Entrepreneurship

How many warm Micro VC introductions does it take to get you to series A?

2 Comments

Yesterday at the #PreMoney conference the most frequently mentioned strategy for deal flow among venture capitalists was the “warm introduction” from an entrepreneur or an earlier stage investor. Since the easiest filter was someone’s capability to both judge you and your idea, most investors were looking for a “previously vetted” opportunity. That did not mean an automatic investment, just a guaranteed meeting with the investor.

I had a chance to ask Micro VC investors where they felt they could add the most value above and beyond the money. Most were of the opinion that fund raising, connections to potential hires and introductions to new customers were the areas that most entrepreneurs asked for help. There were other areas that entrepreneurs asked for help, but the top 3 tended to be the same.

A typical Micro VC fund investor has more likely been an entrepreneur before or has been an investor at a larger fund, so most of them had raised money before from VC’s or LP’s. They should have a decent network of other later stage investors and some of them have angel investor connection as well, so if you are earlier stage, then they could refer you to them instead.

According to CBInsights’s Anand, there are 1400 Venture firms in the world and 1/3rd of them in the bay area, so between 400 and 500. Each VC firm has about an average of 5 people in their team, of who, 3 would be partners. So there are between 1200 and 1500 partner-level investors. Most of the Micro VC investors I know have good relationships with at least 20-30 investors, with who they have likely done deals with or referred companies to. If they have only met another VC firm partner at conferences or events, or over coffee, it is very unlikely they will be able to give you a “warm” introduction.

When you get your pre-seed or seed round underway with a Micro VC fund or angel group, one of the key questions that will come up is who will be the investors at the next stage of the company. If that does not come up, then you should bring that up as a question. If the VC or you believe that their check or the seed round will be the last money you will ever need, then you should rethink your opportunity size.

If your investor knows 30+ partner-level series A investors, they are likely to filter the right investors by 2-3 primary criteria, and introduce you to them, given that they already know that most series A investors invest largely the same amount and look for the same range of milestones.

The primary criteria would be “domain expertise“, “value add” and “recent portfolio investments“. If a series A investor has expertise in SaaS HR, or SaaS marketing, and they can add value in the area your startup needs the most help with, for example, hiring people from other SaaS companies, so they would be a better fit.

Typically, most Micro VC funds I spoke with said they ended up making an average of 10 introductions, with the “hot” companies needing not more than 5 and the “still looking for the perfect metrics” requiring about 15 introductions.

An average of 6 out of every 10 companies that a Micro VC invested in (for the 13 people I spoke with) actually got to series A in less than 18 months without the Micro VC requiring another investment in the company was the average numbers I saw quoted as well.

Funding, Learning

A day in the life of a Micro VC – @jeff of @softtechvc tells me where he spends his time

1 Comment
Jeff Clavier
Jeff Clavier of SoftTech Venture Capital

At the 500 startups LP meeting and dinner last night, I had a chance to meet with Jeff Clavier. He is one of the first Micro VC funds (before they were a thing in valley). Their latest fund (Softech IV) is a $85 million fund. Jeff and I have known each other for years now, since 2005, when I first met him at a TIE conference and he’s still the same very approachable, friendly and simple guy – surprising given that he’s French – (sorry, Jeff, could not resist taking a dig).

A Micro VC fund has a much smaller team, is the first thing you notice. While larger funds like A16Z have over 100 people and even a a large fund such as Menlo might have over 20-30 people, a $50-$100 million fund, cannot afford more than 5-7 folks. Typically there might be 2-3 partners, and 2-3 associates or Vice presidents.

Which means you are pressed for time. Jeff, mentioned that he’d ideally like his time spent in thirds.

1/3rd of his time spent on sourcing new deals and working to build a pipeline of opportunities, by meeting new entrepreneurs and trying to help them even if he wont invest.

1/3rd of his time portfolio management, which includes spending time helping them with execution and operations, thinking about fund raising and helping make key connections and finally helping open doors to potential hires or prospective customers.

Finally a third of his time is spent managing the team, investor communications and networking with other investors at events, judging startup hackathons, and learning about new areas to invest in.

Each of the 3 partners at Softech VC does 5 deals a year, so they do 15 deals in the 3 years of investing in the fund. To do 5 deals a year, they end up meeting about 250-300 entrepreneurs he said, and roughly 2 times that many introductions are made to him from others.

