Shyam's Slide Share Presentations

VIRTUAL LIBRARY "KNOWLEDGE - KORRIDOR"

This article/post is from a third party website. The views expressed are that of the author. We at Capacity Building & Development may not necessarily subscribe to it completely. The relevance & applicability of the content is limited to certain geographic zones.It is not universal.

TO VIEW MORE CONTENT ON THIS SUBJECT AND OTHER TOPICS, Please visit KNOWLEDGE-KORRIDOR our Virtual Library

Showing posts with label Start-Up. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Start-Up. Show all posts

Thursday, July 6, 2017

Leading to Become Obsolete 07-07






















Image credit : Shyam's Imagination Library


Haier CEO Zhang Ruimin is transforming a manufacturing giant into a platform for entrepreneurship — and his employees into self-governing entrepreneurs.We live and work in an age when the need for corporate reinvention is treated almost as a given. Countless CEOs talk about reducing hierarchy and increasing agility, flexibility, and connectedness to the market, and virtually every large company is “transforming for digital.” Yet in most organizations, lip service to change remains more the order of the day than real change itself.

Then again, you might work with Zhang Ruimin. The CEO and chairman of the white goods giant Haier Group Corp., based in Qingdao, China, has done what most chief executives dare not even dream about. He blew up much of the administrative structure of a global manufacturing enterprise, eliminating 10,000 management jobs that once held it together. And he has guided the organization to reemerge as a network of entrepreneurial ventures run by employees, whose compensation is based on the success of their products in the market.

In its transformed state, Haier is no longer a traditional manufacturer corporation so much as a platform that provides financing, support, and coordination for microenterprises all focused on developing products and services for the “smart home,” the internet of things (IoT)-based concept of a fully connected and networked household.

Haier calls its management model Rendanheyi, a term that refers to connecting employees with users. The company sees it as a “win-win” model for reducing the distance between the organization and its end users to zero and moving as close as possible to a state of co-creation with the customer.
This isn’t the first organizational innovation Zhang has led at Haier during his three decades with the company, but it is certainly the most profound. The 68-year-old executive, who has been named to a number of “most admired” and “top thinker” lists, received the Legend in Leadership Award from the Yale School of Management’s Chief Executive Leadership Institute in 2016. In noting the honor, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a senior associate dean of leadership programs at Yale, called Zhang “a genuine global business giant who inspires mythic awe in his competitors, his peers, and his fellow Chinese business leaders.”

During a spring 2017 trip to Washington, D.C., Zhang sat down with MIT Sloan Management Review editor in chief Paul Michelman to discuss Haier’s latest reinvention. The interview was conducted through a translator, and a further exchange took place via email. What follows is an edited and condensed version of the conversation.

MIT Sloan Management Review: The strategic transformation that you are undertaking right now is unprecedented in many ways. I’d like to begin by asking: Why now?

Two things make us believe now is the time. One is the internet, and the other is the internet of things. The internet has closed the distance between parts of the organization and between the organization and its customers to zero. This means that traditional management models — like Taylorism and bureaucracy as proposed by Max Weber — are no longer relevant. Then there is the internet of things, which represents the next generation of the internet. Despite a dozen years of development, the idea of IoT has not taken off — or as we like to say, it has not been ignited. We are undertaking this fundamental transformation of our corporate structure using the internet in the hope of becoming a leader in IoT.

Do you believe that this is the only viable path to lead in IoT? Did you consider other possible organizational forms?

We looked at this question from two different angles. First, we have been coming to the U.S. for years. We’ve talked to many corporations in the hope of finding a management model from which we can learn. But we have failed to identify the right one. So we decided to explore on our own. And we have come to believe that the traditional corporate model has to be upended and disrupted to survive in the internet era.

Secondly, what’s called for in the IoT age? It’s a direct interaction with users and a focus on creating the best user experience. However, in the traditional economy, there are no “users,” there are only “customers.” Customers are anonymous; users are real people who are directly involved in the process of creation.

Why hasn’t IoT been ignited? Because an interactive platform for users — where companies can take direction from the people who will buy their products — has yet to be created. We need to establish a “community economy” with zero distance between customers and companies. Our end goal is to have a true connection with our users and to create legitimate lifetime value for them via the internet of things.

Will every Haier business run on the platform? Will anything be carved off and managed in a more traditional way?

The platform is the only place for a business to go to. By eradicating our middle management layer — and laying off more than 10,000 middle-level managers — we have destroyed the original hierarchical structure. So we are merely a platform for entrepreneurs. All the businesses have to succeed as innovative entrepreneurial enterprises, or they will be kicked off the platform. The platform is also accessible to entrepreneurial projects from outside Haier. Today, we have more than 3,000 microenterprises operating on it.

What has surprised you the most along this transformative journey?

Three things. The first is our transformation from a traditional hierarchical organization to one with more than 200 different entrepreneurial teams operating thousands of microenterprises on our platform. This was totally unimaginable back in 2005, when the idea for this strategic transformation was proposed. The structure we have now is totally different.

The second thing is the variety of markets the entrepreneurial teams can enter. For example, our gaming laptop has grown to become the No. 1 market player in China in the short span of two to three years since the laptop team became entrepreneurial. The team did not come to me for approval. All the decisions were made by the [team].

But what has surprised me most is that employees have accepted the radical compensation change. Previously, we used IBM’s broadbanding model, where pay was determined based on an employee’s position and contribution. Now, compensation is determined by how much value is created for the user. When employees create value, they get paid. If they don’t create measurable value, they don’t get paid. Ultimately, if they don’t create value, they have to leave.

As we think about the Haier platform as a place where entrepreneurship occurs, many of us will draw on what we’ve learned and witnessed about successful entrepreneurs — that they possess a set of skills and characteristics that differ significantly from people who succeed in more directed environments.

We don’t require employees to possess certain skills. We don’t impose a training system or coach employees on how to be entrepreneurial. I don’t believe there is any training that is so effective as to transform people into entrepreneurs overnight. If someone can meet the requirements — if they can help start up a business — then they will prosper on the platform. If they cannot, they probably have to leave.

At the same time, we have external IoT entrepreneurs joining our platform because they believe it offers resources and support that other platforms do not. We have developed a networked organization that attracts the most capable people. We often say that the whole world is now our human resources department.

Was there anything done to support employees’ transition?

What we do is help people form communities of interest so that they can work together as entrepreneurs.

The process begins with an objective. For instance, someone comes up with an idea for a product targeting a certain niche of the market. And then people from different departments or disciplines — research and development [R&D], sales, manufacturing, marketing — will sit down and analyze its viability across all the relevant dimensions. If they believe it is viable, they will form a community to bring it forward as a new microenterprise.

Then they need to attach their plan to their compensation. We call it a predefined value adjustment mechanism, or VAM, which defines what goal the plan has to realize and how the members of the community will be paid if the goal is achieved. This is a signed agreement between Haier and its microenterprises.

We also have microenterprises that focus on more cutting-edge projects. These teams may not plan to achieve revenue for a couple of years. Here, we set different targets and schedules. For example, at a certain point of this endeavor, they must be able to attract external venture capital. If they can’t achieve the investment by an agreed-upon time, then they have to let it [the project] go, or we might invite another entrepreneurial team to work on the project.

Many leaders have a vision for the way people in their organizations will act. I’m curious to know if you’ve imagined certain core behaviors that indicate whether an individual will be successful?
I think most business leaders tend to view their employees as passive performers who take orders from their superiors. According to traditional management philosophy, there are managers and those to be managed. But in my opinion, everyone is capable of leadership — or in our words, “Everyone can be their own CEO.”

The reason why a company’s employees are not leaders is that they have not had the soil or platform to grow upon. With access to such a platform and with entrepreneurial competence, anyone can prosper.

