The Best Entrepreneurs Are Hyper Competitive & Hate Losing

by Mark Suster on January 29, 2010

ultimate fighterThis is part of my series on what makes an entrepreneur successful.  I originally posted it on VentureHacks, one of my favorite websites for entrepreneurs.

I started the series talking about what I consider the most important attribute of an entrepreneur : Tenacity.  I then covered Street SmartsAbility to PivotResiliencyInspirationPerspirationWillingness to Take Risks and Detail Orientation.

The list is getting quite long.  Funnily enough I was at the Twiistup conference yesterday and I was chatting with an engineer whom I really like and he told me that he enjoyed reading this series but that now he wasn’t sure he was ready to see me because he wasn’t sure that he scored highly enough on all attributes.  So I thought I better set the record straight.  First, I personally am not super human – I hope I’ve never implied that.  I’m just a normal person with strengths, weaknesses and idiosyncrasies - just like you.

Nobody can be super human all all fronts.  Mark Zuckerberg seems to be me to be one of the most talented young technology professionals of his generation and seems to have an amazing vision for technology and product.  He has a willingness and ability to both pivot & take risks in a way that is astonishing to me.  Yet I don’t find him to be personally inspirational nor have I heard that he is from those who have worked around him.  So I’m personally not looking for a 10/10 on every front.  You need to be extremely gifted on some fronts to be enormously successful as an entrepreneur – but still human.

OK. I had to say it.

9. Competitiveness - One attribute that I believe most VCs look for in entrepreneurs is competitiveness.  I know I do.  I like to work with people who hate to lose.  Anyone who has ever been around me when I’ve lost at anything I care about will tell you I’m not pleasant.  I’m not a poor loser at all.  It’s just that I stew on it.  I don’t recover easily.  I lose sleep.  If I have any angle of changing the outcome I will.  I replay things in my mind about why I lost and I try to correct my mistakes.  If you haven’t read my post on the topic it’s here –> why you need to embrace losing to learn.

I look for people who share this obsession about winning.  If you stumble on to a really good idea believe me it will get competitive really quickly.  It amazes me how quickly a modest success story gets replicated and any initial product / market advantages get narrowed.  You can’t accept simply ceding part of the market to someone else because it’s big.  You need to fight for every inch.  Every win.

The trait spills over from personal life to business and back again.  My wife finds it curious.  Family scrabble games are fun – but I still want to win.  We played against her parents and I was focused.  I wanted to take them down!  Poker night is social, but if I’m playing, it’s to take your money.   GuitarHero is seriously chilled out way to hang out with friends.  But even more so if my score is higher than yours.  I ran a marathon with my colleague in 2003 – I’m still bummed that he beat me even though he was clearly more athletic.  For me winning IS the fun.

I know that people who aren’t competitive always find competitive people slightly distasteful.  They feel that there’s something egalitarian about everybody getting a trophy.  They complain that trying to win at everything is in being over zealous and is unnecessary.  Maybe.  Anyway, I’m sure this will play out in the comments section – it won’t be the first time I’ve heard it.

It is what it is. But I want to work with people who thrive on winning.  I look for that fighting spirit in those that present to me. Entrepreneurs play to win and they take losing seriously.  Think Mark Zuckerberg doesn’t have some sleepless nights about Twitter despite having more than 350 million users himself?  Think Yelp doesn’t wake up daily thinking about how to crush FourSquare?  Think Marc Benioff is content with being a billionaire?  I’m sure he seethes at any losses to Larry Ellison.

Steve Jobs is famously known for being obsessive about people not leaking Apple information prior to announcements (unless it’s intentional.)  It is rumored (and much debated) that Jobs dropped McGraw Hill (the book publisher) from any iPad announcements because their CEO went on CNBC the day before and talked about the iPad.  Certainly sounds plausible to me.  You don’t like leaks? Send a message and people will think twice next time.

leo the lipDon’t take it from me.  Take it from Leo “The Lip” – “nice guys finish last.”  Steve Jobs isn’t a “nice guy.”  Nor are Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Marc Benioff, Larry Ellison, Tom Siebel, Rupert Murdoch, Barry Diller or any number of people you’ll find who built empires.

I’m not looking for people to be mean and certainly not unethical.  Just people who play to win – every time.