Digging deeper, the first 1/3 of the time sourcing new deals begins largely by getting warm introductions, which were built by the years of working with other investors, and helping other entrepreneurs who have been the best source of his deals.

The 2nd third of his time is disproportionately taken up by warm email introductions and strategy discussions with his existing portfolio on fund raising. Typically Jeff stays on the board for 2 years, ensures that they company has a very good series A investor and then hands the board seat to them, keeping in touch with the entrepreneurs if they need his help. Which, according to him makes it all the more important to ensure that you think about later stage investors

Finally, the last third of time time is for “everything else” – which includes fund communication, meeting with new potential Limited partners, attending startup events, connecting with other entrepreneurs, discussions with potential M&A targets for teams and mentoring his own team, to discuss opportunities.

The first thing that strikes you is that this is a full time job. Many who claim that the the life of a General partner is mostly golfing, 2 hour lunches, 3 hour dinners, attending events, spouting knowledge about unknown markets and “networking”, dont appreciate the amount of time that it takes to source, manage and attract high quality partners who can help you connect with great entrepreneurs.

Second, unless you spend time (and lots of it) building good relationships with good potential downstream (assume that a series A investor is downstream from a seed investor) Venture capitalists, then you will have a hard time helping your companies raise more money and feel confident that your invested dollars are in safe hands with folks looking for the best interests of the company.

Tomorrow, I will touch on a topic that he and I talked about – how many “warm introductions” to potential investors, does it take to get a funding round done for an early stage startup.

Entrepreneurship

The new valley startup is the early stage seed investment firm

2 Comments

Over the last 3 days I had a chance to meet with 12 Micro VC funds with 1 or 2 general partners and less than $50 Million in capital raised.

Most of these funds were of 2013 or later vintage and many were less than a year old.

Seed funds and Micro VC’s are looking like startups themselves and that’s a good thing.

They are adopting lean methodology (1 or 2 partners alone, not a big staff, no admins, doing all scouting themselves), hustling to get their initial customers (investors and  entrepreneurs), shipping an alpha version ($1 to $5 Million first fund with only friends and family), building traction and community (Blogging, networking, making investments) and then raising their seed round – a larger fund within a year for $5 – $25 Million) and looking for a way to differentiate their offering (focused investment thesis).

The new valley startup is the early stage seed investment firm.

There are over 250 Micro VC funds or super angels according to CB Insights. Most have under $50 million in investment dollars. In fact based on my cursory analysis, most are entrepreneurs who have decided to “spread their risk” among multiple startups than do one startup alone.

What are the steps to be a seed investment fund manager?

  1. Raise capital from high net worth individuals or be rich yourself to start investing. Over 90% of these investors are entrepreneurs themselves. Except for 3 of the 12 I met, most did not have a “big exit” or success under their belt. Your first fund might even be less than $1 Million (alpha prototype version). Then your follow on funds can be $5 and then onwards from there.
  2. Pick a niche or focus area and start to become an expert at it. There are Micro VC funds focused just on helping entrepreneurs who have a H1B visa, another set of folks just targeting startups in kitchen tech within food technology.
  3. Setup a fund manager (legal, finance), banking and website.
  4. Build relationships with other prominent investors or early stage angels who are doing deals to help you get “cut into deals”.
  5. Invest and help the entrepreneurs as much as you can.

Most of these seed investors are entrepreneurs themselves, so they are scrappy, hustle oriented and founders themselves, so they tend to keep their costs low, focus on a few investments and from the entrepreneurs I have spoken to so far, help the entrepreneur at the early stage, a lot more than your traditional VC firm with partners on the board.

In some cases the investor can be a part of your team, as an extended sales, BD or marketing expert, pattern matching from their other investments and helping you learn from other’s mistakes.

A decade ago or more, raising funds was pretty difficult, so if you were a VC fund, raising capital was the biggest challenge you faced. If you raised capital, then deploying that capital and getting good deal flow was relatively easy. Now, though given that there are so many Micro VC funds, even getting good quality deal flow is a challenge.

Most of the Micro VC funds tell me that their network of folks they have worked with before, entrepreneurs, other investors and angels are their best source of deals, and service providers (such as lawyers, accountants, etc.) do offer some deals, but not as high quality. They also are consistent in their thinking that “cold” inquiries are the “most irrelevant” source of companies to invest in.