In our model we have delegated the major powers of corporate executives to the employees — or at least to the microenterprises — including the power of decision-making, the power of selecting and appointing personnel, and the power of financial allocation. Other companies would not do that. They believe that if these powers are delegated, managers will lose control. Our goal is different: We are trying to motivate employees to unleash their potential and realize their own value. We don’t want to control them.

How does this transformation affect frontline employees, particularly in the manufacturing area? What has changed with respect to the factories themselves, such as how they’re run and how individuals in manufacturing jobs are compensated?

That’s a very important question, and one of our biggest challenges. It’s true that manufacturing workers do not typically face the market directly, but we can create a connection to the market by allowing our different production lines to compete with one another.

We have 108 factories all around the world, each possessing many production lines; every production line is a microenterprise. We evaluate the performance of these microenterprises based on cost, delivery and service quality, and market response to the products they make. This evaluation determines how they are qualified to get subsequent orders. Some production lines are able to acquire many orders. Some get fewer — and as a result employees on those lines are not paid as well. Lines gaining more orders can merge with those having fewer.

In this way the production lines are organically connected with the market. Moving forward, we are forging an even tighter connection by allowing users to work directly with the factory to place, customize, monitor, and take delivery straight from the production line. We have eight of these “interconnected factories” operating now.

As a fully realized open platform for entrepreneurship, what will Haier provide or enable that can’t be replicated? Thinking ahead, what will Haier be good for?


This is a question we are constantly reflecting upon, and it guides our direction. Though we have turned Haier into an entrepreneurial platform, we are not an investment company. The goal of an investment company is to put in money and take out profit. After an IPO, the goal is fulfilled — that is not our aim.

Our primary aim is to ignite the internet of things. All the entrepreneurial teams on the platform — even though they cross industries — focus on the smart home in some way. This is also why so many teams outside of Haier are willing to start up smart-home businesses on our platform. If they turn to venture capitalists, they will get money but not coordination. On Haier’s platform, businesses gain access to our sales network, logistics operation, and R&D system. Haier’s platform offers the help to IoT businesses that other platforms or funds cannot.

Today you’re working within a certain construct: the smart home. As you explore the potential of a truly open platform for entrepreneurship, how far will you allow yourselves to stray from this focus?
The smart home is already encompassing and covering many different entrepreneurial ventures. If we cannot succeed in this very broad construct, other goals are undoubtedly out of reach.

What’s most important is our resolute aim to be the enterprise that can truly ignite the whole idea of IoT. And this requires evolving from stand-alone products to products connected to the internet and on to a network of products and services all connected to each other.

So, what has become of the electric refrigerator in this scenario? It has transformed from a single appliance into the hub of a network connected to 400 organic food suppliers that monitor inventory levels and keep the refrigerator stocked. This model — and this level of interconnectedness — is really difficult to achieve in terms of both technology and business. For companies, revenue no longer comes solely from selling refrigerators but also from sales of organic food. These are two different concepts. When you’re taking into account this kind of transformation, a true ignition for IoT becomes very hard to reach.

What facets of the transformation have been enabled by Chinese organizational tradition? And what elements, if any, have been made more challenging by the same tradition?


China doesn’t have any well-established corporate models. When it comes to business, Chinese companies basically replicate Western management. So, it’s not as difficult for us to disrupt the model because it’s not Chinese in the first place.

But I do think Chinese traditional culture can aid this transformation. Western culture mainly focuses on dichotomy and atomism. In a typical Western company, activities are siloed by departments and then further cut up into more detailed tasks.

In China, we tend to look at things from the holistic perspective. Consider the difference between traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine, which tends to focus on the cellular level of the human body. If something is wrong with your stomach, then something is wrong with your stomach.

So, the West will look more closely: What part of the stomach is wrong? Whereas in Chinese traditional medicine, we will not just look at your stomach. We will consider the connection between your stomach and other organs of your body, and we will look at your body as a whole before providing a cure.

So we are applying this traditional holistic thinking to our management transformation. The internet and IoT require enterprises to see things from the whole and systemic perspectives and to stop dividing everything into tiny parts.

That might suggest that the open platform model could find some challenges in scaling across geographies. Do you think that Western companies will have a hard time following suit?

This is a big challenge for us. We are a global business and must be able to globalize Rendanheyi. We acquired a consumer appliance business from Sanyo Electric Co. of Japan and used this model to transform it. We also acquired Fisher & Paykel Appliances of New Zealand, and they too have gradually accepted Rendanheyi. So it’s working, although at present [it is] applied only in the Asia-Pacific region.

The biggest challenge at the moment is GE Appliances [which Haier bought in 2016]. It’s a very large American company with a standard linear management model, where every action has a basis. In its hierarchy, there are protocols that direct employee behaviors at each step.

Rendanheyi is a nonlinear management model in which employees must be able to answer the question, “What do I do next?” for themselves. There is no one for you to ask — and that’s a challenging transformation.

Since we acquired GE Appliances, we have not sent a single executive over to the U.S. to implement our model. Instead, we have focused on communication and education with the existing executive team to make sure they understand and are willing to accept this philosophy. And they are coming around.

You are a student of Western management and familiar with the idea of corporate culture as an adhesive framework that helps ensure that people are all moving in the same direction. But as we think about an organization that is self-organizing, that is freely incorporating internal and external resources, do we have reason to question whether culture remains a significant factor?

I think an organization’s values are very important. The core value of Haier is self-negation. When most companies achieve success, they tend to fall into states of self-satisfaction and complacence, celebrating and falling in love with their achievements. That is not us. Even when we have a great success, we question where we can improve. Instead of being proud, we realize our own defects and mistakes. We challenge ourselves to reach another height.

This core value was essential in our own transformation from an execution culture to an entrepreneurial culture. Because we have a DNA of self-negation, it is easier for us to disrupt ourselves and to accept the need for change. We keep saying internally to our employees that there’s no such thing as a successful business. There’s only a business that is compatible with the task at hand.

So, if you are doing well right now, don’t be conceited. You’re just doing the right thing at the right time. Things change all the time. The only thing that doesn’t change is time itself. So, if you don’t keep up with changes, you’ll be quickly made obsolete.

I have met with many companies all around the world, but few of them possess this virtue. Usually they are arrogant.

Even as you create a business that aims to transcend traditional management and become self-perpetuating, your personal leadership of Haier demonstrates the value of a strategic visionary. How will the organization survive you? I can’t help but think that you may be Haier’s Steve Jobs.
(Laughing) This question has been raised by many people. I often ask it myself. I’ve been working at Haier for more than 30 years, but even if I can keep working and keep leading the organization, it doesn’t guarantee future success. My task is not to cultivate a replacement but to cultivate many people who are willing to challenge both themselves and the status quo.

That’s the reason why we have installed Rendanheyi. We are developing a multitude of microenterprises and entrepreneurial teams with the goal of dispensing with my authority. Rather than listening to my orders, my instructions — which might turn out to be erroneous — our teams follow the demands of the market and of our users. This will lower the failure of the individual microenterprises and the probability of failure for Haier as a whole.

Nowadays, the management model in many enterprises is “empowerment,” but we are not empowering; we are returning all the power to the employees.

You just mentioned Jobs. There is a book about him titled To Live Is to Change the World. That is the organization we are designing — one meant to keep changing both ourselves and the world.

What is implicit in your answer is that Haier is on this new path permanently. And if it is, then perhaps traditional leadership will not become necessary. Maybe you don’t even need a single CEO or chairman.

Among so many foreigners I have met, you are the only one who truly understands me.

Reproduced from MITSLOAN Management Review

Saturday, June 10, 2017

How to start building your next-generation operating model 06-10

Each company’s path to a new operating model is unique. But successful transformations are all constructed with the same set of building blocks.



