Bo

@paulg @garrytan Each experience is different and fascinating in its own right, and a ton of fun! What an incredible community to be part of. And thanks Garry for convincing us to apply 12 years ago.

@garrytan You guessed right; they were going to meet you next.

A graph of the relationships in the YC world it would be more complicated than the graph of relationships in a soap opera. Today I met someone working for a YC co who was a YC alum, was married to a YC alum, had worked for YC itself, and angel invested in YC cos.

I've heard the phrase "we've tried that before and it didn't work" so many times in my career, and it's so pernicious. You can only default to that belief if you also believe that the current you (or current team) is *no better* than your previous selves, in a way that matters.

And once I realized that. Well then, it's pretty obvious. I should at least dive into the execution first, before concluding "well, we tried that, it didn't work".

You can only default to it's-a-strategy-mistake if and only if (IFF) you believe the vast majority of your initiatives are so well executed the first time that no other team in the world could execute them better, in a way that changes the outcome.

When an initiative doesn't work, I've found it helpful to default to assuming an execution mistake rather than a strategy mistake. This leads me to think "ah, let me dig into the execution to see what we could do better that would change the outcome" rather than...

@davidralbrecht Totally. You didn’t need the coach to tell you your job was to win the Super Bowl. You do need the coach to have the discernment to figure it out which input skill or component is most missing, and what to do about it, and to make sure you fixed it correctly.

@bolu This is why concepts like "results only work environment" don't work. The coach's job isn't to sit there and tell the team, "Go win the super bowl". It's getting people to show up at practice, guide them through the motions, do the right practice and drills, etc.

It took me years to realize my job as CEO was focusing primarily on each function's input metrics, not output metrics. In hindsight, if I'm just looking at output metrics I'm closer to an investor than an operator.

I too, can read AAPL's output metrics: units sold, revenue, and margin. But it's their control of probably thousands of input metrics (from manufacturing defect rate on the lightning connector, to number of days for a new engineer to get to first PR) that gets them there.

A common mistake I've seen among sales leaders is over-reliance on compensation incentives to drive sales output. In truth, comp can only drive sales *inputs*, and only the inputs that AE is capable of. Comp is only one part of the training+recognition+compensation triad.

@Malcolm_Ocean @eshear Thanks for the warm welcome. Open minded. I write to think anyway, so thought might as well do it in the open since a) others will likely help clarify my thinking, and b) I'll get to meet new like minded folks!

@bolu @eshear Welcome Bo :) What sorts of people are you looking to connect with on here? Or what kinds of interactions are you hoping to have?

Bo is a long time friend, and one of the best operational and strategic leaders I know. He has just gotten started on Twitter, give him a follow.

As a cross-functional leader with admittedly less time to spend on each function, looking at very specific input metrics (and moving your focus every little while) gives better leverage on that time.

Specific input metrics like the one above are generally only consistently good if and only if (IFF): - ops is distributing accounts well, && - expectations are clear, && - managers are dialed in, && - audit processes are solid.

We just started looking at a new metric for sales teams: number of owned accounts not touched last week (without a reason). If you manage a cross-functional team, rather than "zoom out" to the output metrics, instead zoom in on a collection of very specific input metrics.

But there's no absolute scale or "unit of measure" for PMF, and anyway it doesn't matter on an absolute basis which side has bette PMF. What matters is: if your marketplace growth is systematically rate limited by weak(er) PMF on one side, then aha, there's your next unlock.

Growth requires high PMF and giant TAMs. Growth at scale, in addition to new sales, is largely rate limited by churn & NDR (net dollar retention), which (modulo natural transaction frequency) are proxies for PMF

Recently I've been thinking about "which side of a marketplace has the better product-market fit (PMF)" as a mental model for how to prioritize product work when growing a marketplace business.