To attract quality deal flow beyond referrals, many are adopting strategies to “build their brand” by blogging, podcasting, startup videos, running networking events, extensive PR, building a network of customers and partners for “introductions” to startups. Most though, are till trying to figure out how to get more high quality deals that they should be in.

If you are an entrepreneur looking to raise money from a Micro VC fund, the biggest challenge will be that the follow-on funding from these funds for pro-rata will be largely nonexistent to highly unlikely.

Many funds are so small that they have to spread the risk among enough startups, so they keep very little cash for follow on rounds (or dry powder). Many do claim that they will raise another fund within a year or two just to do follow on rounds, but that remains to be seen.

 

Humor, Learning, Marketing

How the 6 digit Apple passcode requirement wastes $6.551 Billion annually

5 Comments

Apple this week announced that they are going to require 6 digit passcodes instead of 4 digit passcodes for the lock screen.

Newer ipads and iphones will require the 6 digit passcodes. That’s apparently more secure than 4 digit passcodes.

The only reason to go to 6 digits is when your phone gets stolen by someone who can brute force 10,000 codes (with 4 digits). Well, apparently, most people use pretty common passwords, so if you only try 27 known passcodes (such as 1111) then your chances of unlocking the phone are at 67%. That means only a third of the people actually use complicated passcodes that will take more than 15 minutes to crack.

If however, you have 6 digits, then the combinations are a million (versus 10,000+) so, it should take longer and more effort to crack your password.

I doubt that. 90% of people will go with 111111 instead of 1111 is my guess, or 123456 instead of 1234. Now, your stolen phone will take 22 minutes to be unlocked instead of 15. Yay!

Apple has sold 512 Iphones to date and about 200 million iPads. Of those, about 75% or 534 Million devices are still in active use. 83% of them run the latest version of iOS.

I am going to assume that most people will upgrade to the new OS version so about 500 million (534 million to be exact) iOS devices will be upgraded to 6 digit passcodes.

The median salary in the US is about $42,000 and the median iPhone users salary worldwide is higher – $53,000.

90% of the iPhone users move to 6 digit passcodes and each user actually unlocks their phone 50 times a day (given that most users glance or unlock their phone 150 – 500 times a day, it is a reasonable assumption).

The extra two digits will cause 1 second more to unlock is also a fair assumption to make.

This equates to $6,551,388,888.89 in productivity loss every year.

iPhone 6 digit passcode Migration Wasted Productivity
iPhone 6 digit passcode Migration Wasted Productivity

With no discernible added security. All for a feature going from 4 digit passcodes to 6 digits.

There were 1.6 Million phones stolen in 2014. The average price of the stolen iPhone was $250, equating to a $400 Million market.

End note: I know the value of a stolen iPhone to a user (especially if there is a loss of life tragically in some cases) is much more than $250, but a 6 digit passcode is not going to change that for the better.

Entrepreneurship

To hire great talent for startups, there not just “one thing” that you need any more

1 Comment

In discussions with 5 startup founders last week in the SF bay area, it is clear to me that the “hiring” challenge has gotten acute.

Here are some horror stories:

1. One founder spent time meeting the potential recruit’s at his kids school and swimming class locations so that he could get more time with the candidate. He mentioned he did not actually see his kids, but since the candidate used to come early to the school to pick up his kids, he could spend time with them.

2. Another CEO had his admin pick up and drop a candidates wife (who broke her leg) to the hospital. She was apparently covered by insurance, but not “top of the line” insurance, so the admin they showed them how much they would save if her husband were employed by their startup.

3. A third company has started a “get your spouse trained at work day“, where the significant other would come into work for a day each week (if they were unemployed) and find a way to get trained on a discipline they liked, which might open doors for them to other opportunities.

Formula for hiring great people
One of many formulae for hiring great people

I often get the question about “What are the best practices to hire great people” more than any other question in the Bay area.

What I know is that a set of “best practices” wont get you the best candidates. It will get you the rest. Why? To attract the best candidates you need to have a unique combination of meaningful work, great package and an irresistible culture.

The operative word on those 3 is unique. You will need to find uniqueness and differentiation on all 3 parameters.

As VC’s are getting picker and going up the food chain in terms of investing in “only proven startups with a lot of traction”, so are candidates.

It would be the case that a few years ago, you could ask a few employees to actively recommend people who they have worked with before and get a bonus for referring them.

