing is miscommunicated, or that something that was communicated is not overlooked or even forgotten. I believe leaders and managers should take and share notes about their thinking related to the team’s work. I believe team members should take notes too . . . As time progresses, comparing notes, filling in gaps and making corrections is one way to avoid miscommunication and misunderstandings . . . An important step in the journey towards a culture of accountability.[6. I will not judge you if you use a pen instead, but I prefer pencils, mechanical pencils.]

Landmarks in A Culture of Accountability: Excruciating Clarity[7. Based on The Right Way To Hold People Accountable, Peter Bregman, Jan 11 2016. Accessed at Harvard Business Review on Jul 2 2016.]

In order to foster accountability the leader/manager must be clear, and must obtain confirmation that the audience “gets it.” The five necessary ingredients for building a culture of accountability are;

  • Clarity of expectations – does the team understand what the desired outcome should be?
  • Clarity of capabilities – does the team have the resources to meet the expectations it has created for itself?
  • Clarity of measurement – does the team understand how its performance will be judged?
  • Clarity of feedback – does the team understand that lines of communication should remain open in both directions in order to avoid surprises at the eleventh hour? Does the leader/manager understand that it is necessary to check in periodically and often about progress towards the goal?
  • Clarity of consequences – does the leader/manager have clarity around what must happen if the preceding 4 conditions have been met and yet the outcomes fall short of the expectations that the team has set for itself? The crux here is that the leader/manager has to be honest and sufficiently self-critical in order to ensure accountability traps do not keep arising “out of nowhere” . . . Under the worst circumstances some individuals have to be let go, but that is life.

Conclusion

Navigating the treacherous waters between launching a startup and becoming a company is hard work. That work is made exponentially more challenging by failures in leadership and management. It does not have to be that way. To make it easier it helps to build a culture of accountability.

Further Reading

Notes On Strategy; What Can We Learn From Religious Leaders About Building Early-Stage Startup Culture?

by

Alternative Working Title: Notes On Strategy; Engineering Your Early Stage Startup’s Culture For Longevity

The topic of culture has been in the news quite a bit since the New York Times published an investigative piece describing what it is like to work for Amazon. While culture is something I think about all the time, that article got me thinking about religion and culture . . . and how that relates to the early stage startups in which we invest.

In this post I plan to:

  1. Examine what we mean when we say “culture” and tie that to the work that startup founding teams do during business model search and discovery.
  2. Examine the structural characteristics of religious communities; How do they maintain a sense of purpose, direction, and elicit devotion and commitment from members of the community?
  3. Provide some pointers about how first-time startup founders might get things off on the right footing as far as culture is concerned by making certain deliberate choices early in the lifecycle of their startup.

I am thinking specifically of startups raising their first institutional round from seed stage venture capitalists, or perhaps a Series A round of financing. These teams are usually small, often fewer than 10 people.

To get things started; What is Culture?

Culture is the learned and shared behavior of a community of people which distinguishes that community from other communities. 1J. Useem and R. Useem. (1963). Human Organizations, 22(3). Page 169. See: The Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA) “What is Culture?” http://www.carla.umn.edu/culture/definitions.html. Accessed Aug 29, 2015.

Some of the things that distinguish a culture: 2Adapted from: Richard-Hooker.com; Clifford Geertz, Emphasizing Interpretation

  1. It embodies a way of life, an approach to thinking, feeling, and believing about the world.
  2. It endows the members of the cultural community with a social legacy from prior members of the same community.
  3. It provides a framework that enables members of the community to think abstractly about how they should behave;
    1. It provides lessons about how members of the community should react towards recurring problems by pooling the collective wisdom of past and present members of the community.
    2. It provides a guide for community members when they need to interact with the external environment.
  4. It is the process by which the history of the community is created and brought into permanent existence.

In this analysis I am most interested in religion as a cultural system.

According to Clifford Geertz religion is: 3Clifford Geertz, Religion As A Cultural System. In: The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. Pp. 87 – 125. Fontana Press, 1993.

  1. A system of symbols which acts to
  2. Establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in people by
  3. Formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and
  4. Clothing these moods and motivations with such an aura of factuality that
  5. The moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.

It is not difficult to see that a religion is in fact a specific type of culture and further, that every cultures is a kind of religion. In the rest of this post I will use the term “religion” and “culture” interchangeably. I also assume that a symbol may be tangible or intangible.

The structural characteristics of a religion are: 4William E. Paden, Religious Worlds: The Comparative Study of Religion. 2nd edition. Pp. 51 – 161. Beacon Press, 1994.

  1. A religion inhabits a unique world: Religions create, structure and propose a universe that is unique to adherents of that religion such that members of the community can explain, make sense of, and differentiate what is within their world from what is outside their world. This helps establish lines of commonality as well as lines of difference, and helps confront change and challenges.
  2. A religion is grounded on certain myths: Every religion possesses sacred myths that tell a story about something that happened during the genesis of the religion and that continues to have great influence on contemporary realities experienced by adherents of the religion. Myths:
    1. Help devotees of a religion make sense of the past, the present, and the future.
    2. Are a powerful means of engendering a certain mood and attitude within the devotees of a religion.
    3. Focus our attention on that which is sacred and important within a religion.
  3. A religion possesses rituals: Rituals help to focus the devotees of a religion on specific concepts or ideas at a specific point in time, also rituals enable the adherents of a religion to express their beliefs about the world in the form of a tangible display that appeals to the senses through action.
  4. A religion possesses gods: In the context of religious worlds, gods represent instances of language and behavior that is held up by the religious community as exemplary, worthy of emulation, and possessing interpretive power in terms of how that community understands the world.
  5. A religion possesses systems of purity: These systems of purity help to differentiate what is acceptable from what is unacceptable, right behavior from wrong behavior. This is a system that enables members of the community deal with negativity within the community.