Simple example. We were once looking at a very hot market segment (which I can’t name or the people I’m speaking about will be obvious).  We were considering funding one of the players in the category – call them Company A.  I knew the CEO of one of their competitors – Company B.  I called her to talk about her business and disclosed that I was talking to one of her competitors so that she didn’t feel compromised talking with me (we also disclosed to Company A that we were talking to multiply parties before reaching a decision).

Company B had already lined up a significant funding round ($20 million) from some of the most elite VCs on Sand Hill Road but hadn’t signed the term sheet.  She asked if she could fly the next day to meet with me and my partners.  I didn’t understand why she wanted to do this if she already had lined up such A-list investors but it was in a segment where GRP Partners is very strong so I it sort of made sense to me.  We rallied the troops to do a 6-8pm session the next day.  She brought her key team members and emphasized why their strategy was so much better than Company A and other players in the market.  It was very compelling.

In the end we decided not to invest in either company (retrospectively a good decision as the market is no longer “hot” and both companies have struggled).  I later reflected on why the CEO of Company B was so eager to meet my firm and at a moment’s notice was willing to fly her team to LA to take an evening meeting.  We’ve never discussed this but I’m convinced it was her competitive juices.  She couldn’t stand the thought of her main competitor locking us (or anybody else) up as an investor.  My gut says that she came 70% as a spoiler for Company A and 30% because GRP has a great reputation in this space.  I only say this because if you’re close to closing with A-list VCs – why rock the boat?  Closing funding of her own wasn’t enough – she wanted to affect the ability of her competitors to raise funding.

This competitive streak paid off.  We backed off our investment consideration because we were convinced that Company B was going to be a very fierce competitor (amongst other reasons).  Company A never raised their round.  6 months afterwards they laid off 75% of their staff and are existing on fumes to protect their IP to this day.  Brand name Silicon Valley firms had put in about $20 million into Company A.  Company B is struggling, too.  But they’re a viable business today and they have one less fierce competitor to contend with.

Another example. Everybody these days is fascinated by the “private sale” concept offered by companies like Gilt, Ruelala and HauteLook.

There are some great companies in this category but the initial category killer was a company called Vente Privee (which in French literally means private sale) from France.  From what I’m told the founders were already in the Schmatta (Jobber) business selling other people’s excess end-of-line inventory at bargain prices before there was an Internet angle.  There wasn’t the same end-of-life retail infrastructure that we have in the US (think TJ Maxx) so they had an early lead.  When the Internet part of their business took off there were a number of initial competitors.

Vente Privee already had market power.  They made it clear to suppliers that if they supplied these newly formed competitors then Vente Privee (by then a powerhouse) wouldn’t carry their products.  This was a bare knuckle industry.  It wasn’t good enough to win the largest market share – they wanted to crush their competitors.  Money was at stake.  Good competitors fight to win (within the boundaries of legal practices, of course).

Just ask Overture about Google (the “do no evil” company) and how they competed in international markets.  It wasn’t all smiles, hugs and let the best man win.  A lot was at stake and Google competed fiercely.  And won.

Whaddayouthink?

*** oh, and to close with some Leo Durocher quotes that are fun:

“As long as I’ve got a chance to beat you I’m going to take it.”

“Buy a steak for a player on another club after the game, but don’t even speak to him on the field. Get out there and beat them to death.”

“How you play the game is for college ball. When you’re playing for money, winning is the only thing that matters.”

“Show me a good loser in professional sports, and I’ll show you an idiot.”

“What are we out at the park for, except to win?”

Share and Enjoy:
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • FriendFeed
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • HackerNews
  • Suggest to Techmeme via Twitter
  • email
  • Print
  • I'm really enjoying reading your series though I'm very far from being an entrepreneur.

    It's probably not the best way to do it but you've made a couple of typos in the 4th paragraph from top:

    "Nobody can be super human at all fronts. Mark Zuckerberg seems to *be* (unnecessary word) me to be one of the most talented young technology professionals of his generation and seems to have an amazing vision for technology and product."
  • dwolchon
    Great Post.

    Do you think that you can be too competitive? Is there a point where it becomes a negative? As long as you have high moral integrity, is everything in play?
  • jojogirl
    I have an add on quote to the quotes at the end.. "You're not in business until you have a competitor".