Now, it is not unheard of when the hunter becomes hunted.

One of my good friends was looking to hire a colleague from a previous company, but he ended up joining the friend’s startup instead.

Meaningful work drives a lot of technical folks. Meaningful includes challenging, different and new opportunities. Surprisingly, it is also what a lot of non technical people crave.

A great package in itself with unique benefits is becoming table-stakes even for the best people. Now, the intangible benefits that extend to the candidates family are the thing to covet.

Finally, an irresistible culture that not only encourages success and outcomes but also is quirky to attract a specific segment of candidates is gaining more traction. Who knew that most of the people at a startup I knew were all big fans of Mochi ice cream? I did not. Turns out they only attracted rabid fans of that snack, who were also all great developers in a particular technology.

Hiring good people is always hard. I would focus on attracting a segment of people who are good with a uniquely set of tailored benefits, culture and work that makes it a little more easy to have you be self selected.

Management, Personal

Why you should have at least 1 investor / advisor who has been an #entrepreneur on your board

1 Comment

I think the best thing you can do is to celebrate small milestones at your startup more frequently. They help you ride out the sine-curve of emotions (or the roller coaster journey if you prefer that analogy).

The interesting thing I learned last week from a founder of a small startup last week, was they have weekly celebrations. The reason was it forces the team to think about what they should be doing to celebrate in a few days. Every Thursday, their team would get catered lunch, and a cake, providing the opportunity for one person to be the MVP for that week.

When he was presenting this to us at the advisory board meeting last week, I thought it was pretty cool. I loved the culture they are building of celebrating smalls wins.

Another member of the board, who was an angel investor, nodded his head, and moved on to the next item, which was a milestone he really cared about – $10K in monthly revenue, which the entrepreneur had committed to last quarter. The progress was slower, and so it was likely they were not going to hit that number in the quarter, but he was confident they would in 2 months.

I gathered later (post the board meeting) that they were unable to hire a “Growth Hacker” to their team, since they had interviewed 3 great candidates, but they all picked up offers at other companies.

I asked him what the issue with hiring was. He mentioned that the companies they lost the candidates to were smaller, earlier and were wooing the candidate with a different culture (free food, benefits, pay were all table stakes) of work from anywhere and 2 weeks paid work from a place of their choice (think Hawaii or Bulgaria or anyplace you choose).

That’s when it struck me. You will always have investors who have been through the startup experience and those that have not. Those that have not, will not understand the nuances of what it takes to actually be an entrepreneur, so they are less appreciative of the “many little things” that go towards making the big things happen.

What this entrepreneur was planning to do was to have candidates attend their final interview (if they went to that stage) on a Thursday, so they got to see the culture in action.

In this particular case, the outcome that the investor cared about was revenue. To achieve that though, the #1 thing they needed to do was to hire a good marketing person (Growth hacker) and the #2 and #3 things were to build a good pipeline of opportunities for their newly hired sales people and tweak the on-boarding experience for new customers.

Unfortunately the entrepreneur had failed to explicitly communicate this to the other investors, who were not entrepreneurs before.

If you do not have investors and advisors who are entrepreneurs, make sure that you are clear about the “little” things that need to happen to make the outcomes happen.

Learning, Tips

What do you do with all the advice you get as an #entrepreneur?

I had the opportunity to meet about 20+ entrepreneurs at the Plug and Play Tech Center, an accelerator and coworking space in Sunnyvale. This cohort was 2 sets of companies in the IoT (Internet of Things) space. Companies ranged from those in wearables, healthcare, connected car and home automation spaces. There were none in the industrial or commercial IoT area.

The startups were trying to get a sense for the changed funding landscape for startups and how to manage the new set of investors they had to deal with. Many in the connected car space were also talking to “strategic investors” such as the automakers themselves to get a sense for their interest to fund startups.

There was a question that one of the startups asked, which was they were adviced by a mentor who was a venture capitalist that “If we get funding from a strategic investor, then it will be viewed as toxic (sic) since we have to build to their needs”.

I am not sure of the context of that discussion, neither do I know about that investor’s background or intent, but this seems like poor advice at the outset. With more context and analysis I might learn more, but at the first glance, this is poorly construed.

I have written about conflicting advice for startups before and also a framework for entrepreneurs on how to take advice.

