Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • So I'm going to talk about how to operate.

  • So I've watched some of the prior classes, and

  • I'm going to assume that you've already sort of

  • hired a bunch of horrendously resourceful people.

  • That you've built a product that at

  • least some people love.

  • And you're probably raised some capital.

  • And now you're trying to build a company.

  • So you're, you're enforging a product and

  • now you have to forge a company.

  • And it actually argue for

  • GM company is much more difficult than for

  • a GM product.

  • Basic reason is people are irrational.

  • So you probably all know this either your parents,

  • your significant other or your brother or sister, or

  • your teacher, somebody in your life is irrational.

  • Building a company is basically taking all

  • the irrational people you know, putting them in one

  • building and then living with them 12 hours a day at least.

  • So, it's very challenging.

  • Now, there's techniques for coping with that and

  • some people get good at it and small people don't but

  • that's where really what operating is about.

  • So basically what you're doing when you build a company is

  • you're building an engine.

  • And at first you have a drawing literally on a white

  • board, and you're architecting it, and it

  • looks very conceptually clean, and beautiful, and pretty.

  • But when you start actually translating to

  • practice actually it looks more like this, and

  • you're holding it together with duct tape.

  • And it takes a lot of heroic effort to people to

  • actually hold it together.

  • That's why people work 80, 100 hours a week,

  • is that heroic effort is actually necessary to keep

  • this thing together.

  • Because you don't actually yet have polished metal in place.

  • Eventually you

  • want to construct a high performance machine.

  • A machine that actually almost nobody really has to

  • worry about every hour.

  • Every minute and you know as we

  • used to joke about Ebay that if Martians took over Ebay it

  • would take like six months for the world to notice.

  • That's what eventually what you want to get to.

  • Or as Warren Buffet says, you know, build a company that

  • idiots could run because eventually they will.

  • So this is what you want basically a performance

  • machine that idiots can run.

  • Now, as a leader, what is your real job?

  • What's your role?

  • Strictly speaking there's only one book that's ever written

  • that actually explains how to do this, it's a little old.

  • It was written in 1992 by Andy Grove,

  • who's quite famous, quite successful, and

  • his definition of what your job is,

  • is to maximize the output of an organization,

  • your organization that you're responsible for, CEOs,

  • everything and a VP would be part of the organization.

  • And the organizations around you, so if you're VPE,

  • you're actually are responsible for

  • the performance of the product team too, or

  • the marketing team, because you have influence there.

  • So this is how measure people and you want to focus on

  • the output not the input the old adage about measuring,

  • not measuring motion and confusing that will progress,

  • you're measuring only progress.

  • And this is going to sound like a fancy and

  • glamorous thing to do.

  • Maybe people get excited about managing a whole

  • large organization, and being responsible for the output.

  • But in practice, what you're going to learn today hopefully

  • is that it's more about things like ordering smoothies,

  • teaching your receptionist how to answer the phone properly,

  • and serving as a $10 an hour task rabbit for

  • your employees.

  • So let's talk about that.

  • So at first when you

  • start a company everything's going to feel like a mess.

  • And it really should if you have too much process,

  • too much predictability you're probably not

  • innovating fast enough and creatively enough.

  • So it should feel like everyday there's a new

  • problem and what you're doing is fundamentally triaging.

  • So some things will look like a problem, and

  • they're actually a colds, they're just going to go away.

  • So, somebody's annoyed about this or that.

  • That may be a cold, and you shouldn't stress about it,

  • and you certainly shouldn't allocated a lot of

  • your time to it.

  • And some things are going to present themselves as colds.

  • But just like in the emergency room, if they're not

  • diagnosed properly they actually can become fatal.

  • So what I'm going to try to do is help give you

  • frameworks for thinking about which things are colds and

  • which things are potentially fatal.

  • So one of the most important things I've learned at

  • Square is actually a concept of editing.

  • And this is the,

  • I think the best metaphor I've ever seen in like 14 years of

  • running stuff of how to think about your job.

  • It's natural, it's a natural metaphor so

  • it's easy to take with you every day.

  • And actually it's easy to transmit to each of

  • your employees so that they can figure out

  • wether they are editing or writing.

  • It's a natural construct.

  • You generally know when someone asks you to

  • do something.

  • Am I more writing or am I more editing?

  • So an editor, as, is the best metaphor for your job,

  • and we're talking about the specific things you're doing

  • in editing.

  • The first thing an editor does, and

  • you probably all had this experience in school,

  • is you submit a paper to a TA, a draft to your friend.

  • And the first thing an editor does is

  • they take out a red pen or nowadays, you know online, and

  • they start striking things.

  • Basically eliminating things.

  • The most important task as an editor is to simplify,

  • simplify, and that usually means omitting things.

  • So that's your job too, is to clarify and simplify for

  • everybody on your team,

  • the more you simplify the better people will perform.

  • People cannot understand and

  • keep track of a complicated set of initiatives.

  • So you've got to distill it down to one, two, or

  • three things.

  • And use a framework that they can repeat,

  • they can repeat without thinking about,

  • they can repeat to their friends,

  • they can repeat at night.

  • Don't except the excuse of complexity.

  • A lot of people will tell you that well this is

  • too challenging, this is too complicated.

  • Well yeah, I know other people simplify but

  • that's not for me.

  • This is a complicated business.

  • They're wrong.

  • You can change the world, in 140 characters.

  • You can build the most important companies in

  • history in a very simple to describe concept.

  • You can market products in less than about 50 characters.

  • There's no reason why you

  • can't build your company the same way.

  • So force yourself to simplify every initiative,

  • every product, every marketing, every,

  • everything you do.

  • And, and basically take out that red,

  • and start eliminating stuff.

  • Second thing is, what editors do,

  • is they ask you clarifying questions.

  • So when you present a paper to somebody,

  • what do they usually do?

  • Do they, find some ambiguity somewhere and

  • they say, well did you really mean this, do you mean that,

  • do you have an example of this?

  • That's what your job is, so you're in a meeting and

  • people are going to look to you, and the real thing you

  • do is you actually ask a lot of questions.

  • And they can be simple, basic questions like,

  • should we try this seven days a week or six days?

  • They can be fundamental questions like,

  • where's our competitive advantage here?

  • We try to this actually as investors too

  • some investors will ask you a billion questions about

  • a billion things and they'll have you do diligence forever.