    I get heat about this at Least once a week!! I am SO happy for once this quality is talked about as a positive trait, not negative.

    In all honesty being a former athlete too I think it definitely can get out of control, like anything, especially in the circumstance where it's an unrealistic battle to begin...like a 10 year old street basketball player playing against pros. Granted he's going to get much better faster than playing with 10 years olds but if he beats himself up too much over that fact that he's not doing good enough it'll be nothing but stress, unhappiness, and anguish. And he can possibly get hurt playing with the 'big boys'.

    But I still can't agree with the people who say being overcompetitive is a bad thing though because no matter what bruises and sleepless nights that boy may have, he'll still end up starting on his basketball team and being 10x's better than otherwise.

    I guess what I battle with is Is the bruises and unhappiness until the time when your on top again worth it?
    Is that moment of glory worth the other and extended times of stress?
    This is I guess everyone's own choice though.
    I know for myself I was highly competitive from young and it is not actually a choice...(it just sounds like one).
    But I don't know yet how this will translate to business as this is my first true attempt!
  • Wow! I LOVE this article... maybe it's just because I get to justify my competitiveness now. :)
  • emily
    Hi Mark, great post as always! I believe that pure competition brings out the best in people. There’s nothing sweeter than beating someone fair and square.

    So, here's my proposal: We are both athletes and into fitness. You run marathons and triathlons and swim long distances. You recently purchased the DailyBurn app, read the Tim Ferriss 4-hour workweek book, and have a competitive and passionate mindset in everything you do.

    I run a fast mile, bike quick routes, and occasionally get my swim on. I am a former Division I college athlete, I recently purchased Tim Ferriss’ 4-hour workweek book, I can do more knuckle push-ups and pull-ups than most, and I am currently starting up my own Internet-based fitness business.

    Are you up for a fitness challenge? I hate to lose and so do you. So what do you say, a good old fashioned competition? If I win, I get to steal a lunch hour from you. If you win, well, that won’t happen – but let me know what you would like anyway. :)

    P.S. – This is all in good fun. I would love to chat with you either way. I think your blog is outstanding!
  • The discussions here correlating sports performance/competitiveness to leadership/entrepreneurial potential remind me of this interview w/Mark Pincus in NYT on Jan.30 (http://tinyurl.com/yd7ghut)

    To personalize the analogy: the connection between my mentor and I started in 2005 playing 'competitive Ultimate Frisbee' (to some of you that might sound like an oxymoron, but it really is competitive out in Asia.) From my performance on the field -> captaining -> running the organization I earned the stripes and was offered a role at my first start-up (he was an Angel investor there.) We are now partnering a 2nd time with a start-up I am running day-day.

    Mark, I appreciate that drawing a line between competitive/hyper-competitive may be difficult for many of us. In the spirit of this series of posts, I reckon that what is to be frowned upon is a leader who is pugnacious - that might be one sign of "hyper-competitive."
  • I agree. Hating to lose is very important.

    More than that, I also find that most people that don't want to compete don't believe they're able to perform in that category.
  • Another great post Mark. There's a fine line between being competitive and being a jerk, and that fine line is usually talent. Michael Jordan by any measure is a jerk, except that he's the greatest basketball player of all time, so they call him "competitive". "He eats newborn babies? Oh, that Jordan is so competitive, that's what makes him great!" But I think you can be competitive without being a jerk socially. I think competitive non-jerks tend to have unpleasant spells - my wife always hates when I lose basketball league games cause I stew for the better part of the night and stay up at night replaying all the missed opportunities - but focus their competitive juices around the wars, not the battles. From what I've read, Michael Jordan wanted to win every single battle, even each drill during practice at the expense of the team. That's where I think you go from being competitive to being a jerk. And I think the hang up most people are having is when they equate it to being a jerk 24/7.
  • Awesome post. You didn't mention it in your blog, but the analog between sports champions and business champions has always been incredibly useful and instructional to me. The most disciplined, most ferocious and most intelligent competitors are always the ones that win. Tiger Woods, Federer, Manning, Serena Williams, Lance Armstrong, Tom Brady, Jeter, Jordan --- these are the athletic equivalents to Benioff, Jobs, Schmidt, Bezos, Gates, JP Morgan, Rockefeller, etc. They are tireless, talented, and they live to win.
  • That's a great point.
  • or “If winning isn’t everything, why do they keep score?” Vince Lombardi
    says it all really.....
  • That's a great, great quote.
  • hmmm, this is probably one of the dimensions i score lowest on. i used to be a more competitive person -- but then i realized how much i hate losing! so now i just focus on myself. i studied martial arts religiously for 8 years, one of the big philosophical concepts that was emphasized in my school was that the enemy is within. i'm also into astrology, that's sort of like my religion, and the school of astrology that i most resonate with is also one that emphasizes self-improvement over a focus on external enemies/competitors. it's all in your head, so just focus on yourself, that's the only thing you can really control anyway.

