Who Should you Hire at a Startup?

by Mark Suster on October 22, 2009

Only Hire A+ People Who Punch Above Their Weight Class

boxing2This is part of my ongoing posts on Startup Advice.  There are people who tell startups that they should hire the most senior people that they can find.  I’m not one of those.  I believe that you should always hire people are are looking to “punch above their weight class,” which means to hire people who want to be one league above where they are today.

Don’t confuse this with the quality of the individual.  I’m a big believer in only hiring A+ team members.  I’ll explain both below.  Please don’t also confuse this with whether a VC should invest in a CEO who’s done it before – that’s a given.

I’m talking about what most of you are tempted to do.  I know because I have this chat all the time – including this morning.  You’re stressed.  Everyone in the outside world is talking about how great you are but internally you know that your sales aren’t ramping, your product isn’t shipping on time, you have doubts about the quality of your code, you’re not convinced you’re doing a good job on marketing – whatever.

Your solution?  Bring in a heavyweight.  My advice: don’t.

Weight Class: Let’s take sales.  I see a lot of CEO’s who haven’t gotten the quick ramp in sales that they had hoped for want to reach quickly to bring in a VP Sales who has done it all before.  It is tempting because you not only see that they were VP Sales at 3 other startups but also that they have great access (according to their resume) to senior executives at companies you’re trying to target.  Bringing in a senior person who’s “done it all before” is often a mistake in a startup.

Why?  Well, first let’s be honest.  At your stage of development do you really think a shit-hot VP Sales is going to join you to head up sales?  It reminds me of the famous Groucho Marx line, “I’d never want to join a club that would accept me as a member.” (I think Woody Allen then used this line?)

More likely this person who wants to work at your fledgling company is a decent performer but not a superstar.  But aside from that, the skills that are required to be a VP Sales (e.g. hiring / training / motivating staff, setting up sales compensation programs, implementboxinging and enforcing a sales policy) are not consistent with the skills you need in your company at this stage.

You’re far more likely to find success from an individual contributor.  You need the sales executive who aspires to be a VP Sales (e.g. one weight class above where he’s at) but has not yet been given the chance..  He’s got something to prove.  He’s joining you because your company offers him/her the hope of the big equity package but likely the step forward in his career that he’s been looking for.

And you can always bring on a senior person as a mentor / coach to help guide you personally to become a better sales leader until you’re ready for somebody more senior on your team.  In LA I know that people like Vince Thompson do a great job with this.  In NorCal there are zillions of people.  One group I talked to in the past and really liked was Sally Duby over at PhoneWorks.

So what if you’re already a mid-stage startup.   You’re doing $2-$5 million in sales and looking to take the company to the next level.  Shouldn’t you just hire the most senior guy you can out of Oracle, Salesforce.com, Microsoft, EA or whatever your relevant industry is?  Not so fast.  Hiring the big gun will often still be one weight class above where you want to hire.

Let me tell you my story.

In my first company we had achieved a small bit of scale.  In our first year of sales we did $2.1 million.  This was a reasonable achievement when you consider that it was 2001-02, one of the worst years to be selling enterprise software and we were selling it SaaS style, which was still evangelical back then.  In our second year of sales we did $5.9 million and our third year we hit $7.7 million.  So we were starting to become a real business.  I worked with the board who encouraged me to bring in heavy weights.  I shot as high as I could.

SaaS was hot so I was able to land a very impressive guy.  I was able to hire the former European head of sales for the largest document management player in the world.  He was 10 years my senior and way more accomplished in terms of big enterprise company experience.  I had always been a scrappy entrepreneur.  Now was time to bring in some process.

One of the things that I had done to help me gain access to senior people that I didn’t know was to bring on a senior guy from industry as a mentor.  He helped set up senior meetings for me based on his personal relationships with people.  I had given him a small equity stake in my company.  This relationship was invaluable because it got me in front of people who I would have ordinarily struggled to get access to in a timely manner.

unilever-logo-796609One such meeting that he set up was with the CIO of the largest consumer products company in Europe.  Think the equivalent of Proctor & Gamble.  I couldn’t possibly name the them, but it was a huge company, very senior executive.