  • We try to narrow it down to what are one, two or

  • three four things that actually matter for

  • this company and only focus on those things.

  • So it allows us to be more decisive, and

  • we can make decisions rapidly.

  • It allows us not to distract you from your day job,

  • which is actually building a company.

  • And yet, I think we still get to the higher fide,

  • highest fidelity answers.

  • We don't have all these extra,

  • extraneous details, pieces of data.

  • Now it's hard, it's something you have to practice, but

  • when you're good at it, every step you eliminate, Andy Grove

  • estimated that you can improve performance by 30-50%.

  • The next thing you do is allocate resources.

  • So the editing construct,

  • this is what editors do all the time.

  • They take editors from the mid-East and

  • covering the mid-East and they move them to Silicon Valley,

  • because Silicon Valley is now, now more interesting.

  • Or they move them to a sports section because they want to

  • compete on the basis of sports with other journals and

  • other publications.

  • So that can be top down where I take a bunch of,

  • allocate resources and

  • people would say, we're now going over here,

  • we're going to compete on this basis.

  • And then next month, next quarter, next year,

  • I'm like well,

  • that Middle East coverage is getting boring and bland.

  • We don't want to do that anymore.

  • Let's go chase after something else, or it can be bottom up,

  • just like journalists mostly come up

  • with their own stories, the people who work with you.

  • Generally should be coming up with their own initiatives.

  • So, a reporter will generally, who covers Google, come up

  • with the interesting stories that they're hearing in

  • aether, and propose one or two to their editor for approval.

  • But it's not like the editor is saying, go cover Google,

  • and this is the angle I want.

  • Once in a while they do that, but

  • that's not the date, the day, the meat and

  • potatoes of what a journalist does every day.

  • Your goal over time is to actually use less red

  • ink every day.

  • So one way of measuring how well you're doing in

  • communicating to

  • your colleagues about what's important and what's not.

  • What, why some things are important,

  • some things are not,

  • is how much red ink you're pulling out every day.

  • It's okay if you have a bad day and

  • the red inks all over the place.

  • But it's not okay if the red ink next month is

  • more is more than it was last month,

  • if the next quarter is more than this.

  • So measure yourself of how much red ink you're creating.

  • The other thing that's very important that actually isn't

  • as intuitive to a lot of people is,

  • the job of an editor is to ensure consistent voice.

  • So if any of you read The Economist,

  • you can tell that there's one consistent voice.

  • You can pick up any article, any post in The Economist, and

  • if feels like it's written by the same person.

  • Ideally your company should feel like,

  • on your website and your PR release,

  • on your packaging, if it's a physical product.

  • Anywhere on your recruiting pages to feel like it

  • was written by one person.

  • That's extremely difficult to do,

  • and first you're going to be tempted to do

  • that yourself which is okay for a founder to that.

  • Him or herself initially.

  • Over time you do not want to be doing all of

  • the consistent voice editing by yourself.

  • You are a trained people so

  • that they can recognize the differences in voice.

  • So if you see this website page it

  • looks very different than the recruiting page.

  • You start by asking questions why is that?

  • Is the reporting messed up?

  • Is the leaders over here not

  • really understanding the voice of the company?

  • So, you've gotta, you have to fix that over time.

  • But you want to start with the objective of

  • everything should feel exactly the same.

  • It's quite, quite difficult in practice.

  • Almost every company has at least one piece

  • of the organization that isn't exactly on the same voice.

  • At Apple, which is notorious, you know,

  • even under Steve's regime, which was notorious for

  • getting this right.

  • If you asked someone who worked at Apple, talk,

  • asked them about the internal tools about recruiting.

  • Do they really feel like Apple products?

  • All of them will tell you no.

  • So you're never 100%,

  • but you definitely want to get a close to that as you can.

  • Next complicated topic is delegating.

  • So just like the other thing I

  • like about the metaphor of editing is.

  • Writers do most of the work in the world.

  • Editors are not actually writing most of the content in

  • any publication.

  • So that's actually true of your company.

  • You are not going to do most of the work.

  • You shouldn't be doing most of the work.

  • And the way you get out of doing most of

  • the work is you actually delegate.

  • Now the problem with delegating is,

  • that actually you're responsible for everything.

  • So as CEO founder there is no excuse,

  • there's no like that's that department over there,

  • this person over there screwed up,

  • you're always responsible for

  • every single thing, especially when things go wrong.

  • So how do you both delegate but not abdicate.

  • It's pretty tricky challenge and

  • both are sins, like if you over delegate.

  • Or, and you advocate, or

  • you micro-manage, those are both sins.

  • So I'm going to give you a couple techniques for

  • solving this.

  • First, this actually comes from high output management

  • and to grow, is what's known as task-relevant maturity.

  • It's kind of a fancy phrase for

  • basically, has this person ever done this before?

  • It's really simple.

  • And how mature is this person in doing something/ And

  • the more they've done the exact same task before.

  • The more sort of rope you're going to give them.

  • And the less, the more they're trying something new,

  • the more you're going to actually instruct them and

  • consistently, constantly regularly monitor.

  • So that's kind of a basic concept but

  • it's worth keeping in the back of your brain.

  • The interesting implication, and

  • this is pretty radical, is that any executive,

  • any CEO should not have one management style.

  • Your management style actually needs to be dictated by

  • your employee.

  • So with one particular person, you may be very much a micro

  • manager because they're quite low on this scale.

  • And with another person you may be delegating a lot

  • because they're actually quite mature on this scale.

  • So it's actually a good thing if you do reference checks on

  • somebody, and half the people you call say they're a micro

  • manager, and the other half say they actually give me

  • a lot of responsibility, that's actually not a,

  • that's a, that's a feature not a bug.

  • I didn't understand that at first, at all, like I used to

  • be befuddled when people would dereference checks on me, and

  • come back with this like, complicated mosaic.

  • And that basically, finally figured out that maybe I

  • was actually doing my job correctly, and so

  • then of course,

  • thought other people that this was the way to do it.

  • A more nuanced answer though, that I've sort of came up

  • with, is how, how do you make decisions?

  • And delegating versus doing it yourself.

  • You don't want to do it yourself too often.

  • So what I've basically borrowed from Peter,

  • this is my first two by two matrix ever in my life but he

  • taught me something at least is you basically sort you,

  • your own level conviction about a decision on a grid you

  • know, extremely high, extremely low.