    you know how there is the quarterback rating for quarterbacks in the NFL.....we need to come up with the suster rating for entrepreneurs. i.e. "hmm i'm not sure about funding this startup.....what's the collective suster rating on the founders?" it'll be the new VC buzzword!
  • ha. no, actually I don't claim to be superior in picking 'em. Time will tell.
  • I think Lady B was out of line and petty. I am sure she did not consider the unintended consequences of her actions .

    This story brought up an incident in my recent life. I worked for a male version of Lady "B" in Afghanistan on a defense contract two years ago. Super competative and overbearing. Unfortunately, his competition, corrupt police, took offense to his behavior and set up an Improvised Explosive Device to kill him.

    Manly "B"s unintended consequence? The bombers missed him and blew up a van killing a family of 15. If you have ever picked pieces of a 2 year old located at the opposite ends of a large poppy field it will change your outlook on hyper competition and insistence on winning every time.
  • Bill: while undeniably tragic, my takeaway from your story is "Afghan business environment/norms differ from U.S. norms - be wary of unintended consequences" This anecdote does not change my views on competition; delineating between hyper/non-hyper seems too difficult.

    In China one mentor has told me that he has had to put a threatening competitor in jail/in trouble with the government before they get to him first. In my opinion, his behavior does not reflect on his personal morals. Different places, different norms.
  • damn i thought i left hardcore comments but this takes the cake. thanks for sharing your experience.
  • That's obviously a tragic story - sorry to hear.
  • Aviah Laor
    If you score high on this one, you are probably not too bad on all the others.
  • Probably some truth to that. But some very competitive people don't make inspirational leaders. But you're right that they're probably tenacious, detail-oriented and work hard.
  • It amazes me that some companies, including start-ups, don't know what their competition is up to and don't seem to care much about it, either. I see this as either stupidity, arrogance, or a lack of competitive spirit. I don't consider many start-ups to be stupid or arrogant so most likely it's the latter. My nightmare is pitching a potential customer and discovering that my product is clearly inferior to a competitor's -- and I didn't even know it.

    Mark, how do you assess competitiveness? Personally, I'd ask what they know about their competition and what they're doing about it. Any other specific ideas?
  • Mark, two thoughts:
    1. I can tell a lot about competitive spirit by how the entrepreneur talks about his/her competitors. Mostly the knowledge of them and the level of detail.
    2. The rest is gut instinct. Unfortunately this is harder and I find this more important in my decision making.
  • Going to bridge 3 posts here, which might not make any sense to some, but the point of your post is part of why I disagree with Roger Ehrenberg's conclusions against FRC's entrepreneur fund concept. Entrepreneurs want to WIN.
  • I think Roger is wrong AND right - thank you for pointing out the link. He's wrong arguing against Josh. Diversification is what VCs do - why shouldn't entrepreneurs have a market to do this? FRC is leading the industry in coming up with innovative solutions like this. He is right that when a company starts to succeed and grow it is a great strategy to let founders take a little bit of cash off of the table.

    Thanks, again.
  • Mark, really enjoying the series. Agree with most of this, but I would disagree with the assertion that being nice and being competitive are polar opposites. I'm the same way when it comes to wanting to win - first christmas with my wife's family, we played charades, boys vs girls, we won, my wife threatened divorce, I still killed it.

    But you can be nice and be competitive, they don't have to be mutually exclusive. Friends close and all that...