A North American bank took less than two years to shift 30 percent of its in-branch customer traffic to digital channels and dramatically reduce its brick-and-mortar footprint. A European cruise line redesigned and relaunched five core products in nine months to increase digital conversions by three to five times and sales by 150 percent.

These companies have been able to transform because they have developed next-generation operating models that provide the speed, precision, and flexibility to quickly unlock new sources of value and radically reduce costs. The operating model of the future combines digital technologies and process-improvement capabilities in an integrated, sequenced way to drastically improve customer journeys and internal processes.

Lean management has already played a significant role in putting in place processes, capabilities, and tools to improve how businesses operate. But the digital age has increased both the opportunities for businesses who know how to react and the difficulty of getting it right. For one thing, tasks performed by humans are more complex, whether it’s accessing information in multiple formats from multiple sources or responding to changing market and customer dynamics at ever-increasing speeds. And as an increasing number of tasks become automated or are taken over by cognitive-intelligence capabilities, companies will need to take many of the lessons learned from lean management and update them. Like a sprinter who needs all her muscles to be finely tuned and working in concert to reach top speeds, fast-moving institutions must have a system to continually synchronize their strategies, activities, performance, and health.
But how? Many institutions understand the need to change how they work and have embarked on numerous initiatives, yet few have been able to get beyond isolated success cases or marginal benefits.
We have found that companies that successfully build next-generation operating models do two things well. They focus on putting in place the building blocks that drive change across the organization, and they select a transformation path that suits their situation. These practices don’t apply only to companies that have yet to start their digital transformation. In our experience, even companies that are well along their transformation journey can pivot to putting in place a next-generation model that delivers massive value while significantly reducing costs.

Building blocks of the next-generation operating model

Whatever the path companies choose to develop their next-generation operating model (a subject we return to later), we have found there is a set of building blocks of change that successful leaders put in place. Think of them as the mechanics of change—elements needed to underpin the development of the operating model. Given the dynamic nature of digitization and the fast pace of change, it’s important not to think about perfecting the implementation of each building block before the operating model can function. The process is highly iterative, with elements of each building block tested and adapted to grow along with the model through a constant evolutionary cycle.

Building Block #1: Autonomous and cross-functional teams anchored in customer journeys, products, and services

Successful companies constantly rethink how to bring together the right combination of skills to build products and serve customers. That means reconfiguring organizational boundaries and revisiting the nature of teams themselves, such as creating more fluid structures in which day-to-day work is organized into smaller teams that often cut across business lines and market segments. This approach includes empowering teams to own products, services, or journeys, as well as to run experiments. These organizations are also becoming nimble in how they build skills across their teams by making “anchor hires” for key roles, setting up rotational and “train the trainer” programs, and committing to ongoing (often weekly) capability building and training for key roles.

Many insurers, for example, are dismantling traditional claims and underwriting units and reconstructing them to embed subject-matter experts such as lawyers and nurses into service groups. In the best companies, these teams also work side by side every day with technologists to design the tools and technology to improve efficiency and effectiveness.

Iteration is crucial to making this approach work. Leaders test various team configurations and allow flexibility in response to changing customer needs. One credit-card company, for example, shifted its operating model in IT from alignment around systems to alignment with value streams within the business. Cross-functional teams were pulled together to work on priority journeys and initiatives to deliver on the value stream. These changes dramatically simplified the operating model, lowered direct leadership expenses, and contributed to a 200 percent increase in software-development productivity within three months.

Building Block #2: Flexible and modular architecture, infrastructure, and software delivery

Technology is a core element of any next-generation operating model, and it needs to support a much faster and more flexible deployment of products and services. However, companies often have trouble understanding how to implement these new technologies alongside legacy systems or are hampered by outdated systems that move far too slowly.

To address these issues, leaders are building modular architecture that supports flexible and reusable technologies. Business-process management (BPM) tools and externally facing channels, for example, can be shared across many if not all customer journeys. Leading technology teams collaborate with business leaders to assess which systems need to move faster. This understanding helps institutions decide how to architect their technology—for example, by identifying which systems should be migrated to the cloud to speed up builds and reduce maintenance.

This approach both accelerates development and prioritizes the use of common components, which in turn leads to development efficiency and consistency. Another important reason for building more flexible architecture is that it enables businesses to partner with an external ecosystem of suppliers and partners.

Similarly, leaders are investing heavily in DevOps and combining people, process, and technology changes to automate software testing, security, and delivery processes as well as infrastructure changes.

Building Block #3: A management system that cascades clear strategies and goals through the organization, with tight feedback loops

The best management systems for next-generation operating models are based on principles, tools, and associated behaviors that drive a culture of continuous improvement focused on customer needs. Leading companies embed performance management into the DNA of an organization from top to bottom, and translate top-line goals and priorities into specific metrics and KPIs for employees at all levels. They make visible the skills and processes needed for employees to be successful, put clear criteria in place, and promote the sharing of best practices.

The best institutions are evolving their management systems to create feedback mechanisms within and between the front line, back-office operations, and the product teams that deliver new assets. They are also using their management systems to harvest the surfeit of data generated by day-to-day activities to create user-friendly dashboards and reports, some of them in real time.

Performance management is becoming much more real time, with metrics and goals used daily and weekly to guide decision making. These metrics are supported by joint incentives—not just for individuals—that are tailored to each level of the organization and reinforce behaviors to support customers regardless of organizational boundaries.

One North American insurer struggled to make the predictive analytics models developed by central teams relevant to its front-line claims adjusters, who therefore failed to adopt the new capability. Knowing it was leaving significant value on the table, the company established daily feedback sessions between the central development team and the claims adjusters and embedded analytics specialists into customer-service teams to develop better insights into customer issues.

The teams created shared goals based on customer value that were consistent with the organization’s strategy and the daily work of adjusters. Under this new management system, the analytics specialists and claims adjusters shortened cycle times and dramatically improved the effectiveness of assignment. This freed up time for leaders to coach, problem solve, and iterate on the next opportunities for the teams to pursue.

Building Block #4: Agile, customer-centric culture demonstrated at all levels and role modeled from the top

Successful companies prioritize speed and execution over perfection. That requires agility in delivering products to customers and quickly learning from them, as well as willingness to take appropriate risks. The best organizations have already made agility a cornerstone of how they work beyond IT. One credit-card company brought together law and compliance personnel to sit in with marketing teams to intervene early in processes and have daily conversations to identify and resolve issues. Law and compliance functions have also begun to adopt agile methodologies to change their own work. As functions and teams collaborate, they are on track to reduce effective time to market by 90 percent for some core processes while also reducing operational risk.

Critical to success is leading the change from the top and building a new way of working across organizational boundaries. Senior leaders support this transformation as vocal champions, demonstrating agility through their own choices. They reinforce and promote rapid iteration and share success stories. Importantly, they hold themselves accountable for delivering on value quickly, and establish transparency and rigor in their operations. Many manage the change aggressively, often changing performance incentives, mothballing outdated processes, assembling communication campaigns to reinforce culture, and writing informal blogs. At one asset-management company, the top team jettisoned its legacy budgeting process and asked leaders to be aggressive about capturing more value. They established an ongoing process for redistributing funding to the highest-value experiments that were working.

Defining the path for your organization

There is no one way to develop a next-generation operating model. It depends on a company’s existing capabilities, desired speed of transformation, level of executive commitment, and economic pressure. We have seen four paths that leading companies take to drive their transformation, though organizations often move to a different path as their capabilities mature. These paths offer a guide for the first 12 months of a transformation journey.

An innovation outpost is a dedicated unit set up to be entirely separate from the historical culture, decision-making bureaucracy, and technical infrastructure of the main business. It creates inspiring products that illuminate the digital art of the possible (sometimes with questionable economic impact), and hatches new business models in informal settings such as over foosball tables. This path has traditionally been popular as a first move, but is now less common.