  • There's times when you know something's a mistake, and

  • there's times where you wouldn't do it that way, but

  • you have no real idea what the, whether,

  • whether it's the right or wrong answer.

  • And then there's a consequence to mention, there are things

  • that if you make the wrong decision are actually

  • catastrophic to your company and you will fail.

  • There are things that are pretty low impact,

  • that really at the end of the day aren't going to

  • make a big difference, at least initially.

  • So what I basically believe is that where there's low

  • consequences, and

  • you have very a low confidence in your own opinion, you

  • should absolutely delegate, and delegate completely like

  • people make mistakes and learn.

  • On the other side obviously,

  • where the consequences are extremely dramatic and

  • you have extremely high conviction that you're right,

  • you actually can't let your junior colleague,

  • like, make a mistake.

  • You're ultimately responsible for that mistake, and if

  • it's really important you just can't allow that to happen.

  • Now the best way to do

  • that is to actually explain your thinking, the why.

  • It's easy to shortcut when you get busy,

  • explaining why's of the world, but it's very important to try

  • when I was at LinkedIn I had a colleague who's quite,

  • quite talented.

  • Both occasion we get annoyed if, if I didn't exactly agree

  • with his opinion on something, and so I'd

  • spent a lot of time trying to persuade him why I was making

  • a decision a certain way.

  • And his wildcard, the card he would ultimately call out if I

  • didn't quite persuade him,

  • he's like, okay you're the boss, and that meant to

  • me like I was burning a lot of social capital.

  • Every time he said that, I knew I was like

  • really creating a thin line, and that ultimately that was

  • going to backfire if I did that too often, so

  • you want to track the times that you're doing that.

  • Example of this is Squares,

  • one of my favorite people in the world,

  • and my second hire, first marketing hire had this

  • program he wanted to run called Inner-Square,

  • which basically allowed people to give out square merchants

  • to get out ten other squares to their call.

  • Just imagine a food truck outside,

  • put like ten squares on the counter and

  • people could just grab them, and Kyle had this great idea,

  • this would be this awesome marketing program.

  • Squares would spread squares to other people and, you know,

  • to some extent it was on brand, so

  • it didn't have catastrophic consequences.

  • Each of these ten squares didn't cost that much money,

  • so financially we could afford to do it.

  • But, at that time my ten years of experience said

  • there's just no way this is going to work in

  • a meaningful enough scale, to move our metrics enough and

  • I actually would prefer we don't, not do this.

  • But Kyle, so

  • excited about this that I decided to just let him do it.

  • He learned that actually when you

  • measure this thing it's not massive.

  • It doesn't create a massive value for the company.

  • It did require a fair amount of operational complexity to

  • ship all these squares to people and

  • figure out how to get them to be squares etc.

  • But it allowed him to be excited about his job and

  • to learn how to filter future ideas, so it's totally worth

  • letting him make the quote unquote mistake.

  • The next and most possibly most important thing you do

  • is actually edit the team.

  • So these are the people that you work with, and

  • nobody's going to have a perfect team and

  • you're certainly not going to start that way.

  • So would, I'm going to try to do is

  • maximize the probability for success in editing the team.

  • So I like this idea of Barrels and Ammunition.

  • Most companies once they get into hiring mode as

  • Sam pointed out you should defer that for awhile, but

  • once you do they just hire a lot of people.

  • And they're like, you expect, and

  • you expected as you add people your throughput,

  • your horsepower, or

  • your velocity of shipping things is going to increase.

  • It turns out it doesn't work that way.

  • Usually when you hire more engineers you

  • actually don't get that much more done,

  • you actually sometimes get less done.

  • You hire more designers,

  • you definitely don't get more done,

  • you get less done per day we could talk about why.

  • But so the reason why is that most people,

  • most great people even, are actually ammunition.

  • But what you need in your company are barrels, and

  • you can only shoot through the number of

  • unique barrels you have.

  • So that's how the velocity of your company improves is by

  • adding barrels, and then you stock them with ammunition,

  • and then you can do a lot.

  • So if you go from a one barrel company,

  • which is mostly how you start.

  • To two barrel companies suddenly you get twice as many

  • things done per day, per week, per quarter, and if you go to

  • three barrels, great, if you go to four barrels, awesome.

  • Barrels are incredibly difficult to find,

  • but when you have them, like give them lots of equity,

  • promote them, take them to dinner every week because it,

  • it, they're virtually it like irreplaceable.

  • Because they're also very culturally specific.

  • So a barrel at one company may not be a barrel at

  • another company because one of the ways in the definition of

  • a barrel is they can take an idea from inception

  • all the way through shipping and bring people with them.

  • And that's a very culturally specific opportunity specific

  • skill set, rather.

  • So two questions probably are occurring to you,

  • is how do you figure out who's a barrel and who's not?

  • One is you start actually with a very small set of

  • responsibilities.

  • It can be fairly trivial.

  • It can be something like, I want to reward

  • the engineers that are in my office at 9 o'clock at

  • night every night with an ice cold fresh smoothie.

  • This is actually a real example.

  • I was frustrated our engineers were

  • working really hard at square.

  • And, you know,

  • maybe 20% to 30% would stay very late into evening, and

  • I wanted to serve, we were ready to serve them dinner but

  • I wanted to give them something cool to reward them,

  • and you could think about alcohol, but

  • that's a little complicated.

  • So smoothies were probably a little bit

  • better than the pizza, which drains you of energy.

  • But nobody could get smoothies in my office to show up at 9

  • o'clock sharp that were cold, that tasted good and delivered

  • in the right place that engineers would find them.

  • You'd think this is simple, but

  • in fact, it like, took months to get this right.

  • So then we had an in, we had an intern start, and

  • I think on his second day,

  • I was explaining this problem and

  • he, he said, well, I'll do it, and I was like looking at and

  • I'm like there's no way.

  • I've seen my office manager fail, my assistant fail,

  • all who are actually pretty good.

  • This just isn't going to happen, and then long and

  • behold that night they show up on time, cold, delivered to

  • the right place, and my first instinct was great not,

  • not, nothing about the smoothies.

  • But okay, now I can actually give you something more

  • important and inconsequential and complicated to do, and

  • that's what you actually want to do with every

  • single employee every single day is expand the scope of

  • their responsibilities until it breaks and it will break.