    I believe that you have to be careful who you're not nice to, cause the guy you step on tomorrow, might take a name and come gunning for you later. I know it's happened with me, I have a list, and this year, as I leave the delayed life plan and start the entrepreneurial life, you better believe I'm coming after some of the people on my list :)
  • I agree 100% - in fact I wrote it in the comment just above this one (to Gregory). In a post idiosyncrasies are hard. But I don't ever believe in being "mean" to people - life is too short. But I do believe in competing hard - as you say. I think there's a difference.
  • There is a lot of talk about "ecology" and "partnerships" between startups. How does that work in this super-competitive environment, where today partner becomes fierce competitor tomorrow? I am asking about personal, emotional side of it. I can imagine instances where my intense desire to win can easily spook potential alliances.
  • Without sounding like a consulting jargon machine, I would say that co-opitition is sensible. It's OK to be friends with the people at competitor and find ways to work with them (while also competing).
  • Hi Mark,

    We met at Twiistup the other day, I'm the guy you asked to meet up with Dimitry Shapiro and (.. ?), I didn't get to find them.

    It was a pleasure meeting you, and I'm a fan of your insightful blogs for entrepreneurs. This post actually hits the spot dead on in a situation I was right there at Twiistup. I was having a conversation with Paul Graham about his "single founder is bad" rule of thumb works very well for the majority of people - but not me. I've been looking hard for a cofounder, and just like fundraising, it's distracting - because it takes me away from running my business! So it's actually counter-productive (imho), and I am not interested in jumping hoops to get into an exclusive club, I am interested in building a successful company, that will make money and create jobs.

    There was an angel listening in that also said that "yes, you *NEED* a cofounder." I understand the benefits of it, and it's not that I am against it (but that it is to the detriment of what is really important here). But there has been a lot of single successful founders (like Mint.com being the most recent I have heard), and whatever Aaron did, I can do too. I'm not afraid of hard work and I will slog it through and walk through hell for my startup. One of my favorite stories of all time of persistence and tenacity is the story of George Eastman (Kodak).

    I definitely hate losing (just like you I think about it *ALL* day & night long), and I *hate* it when people tell me I cannot do the things that I really REALLY want to do (which makes me want to prove them wrong even more). Doing a startup has been one of my entire life's goal, and when I am told that I should defer my plan until the stars and planets align, or that I can't do it - it makes me angry, I replay the words in my head, and it makes me want to prove them wrong so bad - because it's my life's goal and if I'll be damned if I don't die trying to make my dreams come true.

    My question is, how do you keep one foot firmly on the ground so that you know you're not crazy? We're talking about hating to lose, which is kinda related to being stubborn. I mean, I'm not going to grow wings on my back to take me to space; starting a startup much is easier ;) But I do think that as I work hard to make my vision a reality, and everybody tells me I am crazy - how do I stay firmly grounded that I am not genuinely a lunatic?

    Warmest regards,

    Jay Liew
  • Most entrepreneurs ARE lunatics so that wouldn't be a bad thing. I disagree with Paul Graham (and most people) on the topic of how many co-founders to have. I talk about it all the time. Entrepreneurs are sooooo sensitive about every point of dilution from VCs but are happy to dilute by 66% before even starting to work with 2 other co-founders. I don't get it. I talk about it in this post --> http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2009/08/17/most-common-early-start-up-mistakes/

    BTW, I thought Paul was pretty weak at Twiistup. Maybe he was tired, but Eric Reis stole the show.
  • lunatics ftw! lol i definitely got that attribute covered! phew! :D
  • jwaller
    Definitely agree. This sort of dovetails into your resiliency post, but an entrepreneur hears no so often & experiences so many (temporary) losses that there needs to be something driving them to get up off the canvas again & again. That something is often simply that he/she is hyper competitive & hates, hates, hates, HATES losing!
  • For sure. Competitiveness and resiliency go hand in hand. Re: "no" I think that good entrepreneurs see it as a challenge. I must have pitched 100 VCs through 5 separate years of fund raising across 2 companies and only got about 16 "yes's," which obviously means 84 "no's." Not fun but sometimes what drove me more than anything was wanting to prove to those 84 people that they were wrong.

    BTW, aren't you on PST? It's the middle of the night!
  • Loving this discussion. I'll consolidate my comments here -- sorry it's very long.