One retailer with an ineffective online business chose to open such an outpost. It introduced next-gen analytics, focused on customer experience rather than technology, and drove the mobile interface. Staying largely separate from the main business, the outpost created a buzz around innovation, attracted better talent, and repatriated many of its creations into the broader organization.

This path works well when there is limited alignment among executives on the importance and value of transformation, a need to move very quickly in response to market pressures, and significant legacy culture challenges to overcome. However, it is less effective as the “tip of the spear” for changing the culture or building sustainable capabilities, and often yields a low return on investment.

A fenced-off digital factory is a group of groundbreakers that works in partnership with businesses and functions (such as IT infrastructure and security, legal, compliance, and product development) while enjoying a high degree of autonomy. It typically houses specialized capability groups in technologies such as robotics or analytics, and deploys them to support the development of specific journeys in concert with business and functional partners. It both models a new way of working and integrates developed capabilities into the main business. As such, it focuses internally on integrating with and shifting the culture of the organization.
This is the most common starting point, as it balances the need for incubation with that of broader transformation. One European bank built a digital factory in a building on a campus. Each of the lower floors is dedicated to a separate journey, while the top floor is dedicated to creating reusable components and utilities—such as customer identification and verification or esignature—that the other journeys can deploy in a modular way.
Business and functional colleagues come together to work with teams in the factory. Each of these teams develops products and services, moves them quickly from prototype to deployment, and then transfers them into the main business. As part of the management system, the team continues to monitor and iterate the product or service based on economic performance and customer feedback.
This path works well when there is a broad-based belief in and commitment to transformation, and a need to incubate a critical mass in internal capabilities. Many organizations have used this approach to attract digital talent, combat large-project inertia within IT groups, and speed transformation. Culture change is slower within the rest of the organization, but it happens over time as business and functional specialists partner with the factory for each journey. It can, however, also create a “have and have not” split within the business if not managed appropriately, and can require significant initial C-suite support and funding. (For more on the digital factory, see “Scaling a transformation culture through a digital factory,” forthcoming on McKinsey.com.)
A business-unit accelerator is a scaled-down digital factory that incubates a transformation inside a business unit to tackle local customer journeys and business functions. The business unit builds its own skills, such as process-redesign and robotics capabilities, and has control over specific capabilities and investments. This means it doesn’t need central funding or organization-wide agreement on a host of issues to get going.
One North American bank shifted to a business-unit accelerator model after the first few years of its transformation. It found that this move gave it more control and a closer connection to business strategy and the customer—benefits that outweighed centralized scale and capability building. The bank invested heavily in talent and tools with the aim of building a reputation among customers as a digital business that happens to produce banking products and experiences.
This path works well for organizations with large business units that operate independently. It’s also a good starting point when one business unit is particularly far ahead in its thinking and belief, or where digital services have disproportionate value-creation potential. However, companies that choose this model must mitigate several risks. When business units choose their own digital tools and processes, for instance, complexity and costs increase for IT teams managing maintenance, licensing, and enterprise architecture. This model can also make it harder to build and share capabilities across the organization since the skills developed are specific to the business unit.
A full-scale evolution is a comprehensive transformation in which the enterprise reorganizes itself almost entirely around major journeys. This is the natural operating model for many digital natives, as technology, digital services, and product delivery are basically inextricable. Companies focus on specific digital initiatives that deliver on business priorities, deploying specialized talent and cross-functional teams to support each one. The model is highly attuned to the customer, and rapidly develops, tests, and iterates on new products or services. Team members may be managed through a center of excellence or by business-unit leaders. This path is the aspiration for many incumbents, especially those that deliver services rather than physical products.
In one European bank undergoing a full-scale evolution, agile has become the default way for people to work, with colleagues from multiple functions including IT sitting sit side by side. Results are measured by value streams—the sources of the value being generated—and journeys, flowing from the customer need back to the performance of the bank. Prioritization and resourcing take the form of active daily and weekly conversations about the next most important thing to work on. This approach is initially almost like shock treatment, but it offers important benefits, allowing companies to shake up the traditional management system and achieve culture change quickly and at scale. The organization builds agile skills broadly, identifies high and low performers, and pinpoints valuable and missing skills.
This path works well when there is a broad and top-down organizational mandate for change. Given the time it takes to move the needle, there should be no pressing near-term economic imperative. Companies that choose this model need to mitigate several risks, such as ensuring that best practices are shared across the operating model rather than being confined to individual teams. In addition, organizations must share any scarce resources across business functions to drive impact, and ensure coordination with IT as it seeks to keep up with the technical architecture.

No-regret steps leaders should take

Every organization’s transformation journey will be different. However, a simple set of immediate, no-regret steps can help leaders shape their first set of priority decisions and provide clarity on the way forward. These often include:
  • Creating clarity on enterprise strategy and on where digital services can quickly enable sustainable value creation. (For more on this, see “The next-generation operating model for the digital world.”)
  • Challenging the board to be explicit about the importance of the transformation and its support for investment; or, as a board, making this decision and challenging the executive team for a bold vision.
  • Building top-team excitement and belief in change through visits to leading digital natives or incumbents pursuing their own transformation paths.
  • Assessing the maturity of the management system using benchmarking against other organizations to identify strengths to build on and risks to mitigate.
  • Investing in targeted capability building, especially for the top 50 leaders in the organization. Exploring core concepts such as digitization, agile, design thinking, and advanced analytics can create a shared vocabulary and spur action.
  • Making an honest objective assessment of talent and capabilities within the organization, benchmarked against peers and cross-sector leaders. Disruption often comes from outside an industry rather than within.
  • Surveying the cross-sector landscape for ideas and inspiration. It’s easier than ever to learn from others, and a rapid inventory of ideas can shed light on potential execution challenges to resolve.
  • Assessing the level of change that the organization can realistically absorb in the near and long term given its other priorities.

Most companies recognize the need for a next-generation operating model to drive their business forward in the digital age. But how well they actually develop it makes all the difference between reinventing the business and just trying to do so.

View at the original source



Sunday, April 9, 2017

Business Chemistry in the C-suite 04-08








































Do C-suite executives work differently than many of us?

Business Chemistry explores C-suite working preferences

C-suite executives are more likely than the general business population to think about the big picture, embrace the competitive spirit, and make quick decisions. That’s the finding of a new study of 661 C-suite executives by the Deloitte Greenhouse Experience team. Business Chemistry’s researchers provide tips for all four types whether they are current leaders, aspiring leaders, or those who work with a CxO.





Executive Summary

In a new report titled, “Business Chemistry in the C-suite,” researchers from the Deloitte Greenhouse Experience team surveyed 661 C-suite executives and found that two of the four primary Business Chemistry types account for nearly two-thirds of the sample.
  • 36 percent: Pioneers, who value possibilities and spark creativity
  • 29 percent: Drivers, who value challenge and generate momentum
  • 18 percent: Guardians, who value stability and bring order
  • 17 percent: Integrators, who value connection and draw teams together

65 percent of CxOs are characterized by two Business Chemistry types.
























These executives are more likely to be energetic, big picture thinkers who are comfortable with ambiguity, and at the same time, tend to take more quantitative approaches1. They’re more competitive and willing to address conflict. And, they tend to make decisions more quickly, without worrying about the popularity of those decisions. There seems to be a sort of toughness about these CxOs and a tendency to not sweat the small stuff. Check out the CxO Difference infographic to learn more.

However, there are also many ways in which CxOs are similar to those in the general business population. The research suggests that compared to the typical professional, those in C-suite roles are not more (or less) disciplined, punctual, or practical. They don’t place a different level of priority on relationships or building a network, or feel a different level of duty to society. They’re neither more nor less imaginative, interested in exploring new things, or fond of experimenting with novel ideas. And they don’t have differing comfort levels with expressiveness, nor do they place different levels of value on composure.