  • Everybody like, I couldn't run the world, like everybody has

  • like some level of complexity that they can handle, and

  • what you want to do is keep expanding it until you see

  • where it breaks and that's the role that they should stay in,

  • that level of sophistication.

  • But some people will surprise you,

  • there will be people who you don't expect without,

  • with different backgrounds, without a lot of experience

  • that just can handle enormously complicated tasks,

  • and so keep testing that and pushing the envelope.

  • The other signal to look for

  • is once you've hired someone is this,

  • with an open office just watch who goes up to other people's

  • desks, particularly people that they don't report to.

  • If people start going to your desk,

  • someone individual employee's desk and

  • they don't report to them.

  • It's a sign that they believe that,

  • that person can help them.

  • So if you see that consistently,

  • those are your barrels.

  • Just promote them,

  • give them more opportunity as fast as you can.

  • The other question everybody asks about people is,

  • when do you hire somebody above somebody?

  • And when do you sort of mentor somebody or

  • when do you need to replace somebody?

  • And the way, the way to think about this is

  • every company has its own growth rate and

  • every individual has its own growth rate.

  • So some companies that are very successful,

  • let's say LinkedIn.

  • LinkedIn was always a very linear company,

  • it never went like this.

  • So for example I joined LinkedIn 18 months after we

  • launched and we had only 1.5 million users which in

  • a social product is very small in number and

  • when I joined I was the 27th employee.

  • When I left two and

  • a half years later we only had 57 employees.

  • In contrast when I joined Square as a 20th employee,

  • two and a half years later, we had like 250,300 employees.

  • So each company has it's own velocity on this curve, and

  • if the company's going like this,

  • you can only keep people in the roles that their own

  • personal learning curve is going like this.

  • On the other hand, if the company's growing like this,

  • anybody whose learning curve is faster than that,

  • you can keep giving them the same role to do.

  • So always track like the individual slope of,

  • of an employee, and the company's growth rate.

  • Now you have your barrels identified, so

  • you're pick out the people that can really take an idea

  • that you have in the back of your head scope it out,

  • run with it, make it happen, ship it,

  • and it's perfect, where do you aim these barrels?

  • So I'm going to argue that you really need to spend a lot of

  • time focusing people.

  • This is something I've learned from Peter Thiel, actually.

  • He used to insist the PayPal, that every single person could

  • only do exactly one thing and we all rebelled.

  • Every single person in the company rebelled to this idea.

  • Because it's so unnatural, it's so different than every

  • other company where people want to do multiple things,

  • and especially as you get more senior you want to definitely

  • want to do multiple things, and you're, you're like,

  • you feel like insulting to be asked to do just one thing,

  • and Peter would enforce this pretty strictly.

  • He'd basically say I will not talk to you about anything

  • else except this one thing I've assigned to you.

  • I don't want to hear about how great you're doing over here.

  • Like just shut up, and peer would run away and

  • then focus until you conquer this one problem, and

  • the insight behind this is that most people will

  • solve problems that they understand how to solve.

  • Roughly speaking, they will solve B

  • plus problems instead of A plus problems.

  • A plus problems are high impact problems for

  • your company, but they're difficult.

  • You don't wake up in the morning with a solution, so

  • you tend to procrastinate them.

  • So imagine you wake up in the morning,

  • you create a list of things to do today.

  • There's usually the A plus 1 at the top of the list but

  • you never get around to it, and so

  • you solve the second and third, and over

  • an entire company of hundreds of people that just cascades.

  • So you have a company that's always solving B plus things.

  • Which does mean you grow and does mean you add value.

  • But you never really create that breakthrough idea because

  • no one is spending 100% of their time banging their head

  • against the wall every day until they solve it.

  • So I highly recommend some version of that.

  • You can be less stringent.

  • You can be like you can get.

  • Three things to work on, but there, I would still track at

  • least the concept of what would happen if you only gave

  • everybody one thing to prioritize.

  • Now, because you can't make decisions, you don't want be

  • making all these decisions yourself, you have to

  • create tools that enable people to make decisions.

  • At the same level ideally of fidelity that you would make

  • them yourself.

  • So how do you create scale and leverage?

  • First, thing I'd recommend is building a dashboard.

  • This is an old square dashboard.

  • It actually looks pretty presentable even today.

  • The construct of a dashboard, first of all,

  • should be drafted by a founder.

  • You need to basically simplify the value proposition in

  • the company's metrics for success on a whiteboard.

  • You can have other people build the dashboard,

  • I don't actually care about that, but

  • you need to draw it out.

  • Like what does business success look, look to us and

  • what are the key inputs to those, and then

  • have someone create something that is very intuitive for

  • every single person in

  • the company including customer support to use.

  • And then,

  • the key metric of whether you've succeeded is what

  • fraction of your employees use that dashboard every day.

  • If it's actually useful it should be close to 100%.

  • It's not going to be probably 100%,

  • but you want to measure that.

  • Just like you have quality scores for

  • all your other KPIs with users,

  • the dashboard needs to be as intuitive as it is

  • as your product is for users.

  • Other things, wait, hold on.

  • Yeah, let's go back, one second.

  • Another concept is transparency.

  • And people will often.

  • That's weird.

  • Okay.

  • Transparency, people talk a lot about.

  • It's kind of a goal that everybody ascribes to, but

  • when push comes to

  • shove very few people actually adhere to it.

  • So let me walk through a little bit of transparency and

  • different stages of transparency.

  • Metrics are the first step.

  • So everybody in your company absolutely should have

  • access to every single thing that's going on.

  • Other things that I like to do are take your board decks, and

  • as you get more formal, the board decks will get

  • more complicated, and actually review every single slide with

  • every single employee after the board meeting.

  • You can strip out the compensation information if

  • you really want to.

  • But every other slide you should go

  • through with the entire employee base and explain it.

  • And if you can remember some of the feedback you

  • got from your board that's really cool to pass on.

  • Another thing we did at Square,

  • as your company skills,

  • everybody's not going to get invited to every meeting, but

  • they want to go to every meeting.

  • The way you scale that is you create notes for

  • every meeting and you send it to the entire company.

  • So we created a notes at alias for

  • every single meeting involving more than two people,

  • someone would write notes and send it to the entire company.

  • So people felt like as the company added employees,

  • they could continue to monitor and

  • track what was interesting, what was going on,

  • and they never felt excluded, hopefully.

  • The other thing is

  • like even the details around conference rooms.