    Been super competitive (in sports -- as junior then Div I) and then competitive in business and also done ton of studying and coaching in competitive strategy. All in, ~25 years. To speak for myself (and not to equate myself to the luminaries you mention) -- despite blue chip academic cred, the true competitive times I viscerally dig into the intense sports experiences, not the classroom. Classrooms do not model lifelike competition. I don't think someone with ace grades necessarily has the dynamic competitiveness that tech requires. They're good at doing what they're told.

    For me, there's an adrenaline rush of hitting a volleyball hard as I can and it smacking the floor on the other side before the competitor knows it. And as the game elevates and there's more and more complexity, mind games and nervous energy, BOOM! you hit the floor again. You're playing to win and that's what it's all about. I never conjured that feeling in the classroom, but I do in business all the time.

    There are few entry-level jobs that afford this adrenaline rush as sales. Most other jobs are esoteric around competitiveness. There's nothing like that front-line accountability to see what someone's made of. I have a hard time trusting someone who hasn't done sales, or who says "I'm not really into sales". Red alert! I need to trust that, when the chips are down, they can dig into themselves and put numbers on the board. This means calling people by phone, physically meeting people, flying in, making the ask, listening, rebutting objections, following up. Not just sending e-mails into the ether. If they haven't closed, they don't know what business is about.

    With competitive experience comes resilience. You don't get so freaked out when people try to f- with you. You've seen it before, and you've seen worse. Silly example -- inexperienced volleyball players get freaked out by a jammed finger. The good ones learn to pull it out of the socket during the play, and win the point too. Preferably by aiming for the girl who jammed your finger in the first place. ;-)

    But resiliency comes from life situations too. Someone who's already been to hell and back is not so easily shaken -- someone loses a parent when they're young; another was abused; someone worked three jobs to get through college. A lot of young entrepreneurs on the scene don't get the value of life experience. I love hiring hungry people with some edge that have something to prove. Amazing how loyal they can be when you give them a chance, a team to be part of, clear guidelines and metrics, and unleash them. Making this success happen matters to their core; it's not a hobby before applying to B-school.

    I'm not sure how as a VC you can judge competitiveness, other than getting to know the entrepreneur over time in many different contexts. Some profiles of people track easily to the norm (young BYT hackers that talk pro sports). Others, such as middle-aged suburban moms like myself -- I'm not sure that the critical competitiveness is conveyed or perceived easily, even if it's there.

    A final note on family game night. A mother's perspective. I have nothing to gain by badly beating my kids at Connect Four. But competing is a critical, learned skill. My job is to teach them to get good at competing, love to compete, and model the tools/skills of having fun and being a good sport. So you can't pummel them -- otherwise they'll be discouraged and not want to play. But they also can't win easily because then they'll feel entitled (the Trophy dilemma). Play so the kid just barely squeaks out a win much of the time, and occasionally loses (and has to peel themselves off the floor despite distress). And if the kid's not trying hard, then go in for the kill -- thereby reminding them of the importance of hard work.

    As for my mother-in-law -- I let her win every single time. :-)
  • jwaller
    Yeah, PST. But I HATE losing! ; ) Aren't you on PST too?
  • Ha. Yes. I woke up at 2.30am and started thinking about the Founders Institute coming to LA. It chaps my hide that a NorCal group would be coming to LA to try and organize SoCal startups. I started thinking about how I had gotten behind in www.launchpad.la in 2010 and didn't want to get upstaged. Once I started thinking that the rest of the night was toast. See ya soon.
  • Haha, there's another good example. The competitiveness theme must have been percolating while you were asleep. In that vein, you might like this "war of the Californias" bit: http://bit.ly/9Ejy5k.
  • That's funny - thanks for the link. I grew up on NorCal and have lived in SoCal (including San Diego) for 11 years in total. I love both!
  • Now that you mention it - yeah, proving those 84 people wrong is a huge push! I find myself trying to anticipate the plan so that they won't be able to say that I was not ready when I met them ...

    Francesco.
  • Hmmm... I definitely want to win..always and everything because I am perfectionist and can't stand losing, but doing what Company B did is BS in my opinion and not something I'd do.. But that's just me :)

    Loving this series of posts! Looking forward to last 2!!
  • Thanks for the input. I knew it would be controversial to write but I still wanted people to hear what lengths people go to in order to win. I should say that I ended up working with Company B for nearly a month and almost did invest. It wasn't a total "spoiler" play but I do think that was in initial intent.

