Share This

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Startups Are All About the Execution, So Tell Me How ?


When entrepreneurs come to me with that “million dollar idea,” I have to tell them that an idea alone is really worth nothing. It’s all about the execution, and investors invest in the people who can execute, or even better, have a history of successful execution. Execution is making things happen, and for startups it usually means making change happen, which is even more difficult.

Sean Covey image via FranklinCovey >>

For most people, execution is one of those things that seems obvious after the fact when done correctly, but is hard to specify for those trying to learn to do it better. Recently, I finished a new book on this subject, “The 4 Disciplines of Execution,” by Chris McChesney, Sean Covey, and Jim Huling, which seems to talk to startups as well as the corporate world it was written for.

These authors argue effectively that the hard part of executing most strategies is changing human behavior – first the people on your team, then partners, vendors, and most importantly, customers. No startup founder or leader can just order these changes to happen, because it isn’t that easy to get other people to change their ways. Changing yourself is tough enough.

Here are four key disciplines that I believe the best business leaders follow to expedite the change and forward progress implicit in the successful execution of a million dollar idea:
  1. Focus always on one or two top priority goals. We all live with the stark reality that the more we try to do, the less well we do on any of the elements. Thus focus is a natural principle. Narrow you and your team’s focus to one or two wildly important goals, and don’t let these get lost in the whirlwind of daily urgent tasks and communications.
  2. Identify and act on leading measures first. Some actions have more impact than others when reaching for a goal. Hold the lag measures for later (results available after the fact), and focus on lead measures first (predictive of achieving a goal). For example, more customer leads is predictive of more sales revenue later.
  3. Define a compelling scoreboard. People on your team play differently when someone is keeping score, and even better when they are keeping score, and even better when they have defined how their score is measured. This is the discipline of engagement. If the scoreboard isn’t clear, play will be abandoned in the whirlwind of other activities.
  4. Create a frequent forum for accountability. Unless we feel accountability, and see accountability on a regular cadence, it also disintegrates in the daily whirlwind. It’s even better if team members create their own commitments, which become promises to the team, rather than simply job performance. People want to make a contribution and win.
These four disciplines must be implemented as a process, not as an event. That means your team needs to see them as a normal and continuous focus, not a one-time push which fades in the rush of other daily priorities. The team needs to see the process practiced by the startup founder, as well as preached regularly.

Startup founders also need to realize that building and managing a company is quite different from learning to search for and solidify an idea that can grow into a company. Every entrepreneur has to navigate that personal change from thinking to doing to managing.

It’s not only the change from thinking to managing, but also the change and learning from constant iterations. Major changes, called pivots, are terrifying to a team that has put months of constant focus into executing what they thought was a great idea. If you don’t have an execution process, you have chaos.

Overall, every entrepreneur should be concerned if they don’t regularly feel stretched beyond their comfort zone, meaning mastering the art of execution if you are mainly creative, or developing creativity if you are mainly process driven. Don’t forget that the fun and challenge is in the learning, so enjoy the ride. The entrepreneur lifestyle is not meant to be comfortable.

Martin Zwilling

Martin Zwilling, Contributor

Newscribe : get free news in real time 

Malaysia's General Election 13 to be survival of the fittest

It’s all a matter of endurance. Given the stakes, tensions have also heightened. Both sides have a great deal to lose. 

WE are entering the final straight. Whether the date of the actual polling day is in June, July, September or even next year, the finishing line is fast approaching.

It’s all a matter of endurance. Who can best manage their own resources and minimise their weaknesses? Whose “messaging” is the most focused and sustained?

Given the stakes, tensions have also heightened. Both sides have a great deal to lose.

As Tun Daim Zainuddin said a few months ago, the contest between Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional is much like an extended game of tennis – with victory going to the side that commits the least unforced errors.

In this respect Barisan would appear to be gaining the lead. Pakatan’s lack of access to the mainstream media further undermines the challenger’s chances.

Last week’s resignation of DAP Senator and vice-president Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim and PAS’ continued call for the introduction of the syariah have raised doubts about Pakatan’s ability to hold the middle-ground.

But there are also real dangers in trying to “read” the election outcome from the mainstream media. Official controls will always tend to magnify Pakatan’s mistakes whilst minimising Barisan’s missteps and only a fool would ignore the Internet’s ubiquitous presence.

At the same time, the vast numbers of new voters have injected an enormous degree of uncertainty into the game.