1 Analyses of these traits and others in this section are based on the 68 items of the Business Chemistry Assessment. Respondents use sliders to indicate their level of agreement with statements such as “Other people would say that I am a very disciplined person.”
                      

Factors influencing CxO’s working preferences

The study also reveals differences in the proportion of Business Chemistry types in the C-suite related to function, organization size, industry and gender.

For example, while Pioneers were more prevalent in the C-suite overall in our study, Drivers (37 percent) and Guardians (26 percent) were the two top CFO types represented, while the CIO role contained relatively similar proportions of Drivers (37 percent) and Pioneers (36 percent). Similarly, in the largest organizations in our sample, those with more than 100,000 employees, the proportion of C-suite executives who were Drivers (38 percent) outpaced the proportion of Pioneers (29 percent); and in organizations with more than $10 billion in revenue, Drivers and Pioneers each represented 34 percent of the C-suite.

In organizations with more than 100,000 employees the proportion of Driver CxOs (38 percent) is greater than that of Pioneers (29 percent).

The study suggests that in several industries Pioneers are the most common Business Chemistry type in the C-suite, but in certain other industries we see concentrations of Drivers, Guardians, and Integrators in CxO roles. The CxO Industries infographic offers an in depth look.

Our research shows gender differences between Business Chemistry types, both within the C-suite and the general business population. This study found both women and men in the C-suite were most likely to be Pioneers, but a higher proportion of female executives were Integrators (27 percent) than Drivers (22 percent). By contrast, a higher proportion of male executives were Drivers (33 percent) than Integrators (12 percent).

Why are we seeing these patterns and what are the implications?

We propose there are a number of external selection factors that may lead to Drivers, and even more so Guardians and Integrators, being less common in the C-suite. These include various elements of today’s business environment, the rise of the “extrovert ideal,” the tendency for like types to attract, and some particular reasons that the value of Guardians and Integrators sometimes goes unrecognized. Learn more from the CxO Behind the Scenes infographic.

Additionally, we suggest there are self-section factors at play from how a type responds to stress to their desired career aspirations. When 13,885 professionals in a separate study were asked what they most aspire to when it comes to their careers, the overwhelming majority of Drivers (68 percent) and Pioneers (67 percent) chose “Leader.” The top three choices for each type were:
  • Drivers: “Leader” (68 percent), “Top performer” (52 percent), “Innovator” (36 percent)
  • Pioneers: “Leader” (67 percent), “Innovator” (44 percent), “Top performer” (33 percent)
  • Integrators: “Leader” (51 percent), “Team player” (48 percent), “Mentor” (40 percent)
  • Guardians: “Leader” and “Top performer” (tied at 50 percent), “Team player” (46 percent)
A C-suite dominated by a particular type may have positive implications. For example, as leaders Pioneers can inspire creativity in others. But there may be negative implications as well, which may differ depending on whether leaders are working with those who share their type or don’t.

Recommendations for leaders and those who work with them

A primary tenet of Business Chemistry is that varying approaches will work to bring out the best in the different Business Chemistry types. Download the full report to learn more about recommendations based on the findings in this study for current leaders, aspirational leaders, and for those who work with CxOs, including the following segments:
  • For current leaders, learn more about identifying disparate work styles on your teams and actively managing differences to benefit the organization. Explore insights on the role of opposites, why it’s important to elevate minority team perspectives, and take note of more introverted and sensitive team members. Read more in the recent Harvard Business Review article “The new science of team chemistry.”

  • For those who are not currently leading, regardless of whether you aspire to the C-suite or have other aspirations, find out how you might flex your style to help achieve your objectives with those who have different working styles.

We’re not all the same. Of course that’s the point of Business Chemistry and the beauty of working with diverse teams. With a little extra effort, you can bring together people with diverse perspectives and do more together than you might by sticking with those of your own type. As Einstein once said: “When we all think alike, no one thinks very much.


View at the original source


Sunday, March 15, 2015

23andMe Turns DNA Data Into Drugs in Startup’s Latest Twist 03-15

23andMe Turns DNA Data Into Drugs in Startup’s Latest Twist



23andMe Inc., the Google Inc.-backed genetic-testing startup that popularized a $99 DNA spit test, will expand from screening people for diseases to inventing new medicine to cure them.
The Silicon Valley company has recruited a top biotechnology executive to help. Richard Scheller spent almost 15 years at Genentech, heading research and early development at the company that invented pioneering cancer drugs Herceptin and Avastin. He’ll lead 23andMe’s new therapeutics group.
It’s the latest evolution for 23andMe, which went from a seller of novelty ancestry kits to one of the world’s biggest repositories of genetic data, doing business with major pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer Inc. and Genentech.
Now it may compete with those giants.
“Part of what we’re trying to do here is drug discovery in a more efficient model,” Chief Executive Officer Anne Wojcicki said in a telephone interview. “Pharma companies don’t have a direct relationship with consumers, so they’re always subjects. By engaging them and giving it to them as a prize, saying, ‘You’ve powered this study and you’ve made this happen,’ we can do things in a different way.”
23andMe, named for the 23 pairs of chromosomes in human cells, is recovering after a U.S. Food and Drug Administration ruling in late 2013 left the company unable to sell health analyses from its saliva tests, hurting sales. Since then the closely held company has worked hard to get back in the agency’s good graces, and last month gained approval for its first screening kit, which focuses on Bloom Syndrome.
“We obviously like to stay busy, we were worried after the FDA approval we’d get bored,” Wojcicki said, making light of the company’s huge ambitions.

Grow Faster

“With an FDA-cleared product, we need to continue to accelerate growth,” she said. If 23andMe could find the causes of disease in its DNA data, why not try and find the cures? “I want to push the limits.”
While it is unusual for a health data company to move into drug discovery and development, “obviously they have credibility in this area as a result of the partnerships they have with a number of pharma companies,” said Dan Bradbury, founder of BioBrit LLC, a life sciences consulting and investment firm in La Jolla, California. “I think they will be taken seriously but it will take a number of years to establish the capability” to develop drugs, he said.

Potential Competition

23andMe may run into conflicts and overlap with the drug company customers to whom it sells data. One of the last things Scheller signed off on before retiring from Genentech in December was a deal with 23andMe to help find new drug targets for Parkinson’s disease. Genentech, which is part of Roche Holding AG, was also an early investor in 23andMe.
President Andy Page said 23andMe’s pharmaceutical partnerships will be unaffected, even amid potential competition.
“The idea of multiple entities accessing the database concurrently is something we’re comfortable with,” Page said. 23andMe has also told its drug and biotech partners that they may be able to license some compounds in the future.

Picking Targets

23andMe hasn’t yet picked any disease areas or specific drug targets, and is still deciding whether to seek out big pharma partners to help run clinical trials or go on its own.
When Scheller’s retirement from Genentech was announced, “I knew that I wasn’t going to stay retired very long,” he said in a telephone interview. “I wasn’t exactly sure about what I was going to do, but I knew I was going to get into human genetics.”
He didn’t have to wait long. Wojcicki e-mailed on the day of the announcement and soon after visited Scheller at his home in Palo Alto.
“We both had the same idea at the same time,” said Scheller. “I think before we had made a cup of tea we were in an agreement that this would be an exciting venture.”
While large drug companies have labs full of chemists and rosters of doctors to help test drugs in patients, Scheller said 23andMe can outsource much of the work to contract research organizations, moving fast once they find a viable drug target.

