
Steve Blank: I’ve seen the Promised Land. And I might not get there with you. - stakent
http://steveblank.com/2010/01/21/i%e2%80%99ve-seen-the-promised-land-and-i-might-not-get-there-with-you/
======
grellas
Essentially an argument for professional management that is seen as critical
for a high-growth startup's transition from its formative stages to what might
be called a "real company."

It is easy to stumble along this path but the highest risk of doing so, in my
experience, comes from a premature bringing in of serial executives (e.g., a
"real CEO") who inject so much "process" that the company loses its vision and
sinks of the weight of its own burn rate ("process kills" might be the epitaph
for such companies). This, by the way, is why a far higher proportion of
early-stage startups today will try to defer VC funding for as long as
reasonably possible if their business model permits it. Call it short-sighted
if you will, but I think most founders strongly prefer not to be on the
receiving end of this sort of transitional conduct.

As usual from this author, many good insights about the key issues, whether or
not one agrees with him on all particulars.

~~~
wavesplash
I read it differently.

To me Steve seems to be saying "if you want to avoid getting replaced, you
need to learn to scale your skills for each stage of the company". Managing 20
is a very different problem than managing 300.

Having lived through that transition once as an early employee of a startup
that made it, Steve pretty much nails the issues we faced on the head. In the
case of that startup the founder didn't scale and needed to be replaced much
sooner than it happened.

I would have preferred it if the founder did scale better. Managing around
your founder for his own good is some of the most soul draining work ever
created.

------
gyardley
Professional management is often necessary, and I think most founders
recognize this. However, bringing on a CEO is an enormously risky proposition
for founders. No matter how thoroughly you vet him, this guy's going to be
your boss and he could potentially run your just-starting-to-pop startup into
the ground, leaving you with nothing for your efforts.

There would be a lot less anxiety and acrimony over this critical transition
time if investors recognized the risks involved for the startup founders and
offered them the opportunity to limit their downside by taking a modest amount
of cash out. After all, getting to the point where the startup is starting to
scale nicely is still a relatively rare achievement.

------
skmurphy
I think he offers an excellent framework for the three kinds of leaders
necessary for a startup to scale from idea to major company. Some
entrepreneurs have the ability to lead at more than one stage of the company,
some try and fail, and the rest are not given the chance.

This reminds me of a story a successful serial entrepreneur told me a few
years ago (I blogged about it at [http://www.skmurphy.com/blog/2006/12/21/two-
images-of-startu...](http://www.skmurphy.com/blog/2006/12/21/two-images-of-
startups/) ) An avid cyclist, he thought of the entrepreneurial journey with a
VC as having two distinct phases: in the pack and near the finish line.

    
    
       Working with VC’s is like a bicycle race. At first you are all in 
       the pack and everyone works together, alternating position to 
       draft and move faster together than the solo leaders.
    
       But as the finish line appears the pack breaks up as each cyclist 
       tries to cross it first. Even if the VC’s have been good partners 
       for most of the journey, they can’t resist the temptation 
       to break away and gain the advantage at the finish line.

------
staunch
Not that there aren't times when a founder needs to get ejected, but I think
it happens about 10x as many times as it is good for the company.

The boards at these companies are too often like the group of senators that
killed Julius Caesar. Nominally trying to save the state/company, but really
just interested in their own power, and almost always the true bringers of
chaos and destruction.

------
DanielBMarkham
I agree with the gist of this, although grellas makes a great point about
shooting yourself in the foot by looking for "big" CEO qualities too soon.

But I can't help but note the irony here, which is thick. You manage to beat
out 100 of your peers and actually start a company. Then you manage to beat
out the 20 other guys who started a company and make something that will grow.
You fight tooth and nail 24/7 against all odds to make this happen.

So what do you get? Sacked by the very people that invested in you! The guys
who are basically just getting lucky by hitting _their_ 1-in-20 shot are now
the experts on what it takes to scale and bub, you're not in the mix.

I'm not saying it's not the right choice sometimes, I'm saying that life
really sucks bigtime if you go through all of that and then get the axe right
as it's all going to happen.

The more I learn about startups the more I've come to realize that it's a
fool's game. If you win you lose, if you get funding it's probably for the
wrong reasons, and if you manage to listen to your inner voice and deliver a
vision you're more likely to be called a fool than a genius.

Damn I love startups.

~~~
revorad
I like Mark Pincus's take on corporate control -
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0lUNFHD-
iM&feature=relat...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0lUNFHD-
iM&feature=related)

<http://ecorner.stanford.edu/authorMaterialInfo.html?mid=2310>

In this clip - <http://ecorner.stanford.edu/authorMaterialInfo.html?mid=2310>
\- he says startups should be building a platform to test out many ideas in
their chosen domain instead of just one. I think this is a good parallel to
the VC's 1-in-20 shot. We need to learn to hedge our bets too.

------
sruffell
I first came across an argument very similar to this in "Pro Excel Financial
Modeling: Building Models for Technology Startups"[1]. There the author makes
an argument for why you should address the qualities needed in leaders of
different size organizations in your models.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Pro-Excel-Financial-Modeling-
Technolog...](http://www.amazon.com/Pro-Excel-Financial-Modeling-
Technology/dp/1430218983)

------
azeemazhar2
Yeah completely agree. As a startup founder, I know what I am good at. I also
know that it isn't yet the time to bring the 'mainstream management' on board.
I have to eliminate the risk and create a business based on some defensive
position and repeatable customer sales proposition.

In short take us somewhere unambiguous to then hand the reins over.

------
joshu
leadership and management are orthogonal.

------
tjmc
What happened to Martin Eberhard at Tesla could be a case study for this post.

------
rauljara
I'm sorry, but comparing an entrepreneur who has to leave a company before he
gets rich to a civil rights leader who gets murdered before his children are
recognized as fully human and equal members of society by his government is
pretty damn tone death. There is no comparison. That epigraph shouldn't be
there, and that post shouldn't have that title.

~~~
paulbaumgart
He did attribute it to MLK, but ultimately it's a biblical reference (Moses &
crossing the Jordan River). Those are usually OK in a variety of contexts.

~~~
microcentury
It may originally come from the Bible, but that line is indelibly linked with
MLK. I agree with rauljara - that headline is tone-deaf and tacky, though the
article itself is well-written and informative.

~~~
paulbaumgart
I don't actually disagree, but mostly in the sense that it distracts from the
point he's actually making.