  • Every conference room at Square has glass walls,

  • because as soon as you have regular walls,

  • people wonder what's going on.

  • It's amazing, like if they can see who's actually in

  • the meeting, and who's meeting with who and when.

  • They don't worry nearly as much as

  • what's going on behind those closed doors.

  • Stripe, you may have seen a blog post, but I

  • think Patrick wrote it, about email transparency, about

  • actually allowing everybody to have access to email.

  • That's pretty far out there but

  • it's actually got interesting, you know,

  • certain merits to it.

  • I would all call the tactics that you read about

  • here about as sort of minimal viable transparency.

  • I actually think you could push the envelope a lot more.

  • Steve Jobs tried this at Next.

  • He actually tried transparent compensation.

  • I actually think, although Next didn't do extremely well,

  • the real reason wasn't because of the experiment around

  • compensation transparency and

  • then there's a lot of error to that.

  • The critique of compensation transparency is often well.

  • We want people to be teammates and

  • work together and collaborate.

  • And if you look in the sports world, though,

  • where people are actually teammates and

  • they do have to collaborate,

  • all of their compensation is completely public.

  • In fact, each of us can look up anybody's compensation in

  • the sports world and

  • get it exactly accurate, and somehow it seems to work.

  • So I'm not totally bought in

  • to the idea that you need to keep transpar-,

  • compensation non transparent.

  • Then finally metrics.

  • So you want to measure things.

  • You want to measure outputs, not inputs.

  • And again, you should dictate this yourself.

  • You should draft the dashboard to tie this all together.

  • One important concept are what are known as

  • pairing metrics or pairing indicators,

  • which is if you measure one thing and only one thing.

  • The company tends to optimize to that, and often at

  • the expense of something else that's important.

  • A costly example in payments and

  • financial service is around risk.

  • It's really easy to give the risk team an objective and

  • say, we want to lower our fraud rate.

  • It sounds great.

  • Until they start treating every single user in

  • this audience as a suspect user because they

  • want to lower their fog rate.

  • So they require each of you to call them up on the phone and

  • give them more supplemental information and

  • fax in things and

  • you have the lowest fraud rate in the world,

  • you also have the worst, you know,

  • sort of customer satisfaction score.

  • So what you want to measure at the same time as

  • your fraud rate is your false positive rate.

  • That forces the team to actually innovate.

  • Similarly, you

  • can give recruiters metrics around hiring, and guess what?

  • You'll have a lot of people come in through interviews,

  • but if you're not tracking the quality of hires,

  • you may be very unhappy with the quality of people you're

  • interviewing or the people you're giving offers to.

  • So, you always want to create the opposite as

  • an indication and measure both, and the people that

  • are responsible for that team, need to be measured for both.

  • Finally around metrics, one insight I've had over my

  • career is what you, you kind of want to look for

  • the anomalies.

  • You don't actually want to look for

  • the expected behavior.

  • So that a famous example was at PayPal.

  • None of the top ten markets that

  • the company was planning to go after included eBay.

  • But one day, someone noticed that 54 Power Sellers had

  • actually handwritten into their eBay listings,

  • please pay me with PayPal, and brought this to

  • the attention of the executive team at the time.

  • The first reaction of the executive team was,

  • what the hell's going on?

  • Let's kick them out of the system.

  • That's not our focus.

  • Fortunately, I think David Sacks came back the next day

  • said, I think we found our market.

  • Let's actually build tools for these power sellers instead of

  • forcing them to write into their listing,

  • pay me with PayPal.

  • Why don't we have an HTML button that they can

  • just insert?

  • Well that started to work.

  • And then he said,

  • well actually why do we make them insert it.

  • Why should we make them insert it all the time?

  • Why don't we just

  • automatically insert it for them?

  • So they could just insert it once and

  • then every single listing they have forever.

  • It'll just automagically appear there.

  • So that became the success for PayPal.

  • Similarly, I was at LinkedIn,

  • and I saw this stat that made no sense to me.

  • The UI for the site was a little bit different back

  • then, but 25% of all clicks, maybe 30% of all clicks

  • from the home page were people going to their own profile.

  • And that made no sense whatsoever.

  • I mean like, the set, it was a settings,

  • like you had to literally go to the right margin.

  • Final a link and it was 25 to 30% of every single click at

  • scale I mean so this is like statistically novel stuff.

  • And it made no sense whatsoever,

  • never seen like the UI perform that way.

  • And, I kind of went around for weeks trying to

  • figure this out and then someone very smart.

  • Actually, it's Max Letchin said something to me and

  • I was like, he's like it's vanity.

  • And I'm like ha people

  • are looking at themselves in the mirror.

  • That's pretty good answer.

  • So cause they weren't editing their profile.

  • Nobody has like something to edit everyday in

  • their profile.

  • But they actually were just looking in themselves in

  • the mirror everyday because it made them feel good.

  • And then you can actually test that hypothesis and

  • say, well, if I had more content.

  • Do I look at myself in the mirror more often?

  • Turns out you did.

  • If you had more endorsements,

  • did you look at yourself in the mirror more often?

  • Turns out you did.

  • So, we actually figured out like

  • what was actually underneath utilitarian product that

  • the product team thought they were

  • building was actually a lot of emotional vanity.

  • They didn't exactly translate it to the best possible

  • feature, like the PayPal example,

  • which you couldn't easily put a button that,

  • said be more vain today, you know, on the homepage.

  • >> That would probably not work perfectly, so it

  • never really like took off the way the PayPal example did.

  • But it clarified what the user what users of

  • the product really wanted and

  • we wouldn't have found that without looking for

  • anomalous data.

  • The final topic I want to talk about is details.

  • And there's, in my assigned reading,

  • there's a great book I really like by BIll Walsh called,

  • The Score Takes Care of Itself.

  • And the basic point of the book is that if

  • you get all the details right, you don't worry about how to

  • build a billion dollar business,

  • how to have $100 million of revenue,

  • how to have a billion users.

  • That's a byproduct of getting all the details of what you

  • do everyday to be excellent.

  • So the example he talks about in the book that really

  • resonated with me was he took over the 49ers in 1979.

  • They were the worst team in football.

  • I believe they were 2 and 14 the year before,

  • which is really bad for this, if you don't know football.

  • In the next ten years, he managed to transform the team

  • into the NFL's best, won three Super Bowls.

  • And what's the first thing he did to start going from

  • a terrible team to the best team ever in many ways?

  • He actually taught the receptionists how to

  • answer the phone properly.

  • He wrote a three-page memo about how to

  • actually answer the phone.

  • Now, that may sound absurd.

  • But his point was, if the organization as a whole

  • does everything exactly the right way, then receivers, for

  • example, will start running their routes at

  • seven-and-a-half yards, not seven yards, not eight yards.

  • And that actually will matter.

  • And then everybody on the team executes exactly up to

  • the same standard of performance.

  • You will have an organization that is performing at

  • the highest possible level, and

  • then with enough random variation, the highest

  • possible performance team will do the best.

  • So the way you translate this to a company are to

  • a lotta details that may not matter.

  • They may not seem that they matter superficially.

  • Most people would agree about the details matter when it

  • faces the user.

  • But where the real debate is on

  • things that don't face the user.

  • So Steve Jobs famously in the Mac,

  • insisted on an immaculate circuit design board.

  • You can read about this in various books.

  • The Mac, for those of you who don't remember the Mac,

  • probably everybody here but

  • some of you may have seen it, actually couldn't be opened.

  • So the circuit board design couldn't be

  • seen by any single person in the world.

  • There was no way to open the Mac except the people who

  • worked at Apple, and Steve insisted that it be

  • absolutely perfect and beautiful.

  • That's the kind of detail obsession that this sort of

  • philosophy of building a company requires.

  • Examples that maybe more practical for you instead of

  • circuit boards are things like what food do you serve people.

  • This actually matters more than you might guess.

  • When people don't like the food you serve them,

  • what do they do.

  • They go gossip.

  • They go complain to their friends.

  • They go walk over to someone's desk.

  • And all the sudden at lunch,

  • what they're complaining about is, it,

  • their mostly spending time gossiping and

  • complaining instead of brainstorming.

  • So you don't have this serendipitous idea.

  • Not saying other serendipitous idea that creates a spark,

  • instead they're all wandering and wallowing around.

  • So the best thing you could do is actually give

  • people the food they want or food that's good for them.

  • That makes them more productive.

  • So it may seem a lot like this glorious job

  • that you thought you had is actually more like

  • running around being a task rabbit for people.

  • But it's to

  • take the things off the plate that are a distraction.

  • So that they can be high-performance machines.

  • And if you take enough things away from people that distract

  • them and give them the tools to be successful, all of

  • a sudden your organization produces a lot more.

  • Similarly, another example that's often got wrong is

  • office space.

  • So, one natural instinct is when you need an office is to

  • have an office manager or

  • someone on your team go out and find offices.

  • And they'll go on tours with agents and

  • they'll come back with photos and ideas.

  • You need to do that yourself.

  • The office environment that people live in and

  • work in everyday dictates your culture and

  • how people make decisions, it dictates how hard people work.

  • There's almost no important more decision other than

  • what company you're going to be, than what's the office

  • environment you're actually in,

  • and most people don't do that.

  • And then the final thing and

  • then I'll take some questions is around effort.

  • Ultimately, I don't believe that you

  • can build a company without a lot of effort and

  • that you'd need to lead by example.

  • So Bill Wallace,

  • the first chapter of his books is, get's asked this question

  • of how did you know whether you're doing your job?

  • And this is the answer he gives coaches that used to ask

  • him that question So if this is what you

  • feel like every day, you're probably on the right track.

  • And if that doesn't sound appetizing,

  • you probably shouldn't start a company, truthfully.

  • All right, with that I'm doing with the prepared part.

  • Let me see if anybody has questions I

  • can try to be helpful with.

  • Any questions?

  • Yes?

  • >> So you talked about making compensation transparent.

  • How would you do this, especially when people equate

  • themselves to value, you know, of how much their salary is?

  • >> I would, I would do it in, probably, bands.

  • because you could do it,

  • either just everybody in the company gets paid the same, or

  • you could have, like, all discipline, all engineers, or

  • you could do it by experience like extreme exp.

  • The way Steve did it actually at Next was,

  • there was a high band and a low band.

  • And you either had a lot of experience or

  • low experience, and that was it, so low band back then, you

  • know, now it would probably be like $85,000 kind of everybody

  • just flatly gets paid $85,000, and if your super experienced

  • everybody gets paid like $130,000, and that's just it

  • like this sort of the Next translated for inflation.

  • >> Instead of what's the how many details

  • >> You'd be amazed.

  • >> Well, yeah, so the question was besides food what

  • other kind of details do people care about?

  • The laptops they use.

  • I mean, this is now the default that everybody has.

  • But five years ago,

  • it was a benefit to give people high-quality machines

  • as opposed to optimizing our costs and

  • having Dell machines and ugly monitors, just as an example.

  • So if you think about all these people that

  • are relentlessly resourceful, incredibly talented in

  • a massively competitive ecosystem competing for

  • talent, you want to give the people the best

  • possible tools to do the best possible job.

  • And so, right rigorously thinking through how do I

  • make people more successful?

  • What things do they not need to be

  • working on that are distracting?

  • And what things can I

  • actually given them that make them more valuable per day?

  • And then just break that down every day and

  • solve that stuff yourself.

  • >> So, when you're in a start-up environment,

  • how you you optimize for those things?

  • because, you know, resources are scarce and.

  • >> It's a good, it's a good question.

  • I actually think that you should start,

  • first of all, you must have your own office.

  • I don't believe ever in shared office spaces.

  • Peter talks a little bit about this,

  • that every start-up, every good start-up is a cult.

  • It's really hard to

  • create a cult if you're sharing space with people.

  • Because a cult means that you

  • think that you're better than everybody else in the world,

  • that you have a special way of doing

  • things that's different than everybody else in the world.

  • And if you're sharing physical space with people,

  • it's very hard to inculcate that.

  • So, I would start there, but

  • it is a prioritization question.

  • When you have, everybody is

  • going to have scarce resources, just a question of

  • magnitude like how many zeros are you paying attention to?

  • You know, probably not $10.

  • Expenditures, put $100, then $1,000,

  • then 10,000, then a million, and then 10 million.

  • Starts being a rounding error.

  • So, what I would do is figure out like,

  • what's most important?

  • And in a high quality office, that creates a good vibe.

  • That allows you to recruit people,

  • because recruits are very savvy about this.

  • They walk into your office, and

  • they can tell a lot about the culture instantly.

  • I sometimes, I walk into a company office and I can tell,

  • often, whether I'm going to invest, as soon as I walk in.

  • Like, I can absolutely rule things out that I

  • just don't want to invest in as soon as I walk in.

  • And there's times walking into the office is like,

  • wow, this is very impressive.

  • You can tell how people worked together,

  • how hard they're working, how distracted they are.

  • Roelof Botha at Sequoia made a point to me about YouTube.

  • So, when I invested in YouTube,

  • in the very, very beginning,

  • it wasn't obviously going to be successful.

  • And then, Roelof led this series A investment for

  • Sequoia in YouTube.

  • And we were at a board meeting together and he said,

  • you know, I think YouTube's really going to work.

  • And I said, why?

  • And he said well,

  • every time I go to one of my portfolio companies,

  • half the office is watching YouTube at lunch.

  • >> And I was like, pretty good sign.

  • So like, if you pick up on these little things you

  • can predict a lot.

  • Yeah?

  • >> What do you think is the best way to gain street cred

  • for a new manager?

  • >> Oh boy yeah so the question is how's the best way to

  • grain, gain street cred for a new manager?

  • Almost all good managers in Silicon Valley are promoted

  • because of their individual performance in cultures that

  • are meritocratic, you know, the percentage is even higher.

  • So we tried at PayPal to only promote people that

  • were basically kicking **** at their discipline.

  • So Peter didn't believe in general managers.

  • In fact, I remember going for

  • a jog around campus within my first week at PayPal and

  • he's asking me, you know,

  • how are things going, the usual kind of CEO questions.

  • And then we got into this

  • debate about whether the company needed any managers.

  • And he's like, nope.

  • No managers.

  • We're only going to promote people.

  • So the VP of Engineering is

  • going to be the single best engineer.

  • The VP of Design's going to be the single best designer.

  • The VP of Product's going to be the single best product

  • person and they're going to learn to manage later.

  • And the advantage of that is you don't demoralize people,

  • because everybody knows that their boss actually is

  • better at their job than they are, and they can learn stuff.

  • And you can learn a little bit of the management techniques

  • later as opposed to promoting people who

  • are just good people managers that don't actually have

  • the discipline and skill, and that does demoralize people.

  • So I think, just being excellent at something, and

  • then getting excellent at getting a bunch of people to

  • do something is the next task.

  • But people, you just have to learn,

  • some things you have to learn by doing.

  • You can't learn to play the guitar by reading a book.

  • You've actually gotta try to manage a bit, and

  • you won't do it well.

  • I had another sort of set of tactics and

  • classes on what you actually do when you transition from

  • an individual contributor to a manager.

  • It's hard.

  • One of the first things people don't get right is their time

  • allocation.

  • And so actually, I would recommend doing what I

  • call calendar audit and tracking for a month what you

  • spend your time on and how much is managing and

  • editing, and how much is writing, et cetera, and

  • then optimize it over time.

  • You can get a mentor, find somebody who's been a manager

  • before that will work with you, not your boss.

  • Because your boss has a set complicated objectives,

  • including how much are we shipping?

  • A mentor can just focus on you, and

  • making you more successful.

  • >> Can you give some more examples of things you can

  • do which show a consistent voice of the company,

  • especially with the company growing?

  • >> Yeah.

  • so, I would look at every piece of

  • copy in every department.

  • So like another area that almost never is a done.

  • So look at your recruiting website.

  • Almost never done to

  • the same quality as your conversion funnel.

  • I look at customer support,

  • another classic area that isn't up to the same quality,

  • and treat customer support like a product.

  • So that you actually have an engineering team and

  • a design team over time,

  • that actually focuses on making that world-class.

  • Usually, where you have different executives at

  • a scaled company, most executives were

  • trained differently at different companies, and

  • they bring some of that with them.

  • So you've got to cross train that.

  • So, if you've hired a VP of Engineering from Google.

  • It's very different than a design leader who

  • came from Apple,

  • they don't actually learn how to do anything the same way.

  • So you're going to have to stitch that together somehow,

  • either one or the other is going to have to learn in

  • the other style or you're going to have to create your

  • own style and really teach that to your executives.

  • So it shows up all the time but

  • all you do, all you need to do is just pick up the company's

  • products and look for things that have a different voice.

  • And you can see it.

  • Visual voice, word choice, all, all over the map.

  • Sam?

  • >> Could you talk a little bit about the tactics of how

  • you manage people?

  • Like how you >> So the canonical advice

  • in this now sounds obvious but actually was

  • pretty radical in 1982 when Andy wrote his first book is

  • you should have a one on one roughly every two weeks.

  • Some people say every week,

  • and I don't think you want to go longer than two weeks,

  • one week can be ideal actually in many companies.

  • The reason why in fact there's ano, another adage which is,

  • you should only have five to seven direct reports.

  • That actually derives from the concept of a one on one

  • every week.

  • So that the direct reports, so you can fit enough one on ones

  • in your calendar and still get other things done.

  • So I think one on one's per week are a good idea.

  • The agenda should be crafted by the employee who reports to

  • the manager, not the manager.

  • The one on one is mostly for

  • the benefit of the employee, so they should walk in with,

  • here's the three or four things I want to talk about.

  • Ideally, they circulate that.

  • It can be even bullet points in advance by email.

  • But, in advance you have time to chew on it and

  • you're not on the fly, winging your responses.

  • But that's probably the best structure.

  • Now if someone's really good and really talented and

  • has been doing something for

  • a long time with a lot of internal credibility,

  • you might push out the one every week, and

  • relax that to one every two weeks, possibly once a month.

  • I don't know that I would go beyond once a month ever.

  • >> When is it acceptable to compromise and

  • hire someone who is ammunition rather than a barrel?

  • >> Yeah, so the question is when,

  • when do you compromise and

  • hire more ammunition instead of a barrel?

  • Truthfully, you're going to hire more ammunitions by

  • definition than you are barrels.

  • So there's a ratio between the two.

  • The question is the ratio.

  • So at some point the ratio is going to get out of wack.

  • So if you're the only barrel in the company and

  • you have 50 engineers, you might as well only have ten

  • engineers because you're not going to get anymore done.

  • So you're just wasting resources.

  • You're going to have frustrated engineers,

  • because everybody's going to need your approval,

  • your sign off, your editing.

  • It's just going to stack and frustrate people.