It is as if Tun Daim’s tennis game had been crossed with a Sony Wii as well as a Pentagon battle-ground simulator: permutations are the new “norm”.

No one knows for certain where these young people will cast their ballots. As Ben Suffian of Merdeka Centre explains: “They lack the loyalty of their parents. They are better informed and more sceptical: arbitraging on news and events.”

But when all is said and done, the voters are faced with four fundamental decisions when they’re dealing with Barisan, which are as follows:

> Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak: Should the Malaysians reward or punish him? Have his reforms satisfied the voting public? Conversely, has he been too weak in the face of non-Malay demands? Does Bersih 3.0 accurately reflect popular sentiment? Does he deserve to better Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s 2008 result? Will we reward him with the constitutional majority? Can his personal popularity (much like Abdullah’s at the same stage of the 2008 scenario) strengthen his hold on power?

> Umno: For over five decades – the United Malays National Organisation has been the parti kerajaan – the party of Government with its supreme council meetings surpassing Cabinet in terms of “real” authority? Is the automatic identification of party and government (along with all the attendant patronage) coming to an end? Or is it merely a case of the parti kerajaan becoming a parti politik no different from PAS and PKR? Is Umno’s supremacy finished?

> Barisan Nasional: Can the alliance remain intact if the country’s second largest community, the Chinese, remove their support? Is an Umno-dominated coalition sustainable? Are we witnessing the end of the so-called unwritten consensus that has brought us thus far? What will be the substitute?

> Malaysia: Will the 13th General Election see the firming up of the two-coalition system or its demise? Are we Malaysians comfortable with the level of checks and balances that have entered our political lexicon since 2008 or do we wish to return to the past – entrusting the Barisan, unreservedly with our future?

March 8, 2008 was a surprise result. It upset our (and especially my) lazy assumptions.

Will the upcoming polls see this becoming the new normal or will we return to the status quo ante? I will try my best to cover these dilemmas. But then again, if we refer to Tun Daim’s tennis analogy and the doubts raised by Bersih, another major question surrounds the “rules of the game” – who determines the players, especially the millions of new voters?

CERITALAH  By KARIM RASLAN

Thiel's college dropout plan in bubble education

Thiel's college dropout plan scrutinized by '60 Minutes'

Investor and entrepreneur tells the CBS news magazine that a college degree is unnecessary for financial success, but critics call his program an elitist ploy. 


Billionaire investor Peter Thiel.

Peter Thiel's plan to pay college students to develop their promising concepts instead of attending to school is attracting students as well as critics.

Best known as a co-founder of PayPal, the Silicon Valley investor and entrepreneur has also made early-stage investments in companies such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and Yelp. Now he's investing in college students, awarding fellowships of $100,000 each to youth under 20 years old, essentially encouraging them to drop out of college to become entrepreneurs.

In an interview for tonight's "60 Minutes," Thiel tells Morley Safer that his program is a viable alternative to what he sees as a largely ineffective university system in which costs far outweigh benefits.

"We have a bubble in education, like we had a bubble in housing...everybody believed you had to have a house, they'd pay whatever it took," says Thiel. "Today, everybody believes that we need to go to college, and people will pay -- whatever it takes."

He also notes that a college degree is not necessary to land a high-paying job.

"There are all sorts of vocational careers that pay extremely well today, so the average plumber makes as much as the average doctor," Thiel tells Safer.

Critics call Thiel's plan an elitist ploy that only encourages others to drop out or not attend college at all.

"Peter Thiel has made so much money that he is out of touch with the real world," Vivek Wadhwa, an entrepreneur who teaches at Duke and Stanford, told Safer. "He doesn't understand how important education is for the masses."

"What I worry about is a message that's getting out there to America that it's okay to drop out of school, that you don't have to get college. Absolutely dead wrong."

"60 Minutes" airs at 7 p.m. PT/ET on CBS stations. Full segment embedded below.



Steven Musil
by
Steven Musil is the night news editor at CNET News. Before joining CNET News in 2000, Steven spent 10 years at various Bay Area newspapers.  

Newscribe : get free news in real time 

Related posts:

US student Loan Crisis, an Education Bubble? 

American mounting student loans a 'debt bomb' waiting to explode! Inside America’s Student Loan Bubble!

American Student Loan Debt: $1 Trillion and Counting

America, a "Generation of Sissies"