What role do symbols play within a culture?

  1. Anat Rafaeli and Monica Worline: Symbols in Organizational Culture – A symbol is a visible and physical manifestation of an organization. It is an indication of organizational life that derives its meaning from the social and cultural conventions and interactions among the people who belong to the cultural organization. Symbols can be experienced through the senses. Symbols play the following functions:
    1. They reflect organizational culture: Symbols communicate information about what we think we know about an organization. They act as a bridge between our emotional and cognitive responses towards an organization.
    2. They trigger internalized values and norms: Symbols serve as a cue to trigger certain expected, desired, and acceptable behaviors once a person enters the physical environment of an organization or whenever the person is acting explicitly as a representative of the organization to the outside world.
    3. They frame conversations about experience: Symbols act as a frame of reference for guiding the communication that takes place between members of the same organization, or between members of a specific organization with people who do not belong to that organization.
    4. They integrate organizational systems of meaning: Symbols integrate the culture, norms and values, and shared experiences of members of an organization into a coherent whole within which members of the organization experience the world.
  2. Sherry Ortner: On Key Symbols – A key symbol is an element of a culture that is crucial and distinctly unique to the organization of that culture. They perform the function of carrying and conveying cultural meaning to people within the culture as well as to people outside the cultural community. Key symbols might be identified when:
    1. Members of the cultural group discuss the symbol’s cultural significance,
    2. Members of the cultural group are positively or negatively aroused by the symbol, and none are indifferent towards it,
    3. The symbol appears in many different settings and contexts,
    4. There is much elaboration around the symbol, and
    5. The group imposes numerous restrictions around the symbol. For example, misuse of the symbol can incur severe sanctions.

There are two distinct categories of key symbols. Summarizing symbols express meaning in an emotionally powerful way that is of uniform significance for all members of a given culture. They are generally accorded sacred status. Elaborating symbols make it possible for members of the religion or community to communicate ideas and feelings with one another, and to translate such feelings and ideas into tangible action. Elaborating symbols are generally analytic in nature and rarely attain sacred status.

What does this mean in the context of building an early-stage startup?

  1. Communicate a clear world view internally and externally. One question I ask myself when I meet with a founder is this; Why is this specific person uniquely suited to solve this problem in this market and why do I believe this team will succeed in its effort to accomplish this incredibly difficult task?
  2. Preserve and embellish important stories, particularly those that reflect qualities and themes that the founder wants to become aspects of the startup’s long-term culture and identity. I listen for founders who express enthusiasm for the work that the other people on the team are doing. Team cohesiveness matters.
  3. Create and maintain rituals:  For example, does every team member understand what would get existing customers/users to become more engaged with the product, and reduce churn? Does every team member know what needs to happen for the startup to increase its growth enough to get to the next funding milestone? Does the founder have a firm grasp on the startups key performance indicators? Has the team chosen the right indicators to focus on at this stage?
  4. Focus on finding product/market fit: A startup that fails to find product/market fit is doomed. Are the founders experimenting enough to find an ideal early market for the product, or are they stuck in a cycle of dogma regarding an initial point of market entry? What indications are there to help me ascertain the quality of their decision-making processes?
  5. Create systems of accountability: At the very early stage of a startup’s life the individuals on the team have an enormous impact on the organizational culture that eventually evolves. What steps are the founders taking to ensure that the early team has the right mix of people?
  6. Create a sales and marketing plan: What steps is the startup taking to create strong bonds with its earliest customers/users? Is anything being done to create a brand? Are the choices that have been made so far cost-effective and appropriate for the startup’s stage of maturity and its funding status?

Closing Thoughts The job of an early-stage technology startup founder is basically akin to that of a religious evangelist. The founder must recruit believers. Early team members join the cause because they believe in the founder and in the vision that the founder wishes to bring into reality. Early customers become believers because they have a problem they believe the startup’s envisioned product can solve. Early investors join the cause because they believe in the founder and believe that the startup can create the future reality that it describes during investment pitches. Basically, at the outset . . . Building a startup is exactly the same as creating a new religion.

 

References   [ + ]

1. ↩ J. Useem and R. Useem. (1963). Human Organizations, 22(3). Page 169. See: The Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA) “What is Culture?” http://www.carla.umn.edu/culture/definitions.html. Accessed Aug 29, 2015.
2. ↩ Adapted from: Richard-Hooker.com; Clifford Geertz, Emphasizing Interpretation
3. ↩ Clifford Geertz, Religion As A Cultural System. In: The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. Pp. 87 – 125. Fontana Press, 1993.
4. ↩ William E. Paden, Religious Worlds: The Comparative Study of Religion. 2nd edition. Pp. 51 – 161. Beacon Press, 1994.