  • So, it's really, now different disciplines, engineering,

  • like I actually think like roughly one to ten to 20 is

  • probably about the right range.

  • Like you don't need more engineers until you

  • have more barrels.

  • Designers a little different,

  • but it's always going to be hiring more ammunitions.

  • And a good leader,

  • a good barrel will kind of have a feel for that.

  • So one way to, one way to correct for this.

  • Natural tendency is to increase that your headcount

  • on your team, like sort of an empire building tendency.

  • Like, oh so I manage 20 people, and

  • Sam only manages ten, and you manage three.

  • So, I'm more important than Sam and

  • you're more important than you.

  • One way to do that is you put an X here of

  • the number of people that the, the output, sorry, specify how

  • many things they've done successfully then divide by

  • the number of people on their team, and tell them that this

  • is going to be their grade in their performance review.

  • Shockingly this y doesn't start increasing on that team.

  • It's amazing how this works.

  • And be really explicit about it.

  • >> As, venture capitalist,

  • how often you intervene this and, what's.

  • >> So how often do I meet with?

  • >> Yeah. How you.

  • [CROSS-TALK]. >> So the question is,

  • as a venture capitalist,

  • how often do I interact with my companies, meet with them.

  • Generally when we invest and we do,

  • do some seed investments where we invest less money but

  • when we invest a fair amount of money and

  • lead a round like a series a a series b round

  • we join the board, and roughly I meet with

  • the founder CEO every two weeks, that's the default.

  • Now there can be obviously there's inflection moments and

  • things go right well or wrong.

  • And, you know, that's on an ad-hoc basis.

  • These days, actually,

  • surprisingly, I do a lot by text message.

  • I even have one CEO who Snapchats me all the time.

  • Which I'd actually rather not, but, That, so.

  • The world, the world has changed a lot.

  • But I try in-person meetings every two weeks.

  • >> Are you the no.

  • I mean, really it's,

  • like, being a venture capitalist is more,

  • to me, like being a psychologist.

  • So if you come to

  • my office you'll see actually we have two chairs,

  • kind of arrayed like this with a little table in the middle.

  • And we sit down.

  • And I'm basically, like, so tell me your problems.

  • You know? [LAUGHTER] Then,

  • it's like a question.

  • It's like, so have you.

  • And then the, and then my response is usually,

  • well have you thought about this?

  • Have you talked to this person?

  • Have you tried this?

  • Et cetera. And it's just asking a lot of

  • questions and going back that way.

  • But that's 90% of what I do.

  • So I see when you, when you've got these barrels,

  • you say your starter company is up doing really good,

  • you know, and you're working on this project.

  • I've heard that you should always be recruiting.

  • >> Yes. >> How do you,

  • how do you balance that.

  • Well it depends on where your prioritizations are.

  • So you know, Sam talked a little bit

  • about this in his lecture,

  • but every company will move recruiting you know, first,

  • second, or third somewhere in that sort of spectrum.

  • If it's your number one priority then about 25% is

  • probably a pretty good allocation.

  • Actually I like the calendar audit for

  • CEO's even more, so than for new managers.

  • So when I work with CEO's sometimes who aren't.

  • Thriving in that role for the first time.

  • Actually forced them to show me their calendar.

  • And before I do that, and now I'm going to ruin this trick

  • because if I tell it to you, actually asked them to

  • write their priorities, write them down on a piece of paper.

  • And, you know, discuss whatever they are.

  • Then we go pull up their calendar, and

  • see if it matches.

  • And it never matches.

  • They, never.

  • They, recruiting is the one that's most often.

  • Awry so you know, let's say half the CEO's you meet with

  • will say recruiting's the number one priority.

  • It's almost never the biggest block of

  • time on anybody's calendar, and so

  • that's what you're trying to do is match resources and

  • inputs against priorities, and a calendar audit unfortunately

  • there's no software that does this really well.

  • It would be great.

  • Like actually the,

  • we literally pull up someone's Google calendar and

  • kind of manually add up the hours.

  • Which in, somewhat insane.

  • But that's, that's the best way is just,

  • well what are your priorities.

  • If your priorities are raising money, you

  • don't want to allocate 100% of your time for recruiting.

  • You want to allocate a fair amount of time to raising

  • money for that block of time until you're successful at it.

  • >> One more question.

  • >> One more question anybody, okay, go ahead.

  • >> On the surface some of the advice students contradictory

  • because you emphasized focusing on a plus pass, and

  • delegating less important things, but then you said it's

  • good to write like few page script for your receptors.

  • Focus on all the details.

  • How do you harmonize those goals?

  • >> It's a good question.

  • I think the way to harmonize.

  • The question is really, how do you harmonize things like,

  • where details can really matter but

  • you only get one thing, you know, to do and

  • you've gotta allocate to the top one, two, or three things.

  • How do you, how do you put those two things together?

  • And actually there is some tension in, even in a healthy

  • organization, there's some tension of like why are we

  • actually focused on, you know, writing the script.

  • As opposed to something a user may see.

  • I think the underlying philosophy of

  • getting the details right is pretty important to

  • install in the very, very, very beginning of

  • a company because people will start acting that way and

  • making decisions that way themselves.

  • So, you won't have to actually literally do that.

  • And if you have to do that, it actually shows you

  • that the foundation isn't actually that, that solid.

  • So eh, when you first start the company.

  • It's about getting the details right,

  • that everybody is precise,

  • everybody on every task is always thinking that way.

  • And then that scales, and

  • then the people you bring in, it's a little self-fulfilling,

  • people who can think that way will tend to get hired,

  • people who can't won't get hired.

  • Each team, and

  • each leader, will tend to enforce that themselves,

  • to see whose almost never doing it.

  • So, it's partially, like,

  • how do you start, and at cultures like that,

  • I mean, the, key to culture is it's a rule.

  • It's a frame work for making decisions.

  • And if you have a cultured people learn how to

  • make decisions across that culture and

  • you're never day anything, except just yeah watch.

  • And you know and promote and move people around.

  • Cool, well I guess that's it, thank you.

So I'm going to talk about how to operate.

字幕與單字

單字即點即查 點擊單字可以查詢單字解釋

B1 中級 美國腔

第14講--如何操作(Keith Rabois)。 (Lecture 14 - How to Operate (Keith Rabois))

  • 37 5
    Zhen Mia 發佈於 2021 年 01 月 14 日
影片單字