I think the best way to deal with experts who provide advice professionally is to resist the temptation to dismiss it rightaway or the desire to take it at face value and implement it rightaway.

Surprisingly I have found that most entrepreneurs actually “forget” the advice and seek out to experiment and find their own answer. That’s goodness, but it begs the question, how do you remember to seek what you learned?

So the problem as most people realize is that (like with storing and sharing good things at home) the problem is not storing, it is retrieving.

How can you recall the right advice when you need it?

Some decisions we make are fairly quick and provide us with very little time to process. Most decisions we make as entrepreneurs take require a longer lead time than a day.

The best way I have found to recall information an advice is to ask it again in context, instead of trying to remember what was said before and assume no judgement or bias before asking for a framework to think about the decision.

That way it gives you the ability to recall in context.

This surprising tactic means you should ignore all the advice you get and filter most of it as entertainment.

Which, if you are an entrepreneur is a much needed distraction.

Entrepreneurship, Venture Capital

If someone gives you absolute answers to entrepreneur questions, understand their framework first

I am always wary of absolute statements such as “We only invest in entrepreneurs” or “The best way to hire is to have a strong culture” or “Raise money from top tier VC’s, else you will not have a Unicorn exit”.

Why? Primarily because there is no one right answer. The answer is always “It depends”, but “it depends” is a hollow and unsatisfying answer.

So I prefer frameworks.

A framework is a mechanism to think about your particular situation and unique constraints and apply the possible approaches to come up with a personalized strategy.

I was reminded of that by Dave McClure, who talks about portfolio size in his latest post on Venture Capitalists.

When VC’s tell me they want to be “stock pickers” not index fund managers, I tend to have a lot more questions.

A “stock picker” assumes they know something everyone else does not. They have a key market insights, some differentiated information that’s not available to anyone else or knowledge that most others are missing.

An “index fund” manager believes that they dont have that insight, but can make money nonetheless by tracking market returns.

Turns out in the VC world, most VC’s think of themselves as “Stock Pickers”. That is one strategy to win in Venture and generate outsized returns.

To call every other strategy not-workable, is incorrect. While many folks call the other approaches “spray and pray” or “finishing with a net”, the strategy might work.

A framework to think is probably a better approach. That framework has to put desired outcomes on one side, the constraints in the middle and the inputs on the other side.

Outcomes and Constraints
Outcomes and Constraints

This framework visualization is not the only way to think about answering a question. There are many cases, when an “expert” might have learned something unique, analyzed the situation and provided the constraints in a more prioritized fashion. So, instead of looking at all the constraints, you can look at the 2-3 that matter.

Over the last 3-4 weeks, I have been putting together more frameworks to outline problems and questions I have encountered and worksheets or templates that work.

Going back to the VC conundrum, if an investor believes that there’s only one way to approach early stage investing, then they are possibly wrong.

The constraints I have heard from VC’s who follow the stock picker approach is that they dont want to sit on too many boards, dont have time to help more than 5-6 companies at the same time, or that they dont have time to find more than 10 companies are worth investing in.

If those are the constraints, then there are better and more different ways to solve for those constraints.

You can not sit on the board, and still have influence rights, you can hire people to help your portfolio and use technology to find more relevant companies and founders.

Most constraints can be solved, as long as you are clear about the outcomes you desire.

Some constraints you do not want to compromise on, and that is a constraint as well.

As an entrepreneur, though, if you are given only “one answer” or “one approach” or “one strategy” to be successful, you are talking to a fairly inexperienced person who you should probably not take advice from in the first place.

Funding, Personal

The Bay Area’s obsession with the “it” company syndrome for “poaching talent”

In 1995 when I reached Silicon Valley from Baltimore, HP was the company to poach talent from. Most startups and mid-sized companies during that period were keen to hire away from HP. It was known as the place that had a very refined “Management API”. Every executive and manager from HP was defined as having been through rigorous training, experiences and situations to help them navigate the complexity of running technology companies.

A few years later, the “it” company to hire from was Cisco and then Siebel was the target. Now it the “it” companies to poach talent from are Google and Facebook.

Surprisingly if you are a founder, and have an exit, you have lived through hell and back, but if you crave relevance and recognition, then you are better off being the 150th employee at an “it” company than the founder of the 150th exit.

In fact the most sought after founders are not serial entrepreneurs with a small exit, but an early to mid-stage employee at an “it” company.

That’s the Silicon Valley “meritocracy” in action. Working at “it” companies is regarded as a proxy for good pedigree. If you don’t have a Harvard or Stanford degree, but are working at an “it” company, you will be courted.

Yesterday, I had a chance to drive up to the airport with a good friend, who had a good exit (small, <$20 Million at an ad tech company in NYC). He had a very surprising observation to make. For all its “meritocracy” discussion, the only thing the valley values is pedigree. Which is not surprising. Which also means Silicon Valley is more similar to Hollywood than it is to any other place in the world.

Let’s say you are a successful entrepreneur (good, but small exit) and are looking for what’s next. You head over to the valley VC Mecca – Sand Hill road, thinking yeah, you have been successful, made money and have been thorough the grind and know how to exit and make money, so people should be interested in funding your opportunity – right?

Then you are in for a rude shock, because no one gives a damm. Most of the folks are chasing the ex-1200th employee at an “it” company, who worked on an arcane part of their advertising solution. That employee may have never actually built an entire product let alone a company, but they are “it” right now.

So, how do you break the mold? Only by showing success. It is the path that will be harder to take. It will be road with more obstacles.

You may hear stories of how an ex “it” company engineer raised $5 million on the back of a napkin over cocktails. That’s not going to happen to you.

You may hear that 2 engineers with a prototype got a series A term sheet, while you with a product and revenues, are still struggling to close your seed investors, even though you are in the valley as well.

That’s the nature of the valley, so don’t be disheartened. You too will shine and grow. Until then though, focus on building your business and keeping customers happy enough to tell others.

The rest will follow.

Entrepreneurship

How to be resilient – What I learned from many “Plan B #Entrepreneurs”

On your journey towards creating your startup and growing it, there will be multiple opportunities to quit. Startups are much harder than anything else you will do in your professional career, so you will have display enormous resilience to bounce back from “near death” experiences.

Over the last 3 years as I have watched multiple entrepreneurs from the sidelines, and about 20% of them have been “Plan B entrepreneurs”. These are folks that were thrust into entrepreneurship, not by choice or deep desire, but by circumstance. There is a story of a successful executive at a large SI who was laid off and found himself on the wrong side of the age equation, so he was “over skilled” for another position, and decided to be an entrepreneur instead. Another story, is that of a good friend, who graduated at the middle of her class and found no “jobs” for an entry-level developer, so she started a training school for average developers who can be placed at smaller companies.

I have noticed that plan B entrepreneurs are more resilient and they tend to display 5 primary characteristics.

How to be Resilient
How to be Resilient

The set of steps they might go through is denial, acknowledgement, acceptance, analysis and finally action, but the time spent on action tends to be the most.

Resilient people have a bias towards action and their action steps are immediate. Surprisingly the ones that I respect the most rarely “Sleep over it”. In fact, a mini-setback really spurs them towards exploration of multiple actions or options. That seemed counterintuitive to me at first, since the advice most people give is to “sleep over challenging situations”, but I guess different people are wired differently.

Second, they display the maturity to understand that setbacks are normal. They realize that the path to success is littered with multiple mini-setbacks. So each of these “mini-setbacks” only convinces them that setbacks are not failures, but successes posing as an obstacle.

Third, they have a “true north” that keeps them going. That true north is usually written down, not in “their head or their mind”. They tend to revisit the “true north” every so often, maybe a month, a week or every time they encounter a mini-celebratory moment or a mini-setback.

Fourth, they are always making a backup plan for the backup plan. It is almost as if they realize their first plan will never work out, so they always have a Plan B, or plan C. Their plan A, many have mentioned to me, almost never has materialized. They spend as much time coming up with plan B as they do plan A, which leads me to believe, that plan B’s are those that take more time, more effort, but are also responsible for progress.

Finally, they tend to be more disciplined and setup small routines to build momentum. Building momentum by identifying smaller steps that display progress tend to help them bounce back, is what I have heard. Some of them celebrate success so small, that they build a great culture in their teams of enjoying themselves a lot more together.

Related to this but on a more personal level, I read and re-read the touching note by Sheryl Sandberg yesterday on Dave Goldberg. It is an amazing read. I’d highly recommend it. Many things are worth highlighting, but the Option B part of the note is most relevant for entrepreneurs.

The personal blog of Mukund Mohan