Too Old to Be An Entrepreneur?

A well known venture capitalist and admitted “old guy” named Vinod Khosla, (he’s 57 years old) was reported to have said at a conference last year that "people over 45 basically die in terms of new ideas." (Please don’t tell my wife, I pretty much bet our house on my ability to start a really clever new business). This Vinod guy is really smart and he explained that he did not mean that old folks can’t do clever stuff; they just need to be more fearless. I guess he’s never seen me in my Super Suit.

I read that quote in an article by Sarah McBride , of Reuters entitled: Silicon Valley's dirty little secret: age bias

I got a kick out of some examples Ms McBride used to show how apparently we have to learn to dress more like 20-somethings:

In one case she mentioned a 60 year old guy (I am getting dangerously close to that milestone) who shaved off his gray hair and traded in his loafers for a pair of Converse sneakers before heading into an interview. He got hired. Later in the article, this same guy goes on to say: In person, older job applicants should carry a backpack, not a briefcase and they should avoid Blackberries and Dell laptops in favor of Android phones and Apple products. And above all, steer clear of wristwatches. "The worst would be a gold Rolex," he says. "Tacky, and old."  (If only I could afford a Rolex – I might be happy to be tacky)

In another example from the article, a 40-something market researcher (is 40 old?) headed to a boutique popular with young women for advice on "something to look hip" and "blend in" before she went to her interview. She ditched her tailored pants and blouses for a dress, tights, and biker boots. She eventually got the position. 

So I am wondering, if I shave my nearly bald but graying head, buy a dress and some tights and put on some Converse sneakers, will I be more attractive to venture capitalists? Or do you think that would be taking it too far? I really could use the money!

Is There a Recipe for Entrepreneurship?

I attended an advisors meeting this morning for a group that helps new start ups with their business models. The group is made up of people who share a common experience in entrepreneurship but have varying backgrounds in management, marketing, engineering, manufacturing, finance, legal, etc. There are usually about 30 of us in the room. You’d think that much brain power could really add a lot of value:  I’m not so sure.

I have attended 5 or 6 of these advisor meetings now. I was asked to be part of this group because I have helped start and sell three companies. Two successes with one flop sandwiched in between. But I wonder if I can actually tell someone else how to do it.

As I listen to the presentations and then listen to my colleagues ask questions and offer up recommendations, I am struck by the sameness of it all: as though there was a recipe for entrepreneurship. I’ve never been to a cooking class, but I can picture the master chef walking everyone through the steps that it takes to get just the right combination of ingredients, mixed in just the right way, and baked at just the perfect temperature. Voila – a perfect dish.

But I wonder.

Entrepreneurial success seems so individualized. Someone with a lot of passion and no brains can raise a lot of money; someone with a lot of money and a lot of brains can go “paws up”, and someone with the perfect business plan can still screw it up. I’ve observed that a lot of successful companies have had any combination of these events lurking in their past, but still overcame (or capitalized) on them.

I don’t think there is a recipe. It seems to me that entrepreneurs need to be a bit like Captain Jack Sparrow and treat all this advice they get as “guidelines”. Captain Jack would have been a great entrepreneur. He reacted to his environment, improvised to take advantage of whatever situation arose, and selectively decided just who to listen to (and when).

So I am still thinking about what the best advice I could offer to the companies in these meetings. Maybe it’s to act like a pirate. 

Don’t Build a Better Mouse Trap – Build a Better Mouse.

We are in week 11 of our new start up business. About 6 weeks ago I mentioned we did not yet have a name for the company. We still don’t. Our focus has been on product. But not building a product, not even designing one: we still need to discover one.

The process of discovery has lots of pundits explaining the best way to innovate. Some say it is a structured process of trial and error, some say it comes from brainstorming, others believe it comes from finding your passion and convincing the world to appreciate it as you do, and most believe it is a matter of finding a problem that needs solved better than anyone else solves it. I read once (I can no longer recall who said it) that the best way to come up with a great idea is to get a group of people you really like to work with, figure out what you really like to do, then build it. This thinking suggests that a business built around doing what you enjoy with the people you work well with is bound to be successful, regardless of the idea. Maybe.

In my experience of creating a handful of fairly successful products over the years, I find that the process is never the same. When I worked in large companies, new products tended arise from the crucible of need. Large companies have money, resources, and market power; what they don’t have is focus. Big companies rarely do anything unless the need is so great they are forced to do it. At smaller companies we tended to have product strategies that focused nicely around processes to continuously enhance (I almost said continuously improve – but evidence tends to suggest improvement is not always part of the game – even if it is always part of the aim). When I have been involved in startups we tended to act like idea-mills where everyone throws stuff at the wall to see what will stick. Passion often determines the winner.

For me one constant in the process of innovation – whether large, small or startup – is structured chaos. You have to break the mold of old thinking and allow ideas to be generated. But if you don’t wrap some structure around it you lose a lot of the momentum. Ideas flow like water: if there are no boundaries they tend to dissipate quickly. I approach product innovation almost like a hashing algorithm. The two extremes are (1) unfettered idea generation on one end and (2) focused problem analysis on the other. You keep working the process from both ends until you begin to gel on something in the middle. The best ideas solve a problem worth solving but see the problem in a whole new light. It is no longer about building a better mouse trap – but instead building a better mouse.

Going back to my earlier idea about great products coming from working with people you like and working on what it is you really like to do. I am thinking that if I got my best buddies together I am afraid we’d spend all our time hiking in the mountains. I’ll have to think about what product that might be. Maybe I could invent HikeBuddies.com.