Outsourcing Research

“There’s a whole industry grown up around supporting the industry,” he said. “It’s possible to get a whole lot of work done today with CRO collaborations.”
While 23andMe is well-funded with backers that include Google and New Enterprise Associates, the company will raise more money this spring to fund the drug development project, Page said.
How much they will need to raise will depend on how far the company plans to go on its own before looking for partnering companies, said BioBrit’s Bradbury. “If they’re purely doing drug discovery, they’ll probably need a few tens of millions a year to do that,” he said. “If they take things into the clinic, depending on the indication, then they’ll be looking at several hundreds of millions”
An exact amount hasn’t been set, said Page, though he said they “anticipate a fair amount of interest.” The company has raised $126 million in four previous rounds of funding since its 2006 founding.

Sunday, July 13, 2014

4 Steps For Piercing Through the fog of Nascent Idea 07-13

4 Steps For Piercing Through

 

the fog of Nascent Idea
History is littered with smart people making horribly wrong calls about nascent markets. In the 1940s, IBM’s Thomas Watson (supposedly) said there was a world market for only five computers. In the 1970s, Digital Equipment’s Ken Olson said there was no reason why people would want a computer in their home--versus their office. And it was Microsoft’s Bill Gates who was reported to have said in the early 1980s that 640K should be enough memory for anyone. Regardless of whether or not these stories are apocryphal, they ring true because we misjudge early-stage innovation so often.
It’s nobody’s fault. Data tends to accrue and become obvious only after people have already taken action. Most people make their first-mile decisions inside what I call the “fog of innovation.” It’s easy to get lost in the fog and never make any decision at all, because a risk that doesn’t pan out tends to have more negative repercussions on a person’s career than risks not taken. Problematically, if you never make a decision, that only creates more room for disruptive upstarts and hungry competitors.
LETTING CHAOS REIGN CARRIES SUBSTANTIAL RISKS. 
Worse, companies often face a mismatch between their innovation plans and the overall strategy that should be in place to support those plans. I remember distinctly a large company that proudly told me about how it got all of its most important executives to sit on an all-powerful innovation board that met every 90 days. “What if,” I asked, “the day after a meeting, the team discovers its entire strategy needs a wholesale revision?” Silence.
It’s tempting to say that there shouldn’t be any control mechanisms for more uncertain efforts. Once you’ve decided to innovate, the argument goes, you should form a team, give them a check, and get out of their way. Letting chaos reign, however, carries substantial risks.
Most ideas emerge out of a process of trial-and-error experimentation. Without control mechanisms, teams can easily follow the wrong strategy for too long. Weak control systems also deny a company the opportunity to redirect resources to the most promising ideas or to find creative ways to combine ideas.
It takes discipline to launch new ventures.
Yes, there should be a discipline around managing ideas in the first mile. But it needs to be a different discipline from the mistake-minimizing systems that govern the core business.
Consider the discipline that venture capitalists impose on their investments. Venture capitalists are actively involved in the companies in which they invest--typically, a VC will sit on the company’s board and interact with management on a regular basis. If a decision needs to be made, the board will typically assemble in 24 hours. Venture capitalists carefully manage the funding process to focus entrepreneurs on the most critical issues early--tying future fund-raising rounds to achieving key milestones. It is a very different approach to funding than the typical annual budgeting cycle inside most companies. 
GET ENOUGH DATA SO THAT YOU ARE 70% CONFIDENT IN YOUR DECISION, THEN TRUST YOUR INSTINCTS.
Active stakeholder involvement, a scarcity mindset when it comes to available funds, and quick decision-making often ensure that VC-backed startups rarely get lost in the fog of innovation.
The military, too, faces the urgent need to make decisions when information isn’t clear. One doctrine taught to Marines is the so-called 70% rule. During the fog of war, the goal is to get enough data so that you are 70% confident in your decision, and then trust your instincts. If you have less data, you are making a close-to-random decision. If you wait until the data are perfect, the chance to make a critical decision has probably passed you by.
Follow these four principles for encouraging experimentation.
The uncertainty that characterizes the first mile of innovation requires an approach that encourages experimentation. Such an approach has four primary principles:
• Prioritize taking action over endless studying. That means viewing investments as strategic options that provide the right, but not the obligation, to invest more in the future. This way, action happens in steps rather than as “all or nothing” commitments.
• Review data from your venture frequently. Focus less on progress against goals that might change and more on learning--consider anticipated and unanticipated lessons. Let both quantitative and qualitative data inform decision-making.
• Diversify your team. Discussion and decision should not involve “business as usual” people and processes. For instance, when former Procter & Gamble chief technology officer Bruce Brown led R&D meetings, he would stop when it was time to review disruptive innovations to get a more diverse group of people into the room, including engineers, designers, marketers, and even customers--people who are typically alien to such gatherings.
• Take part in the experiment. Don’t just passively review details and data. The best executives will actively participate in the experiments and market tests whenever possible.
Practiced together, these principles should help you support the creation of breakthrough ideas.
Know whether you’re encouraging experiments or minimizing mistakes.
It’s useful to know what your goals are in terms of timing. Consider this study: In late 2010, three academics published a paper contrasting the impact of incentives on two institutions that give grants to promising life scientists. One program, led by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), features short review cycles, predefined deliverables, and tough penalties for missing milestones.
In contrast, financial support for scientists at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) takes a longer term focus, with a stated tolerance of early failure. Perhaps not surprisingly, HHMI scientists produce breakthrough ideas at a statistically significantly higher rate than do NIH grant recipients.
They also had more total output--yet also have more efforts that appear to be flops. One approach minimizes failures; the other maximizes breakthroughs. Is the HHMI system better than the NIH one? It’s a trick question--the answer depends on the strategic intent.
Experiment-encouraging systems aren’t necessarily better than mistake-minimizing ones. You just need to know what you’re after. Companies should have both systems running in parallel. Mistake-minimizing systems help to maximize resource efficiency in the core business; experiment-encouraging ones help to maximize learning in new businesses. But that’s exactly what you need to make it through the early-stage fog.