    I'd probably err on the side of saying it was "fair play" but I know it's a judgment call for everybody.
  • I've really enjoyed reading this series Mark, and thinking about it, it's interesting to me how many CEOs I've met who don't have a lot of these attributes. Just like your Zuckerberg example..., I met Daniel Elk from Spotify. The guy is SUPER nice and certainly knows his industry, but apart from that I didn't see any of the other attributes you listed. In fact, I was rather unimpressed. I thought..., well if they guy can succeed there's hope for us all! (caveat: not to discredit Daniel, he's very very gifted and extremely likeable).

    Another interesting observation...., the most successful Entrepreneurs I have ever met (with all the attributes you mention) for the most part, have succeeded without the need for any VC funding at all! (No offence intended to my VC brethren). They've just usually managed to find better terms for their cost of capital or they've found other means of financing growth (profits being a good one).
  • On your last point I'm not sure. Many of the greatest companies in the tech sector have raised VC at some point. Google, Microsoft, Apple, Cisco, Salesforce.com, Intel, Facebook, Twitter, Zynga, NetSuite, WordPress and on and on. I'm sure many haven't been it's not as clear cut as your comment suggests.
  • Oh its absolutely true many have raised VC financing (and usually on very
    favourable terms)! And we all have heard their stories. I guess the point I
    was trying to make (albeit probably didn't do very well) is that having all
    the attributes is not a pre-requisite to obtaining VC funding and neither is
    VC funding always necessary if you possess all the attributes.
  • Fair points.
  • I'll agree with you up to the point at which you said "if your way better than me I'm probably not playing"

    Why not ? that's the fastest way to learn surely, from the people who are way better than you.
  • You're totally right. It was a stupid comment. Was drafting the post too quickly because it was Friday night and I wanted to race out of the office. I re-read this AM and deleted it. Thanks for calling me out.

    FWIW, where it was placed was where I was talking about poker. I was thinking about Jason Calacanis and how competitive he is and how good he appears to be at poker. One night I was with a group where he had indicated he wanted to play poker. I was thinking to myself, "nah, I think I'd rather keep my money."
  • Hey Mark I wasn't calling you out at all....and in the sense you mentioned it, it was probably a good call!
  • No, you're point was right. Not competing for fear of losing is dumb. I was talking in the context of giving away money at poker, but even then it would be worth it (for small amounts!) to learn from a master.
  • The way you say it Mark sounds intimidating but its all true! Makes me question whether I am competitive enough...
  • You can be successful in life and in business without being hyper competitive so I need to be careful that I didn't imply otherwise. But I'm talking about VC backed businesses, which by definition people are generally looking for returns in the $100m+ range (if not more). To achieve that you really do need a CEO who is as I describe.
  • honestly, how many CEOs do you know that are all tatteted up? ill dunk on you Mark! :P
  • ha. too funny. yes, I initially searched for an image of two people arm wrestling. 99% of the images I found were lame and the one I loved was $20, which I thought wasn't worth it for a single post. He does look like one competitive, intimidating mofo though, doesn't he?!?
  • all that matters is that he looks to kick some a$$!
  • all that matters is that he looks to kick some a$$!
  • Up to a point, Mark. There's a fine line between being ultra competitive and being a complete arsehole.

    No offence intended by the way - I was thinking of some of the complete idiots I've met along the way. Sometimes people just need to chill a bit.
  • Maybe. I agree I prefer hanging out with people who are "chilled" but it my experience a lot of the great entrepreneurs were intense. That's how everybody describes Aaron Patzer (founder of Mint.com). I've never met him but of everybody involved with that project I never heard anybody describe him as chilled.
  • It doesn't have to be 24/7. I know a few highly-driven and successful people - but if you met them at a party you'd never guess.

    Maybe it's a British thing...
  • I think it is cultural David. And a function of how what you do defines who you are.

    And generally I think Europeans have a more balanced view.

    For myself, as a mellow New Yorker, I'm hopeful that I can be driven without being to unbearable ;)
  • Hi Arnold. This post has been bugging me all morning. I can see what Marks' getting at: an intense obsession with the business which manifests itself in ultra-competitive behaviour. I buy the first bit, but not the second.

    I think "Lady B" could have spent her company's money and her team's time on more constructive things than flying into LA to try and screw up *one* competitors funding (if that was indeed her intention).