I asked my new SVP Sales to take the meeting and he had spent a couple of weeks preparing.  I got a call the morning of the meeting from my assistant (who was also shared with this gentleman) that he was planning to cancel the CIO meeting.  I called him and asked him why and he said that he had scheduled a meeting with all of his top sales guys (we had about 8 by that point) to talk about sales pricing.  He felt that we didn’t price correctly and he didn’t want to see customers until he had a grip on it.

WTF!! ?? !!  Needless to say I took the meeting myself.  A startup CEO would never pass on that opportunity.  It is something that perhaps a big company person could fathom.  Maybe our pricing needed work – who knows.  But in small companies you have a certain ethos of hustling and taking every opportunity given to you.

Several weeks later we parted ways along with another senior executive brought on by this guy.  It was clear that there wasn’t a fit.  I don’t believe that this was something unique to me.  I believe that taking senior people from industry and assuming that they’ll do well in a startup is a farce.  I often tell people that it took 18 months for me to undo all of my Andersen Consulting experience to allow me to become an entrepreneur (although in my youth I had done several entrepreneurial activities)

So when I’m helping people think about whom to hire I given the following guidance:

- It’s OK to find somebody who’s had academy experience (e.g. IBM, Microsoft, Oracle) as long as they’ve done a start-up after that before coming to you

- It’s far better to hire somebody who’s shit hot but stepping up a role (e.g. director to VP) than to hire somebody who has already held a bigger role and is taking a step back because they’re after an equity play in a start-up

- Be careful not to hire managers for a job that requires individual contribution.  This is oil & water territory (chalk & cheese if you’re a UK reader ;-) )

- Never hire somebody who is going to relocate for your job unless they’re young, single and have no attachments.  I’ve hired so many people who were going to move after they got my job offer.   I can’t tell you how many times I’ve encountered the house that wouldn’t sell, the need for the kids to finish the school year, the wife who can’t find a local job.  Life’s too short – find somebody geographically desirable or totally mobile.

gradesA Plus Employees:  One other quick note is about the quality of the people you hire.  In arguing for people who punch above their weight class I’m not arguing for tell talented individuals.  To the contrary.  I believe very much in hiring the best people you can possible attract and making compensation (either equity or cash) enough to motivate them to join and stay.

I never believe in hiring B players and then trying to upgrade with more talented people later when the company has more cash, more customers or is performing better.  The problem is that A players are only attracted to work at places where they see other A players.  They smell B from a mile away.  And also B players often don’t hire other B people.  In my experience B players hire C people.  A begets A, B begets C.  Don’t go there.

The advice to not hire too senior should come as no surprise to anybody who read my views that “Startup Founders Should Flip Burgers” or in other words should do many of the detailed jobs themselves.

Ok, I know it’s controversial.  If you want to call BS have at me in the comments ;-)

Share and Enjoy:
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • FriendFeed
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • HackerNews
  • Suggest to Techmeme via Twitter
  • email
  • Print
  • My general interpretation of what you are trying to say is "hire good, hungry people over experienced, not-hungry people"

    Your appendix is a little more difficult to get to your intended meaning -- seems ripe for misinterpretation (like "never hire anyone older and more experienced than you").

    I totally agree with your points on enterprise sales. I've been in too many situations where "experienced" sales guys negotiate large guaranteed commissions for their first year and then sit around; there's a certain type that tries to move from hot startup to hot startup, where the wind and hype is always at their back, but if things shift and the sales process is new, complex and/or hard, do not have what it takes.

    In general, people tend to be risk averse in some of the wrong ways when it comes to hiring. They like big company brands on resumes, but big company practices (or consulting companies!) can be really bad for the scrappy needs of a startup.
  • Thank you. I think you're totally right about my appendix. It was late at night and I was tired. It was unfocused. I deleted it.

    re: brand names - great point. People place too much emphasis on this vs. gut instinct.
  • darrogantvoncunning
    Hello, I was raised with a Continental European standard of viewing and thinking about discussion on business so perhaps I am too arrogant to post this clearly prejudiced and random rant here, but....

    Is not grading people "stars" and not "stars", "A-players" "B-players "C-players" one of the most stupidest and disgusting ever in starting a company? It appears that one can use that terminology to vindicate private vendettas, emotional barriers and other frictions while giving the impression of being solid or even enlightened enough to judge others, when not capable of doing so. It seems such an average and usual way to rationalize ones basically emotional, instinctive, decisions and leaves the obvious taste that there is another side of the story that is not spoken of.

    To be precise, the taste that I have in my mouth is that there is not only talent left untouched but also data about current strengths of any given "player", "team-member" that is given a blind eye, because they are not the "leader", the "alpha female/male" or show well manufactured signs of perception that they want to be one of those "take your pick of stupid, self-serving concepts".

    What I mean is that in the golden era of American companies, that is fading fast, with a few exceptions - everything was 180 degrees different from the current system of ranking performance that is now universal in the States - Why are you ruining the very standard that you help to set - that gave you the glory, prosperity that all the peasants of the world desire - and that now everybody in Asia, Arabia and <gasp> those pesky Europeans, at times, are following with strict discipline to succeed you?

    When I will start my business in less than a week, I shall never use such terminology which seems to be the prejudice of the modern era, the last decades, to me at least. If somebody is not the best person they can be in a situation - I tell them so, I love describing situations with honest adjectives better than murky and overused concepts from gurus and middle men.

    What would be your response? Oh, right I am a C player for pointing this out? Of course! A shell game for fools...

    Actually I have been hired in almost every interview I have ever gone to, save one which was outside of my sector, (I have not been to many, five in all) - so I speak from the perspective of the privilege of having left mainly impressions of being that "star" or whatever in the IT sector. But it never makes sense to me how stupid that decision making process is.

    I mean the entire post seems meaningless to me - it is not controversial to try to hire the best people possible - everybody wants to do this. Want on earth are you rambling about? Everybody knows that the single and the young are more mobile and etc.. According to the latest measurements I have taken myself, there is zero
    percentage of controversy in the perimeter, everybody around you thinks like you, so you can feel safe on your own website to post about whatever you like - since I - the last insane and obviously over the top person to disagree with this thinking - just de-subscribed the RSS feed.

    Oh and I really love what you guys were, for example you have taught me and the entire civilization by example how to be quick and clever in business and in personal life. It is sad that you currently think the way that is opposite to success - but so much the better as a company in Europe I am getting young people from the States as my prospective labour - a guy from Maryland, the richest part of the States and so forth. I can not imagine the number of money the Asians are collectively making by brining in talent that does not want to be categorized by this whole process, for which I have anecdotal evidence of top American companies like Nike and Apple making use of in design and development, but it must be more substantial and probably the unspoken reason for their success, not cheap labour. Picking up people that you consider "C-players" and "followers" and letting them run is an amazing strategy that turns the page on the economy of the world. That and better marketing too from other ways to do business.
  • "it is not controversial to try to hire the best people possible"

    It's more than that. When do you hire the best person you've found so far and when do you keep looking? A large company often has the resources to nurture people who don't quite perform as expected but start-ups don't.

    In fact, someone who doesn't have the start-up sense of urgency and agility will often (in my experience) poison the people around them. You see this on sports teams, when a talented athlete who's not a "team player" ends up bringing total team performance down.

    My experience is that it's better not to hire someone you don't have total confidence in than to hire someone just because you think they might work out eventually. Think of it like marriage -- mistakes can be more costly and painful than you realize!
  • I could not agree more. A bad seed spoils the environment for everyone. The golden rule I was taught and believe is, "hire slowly, fire fast."
  • Whoa, Nelly. I'm OK for you to dissent. I express opinions, not facts. My personal opinion is that entrepreneurs have limited resources and have no time or money to support mediocrity. In life I believe in being friends with, nurturing, educating and respecting people from all backgrounds and all skill levels. Running a small company with limited resources in a hyper-competitive, democratic society requires you to hire only the very best. If you disagree with calling them A, B, C I don't care. Those are just labels for describing quality.

    As for Continental Europe, you throw that out as though you're accusing me of being an insular American who's never traveled. I lived abroad for 11 years including Italy, France, the UK and Japan. I spent months in Spain and for a while traveled to Germany 2x / month. So don't make this a US vs. Europe thing - it's not.
  • This guy seems to have lost the entire point of the article, and decided he'd wallow in a bit of self-righteousness instead.

    My understanding of 'A', 'B' or 'C' as ratings for an employee is an abstracted measure of how good a fit he is for the company. It's simply not feasible to write about performance while discussing too many independent variables like 'hard-working' or 'smart' or 'creative' since that's not the point of this article

    No one is actually telling the employees at performance reviews that 'You're a C+ player'.. (although I can see some big companies doing that!)
  • The quote is from Groucho Marx, not Woody Allen.
  • Ha! Thanks for spotting. I think Woody Allen must have later repeated it because I thought that's where I heard it. but I've updated. Appreciate it.
  • Speaking of quotes, if I remember right, in one of Guy Kawasaki's early books he quotes Steve Jobs as saying, "A players hire A players. B players hire C players. You wanna hire that guy? Are you nuts?" (Later, as an exercise, Kawasaki asks "If A players hire A players and B players hire C players, who hires B players?")
  • Ha. Excellent. I guess B players only start companies? ;-)
  • Woody Allen USED this line in his fabulous “annie hall", so keep it...

    I find it very hard to define A+ employee till i actually work with a person for 2-3 months. We hired 3 people already that looked A+ by all parameters, but didn't deliver. There are certain qualities to a person that can be judged only after some traction... SO, i would add to your concept that you need to re-estimate your judgment few months down the road to make sure you chose right, and if were wrong, don't keep it going.
  • Totally agree. Golden rule of startups: hire slowly, fire fast. You never know if they're A until you work with them.
  • dsubar
    I believe what Woody Allen said, paraphrasing Groucho, was that he would never want to date a woman who would have him as a beau.
  • Thanks for a great article Mark. I work with a lot of startups and have found much of what you've said to be true. At later stages the older managerial types can really come into play as members of the team, unless of course they have startup experience.

    I've found too that hiring people with the types of skills required but not necessarily the job title can work out quite well. For instance, a healthcare startup I know hired their head of customer experience from the hospitality industry. AFAIK, the guy didn't have any software experience, however having been in customer service for a long time more than qualified him for the position, and it turned out much better for the company. Now I look to hire on skills rather than job title.
  • makes sense. And I do agree that more experienced managers can join at a later stage. I'm not ageist - I'm just against hiring people more senior than their role dictates.
  • I agree with you on that for sure and I don't think you're ageist. Experience definitely has it's place, and when used tactically can have a great effect. Used too early and you can get bogged down.
  • Great food for thought. Maybe a different way to put it is as a founder you need to hire employees that are the right fit for your organization at the time. If you are a young, very scrappy startup, hire energetic scrappy employees (could be any age, although often tend to be younger). If you are well along toward climbing the mountain and truly do need to add some well thought-out process, hire some employees who have that ability and experience who can also meld with your current scrappy culture, e.g., Eric Schmidt at Google. And never hire tone-deaf employees who don't "get it" and do things like cancel sales meetings with major customers.
  • sounds about right
  • Great post, give me a start up full of people with energy, common sense and ambition regardless of background. The large company background doesn't prepare people adequately for "the physics" of a small company including and particularly -- the race against time which moves (or should move) faster in the minds of all start up employees.
  • Agreed re: energy, common sense and ambition. I do prefer to find people who have worked in the job function before - at least somewhat.
  • Tony Karrer
    Mark - one quick additional thought. Just like you say "And you can always bring on a senior person as a mentor / coach to help guide you personally ..."

    You can often do that same kind of thing to help you with your lower weight class people. I see this all the time in the technical arena. It doesn't make sense to hire a full-time, true CTO. You really just need a slice of a true CTO and then you need hands on people who are a weight class below.

    But the flip side is that if the CEO doesn't have the knowledge in sales or technology, they are going to have a hard time directing people who are trying to fight above their weight class. So, get the help.
  • Tony, good point. I'm joining this discussion late but two rules of thumb apply I think across the board for startups:

    1. Always hire stretch people as a general rule. Folks who are ready to gobble up more and are open for mentorship. Can't go wrong with this.

    2. Alot depends on the skill base of the CEO. If the CEO is a marketing person who can manage to P & L, they can usually hire stretch directors in sales and marketing and finance. If they are a product visionary or engineering maven, hiring stretch directors even with coaching is a challenge if there is growth momentum in the wings.

    This is what my experience has taught me and with a few public companies as exceptions, I've always built companies from the ground up.
  • For sure. I like fractional employees in these situations.
  • Mark, I agree with what you say. I've had the opportunity to work in both very large and very small companies. I've seen that different types of people are successful in these two different contexts.

    Successful big company people are organized, politically shrewed, and, well, just a little bit dull. Successful small company people are scrappy, chaotic and full of creativity and energy.

    I'm a small company person and suffered a lot when I moved to a multi-national. But the experience was good learning.

    Whilst I wouldn't hire a top-guy from a big company, I would definitely consider hiring the pissed-off guy.
  • Funnily enough the word I use most often when people ask who I like to invest in and who I recommend people hire is "scrappy"
  • This is a fantastic post. every entrepreneur should read this
  • Anon
    You're advocating illegal discrimination on the basis of age, then?

    In many states, discrimination based on parental and marital status is also illegal.
  • No, I'm not. I'm not ageist. I'm only arguing not to hire people more senior than their job function requires.
  • Just classic: "it took 18 months for me to undo all of my Andersen Consulting experience to allow me to become an entrepreneur"

    quoted that on twitter: http://twitter.com/RomanGiverts/status/5090521751

    btw, there needs to be a better way to "retweet" lines in blog posts.
  • really enjoyed this piece. great stuff Mark. In my own experience, everytime we've tried to take a shortcut in hiring, it's backfired; when we've aimed "too high" (e.g. sorta already made it), it tends to fall apart... there's just no replacement for hunger + talent.
  • Great post and its very informative. I fully agree with you that getting someone who can punch above his weight is critical. I generally look for A players who are flexible, have lots of energy and brimming with optimism.

    Based on my experience some of the A players have attitude issues, are not very flexible and are high maintenance. We need to watch for for these type of people. Last thing you want is to spend time managing them as opposed to managing your business.
  • Agreed. I wish I would have thought of this point before I wrote the post. I'd much rather have an A- person with a great attitude than an A+ with attitude. Thanks for you input. Maybe the topic for a separate post ;-)
  • Very good points, fully agree. It is indeed better to have a passionate potential A person that wants to prove himself, opposed to hiring an A guy that knows he is an A guy because he worked at a big company. These attitude guys in the long run probably take too much of your resources as well. Even though they might bring results, it is critical to have fun (but serious) during the job and in the end you and probably your colleagues would end up being annoyed by such a personality.
  • Amen. FWIW, I think entrepeneurs know this even better that VCs, though it should be the other way around. VCs tend to push the execs you advise against hiring.
  • I know. I went through it myself. When I didn't say in the post was that it was the VCs who pushed me to hire the senior guys. The whole experience of hiring then firing was destructive on the company.
  • I've gotten some interest from big firm consultants (2 of them!) in joining my startup. However, I can't think of a single reason why I would pull the trigger. Their contacts are probably not as robust as they believe, their knowledge rarely seems to translate into actual output, and they tend to be prohibitive know-it-alls (not their fault, just the world they come from).

    However, I have a prospective investor telling me I'm a fool for passing up the chance to hire an ex-Deloitte strategy guy as a COO. I suspect he's never had a big-firm consultant work for him (I've worked with several). What have you observed from ex-consultants? Are they a terrible fit for startups in filling a c-level role? Anybody have any opinions or experiences?

    I think it's a forgone conclusion Accenture folks will ask for too many options and spend too much time on their BlackBerries pretending to look busy...

    Very helpful post. Awesome.
  • Mark I think this is an important point. The main reason I feel I need to hire 'big-company' people is because of pressure from investors to boost the 'Team' slide on our deck...just because we often have to summarize our qualifications in a few recognizable words (ideally something like 'Google' or in our case maybe 'OpenTable')

    How do you communicate 'hunger' to investors? Almost everyone in my startup is punching one notch above their weight right now, and I think it's working out just about perfectly - we have a culture of 'anything is possible' that makes it a lot of fun to go to work.
  • 1. Google or OpenTable doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't be a good employee
    2. Avoid letting VCs tell you to hire senior people. Most VCs suggest people too experienced but don't understand that these people don't perform well at your stage of company. And if they're going to force it ... run!
  • Only hire the ex strategy guy if he/she went to work for a startup afterward and unlearned everything they were taught. If they haven't worked for a startup I'd say, "Danger, Will Robinson!"
  • vjgoel
    As a former McKinsey type, I'd agree with Mark. There's really only 2 ways you should pursue the ex-consultants without startup experience:

    1) advisory/ part time role where you can give them tasks and see if they're willing to execute themselves at a level appropriate for a startup. If so, bring them in accordingly...but make this a "let's try and see how this works" type of thing
    2) pure advisory role where you can bounce ideas off them.

    From my own experience, market rate and enterprise level thinking beyond a startups needs generally makes ex-consultants tough. The work ethic of "get the job done" working in ambiguity can be a real add. As can strategic thinking about how to think 1 step ahead of where the business is today...but only 1 and not 2 or 3.

    This has been a great dynamic I've had with my wife in her catering business... http://www.bitecatering.net (we specialize in bite-sized foods). I've tended to handle a more automated marketing campaign in a few hours a week and serve as a sounding board on customer conversion, talent, and scaling operations where she has been laser-focused on execution. Any more time I would spend after a few hours a week has generally been pretty low value-add. The strategic conversations generally tend to be far fewer0 at this stage than the ones on solid execution and customer traction...so plan your executive team's talents and bandwidth accordingly.
  • Great points!! Smaller , cohesive and hungry group for startups!
  • I also target customers this way. I always want to sell to/partner with the hungry #2/3/4. They work harder and invest more aggressively to pursue their competitors.
  • Funny. I was just having this conversation today. I was telling them, "listen, Twitter is the 800 pound gorilla. They don't need to partner with you. Who is bummed out at Twitter's success. Let's partner with them. They'll be hungrier and they're still MUCH bigger than we are.
  • Good points, thanks.
  • RR
    You are as good as your last game. I guess people don't remain A,B or C through their life! Market, Culture, Products, Social Factors change people's category (A to B, B to C or C to A). I believe the interview process must decide if this exec will be a A or B or C when put in your (startup) company (culture, product etc). Do you have a though process on how to do this interview Mark Suster?
  • I agree with you that people aren't always A's, B's or C's. re: Interviewing - it's hard. Much of it is instinct in my opinion. But I'll think about some ideas about how I interview and maybe do a future post. Thanks for the idea.
  • Mike O'Horo
    Twenty years ago, when I was a headhunter in the IT world, I had a smaller ($25m) software company client for whom I was recruiting some executives to start up and head key biz functions, e.g., customer support, education, etc. The CEO made it clear that under no circumstances would he hire anyone from big companies such as IBM, Oracle, SoftwareAG, etc. His reasoning was that such people were accustomed to a degree of internal support that couldn't occur at a company the size of his, that such people had been too long off the firing line. At first I had a problem with this constraint, seeing it only as an unwelcome shrinking of the talent pool from which I could recruit. After interviewing a handful of BigCo execs referred to me during the search, I saw that not only was the CEO right, but that he had understated the issue. The longer we're away from lean & mean, the harder it is to return to it.
  • Too true. And you can only learn this if you've been there.
  • Mike O'Horo
    This whole thread reminds me of the really useful work being done by the Gallup Organization regarding understanding one's strengths, and employers aligning one's job with those strengths. They did 1 million employee interviews, which showed that, by an overwhelming percentage, the #1 consideration in job satisfaction was success, i.e., being good at one's job.

    A couple of years ago we created a new client team process for a big law firm, based on the radical notion (for law firms, anyway) that there were a number of support roles that must be performed well for the team to succeed, and that the only people you want on the team are those who have opted into an existing role of acknowledged inherent value that they know they can perform well. It's a self-governing system; no one opts into a role at which they'll fail. Such person/role alignment simplifies everyone's life. There's no need to motivate them, train them or supervise/manage them.

    The short version of the outcome is that once we filled all the roles and established a collaboration process, they were able to cut the consultant umbilical chord within 5 months and operate completely independently for the balance of the year (and, obviously, in subsequent years). In December, they shared the results with us: 1) They accomplished every one of the specific goals they had set in January, including penetrating two new service categories, and 2) achieved a 35% revenue increase with no write-downs or discounts. Oh, and all this occurred with a client who had declared a flat legal budget for the year.

    The point is that for everyone, there is an optimal setting and environment for success based on strengths, interests and other traits. Just because you don't belong here doesn't mean you're not valuable or won't have an important impact. It just means that you'll have to do that someplace where you're a better fit.

    Small company biases against big company experience is not based on arrogance, but recognition that small is, in fact, very different from large, and that it matters.
  • i have posted your blog on my site

    Thanks
    james still
    ______________________________________________
  • Mike O'Horo
    Thanks. I'm flattered.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post: Good Times Ahead for VC-backed Tech Companies?

Next post: Choose Your VC Investor Carefully