Sunday, June 8, 2014

The Innovation Strategy Big Companies Should Pursue 09-06


The Innovation Strategy Big Companies Should Pursue


One sunny day in March, Gagan Biyani, the young and hugely ambitious CEO of Sprig—a company so new you probably have never heard of it—stepped into the main conference room at 2550 Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park, California. Here, inside this nondescript Silicon Valley office, everything was about to change for Biyani, and his small company. He was here to pitch his business plan to Greylock Partners.
The room is ordinary—a white board, table, some chairs—but through the eyes of a fledgling CEO, it becomes transformed. “Coming in, the first person I see is Reid, right?... And then David is over here; Aneel is there,” Biyani says breathlessly. “It was the biggest moment of my life.” Gathered here on that day were some of the most powerful venture capitalists in the valley: David Sze, Aneel Bhusri, Reid Hoffman and every other partner at Greylock. These are the guys who backed Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, Pandora, Dropbox, Airbnb—at a time when they were not much bigger than Sprig. For a striving founder of a startup, pitching your business plan here is a bit like being a rookie pitcher stepping onto the mound at Yankee Stadium—with Babe Ruth walking up to the plate.
Out of thousands of business plans Greylock sees each year, only 20 or so make it to a full partnership meeting. Of those, only half get funded. Biyani was determined to show that Sprig was worthy. But more than just his shot at the big leagues, what Biyani got that day was an up-close look at how Greylock picks its bets.
Here’s one surprising lesson Biyani learned: If the partners start arguing about your pitch, you’re probably doing pretty well. That means they are intrigued enough to be grinding the details. Of course, Biyani didn’t know this at the time, which made it particularly unnerving when Bhusri began drilling down into the fundamentals of his business plan. Biyani has wildly ambitious plans for Sprig: He wants it to be the Uber of food—delivering meals anywhere, anytime with the swipe of a phone. But this is an unproven concept in an unproven market. The risks are huge: Sprig will cost millions to build; it won’t make a penny for years; its logistics are a nightmare.
Bhusri had questions. He is the co-founder and CEO of Workday (another big win for Greylock), and few people in the world know more about starting a tech company. He probed into the viability of Sprig’s concept, its market. Biyani had answers—he’d been preparing for months. But Bhusri didn’t let up, and going back and forth with one of the world’s top venture capitalists was intense. Then something unexpected happened. Sze—who once fought hard to get Greylock into Facebook—jumped in and started arguing the case for Sprig. For Biyani, this was a surreal moment. He watched as two of the biggest operators in Silicon Valley went toe-to-toe over his fledgling company.
When his pitch was over, the young CEO walked out feeling strangely elated. “I have never seen so much intellectual horsepower in one room in my life,” he says. Shortly after, he got an offer: Greylock was in for $10 million.
For a startup, getting Greylock’s backing means more than just an infusion of cash. “It’s like your company’s been blessed by the pope,” says Nirav Tolia, founder of Nextdoor, a social media site that got funded by Greylock two years ago. When that news got out, he was flooded with offers from other VCs wanting to get into the deal. “Firms will say, ‘I don’t even know what Nextdoor is, but I know David Sze is on the board, so I am going to write a check.’” When Glenn Kelman, CEO of real estate startup Redfin, got funding from Greylock, one partner asked him to write down his wish list of people for his board. Shortly after, his top pick—Austin Ligon, founder of Carmax—was in. “I felt like we could have gotten Barack Obama if I had listed him,” recalls Kelman. Peter Chernin, ex-chief operating officer of Fox, joined the board of Pandora because of Greylock’s backing. “They are good at choosing companies and good at building companies,” he explains.
Hard to imagine now, but there was a time when Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, Pandora and Tumblr were ideas that, to many, seemed crazy. But where others might see lunacy, Greylock has seen opportunity. Take Airbnb. At the time Greylock invested in 2009, the idea seemed totally bizarre: Who would rent out his home to strangers online? Last year, 6 million people used the service to bunk up on the cheap, from Las Vegas to Kathmandu. The company, still private, was valued in January at close to $10 billion.
“When the idea is big enough and edgy enough—it’s either madness or genius,” says Hoffman. “What you are trying to figure out is which one it is.”
6.6_FE0123_Greylock_02Reid Hoffman, center, the founder of LinkedIn when his stock was listed 
Heighten the Conflict
“There is a lot of mythology about how firms decide,” says Sze one recent afternoon at his Sand Hill Road offices. The space is, for the most part, nondescript—tidy rooms and cubicles above a New Republic bank branch. There is something unusual installed on one wall: the shape of a slender tree painted black, branches blossoming outward. At the end of each branch is a small wall mount holding every cellphone and mobile device Sze has owned—from a brick-sized US West to the Apple Newton to the iPhone. It is a physical reminder of how quickly technology has transformed just about every part of our world over these past 20 years. For much of that time, Sze has been deep inside this revolution, finding the companies that are driving it.
“A lot of these voting systems are consensus oriented, where you need to have 100 percent unification of the group,” observes Sze. Greylock’s system is different. A few years ago, the partners analyzed their pitch meetings, looking at ones that had led to their best deals and their worst. The deals fell into three categories: ones everyone hated, ones everyone loved and ones they fought over. It was this last group that yielded Greylock’s biggest wins. Facebook, Pandora, Airbnb were all hotly contested pitches. On Airbnb, Sze clashed with Hoffman, certain the idea would never work. Luckily for Greylock, Hoffman doesn’t back down easily. “We are looking for outliers and extremes,” explains Sze. “So we try to heighten this conflict.”
There are few groups that know more about how tech startups fail or fly. Each of Greylock’s 11 investing partners has either founded a major startup or was early into one. Sze was one of the first employees at Excite, a pre-Google search engine. Other partners come out of eBay, Yahoo, Mozilla, Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn. “Our bet is that people who have been in these operating roles, that have lived it day in and day out, they are going to go, ‘Oh, I can see why this could be great,’” explains Sze.
When Sze came to Greylock in 2000, the world was very different. There was no iPhone, no Twitter, no Facebook, and laptops felt as heavy as a block of cement. The firm was different too. It was well known on the East Coast, having made a name for itself investing in Teradyne, Neutrogena, Prime Computers—many of the big venture deals of the 1980s and 1990s. But on the West Coast, it wasn’t a real player.
6.6_FE0123_Greylock_07The welcome party of the Web start-up Airbnb, in San Francisco, Aug. 16, 2011 
Greylock hired Sze to change that. A graduate of Yale University and Stanford Business School, he had recently left Excite and was just building his reputation in the VC world. Back then, no one in Silicon Valley took Greylock that seriously, and if you are not in the inner ring, you don’t get first crack at the best companies. “It wouldn’t have occurred to me to go pitch Greylock,” recalls Hoffman, who was looking for investors for LinkedIn in 2004. Coming out of PayPal, Hoffman had his pick of investors, but a conversation with Sze sold him. The young VC talked about LinkedIn in a way that was completely different from what the other investors were seeing. He was deeply interested in the mechanics of the company—whom it should hire, how it could attract users, even what the site should look like. It was more like talking to a fellow entrepreneur than to an investor, Hoffman says. “You want to pick people you want to be in the foxhole with,” he explains. Hoffman decided to become a partner at Greylock after LinkedIn went public.
And then along came Facebook. The first time its pitch book came Sze’s way—in 2005—he blew it off. “I had a chance to look at it”—when it was valued at $100 million—“and turned it down because I was working on closing another deal,” he recalls. A year later, Facebook’s valuation jumped to $550 million. When Mark Zuckerberg came around for his next round of funding, Sze was determined to get in the door.
In the history of the firm, few deals have been as contentious as this Facebook meeting. What made the partners so tense was the huge price tag for a business that was still unproven and had plenty of competition—MySpace, Friendster, Tickle. It wasn’t at all clear Facebook would emerge the winner. But Sze seized the moment and eloquently articulated something many of his partners were having trouble seeing. He described in detail how social media would build on itself, how it would spread beyond colleges, how people craved ways to connect.
The partners agreed to the deal and wrote one of the biggest checks in the partnership’s history—$10 million. Jim Breyer, the partner at Accel who funded Facebook’s earlier venture round, remembers one of the partners calling him later: “He said, I just want to do a double-check: Are we getting a fair deal?”
As of the end of May, Facebook was worth around $160 billion.
6.6_FE0123_Greylock_06
In Stealth Mode
“Last night I got about three and a half hours of sleep,” says Hoffman over breakfast at the Rosewood Hotel in Menlo Park. In front of him, a huge wall of windows is serving up a wide view of Silicon Valley—a brown, shrubby stretch clear out to the Santa Cruz Mountains. In these parts, Hoffman is a legend. Entrepreneurs see him as a champion of striving start-ups. In pitch meetings he is known for putting jittery founders at ease. One recalls Hoffman joking with him about their shared passion for Settlers of Catan—a board game wildly popular with the geek set. Once, on his personal website devoted to boosting entrepreneurs, he posted his original LinkedIn pitch deck, annotated with notes on what he got wrong in 2004 and how he would change his pitch now.
On this particular morning, Hoffman has a lot on his calendar. In addition to his role at Greylock, he has remained chairman at LinkedIn, and he’s about to fly to Korea to meet with Samsung to discuss the LinkedIn app for its phones. But before he leaves, Hoffman needs to lock down unfinished Greylock business. For the past three days, he has been chasing a startup that has been operating “in stealth mode”—that’s Silicon Valley–speak for not telling anyone what you are up to. But he got all the details over breakfast with one of the co-founders, and he is certain it’s something to jump on. Hoffman quickly convened a pitch meeting. That went well, but now he is pushing Greylock to move fast to figure out whether it should make an offer. In this world, the best startups don’t stay available for long. Two of Greylock’s rival venture firms had already lobbed in offers.
The competition among top VCs is fiercer than ever. Greylock’s top rivals—Sequoia, Accel, Benchmark, Andreesen Horowitz—vie with it on just about every big deal. Thanks in part to the colossal valuations of companies like Twitter and Facebook, investors are flooding the Valley with capital, and top venture firms have raised huge new funds. Andreesen Horowitz recently launched a $1.5 billion fund. Last fall, Greylock raised $1 billion; it now has $2.6 billion under management. There is so much capital available that top startups often get multiple offers—Sprig, for example, had three besides Greylock’s. So perhaps the question here is not how do VCs choose startups but, rather, how do entrepreneurs choose investors.
“I don’t know if you know my history with VCs, but it’s not entirely friendly,” says Ev Williams, co-founder of Twitter, whose backers famously ousted him. This winter, Williams went looking for investors for his new company, Medium. He had his pick of investors. Who wouldn’t fund the next Twitter? He didn’t really need the money, though—thanks to the Twitter IPO, he is worth more than $2 billion. This time, he was looking for something less tangible. “To me, character was one of the very most important things,” he says. Before deciding on his investors, he called around to other entrepreneurs to get reference checks on VCs. One call had particular impact. Williams spoke to Kevin Rose, a co-founder of Digg. Greylock had been one of its venture firms. Williams wanted to know one thing: How had David Sze—the partner who got Greylock in on the deal—treated the foundering CEO as his company was unraveling? That is, of course, when you see a VC’s real mettle—when he’s about to lose all his money. “The thing I heard, time after time, was David was always trying to do the right thing for the entrepreneur,” says Williams. “People don’t universally say that about all investors.”
In January, Williams announced that Greylock would be Medium’s lead investor. In the strange calculus and karma of Silicon Valley, if Medium comes anywhere close to Twitter’s success, Greylock’s investment in Digg still might pay off.
We All Need Good Poaching
“Hey Josh, when you were at Twitter is this how you guys used to do it?”
It is a bright spring morning in San Francisco, and Josh Elman, a young partner at Greylock, is sitting in a room full of product engineers, designers and managers at Nextdoor—a startup that aims to do for neighbors what LinkedIn did for job seekers. The wide-open loft space has huge windows. Covering one wall is an essay titled “Our Manifesto.” Coders click away at their computers—the dress code, flannel shirts or ironic T-shirts, Buddy Holly glasses. One guy has a Mohawk.
“Wait, I think it’s more helpful if we look at Facebook,” Elman clicks at his laptop. Dressed in an orange T-shirt with kittens printed across the front, jeans and sneakers Elman, 38, looks as if he could be one of the engineers or managers listening to him. And not so long ago he was. Elman used to be Twitter’s growth hacker—Silicon Valley-speak for the guy who gets people to use your site. Before that he launched Facebook Connect, and before that he was one of the first product managers at LinkedIn. There are few people in the world who know as much about building a social media platform. And today he’s here to show Nextdoor how he did it, so they can do it again.
Greylock has big hopes for Nextdoor. Greylock made a $15 million investment a little over a year ago, and since then the company has been moving fast. Nextdoor is part of a wave of second-generation social media platforms building on the foundations that Facebook and LinkedIn laid down. It aims to capture local markets—one of the hot sectors in consumer technology right now. Say your dog is lost, or you are having a tag sale; instead of posting fliers all over the neighborhood, you can post on Nextdoor. It has no revenues, nor any plan for how to generate them, but Nextdoor has enough cash to survive for years. Six months after its Greylock round, Nextdoor raised another $60 million from Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and other investors.
Yet for all its promise and funding, it’s important to remember that nothing is ever certain in the startup world. There are always unexpected twists: In May, for instance, Nextdoor’s Tolia was charged with a felony hit-and-run. He allegedly made a lane change on the highway that caused another car to hit the median; the two vehicles did not collide. He is pleading not guilty.
For Nextdoor to succeed it must keep to its mission: growing fast. Right now, it has a huge team focusing on getting as many people to use the site as quickly as possible. At the moment, the company is in 35,000 neighborhoods across the country (it does not disclose total users). That’s a start, but to be a big player in social media, it will need a lot more. Facebook now has over a billion users a month.
“OK, so when I was doing this at Facebook, we put a lot of buttons here,” Elman points to his screen. “I’m looking now, and I see they’ve made it cleaner. I like it.”
Few VCs will go deep into the trenches the way Greylock does. Once the pomp of the pitch is over and the money is in the bank, the real hard work of building a company begins. And this is where Greylock gives its companies a huge edge. Because they used to be entrepreneurs too, the partners know what it takes to go from scrappy idea to real business. “What would you pay to have someone in the room who has had to deal with all the situations you are dealing with and has done that at two of the most successful Internet companies of all time?” asks Tolia. At one point, Nextdoor had a disastrous episode when it tried out a new feature on its site and its users hated it. Sze walked the team through a similar problem Facebook experienced when some of its new features riled users. Recently, when one of Nextdoor’s managers announced he was leaving, Sze helped persuade him to stay.
“When things aren’t going your way, you really appreciate their clout,” says Kelman. When he was looking for a chief financial officer, he was too small to get much attention from his recruiting firm. One of the Greylock partners called on his behalf, and a short time later, Redfin hired Chris Nielsen, the former CFO of Zappos.
Recruiting is a particular point of emphasis for Greylock. The competition for talent in Silicon Valley right now is brutal. There are not enough coders and engineers in the U.S. to meet the huge demand at tech companies. For startups, this is particularly tough because bigger tech companies can pay enormous salaries. One entrepreneur trying to poach an engineer from one big tech company was stunned to find out the guy was making over $1 million a year. Right now, there are 40 openings for top executives across Greylock’s portfolio and dozens more for engineers and coders.
To help its companies find top talent, Greylock has built an in-house recruiting team. In 2011 it hired Jeff Markowitz and Dan Portillo—two top tech recruiters with huge networks in the valley. They have been able to draw big names to Greylock’s startups. Some recent coups: Tom Reilly, who sold his company to Hewlett-Packard as CEO of Cloudera; Dan Clancy, a top Google engineer, as Nextdoor’s engineering chief; Brent Ayrey, vice president of product innovation at Netflix, to run innovation at Creative Live. To get midlevel engineers and designers, Greylock trains its entrepreneurs to recruit for themselves. One guide provides tips such as “the 100 rule”—the number of people you need to talk to in order to get 15 viable candidates.
6.6_FE0123_Greylock_08
Fly Against the Swarm
It’s late in the afternoon at Hatch Today, an incubator in San Francisco. Here are the front-line trenches of the startup world. Scattered across a cramped, crowded space are rows and rows of small tables. Clusters of people, young and old, squeeze around them, busily clicking away at their laptops. Some have planted banners—HashGo, WeblishPal, Swapdom—names of companies we might never know. No one seems to notice the quiet guy seated under a banner that reads Sprig—even though he is probably the most powerful person in the room. Simon Rothman, one of Greylock’s partners, has been here all day, helping Sprig figure out how to put the firm’s $10 million to work.
“This is a business that has pace, it’s moving fast. This is one of the rare cases like Uber or Lyft that resonates,” explains Rothman, who used to run eBay Motors. If all goes well, it won’t be long before Sprig leaves its incubator and sets up shop in its own digs. Here Greylock can help too. It has a real estate agent who helps its companies find space. But whether it will be Greylock’s next big win is the billion-dollar question.
“Everyone can tell you why something is going to fail,” says Sze. “The real trick is, can you create the conviction on why something might succeed?”