    You can be fully-focused and obsessed without being a dick head.
  • David and Mark

    I'm between the both of you on this one.

    My first job and my first boss was Jack Tramiel @ Atari Corp. He was an Auschwitz survivor, founder of Commodore Computers who worked under the "Business is War" slogan. This individual was beyond relentless, brilliant and knew how to win. Consequently my first job was my first IPO.

    But I think times have changed and so has how we do business. A definition of competitive that equals a 'burn all bridges and take no prisoners' is not what I ascribe to and not who I would personally fund. Super focused and smartly relentless = super competitive today in my view.

    In fact, super focused and smart means that you know that there is no bridge you don't have to cross again and no person or company you may not have to be in a partnership with.

    So do I think standing up and say, "hey, we are the better choice because A,B,C is fine." Yes I do.

    But I don't think that being focused and smart and competitive demands that you be a jerk. Cause honestly, no one likes a jerk and in today's world there is nowhere you can hide from these actions. They live with you.

    Smart folks don't create negative baggage to carry around.
  • Very well put Arnold, thanks for writing that.
  • And I think "Lady B" took the single most effective step she could have to increase her chances of success. Had Company A raised $20 million (their ask) or anything near it then she would have had one hell of a lot more competition on each customer pitch. By helping knock out funding she had much less distractions for the next 6 months. I actually think it was the single most effective competitive move. I know it's not pretty, but it is.
  • All's fair in love and war, eh? From a military prospective, she was cutting off her enemy's supply line - a very effective move. Seen in that context, it makes sense.

    But you're right, it's not pretty.

  • Strategically doing what is right to win, is what we all do, ever day.

    Litigating against a misused trademark, buying the competitor to commoditize the market, locking down distribution to shut out the competitor, owning the keyword.

    But really, this doesn't make us Don Corleone sitting back and musing " It's nothing personal, It's just business."
  • But Don Vito got angry when he heard Santino went to war over his shooting. He believed wars were a distraction, and bad for business.
  • Yup, you are correct and the master Godfather interpreter David

    But there's a line (sometimes fine) between the tough move and war. Between grabbing the advantage and being a jerk.

    I think that is what Mark is saying. And I'm glad to leave this as grey for now.

    And the end of it all, I need to feel good about what I do. That's my final criteria.
  • Sure, there's no real divergence here - just different views on degree.

    We're all realists, we all know bad stuff goes on behind the scenes. At the end of the day, you set your own limits.
  • Agree.

    It's been a pleasure discussing. I'm off to the gym.
  • Wow, most nested discussion ever! I'm sure we're all pretty aligned. I believe in high personal and business ethics. I think Lady B's moves were not out of bounds. Until a company is funded all is open. And all three of us: Mr. A, Lady B and GRP were all transparent that we were all talking (and they were both talking with other VCs).
  • Hi Mark

    Agreed. On alignment.

    Got to love Disqus for empowering these nested, tangential and very important discussions.

    How else could three guys--one in LA, one in NY, one in Milan follow through a nagging thought, in real time? It allows us to follow what interests us without Bogarting the flow of the post.

    In fact, the power of Disqus and one of the great values of your blog Mark (and it is a great one!) is that it provides a place for discussions to breed and bridge on themselves.

    If I haven't thanked you for adding leadership to this community, let me do so now.
  • Strongly agreed. The entrepreneurs I respect the most have an overwhelming will to win. I think that some of the traits you've described are nice to haves. Like you said, no one has everything. But competitiveness is not optional. If someone had every other thing on your list but did not have this one, I'd never back them. Competitiveness - with yourself as well as others - is a major driver for working harder, thinking more, caring more. I also think that you need competitiveness in the entire team - not just in one of the founders or the CEO. If you've got a team of co-founders, they all need to have the killer instinct and the will to win. I've worked with brilliant guys (way smarter than me) who were passionate about product and engineering but simply did not have the ambition and competitiveness and so for a big upside entrepreneurial endeavor, they were basically useless as core team members (i.e. the culture setting employees).
  • re: competitiveness being mandatory - I agree.

    re: the team needing to also be competitive - good addition. Generally I've found that with super competitive CEOs they often hire teams that are also competitive - but it's definitely worth being sure.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: