I don’t know what the rest of the world thinks when they use the phrase ‘power tool’, but for me it’s visceral, literal. My experiences using them and watching them transform my family’s work permeated my time building Puppet. These power tools aren’t little plugins to expensive frameworks, they’re large capital investments that dramatically change your job.
I grew up building houses with my dad. The worst task he gave me was trying to paint a set of louvre doors for a closet while in high school; I had to flip the doors over every 90 seconds to catch drips getting through the slats. After three days of misery, my father relented and rented a paint sprayer, with which we finished the job the same day, at a much higher quality.
Around the same time, my dad would rent a pneumatic nailer for big framing jobs. By the time I finished college a few years later, that critical tool went from borrowed to owned and traveled everywhere with him. Initially used only for large jobs, most contractors now have multiple nail guns to cover framing, trim, and every other use case, and the air compressor needed to power it is as important as electricity.
It might not be obvious, but both of these are examples of automation. You replaced a very manual process - applying paint, or nailing things together - with a machine. If this were a factory, these days you’d call those machines robots, but because it’s a construction site, we just call them tools.
And these tools were expensive. Even with how much faster we finished that painting job, I expect it cost more to rent the sprayer than to finish the work manually, because of how little he was paying me. (This does ignore the soft costs of listening to me complain, which were likely high.) Even today paint sprayers and nail guns are often rented rather than purchased, because good ones cost a lot of money and aren’t needed all the time.
It’s no surprise that discussions of tools and productivity are easier to understand from my experience as a carpenter than as a sysadmin. There’s plenty of room for arguments about what is or is not a software power tool, but when it costs more than a week’s wages, it trails a bright orange cord everywhere it goes, and it can nail your hand to the wall while you’re standing at the top of a ladder1? It’s a power tool.
There’s a common story about what robots and automation do to people like my dad (and both of my brothers, who followed in his footsteps): It steals their jobs and ruins their lives.
What utter poppycock.
If you think of your job as driving metal spikes into wood, then a nail gun is a mortal threat. But if this is your value add, your biggest danger was never automation. My dad never sold his ability to join raw materials together quickly; he sold homes, he sold the opportunity to enjoy your house and family more. How did these new power tools affect that?
They were awesome. Painting and nailing are classic examples of menial, low-value work, and yet we spent most of our time on them. All of the differentiation we offered to our customers was packed into a narrow slice of work, because implementation took so much time and money. As we were able to bring more powerful tools to bear, the menial work shrank and larger portions of our time could be spent on design work, customer interaction, and tuning our customers’ homes.
Interestingly, my father’s next career step was even more pointedly about experiences enabled by tooling. He took a job with a state hospital in Tennessee, fabricating custom furniture for severely disabled patients. Suddenly he was using industrial sewing machines for upholstery, and partnering with medical professionals to design multiple beds for each patient, enabling them to be happier and more comfortable (and also avoid bed sores, thus saving hundreds of thousands of dollars per patient). Given the tragically minimal budget allocation for this kind of work, every dollar saved through automation and tooling directly delivered health and happiness to his patients.
It’s no wonder I see the value in power tools, that I am more conscious of the benefit they can deliver than the loss of low-value menial work.
I had a similar experience as I was building Puppet. I would meet executives and salespeople (I don’t know why it was always them) who would say, “Oh, automation? Great, you can fire sysadmins!” No. Beyond the obvious reality that I was selling directly to my users, who would never buy on the promise to fire their coworkers, that was just not why we were valuable.
Puppet gave people a choice between lowering cost but keeping the current service quality, or keeping your costs flat while providing a much better service. “Wait, making things better is an option? I didn’t know that!” Most companies were aware that their IT sucked, but they only knew how to measure and manage cost, so that’s what they did. Once you believed in the power to make things better, power tools turned out to be great investments for both the user and the buyer.
By letting people spend more time on the parts of their work they enjoyed, the work that makes them special, we also delivered higher quality experiences for their customers and constituents. “Spend less time firefighting and doing menial work, and more time shipping great software.” If the heart of your skillset is clicking buttons or responding to outages, Puppet might have been a threat to you, but our users knew where their real value was. We helped them spend more time there and less time on the boring, low value stuff. The sysadmins hated the work, the customers hated to need it, and the executives hated paying for it. Great, done, don’t worry about it.
That’s partially why productivity has stagnated2. The world has not changed that much - some of the greatest improvements to productivity come from making large capital investments in tooling for your workers - but how we spend our money has. People balk at a $5k computer, when the Mac IIci would cost more than $13k in today’s dollars just for the hardware, yet was a powerhouse in desktop publishing. This is to say nothing of how the mobile app stores have driven down what people are willing to spend on software.
Yes, Adobe’s software is expensive, but it’s that price because it delivers so much value. If it didn’t, no one would buy it. Every large market should be so lucky as to have the collection of power tools that graphic designers get. It sounds crazy, but we’re suffering from not enough expensive software. Instead of building the most powerful software possible and finding customers who see its value, companies are building the simplest thing they can and trying to get everyone to use it.
There are bright spots in the industry, like Airtable and Superhuman. I’m hoping they help to shift momentum back to automating away the tedious work and enabling focus on what humans excel at.
More powerful tools improve your life, but they also make you happier even if you can’t buy them. They tantalize you, promising you great returns, if only you can come up with the cash. And they’re maybe just a little bit scary, warning you that buying them is not enough. You must master them.
A friend of ours managed to do this when working alone in the time before cell phones. ↩
Yes, I might be being simplistic to make a point. ↩
Modern capitalism raises the flag of the free market while pitting centrally planned organizations against each other
It’s quite a journey from being born on a commune to raising more than $87m in funding at a software company. This journey forced me to wrestle with existential questions about my true beliefs, and how they intersected my life as an entrepreneur. One’s work is rarely a pure reflection of ideology, but companies need a clear and authentic strategy, which requires a tight alignment between company operations and the founder’s philosophy. I have discovered more about those differences between what I believe and the best ways to grow a corporation while studying economics - that is, how money is made and exchanged - than any other area.
A worldwide conflict between communism and capitalism defined the latter half of the twentieth century. The United States’ ideological battle was the central drama of my childhood, and it was with a combination of glee, pride, and “told you so!” that my fellow Americans watched the wall fall in Berlin, and the USSR dissolve shortly thereafter. I expect few would deny that the US is the standard bearer for capitalism.
Yet, there’s a flaw at the heart of this claim. While the United States operates as a free market economy, the key agent within modern capitalism - the corporation - works more like an authoritarian state. Given how much of our world is built around corporations, this truth and its impacts are critical.
I grew up apart from America’s passion for capitalism. In the era of Reagan, I was living on a commune. My parents did not earn money for their labor, and we didn’t have personal property. My family left the Farm when I was 8, and as I matured, my ideological roots were in conflict with the US’s nonstop pro-capitalism message. As I joined the workforce and eventually started my own company, I found myself attached to neither the communal roots of my childhood nor the Wolf of Wall Street world I moved into. I grew slowly in convictions, as I encountered problems in the course of scaling a company.
The first real conflict came when it was time to hire managers. I founded a company primarily because I did not thrive as someone else’s employee, so what led me to think others would? More importantly, anyone who has ever operated at the front line is aware of the severe costs imposed by the separation between the people who do the work and the people who make the decisions in hierarchies. Hiring managers was just going to make the company do worse, not better, right? Right?
I expect three of you are gleefully shouting, “Yay, holacracy!” right now, while the rest are confused and either offended or think I’m an idiot. I did consider a manager-less world, but a little research provided only examples of disaster, because the only available options just replace an explicit power structure with an implicit one. In other words, it’s still hierarchical with the founder on top, but now decision making is opaque and the system is easy to exploit because of the lack of controls (which looks surprisingly like the cult/commune I grew up in).
Those who are confused or offended by the idea that managers make performance worse would be informed by a deep dip in economics. One of the core principles of the free market is that central planning committees can never be as efficient or as effective as the people doing the work. By definition a free market economy lacks a decision-making hierarchy; the ‘free’ means every agent (individual or corporation) can decide for themselves, without needing permission from a manager above.
While there are many aspects of modern American capitalism I reject, this one I wholeheartedly support1. The downsides of a strong central executive were taught to me early.
Like many other communes, the one I grew up on routinely failed to feed its people - my parents speak with horror of the ‘wheat berry winter’, when we lived on little else. While his people were short on food, the founder of the Farm was off touring Europe as the 3rd drummer in a band, “bringing our message to the world”.
Thankfully none of us starved to death, but the failing was similar to what most communist countries experienced: The central organization could not feed everyone. For years, I assumed this was just incompetence, whether at the scale of the Farm or China. The truth was far more structural. Millions starved during the Great Leap Forward because the central organization was trying something impossible: Managing the productive output of an entire country. The Planet Money podcast tells a great story of how this central planning was walked back in China, but the general point here is that these communist countries did not just nationalize the means of production, they tried to centrally control all of it from within a small group.2
When people talk about communist countries not being a free market, this is what they mean: They tell the farms what crops to produce and in what quantity, rather than letting them decide for themselves. China even went so far as to dictate what hours a farmer should start and stop working, and then directed managers to ring a bell for transition times to control every little group of farmers. Anyone who’s ever had to punch a clock into a rigid, dysfunctional hierarchy is likely getting painful flashbacks about now.
It should be immediately obvious why this fails miserably: The distance between the central planning committee and the farmer is so great that good decisions are nearly impossible. It’s nearly impossible for critical feedback to make it from the edge, where the farmers are working, to the central planning committee in time to affect decisions, and then for those decisions to make it back to the edge in time to be useful. The podcast linked above also points out how unmotivated the farmers were under this regime, cutting productivity even further. Those who have studied lean manufacturing, agile development, and DevOps are likely seeing parallels here.
The result was catastrophe. When a corporation is painfully inefficient it loses money and might have to do layoffs, but when a country fails at growing food, its people starve to death. I don’t mean to imply that central planning was the only cause of famine under communist rule - there were political operations that led to mass starvation, just like in the West - but learning more about these helped crystallize what I do truly prefer about capitalist models. It also converted the phrase ’the free market’ from a catchy slogan into something meaningful to me.3
The most important feature of free market economies is that each person within them is able to make independent decisions in their own best interests4. If you’re a farmer, you can decide what to grow, how much to grow, and when to work to develop your crop. Heck, you can even choose not to be a farmer any more. Success is merely dependent on your finding a buyer for your work at a price you can tolerate. Any given year might not be perfect, but your decision making gets better over time as you learn to respond to customer demand.
This pattern is easy to understand in any system where the people doing the work make the decisions. If you’re a jeweler, you can decide what to make, how much to sell it for, and what to spend your time on. Same if you run a small restaurant, lead local tours, or are a one-person shop doing house remodeling. It’s a free market, where you can charge what the market will bear, and you can quickly and efficiently respond to its whims, ensuring that you are getting the best use of your time.
This was a powerful organizing principle for a long time. The history of human commerce developed largely this way: One person, or as many people as could fit in one shop, would turn labor into a product, then find a buyer for it. Most large-scale efforts were organized by the state of the time: Monarchs and the landed gentry, who were the only ones capable of marshaling enough resources to build palaces, roads, and other large construction projects.
This began to change in the 17th century when corporations like the Dutch East India Company were able to deliver massive windfalls to investors by pooling money and using it to extract resources from colonies. There was a step change in the 19th century, as corporations went from generating wealth to building and owning infrastructure. It’s one thing to outfit a single ship for a year-long voyage, yet another to maintain railroad schedules across the United Kingdom, or run a telegraph network around the whole US. These aren’t just short-term money-making exercises, they’re long-term commitments with big capital outlays and large returns over years and years.
We still live in a free market economy, but it’s not one Adam Smith would recognize. Instead of individual or small operators, ours is composed almost entirely of corporations. Really big corporations. And these companies, they use the same kind of central planning that we so despise in communist systems. I know. I’ve done it.
By the time my company got near 500 people, we had a multi-week planning process, where the leadership (i.e., me and my lieutenants) set out top-level goals, built a top-down plan to accomplish them, then drew information from the front line to see where it needed change. We called this a bottom-up plan, but it was only bottom-up from the perspective of numbers - how much money we’d have, what our costs were, etc. - rather than from the bottom of the organization. We could see no way to have a system where the people doing the work built a plan for the organization. Even thinking about it now, my reaction is, “How would they know what my goals are?”
That’s the kind of question you can only ask in an authoritarian state, not in a free market economy. My goals became my company’s goals, and the only real way to ensure people worked toward them was providing a plan. You might argue that a corporation should focus on shareholder value, but that doesn’t help make decisions about what the company should actually do.
Great leaders find a way to listen to everyone in the company, but in the end, leadership is about making decisions. That’s essentially the definition of the word. And we all know leaders who did not bother to listen, or just did not need to in order to be great; today’s most vaunted tech leader, Steve Jobs, was famously disrespectful of the opinions of others, yet made a lot of world-changing decisions (not all for the better).
This is exactly why working in a big corporation is so stifling. If you’re in a small company, the executives are close enough to the front line that it’s more like working in a tribe, but in a big company, the leadership is so removed from whose who do the work that executive teams operate like the politburo we so decry in communist countries. Certainly the bureaucracies are no more enjoyable or forgiving.
I find it both ironic and painful that my inability to work for someone else resulted in my creating a company that involved a lot of smart, capable people working for someone else.
I wish I had a solution. If this were an easy problem, its solution would already be pervasive, because the benefits are massive. Just in terms of efficiency, we’ve seen how much better the free market is than planned economies, but it also has a hugely positive impact on quality of life. People are happier when they’re in control.
I know the solution is not more freelancing and contract work, which America’s corporations are addicted to. That’s the worst of both worlds: The exploitative nature of capitalism with the inefficient bureaucracies of communism. Transactions on the free market work because they’re good for both sides, but most people only accept part-time contract relationships today when they have no other real choices.
Holacracy certainly isn’t the answer. It’s fundamentally flawed because of its implicit power structure - Tony Hsieh still runs Zappos, even if he does not use a central planning committee to do it - but the biggest problem is it makes no mention of economics. Without a clear system for scoring the transactions (i.e., money) it’s impossible to build a free market.
This problem of how to handle economics within a non-hierarchical company might lead some to think of using blockchain tokens as an internal currency. This is impossible today, beyond the fact that the world of blockchain is mostly about fraud and black market sales. The biggest problem is that we have no idea how to value most of the work people do. I mean, we might know that what a developer should get paid for a year’s work, but how much is that work worth? The majority of the work done in modern corporations is incredibly hard to value, which is partially why companies are so inefficient and make so many bad decisions.
That brings up an even bigger problem - companies today hire workers to make money from their labor. In other words, they generate profit because they pay their employees less than they’re worth. If everyone could trade their labor for exactly the amount of money it was worth, the corporations that employ them would have a much harder time making money. Instead, in modern corporations the shareholders and the executive team - again, the central planning committee we so despise - make the majority of the money, while the front line does all the work and makes very little. This is true even at the big tech firms; software developers might be well paid relative to hotel workers, but they’re paid a pittance compared to the founders and executives. This might speak to why we have no solution yet - free market corporations would tend to reduce concentrations of wealth, which would be terribly disruptive to the current system.
Like I said, I don’t have a solution. But at least now I know what makes the current system so painful, and it gives me some hope that we actually can come up with a better answer. I know I’ll be working harder in the future to manage the downsides of what we have today.
Although I might stress the “well regulated” part more than most modern economists. ↩
The arrival of the smartphone has convinced the world of the value of great software design, but it’s not all good news
The smartphone has reached more people and delivered more value faster than any technology ever seen. Much of the world has had to adapt to this arrival, but software design suffered the greatest reckoning. As the smartphone ascended, developers finally adopted reasonable design principles, realizing that they could not pack every feature ever seen into the smartphone experience. This recognition of the value of design - and especially, minimal design - is a good thing. Mostly.
I could not be happier that the industry finally accepts that there are principles of design, and there is a practice and discipline behind building great software. It’s great that we’re seeing more focused software that does little, but does it very well, rather than the previous age of the GUI when software attempted to own large parts of our lives by doing anything and everything. For a long time, Microsoft Word was used by nearly everyone who had a computer, and their strategy was to ensure no one ever had a reason to choose something else by building every feature anyone might ever need; their toolbar was the canonical example of never saying no.
The smartphone changed all that. Those rows of icons would fill the screen on a phone and leave no room for typing, and of course, no one would use them anyway because of how different the usage patterns are. As people realized they could no longer just throw in the kitchen sink, they began hiring (and listening to!) actual designers, and those designers have been steeped in the culture of Dieter Rams and the minimalism of the Bauhaus movement, which is awesome. Mostly.
Unfortunately, the phone caused everyone to focus on the final design principle of Dieter Rams (“Good design is as little design as possible”), without apparently remembering the nine that came before it, or why they were earlier in his list. I get it; the design constraints in a phone are intense, and it might not be a good idea to minimize everything, but it sure is easy.
The consequence of this mobile brutalism is a new movement building simpleton tools: Software that anyone can use, but no one can become an expert in.
Trello is a great example. I adore Trello. I think it’s great software, and it’s clearly a success by any measure. However, for all that I’ve relied on Trello daily for years, I feel no more an expert than I did just after starting to use it. It’s not because I haven’t tried; it’s because there’s no depth. You can pretty much plumb the product in a couple of days.
That’s fantastic for getting new users up to speed quickly, but deeply frustrating after a couple of weeks. Or months. Or years. Compare that with Vim, which I still use for all of my code editing, yet it’s so complicated that most people don’t even know how to quit it, much less use it. I’m not going to claim its lack of user friendliness is a feature, but I will defend to the death that its complexity is.
Apple’s Notes is the ultimate expression of this trend in text editor form. It’s a fine text editor. I know some people have written huge, impressive programs in similarly simplistic editors like Notepad on Windows. But I personally could not imagine giving up keyboard navigation, selection, text munging, and everything else I do. The fact that complicated work can be done on simplistic tools speaks to the value of having them, but in no way invalidates the need for alternatives. Yet, on the current trends, no one will even be trying to build this software I love because they couldn’t imagine two billion people using it on a smartphone.
I think it’s fair to say that that’s an unfair standard, and even a damaging one.
I miss the rogue-esque exploration that tool mastery entails. It’s not that I want tools to be hard; I want them to be deep. I want to never run out of ways to invest in my tools. I don’t want to have to swap software to get upgrades, I want to upgrade my understanding instead.
But I look around my computer, and everything on it was designed for the “average” user. I was not average as a CEO with 40+ hours of meetings a week while receiving more than 200 emails a day, nor am I average now as someone who spends more time writing than in meetings. There’s no such thing as an average user, so attempting to build for one just makes software that works equally poorly for everyone.
It is a rookie mistake to conflate the basic user who will never plumb the depths of their tools with the expert user who will learn every nook and cranny of your software. It is a mistake to treat the person who sometimes has to solve a problem the same as a person who spends 80% of their time working on that problem.
I don’t want to be an expert in all of my tools - for all that I take thousands of photos a year, I don’t think I’m up for switching to Adobe Lightroom - but for those tools that I spend the most time in, that most differentiate me, I want the opportunity for true expertise. And I’d happily pay for it.
Back in the days when computer screens were tiny, there were plenty of stats that showed that paying for an extra screen would often give people a 10% or more boost in productivity. I know it did that for me. As a business owner, it was trivial to justify that expense. Monitors cost a lot less than 10% of a person’s salary, and don’t need to be replaced every year. Heck, the whole point of the automation company I built was to allow people to focus their efforts on the most valuable work they could do.
Yet, when it comes to software being built and purchased today, to the tools we use on a daily basis, somehow our software ecosystem is failing us. There is no calendar I can buy that makes me 10% better, no email client available that I can spend five years getting better at.
It’s great that people are finally making software that everyone can use, but that’s no excuse to stop making software for specialists, for experts, for people who could get the most advantage from that extra 10%.
Most of our software is confused about what job we’ve hired it for
I’ve really enjoyed playing Zelda: Breath of the Wild, but my life has been changed more by one of its reviews than by the game itself. The review had a unique view on what made the game so great. It contrasted Zelda to other games - Destiny, for example - saying that while others tended to distribute gameplay across multiple areas (e.g., in Destiny, the radar is a critical part of the game), Zelda really focuses the game into the main screen where you walk, glide, ride, and fight.
The review (which I unfortunately cannot find, because of the quantity of posts online that all use similar words) called this “where the game lives”. I love what this phrase evokes. I absolutely loved the game Borderlands, but I was deeply frightened of ever finding out how much time I spent at its store screen, because item collection and management was such an important part of the game. A lot of its fun was specifically from the collection, rather than the playing, but that meant a large chunk of the game lived in the store, as opposed to out in the world.
Most of our software could use a similar dissection.
Like Destiny and Borderlands (which are both great, and quite similar), the tools we use show a surprising distance between what they help us do and what we’ve hired them for. If I may be permitted to steal from this review, this distance is a sign that our software is confused about where our work lives.
To pick a counter-example, I’m writing this post in Ulysses. People who choose this software laud its simplicity, which makes it easy to focus. What they really mean is, all you can do with it is write. There’s almost no formatting, very little organization, very little anything but writing. The work lives in the writing. (My first draft was written on an ipad, which further simplifies that focus.)
Contrast that with any task or project management tool. My wife and I are in the middle of planning a bunch of camping, and we’re using Trello to organize many of the options. What is Trello’s opinion about where the work lives?
Last time I looked, my wife had three browser windows open, each with about fifteen tabs. She’s also working in RoadTrippers (Pro, natch). To get this work into Trello is a process of copying, pasting, writing copy about why you pasted it, and then using Trello to file it so you can find and manage it later.
In this operation, where does the work live? It’s scattered across maps, calendars, browsers, and applications like RoadTrippers. Does Trello know that? Does it agree? How does its opinion of where the work lives affect its utility? Brief introspection leads us to conclude Trello has no idea where the work lives, and the humans using it are entirely responsible for connecting the two.
Here’s a simple exercise for anyone using a task tracking app: Envision yourself going into that app and just marking everything done, even though you obviously haven’t done the work. It hurts to even consider, doesn’t it? Your brain has absorbed that these tasks are representations of work, and it’s your job to match the representation to the work, because you know the tool won’t do it for you. When you mark something done, of course nothing goes out and does the work; you’re just lying to your software about the state of the world. And it has no idea! This disconnect is what leads to an allergic response to the idea of marking work done in software that is not yet done in the real world.
I’d like to say that Trello was just a bad example, but I think all task tools share this confusion. Bug trackers and project management tools are specialized examples of this, and they obviously have no idea where the work lives. If I’m writing code, all of the work is done in my text editor, in files on disk, and maybe in my testing tools to ensure the work is done and done right. I then go somewhere entirely different to mark the work done. Why? Shouldn’t GitHub know it already? Why do I have to explain it? The answer is because these trackers think tracking is the work, when of course, the work is the work.
It’s no better in personal tools. I just started using Things 3 for my own tasks, nearly all of which end up being expressed in email or calendars, yet Things 3 has no conception of either. It has no idea where my work lives, and expects me to put out all of the effort necessary to connect them.
Speaking of email and calendars, they have their own role in this conversation.
Email is interesting. Everyone hates it, because it’s so important to everyone that we use it constantly, yet this animosity is a result of its utility and criticality. In other words, people hate it because it works so well. But when you’re doing email, what work are you actually doing?
I’m not sure I know. You’re communicating. But usually, you’re communicating about some other kind of work, like a document, a meeting, or some kind of activity that takes place outside of the inbox. A well designed application will remove the need for communication via email - Google Docs is a great example of this. Its sharing and commenting features have allowed many discussions to move from email to where the work is, in the document itself; their addition of suggestions has doubled down on focusing on the work, rather than talking about the work. (Note that this is completely different from Slack, which advertises that it gets rid of email, by which it means it moves the conversation, not that it does a better job of bringing the work into the software.)
Of course, how do you have Google Docs tell you someone commented on your document? Email. :)
What about calendars? Why do calendars exist? As a tool, where does their work live?
I am thankful to have had to try to explain to a friend my position on this, otherwise I’d think it was easy to understand. It’s so counter to how people work today that a relatively obvious truth is impossibly counter-intuitive: calendars are about how I spend my time.
When using a calendar, the work is what you actually do. You, a person, out the in the world. That’s what the calendar is about. Its job is to ensure you do the right things at the right time, with the right people, in the right place. It’s about doing, not documenting, managing, or notifying. You can put something in a calendar and not do it, or do work that’s not in the calendar; any of us would say, obviously, that it’s what you do that matters, not what the calendar says. Merely creating an event has no effect, and thus no value; it only matters if it then affects your behavior. The work lives in what you do. But does your calendar make even the slightest attempt to directly manage how you spend your time? What would that even look like?
To pick a small example, my calendar apps seem to not care what city I’m currently in, or where I’m physically located. Isn’t this weird? The tool whose primary job is to manage where I am physically located makes no attempt to represent or take into account the core fact it is meant to control. It still dumbfounds me.
Yes, they can tell me in real time when I should leave for a meeting based on travel time (as long as travel involves driving, rather than walking down the hall to a conference room), but they can’t say, “Given that on Tuesday you’ll be in Portland, working from home, you should block out travel time to get downtown to lunch and back”. That is, they can alert me in the moment, but they can’t do their core job - reserving time to ensure I’ll be doing the right thing in the future. Because they can’t do this, I have to create those blocks myself, else I’ll find myself choosing between skipping one appointment or being late to another. The whole point of a calendar is to manage time, but in this simple example they fail to ensure I will have space to transition my corporeal existence between physical locations. Shouldn’t that be step one, rather than an exercise left to the human?
I also reserve time for tasks I do alone every day, like working out and writing. I do this primarily to ensure it gets done, rather than because those times are special (although I do get a bit jittery now if I don’t write first thing in the morning). There’s no way to explain to my calendar what I’ve actually blocked that time out for, and thus no way for it to respond to whether I’ve done it or not, even though my computer knows if I’ve done my writing, and my watch knows if I’ve worked out. Wouldn’t it be great to see your calendar dynamically rearranging your day because it noticed you missed your workout?
My calendar is confused about what work I’ve hired it to do, and therefore does not know it needs to look in those places.
We’re so used to the idea that our software represents the work that we seem to have lost hope that it will actually help us do it. Most of the tools we use are entirely disconnected from the work they’re supposed to help us with. Marking something done does not do it, deleting email does not indicate communication has happened, sitting at your computer while your calendar says you’re writing does not produce text. The representations are not the work, yet we forgive our tools for only dealing in representations, not actual work.
I don’t know if that reviewer was right about why Zelda: BoTW is so great. I can’t even imagine what all the software I use would look like if it were built around where my work lived, rather than merely being used to model and manage it.
What I do know is that our software can and should be built to help us do the jobs we’ve hired it for. But because it is confused about why we use it, what we do every day is lower quality, less fun, and just downright confusing.
This also shows just how much opportunity there is to improve the software we use on a daily basis.
Every startup has its founding myth, the story that it uses to help draw in and motivate employees, customers, and investors. In most cases, those myths were cultured years after the company’s founding, and bear little relationship to reality. When you dig deeply into a company’s true origins, what initially looked like the product of far-sighted genius deflates into a mix of insight and smart decisions meshed with a series of serendipitous events.
This gap between myth and reality in no way diminishes the achievement of these companies and their teams, but it collapses our ability to learn the true lessons from those who made it and those who did not. If we can shift our story-telling from creation myths to capturing the collisions actually necessary to germinate greatness, we can better recognize what it will take to support it next time. Even better, it will allow us to pull forth those organizations not lucky enough to get all the draws, enabling our ecosystem to address neglected founders attacking neglected markets.
As I was building Puppet, I assiduously sought founder stories, trying to understand what it really took to do what they did. Over time, this turned from a quest to build “Good to Great” for startups (which was silly anyway, given how stupid that book is) into a collection of more-true founding myths:
I find these funny, but the true goal is to puncture the story people want you to buy so you can understand what it really took. When you do that, you find that yes, people had to work hard, they had to be smart, they had to be creative. Those are necessary, but as testified by the thousands of failed companies full of hard-working, smart, creative people, they aren’t sufficient.
When you can find true founding stories, such as Phil Knight’s excellent Shoe Dog, you gain critical insight that might help you build your own business better, but you also realize how much of building a great company is expertly riding the tide of luck and opportunity.
On first blush, there’s no problem with this, other than the ridiculous levels of delusion necessary to turn serendipitous opportunism into genius founding myths that manage not to include the lucky bits.
On reflection, though, erasing the role chance plays causes systemic problems throughout the startup world.
We’ve already seen that human nature abhors a vacuum, refusing to accept that people don’t always deserve their circumstances. Luck is obviously not the only contributor to a startup’s success, because how they play the hand they’re dealt is at least as important as the hand itself. But let’s not lie to ourselves about the role of randomness in a startup’s circumstances.
When we do, it limits our ability to understand what it really takes to make a great company. This is similar to the deep structural flaws within “Good to Great”: If you just ask the great companies what they did and try to do the same, you sound smart but have only made your readers dumber. I recommend The Halo Effect for a more complete discussion on how this business-book analysis of success fails its readers. You can fatally pierce the concept by focusing on one kind of failure:
“The Delusion of the Wrong End of the Stick - successful companies may do various things but that does not mean that doing those things will make you successful”
As I was trying to build Puppet, I found this discrepancy between the stories and the realities immensely frustrating. I was uninterested in being valorized for something I felt lucky to be doing, but these myths were a screen obscuring information I knew was valuable. My goal in studying my predecessors was to improve my own chance of success, but it’s impossible to learn from propaganda. Instead of a community of founders learning from each other, with each iteration being better than the next, you get cargo cult companies that manage to copy every part of a successful business except the parts that made it work.
As just one example, Google’s own data now shows that its vaunted hiring practices did not actually help, but a whole generation startups copied their worthless brain teasers and discriminatory ivy league requirements. For years, Google’s dominance was partially explained by their great hiring, but what happens when it turns out they weren’t actually better than anyone else? Nothing to see here, please move along. Let’s just start another round, this time copying Netflix and Amazon. Forgive me for thinking that Amazon’s success has more to do with their taking Walmart’s extractive business strategy to the web than on their use of internal APIs.
What I found again and again when I peeled these myths back was far more genius in how people responded to their circumstances than in how they were created. Oracle is a perfect example: Larry Ellison was smart enough to realize that IBM had invented this great new database concept but weren’t trying to sell it, so he took advantage of that to build it himself. You can bet that’s not how Oracle tells its founding story, but only once you know it can you see that Ellison’s true strength was pushing hard and fast enough to ensure that Oracle was the first one to market with this free idea. I don’t look up to Oracle’s founder, but you can bet I learned from that story.
Google is another good one: One of the best CS schools in the world bashes together two random guys, who then go on to invent something and get lucky enough to fail to sell it. What you can learn from Google looks pretty different once you know that. Again, it does not diminish what they did after that failure, but it turns their stories of manifest destiny into a more true telling of wandering any icy landscape looking for safety.
When they say history is written by the victors, they mean both that only the the stories of the winners end up getting recorded, but also that the stories themselves get morphed, corrupted, to present those winners as just and deserving. That corruption is as pervasive in the world of startups as it is in the wider world.
There is tremendous value in understanding the real stories behind the great successes. Good luck getting companies and founders to tell them.
The iPad has made great strides in the last few years toward being a full-time computing platform. While many still cry that it’s just not very useful yet, others are out there using it as their only computer, or have at least shifted significant usage from desktops and laptops to it. I have been traveling at least a third of the time over the last few years, and the iPad is my only companion on the majority of those trips. It is by far my favorite computer, but it has one glaring defect.
Obviously, the heart of the iPad is its touch interface. The direct interaction is exactly what makes it such a joy to use for so much of it can do. However, even Apple has finally acknowledged that a keyboard is a necessary companion for many iPad uses. While their keyboard has some issues (or rather, their keyboard connection technology does), the overall experience is quite nice. Except for one little detail.
Unlike touch, keyboards are inherently targeted. While touch is powerful specifically because of your ability to directly manipulate the software you’re using, keyboards must first be pointed at a place that needs text. They need focus. And here’s where the iPad falls down.
It has no concept of focus. Or rather, it obviously does, but its designers are in denial about it. Keyboard focus is littered throughout the platform, from the presence of a cursor when inputting text, to the software keyboard auto-hiding when no text field is in use. When you’re producing text, this generally works pretty well.
But the keyboard is used for far more than typing. Whether it’s command-tabbing between applications or using shortcuts within them, the keyboard is a critical control device. And it just does not work right on the iPad.
Honestly, it does not work that well on the mac these days, either. Apple’s Mail application can’t seem to figure out how to pass focus between emails, especially when deleting them, and there are plenty of other situations where focus within a window - as opposed to between them - can neither be perceived nor controlled.
But because of its orientation around touch, the iPad is much worse. The vast majority of the time that I want to, say, delete an email, the delete key just literally does nothing. I can even touch the email I want to delete to “ensure” it’s focused, and yet still the keyboard is useless. I have to resort to touch for interacting with applications the vast majority of the time. Many iPad-specific apps now advertise keyboard shortcuts, but they’re useless. I mean, sometimes they work. But that’s not good enough when you’re trying to get something done; we learn, eventually, to do what’s consistent, rather than what’s fastest when it works but often fails.
I have so many memories of using my keyboard to tell some app to do something, and just starting at the iPad until I realize nothing is going to happen. I tap around, hoping to tell it, “start here”, but it’s usually no use. My expectations collapse, and I feel crippled, reduced to the level of those who just click around their GUIS. It’s not wrong, but it can be so much better.
I follow every conversation I can find about the iPad as a productivity platform. I’m deeply interested in the thoughts of people who are bought into it, such as Federico Viticci, so I am cognizant of the general thread of how this is progressing. As so often happens to me, I seem to be the only person concerned about this problem. Here are all of these people talking and writing about the iPad as a general purpose computing platform, yet they don’t mention this problem of the inconsistency and invisibility of focus at all. Do they just not use keyboard shortcuts? That’s not possible, right?
And don’t tell me it’s my iPad. I’ve had literally every version ever made (I currently have both sizes of the iPad Pro), and every few iterations I do a clean install. I’ve tried every variety of keyboard, from Apple’s to Logitech’s to a $15 piece of junk I bought at Brookstone at the airport one time because I managed to leave mine at home. I’ve changed every variable. The only explanation seems to be that others just don’t care about this.
I’d also like to see people rallying for Apple to shift the default orientation of the iPad Pro to landscape, because the keyboard is so central to its use, along with an automatic disabling of the rotation lock when the keyboard is connected, but these are minor compared to the core utility of a keyboard.
To me, one of the central reasons to want a keyboard, one of the primary purposes of the keyboard on my computer, is to control the computer. At that, the iPad is currently failing miserably, and it deserves better.
I fear that this can only be fixed by introducing completely new design concepts to the iPad. Obviously the OS understands focus, but the design team has worked hard not to ever indicate that to you. That has meant application developers have not bothered to manage it effectively, and has trained users to rely on touch rather than the keyboard.
While Apple is a design powerhouse, they’re also into brutalist design, always opting for less, always preferring to forego a capability if they can’t make it perfect. This causes me to despair that they’ll make material strides on this any time soon.
I’d love to be proven wrong, but for Apple to start caring about this, its customers need to first.
What’s your story? Do you just not use keyboard shortcuts? Do they work great for you? Or they’re totally broken, but the other broken stuff is just so much more important you haven’t mentioned them yet?
Software’s focus on world-dominance has crossed with my incessant tinkering to result in a computing environment that is failing me utterly.
I’ve tried everything, and it still doesn’t work.
My first computer was from basically the worst era Apple has ever produced, starting with MacOs 7.6.1 and finally quitting around MacOs 9, switching to BeOS. While I was using these for fun, I was learning Solaris (and AIX, and HP-UX, and FreeBSD, and Debian) for work. I know some are frustrated that the Mac has lost its spacial finder, but I’m frustrated when I have to touch my mouse, because I spent years in a fine-tuned X-Windows interface that allowed me to do essentially everything from the keyboard. It was only marginally graphical; all of the windows except the browser were different kinds of text interfaces, from the terminal to vim to irc. I controlled everything with a Sun Type V keyboard, which relegated the caps lock and backslash keys to some far away corner like God intended, and gave prominence to control, escape, and delete, which matter quite a bit more. I honestly have no idea what mouse I used for the first ten or fifteen years; I don’t normally care about them, so I don’t normally notice them.
As I gradually switched from a sysadmin-turned-developer to a CEO, my computing needs changed dramatically. I spent all my life in email, calendar, and chat rooms, instead of text windows (notice they’re all still text, though). I did not even have a desktop computer for years, because a laptop was a better compromise.
As the iPad got more powerful, though, and Apple’s iMac computers turned from lickable toys into their most powerful computers, I moved most of my computing from laptops up to desktops or down to tablets. For a little while, all was fine, because I still wasn’t spending much time on the computer - as a CEO, most of my time was spent directly communicating with people, either in meetings or via email and chat. Being present means not being on your stupid devices. That was my computing experience.
Once I left my CEO role, I shrugged. I changed a few things (started writing in Ulysses, for example) but basically kept the tools and practices I had.
It’s become clear now that I have a solid decade of debt that’s built up in how I use my computers.
I really hate it.
Some of it is obviously just bugs. Or something. The keyboard (a KÜL tenkeyless with some kind of Cherry MX switches) and mouse (some large Logitech thing) just don’t work most of the time. The keyboard has to be unplugged and plugged back in 90% of the time the computer goes to sleep, and the mouse icon just does not seem to care about my needs, even after swapping mice, mousing platforms, hair shirts, and everything else I can think of (turns out that moving the mouse’s wireless adapter from a USB hub to the desktop might have fixed the mouse).
Beyond that, the software is out to get me.
Am I seriously the only person in the world who cares about keyboard focus?
I just deleted an email in Apple’s Mail.app on my desktop (running the latest os and patches, but this problem has persisted for as long as I’ve used the app), and I literally have no idea where the focus went. I hit delete, the email goes away; I hit delete again, and literally nothing happens. An email is highlighted, but, oh, I see, it’s a gray highlight instead of a blue one. I click on it, now it’s blue, and suddenly delete works.
I have essentially the same problem on my iPad (which I work on at least as much as my desktop). My only feature request for the iPad is to make keyboard focus predictable and functional. You can be scrolling through emails with the arrow key, and suddenly it will just stop working. Delete an email, no idea where focus is. I don’t even know how to tell where the focus is.
I’m in this insane world where I can feel utterly defeated by the need to click on an email to delete it, but if I zoom out, just about every other part of my computing experience causes similar frustration. I’m apparently the only person in the world who has quality studio monitors on my desk, based on how much everyone is freaking out over the HomePod price. I have separate audio installations in 7 parts of my house, and the HomePod in my bathroom is the cheapest one, beating the thirty year old (purchased used, recently) NAD and M&K kit in my bedroom by about $100. Nothing can cause you to lose hope that your needs will be met like the entire internet agreeing your needs don’t exist.
I don’t consider myself an audiophile, but I know enough to know that decent speakers start arriving at around $300 (each, not a pair), rather than topping out there. I never bought into Sonos because that required my believing they could deliver a good speaker, amplifier, and software experience for the price of a single decent speaker. Oh, and I had to join their walled garden; I’m willing to consider that, but it’s got to be worth it, and it never was for them.
Getting back to computers, it just could not be more clear to me that I’m in the shitty middle ground of the computer world.
I’m not a specialist any more. When I was a sysadmin, I was a specialist and I could build my computing environment to match that. (Although good luck finding specialized sysadmin hardware these days.) When I was a developer, I was a specialist, and my computing showed it.
Now I do what everyone else does: I email, browse, handle my calendar, chat a bit. My writing is a touch specialist, but not really; I’m using a specialist tool that’s great for writing books, but I’m just producing blog posts instead.
Even though I’m not a specialist, I’m still weird. I know that I’m using all of my tools differently than most of you are. I know we all think we’re special, but I’ve been around enough to know I am. Not in a good way, just in a “why are you doing that?” way.
Take my calendar. I’ve now twice written tools to tell me whether I’m meeting my goals in terms of how I spend my time. Sure, you have some sort of tomato timer to remind you to stand up or something. Amateur. My calendar should be a statement of my priorities, of how I will and do spend my time, and I want to hold myself accountable to my goals. I appear to be the only person who wants this, based on the searching I’ve done. Thankfully Google Calendar has APIs available, but why should I have to write this?
I have tried every email client I can find, but they’re all written for someone else. They all seem to offer, “How can I help you do email without email?” I don’t want that. I want the vim of email clients. I want the Photoshop of email clients. Can you imagine telling a graphic designer that you want to help them make graphics without making graphics? It’s stupid. They’re designers. They design graphics. I’m a communicator. I communicate. I read and write. A lot. Make a client that’s better for that. But nope. Instead you have the modern equivalent of a lickable interface that still can’t do inline reply and only has 5 keyboard shortcuts. _BZZZT_DELETED!
Some of it is just stupid. I have LED strips mounted to the back of my monitor, so I can get ambient lighting while I work. It’s actually an awesome feature, and I totally recommend it, but it’s a bit of a mess of wires with a ridiculous interface (a switch that keeps falling off my desk). I get not everyone has their monitor against a wall, but this seems so great it should ship by default. Can I just get all the LEDs you want in my keyboard moved back there? And, of course, I want it all connected to the computer so I can control it via software. Instead I’m wiring it all together myself and hoping 12V can’t catch my desk on fire. Yay.
I wish it was just that I’m a curmudgeon, that I can’t give up the old ways, but the truth is I like my iPad more than any other computing device I’ve ever owned, and honestly, I always hated the old ways. I’ve been hating software for as long as I’ve used it, and I’m proud I’ve been able to keep my edge as my career and the world it’s in has changed. I hated X-Windows. I really, really hated MacOS. I loved BeOS, but honestly, I held it to a very low standard. I loved every part of Solaris except the parts that actually existed or that I ever used, and I quit using it just when it stopped sucking quite so much (god, remember having to use Veritas to get decent clustering? Even worse, remember Disksuite?).
So it’s not that I miss the old days. I want to live in a different universe. I want a different physics model for our software world.
I’m not a technologist. I’m a software person, but not in the way people mean when they say that. I believe in the power of software to improve lives in big and small ways, and I have a hard time imagining doing much except through software.
I’m less fond of the software industry itself. I think it is too slow at solving problems that matter to people, too myopic to see how much it could really do.
I ran a software automation company for twelve years, and when I explained it to executives or salespeople, they would respond, “Oh, so you can fire sysadmins!” (Draw your own conclusions as to why these are the ones who consistently said this.)
In fact, our strategy was the exact opposite: I set out to turn sysadmins from tactical tools into strategic assets, to make the individuals more capable, and thus more valuable and harder to fire.
It was always easy to show my strategy was the right one: Let’s say I can produce software that can either reduce cost (fire some part of your team) or improve service quality (help that team do better work), which do you pick?
Nearly every time, people pick a higher service quality. “Wait, that’s an option?”, they would say. (The rare exceptions to this response usually came from organizations I did not want as customers.)
Software sucks. It really, really sucks. It’s so bad that when people look at their software investments, and especially the infrastructure layer my previous company lives at, they really only know how to talk about cost. Sure, they know the software is critical, they can say how many nines they have in uptime, or what their NPS score is, but they can’t measure quality in the way, say, a car maker or theme park would. Turns out, though, it’s easy as all get out to talk about cost. So, people naturally gravitate from the stuff that matters into the stuff they can measure. It always reminds me of an old joke:
A policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a streetlight and asks what the drunk has lost. He says he lost his keys and they both look under the streetlight together. After a few minutes the policeman asks if he is sure he lost them here, and the drunk replies, no, and that he lost them in the park. The policeman asks why he is searching here, and the drunk replies, “this is where the light is”.
It might not matter, but it sure is easy.
You could argue that what Puppet did was weird, was special; that I found a seam of critical work that was undervalued, incorrectly measured, and ripe for both automation and an increase in human capital.
I don’t think sysadmins are that special.
There’s been this wicked, stupid, and brutal trend over the last few decades to devalue people. I don’t just mean, to replace people with automation; I mean the practice of reducing the value of individuals in service to financial strategy. It might be my age, but I assume this all started in the 1980s when corporations were compensated for having fewer costs on the books (which also led to idiocy like building an office tower, selling it, then leasing it back; some realtor makes bank, and your stock goes up because your balance sheet looks better according to the skewed spreadsheets of some hedge fund manager). The claim of many companies that their people are their greatest asset is contradicted by their behavior.
This becomes more true as companies get bigger. Most large corporations have spent decades finding ways to rely less on their people, and then use the results to demonstrate the people deserved it. Under-train them, then over-supervise them because they don’t have the skills. Don’t give them any power, then consider them easily replaceable because they can only do small things on their own. Refuse to invest in better tooling, then complain about their productivity.
I have a different perspective. You might might think I’m antiquated, or silly, or just naive. Meh.
My perspective is that people have always mattered, and that they always will.
My perspective is that there will always, forever, to be money made by making people more valuable.
Further, just as a nice bonus, I believe that the things that make people more valuable are generally congruent with the things that make them happier, which means that success for me helps the company and the individuals both financially and personally.
Don’t worry about people stealing an idea. If it’s original, you will have to ram it down their throats. - Howard H. Aiken
Considering that it’s this perspective that’s led to me to what success I’ve seen in life, and I’ve done enough work now to realize it’s also the only thing that I care about enough to put another decade into, it’s worth considering hiding this little gem, this little kernel of wisdom that others can’t seem to spot. I’m not worried. At the least, it goes against decades of corporate training: “People don’t matter, you should replace them, expect them to fail, they’re just cogs”. That kind of mental conditioning is hard to resist, especially when it’s imprinted on our financial system itself.
Beyond that, it just sounds too nice for others to see its value. Modern finance inherently distrusts anything that’s good for people, because they figure if you can do this thing and help people, you’ve got to be able to make more money by doing that thing and not helping people, right? Right?
No. In many cases, the thing that makes it valuable is exactly that it helps people. If anything, you could argue the entire software industry is about helping people spend more time on what makes them special, rather than helping people do something they could not do before.
Photoshop didn’t enable people to make drawings they could not have before; if anything, in many cases it’s less functional than using pens and pencils. It just enabled people to be far more efficient with the time they spent.
The difference between a great editor for coding and a bad one is not that you write better code with a great one, it’s that you can write good code that much faster and thus get a lot more high quality work done.
Often, the difference in speed is so great that the quality of work is actually dramatically better, but it’s a result of the user having far more time to spend on the problem, rather than the software itself directly improving the work.
It’s not a coincidence that boring, low-value work is easy to automate, or that people enjoy their jobs more when that work goes away. (Of course, this is assuming the job sticks around; in too many cases we use this as an excuse to fire someone rather than promote them.)
This was exactly Puppet’s goal.
Spend less time firefighting and doing menial work, and more time shipping great software.
I bet you can think of an industry or two whose people could stand to spend less time doing menial work, and more time on the things that matter.
I am not naïve enough think that every role a human plays today could be improved by better productivity tools; some roles become obsolete over time (not a lot of chimney sweeps these days), they really are just menial work or in an industry that cannot remain relevant. (Although, even in those cases I’d argue that both the people and the industries would be better off trying to find a way to work together on the transition, rather than the companies seeing the people as a sacrifice to the gods of productivity.) At the level of industry rather than individual roles, though, everything could be better through this kind of investment.
And in the end, I don’t have to believe every industry, every role is better off.
I just have to be able to find enough people, companies, and industries that are better off that I can keep doing great work.
Peter Drucker famously said, “Culture eats strategy for breakfast”. This is often interpreted as culture being more important than strategy. These might not even be his words, which makes it hard to know his thoughts, but having built a company to almost 500 people, it’s obvious to me that culture isn’t more important than strategy, it is strategy.
I am confident he knew this. He worked with the Japanese manufacturing companies in developing their culture of kaizen, which helped them to dominate the automobile manufacturing world, and their practices have gone on to fundamentally change manufacturing as an industry.
Your strategy is not what you’re trying to do (those are your goals), but rather how you plan to do it, and your culture determines how you work. Pick any great, differentiated strategy, and you’ll see that how it translates the company culture is what determines its efficacy. We tend to think of culture as being about how people feel, or how they treat each other, but that’s a bare shadow of its importance.
Southwest is an amazing airline. In an industry with a long history of losing money, they’ve managed to make money year after year. How? Their strategy is simple: Be the lowest cost carrier. This isn’t something that the management says to the team who then try to interpret it; it shows up in every decision made by everyone in the company. It’s baked into the culture. If it weren’t, costs would creep in at every level of the organization. They could not be the lowest cost carrier without a culture of parsimony at every layer of the company. You will not be a culture fit at Southwest if you can’t be cheap.
Toyota is legendary for helping to drive a revolution in manufacturing, and their success is based on tight integration between company strategy and behavior at the front line. Many of their practices work against human nature, such as their “Five Whys” tactic, which seeks root causes for quality issues by refusing to blame individuals. Their culture is so unique that one of its standout features is how reliant they are on training and mentoring, from the front-line worker to top executives. Managers get promoted based on their ability to train their teams up, not just for driving results. Toyota understands its success is reliant on its management chain to connect company strategy to front-line execution, and it invests accordingly.
Atlassian has built an amazing business, not by being better at selling, but by ensuring the customer can sell themselves. The entire company maintains the cultural discipline of removing barriers to a sale, of asking why a customer needed help, hit a roadblock, or didn’t buy. This sounds easy, but it’s fundamentally hard, and more importantly it’s directly in conflict with the sales culture of modern software companies. You have to choose whether you care more about this deal or all deals, and Atlassian’s rare choice, and how that has permeated their culture, is a big part of why they’ve done so well. I expect Atlassian has lost countless great people who could not make that shift.
These companies demonstrate the inseparability of culture and strategy. Your strategy is how your company plans to win, and your culture is how people individually behave in alignment with it.
Some might argue that the above are the company missions, not their strategies, but they’re very different. Toyota’s mission is to build great cars, and a culture of kaizen is how they do it. Southwest’s mission is probably something like “Enable access to air travel to all”, and being low-cost is how they do that. Atlassian’s mission is clearly around enabling collaboration between teams, which they support by making their products easy to acquire.
If you’ve got competition, then your strategy needs to specify how, exactly, you’ll beat those competitors. You and your competition can have the exact same mission, but by definition your strategy needs to be different from theirs - you both have the same goal of taking the market, but you necessarily will be approaching it differently. If you don’t have competition, your strategy needs to clarify how you’ll win in a market where no one has thrived before. Neither of these is a simple question of setting goals; it’s about clearly stating how you’ll accomplish them.
Too often, strategies are placed on a pedestal, gesticulated at from afar and never allowed to get dirty, when a strategy’s value is entirely determined by how it hits the ground. Napoleon was one of history’s best military strategists, and he knew the importance of how it translated to individual soldiers. When he gave orders, he demanded they be repeated back word for word, and would do it again until they were right. He knew a strategy’s value was determined where it met the enemy, not when it was laid out in the command tent.
Contrary to what you might hear, I don’t think I’ve ever met a founder who didn’t have a strategy, and usually a pretty good one. In contrast, I have yet to meet an early-stage founder who can explain how that strategy will translate on the ground, or who invested hours every week in ensuring that his or her team was operating according to it. Even basic things like having better usability are hand-wavy at best, relying on constant input from founders rather than permeating the organization’s culture.
Simon Sinek has helped lead the charge in the value of ‘why’ as a force for motivation and alignment. Your strategy for how you plan to win is just as important, and is much harder to align a team around because it necessarily involves daily discipline. It’s not enough to have a great strategy or a great culture; they have to be one and the same.
Your culture is how your strategy is executed, and you’ve got to put in the time to make it work.
Modern venture capital is obviously successful, as demonstrated by the fact that five of the world’s six largest companies were funded by it. However, success is as much about what you say ‘no’ to as what you say ‘yes’ to, and venture capital is no different. In addition to delivering massive collateral damage in the course of its work, the current model rejects all ideas that do not fit within its narrow definition of suitable.
The primary contributor to this wholesale rejection is how VC delivers returns, so to understand why it’s broken we must understand how it works. In this article we’ll go deep on how VCs get their money, how they turn that into more money, and what that all means in terms of what ideas they can and will back. Note that we’re focusing here on the ideas not the people; the structural biases against women and people of color will be discussed in later essays (but it’s worth recognizing that they’re just as baked into the model). Ross Beard’s The Innovation Blind Spot goes into great detail on this topic.
Venture capital firms generally have managers and limited partners; the managers are the people we think of as the investors (they sign the checks), and the limited partners are the investors in the firms; they’re “limited” in the sense that they have ownership but no real control. They don’t actually invest in firms; they invest in an individual fund, and all of the roles are built around the fund, not the firm. This is partially why you might seen an investor leave a firm but stay involved in investments from the old firm: the investor is still on that fund even if they’re not at the firm.
Most limited partners are very large financial institutions, like CalPERS, and they work with venture capital as part of a diversified investment strategy. They have pockets of money in all kinds of places, and VC is added in to ensure they have some high risk/high reward investments. These don’t necessarily even deliver better returns (and in general, VC as an asset class does not do that well), it’s there to get the right mix of risk in the portfolio. In most cases, the LPs are represented by people who would not fit in at a venture firm, because they’re usually finance people at governmental institutions.
A fund is raised by investors (“managing partners”, in this context) seeking money from high net worth individuals, institutions, and anyone else with a lot of money lying around. Money is committed for the life of the fund; except in rare cases there is only one way for an investor to get the money back.
One of the strange things about these funds is not just that they are planned to be locked into a fund for a long time, but it can be awkward if they aren’t. Limited partners invest with VCs as a means of putting money to work over something like a ten year period. If the money all gets returned quickly because of an exit, it throws off the spreadsheets and they quickly have to find somewhere else to put the money. This sounds silly, but it does have a real impact.
Venture capitalists then take this money, and use it to buy stock from startups. So now, the fund holds a bunch of stock instead of a bunch of money. Crucially, this stock is all in private companies, which means it’s generally illiquid (i.e., you can’t easily exchange it for cash). It’s also usually preferred stock, which means the investors get a few extra terms around control and how cash is distributed if there’s a below-value exit.
If this were a normal fund, there would be plenty of ways to make money, and the investors could deliver returns however they wanted; they could rely on growth, dividends, sales, or anything else. However, VC funds are limited partnerships with strict rules about what can be done with the money. No matter where you are in a fund cycle, if a company gets sold for cash, you have to distribute that cash to your investors (keeping 20% for yourself, of course). You can’t reinvest it in another company. (This is only generally true; firms that don’t have this restriction are called evergreen funds, and are usually funded by a single institution or family.)
This distribution on an exit is the primary mechanism for VCs to return capital to their investors. The other way is for a company to go public. This is a weirder one — it’s discussed as an exit, because it allows investors to return capital to their LPs, but it’s not a sale of the company. The difference is that the stock is now liquid, which means it’s basically equivalent to cash; the VCs give distribute the now-public shares to their LPs, who can now all trade it in for cash whenever they want.
Ironically, distributing shares to LPs is a big risk to the company — if 50% of a company’s stock is owned by investors, and they distribute all of that stock to their LPs the day a company’s lockup period ends, what do you think the LPs would do? Well, they’re not experts in tech, or high growth companies, and more importantly, this stock doesn’t fulfill the same needs as the VC fund did in their asset allocation, so they sell it. Of course. And what happens to a newly public company who finds that 50% of its shares are suddenly sold on the public market? The stock gets hammered, because a huge upsurge in supply means an equivalent drop in price.
That’s why VCs distribute shares over a broader period of time, usually 18-24 months. They have some flexibility in how this is handled so they can protect these newly-public companies.
Ok, now you understand how it all works — how venture capitalists get money, make money, and then give it back to their investors in turn. Why does that matter?
It matters because there are only two ways for a VC-backed startup to be a success for its investors: Go public or get bought. As the CEO of Puppet, I always said any company has four options: Go broke, go public, get bought, or stay private indefinitely. If you take VC money, that last option is off the table.
It’s worth saying again: You take VC, you are committing to getting bought, going public, or going broke.
Crucially, that means that investors must push you into one of those outcomes. The reason they deride private businesses that generate cash isn’t because they’re bad businesses, it’s because they’re structurally incapable of profiting off of them. Their system is limited to valuing sales or IPOs; nothing else can have value to them, because nothing else allows them to make money.
This means that if you’ve got a great company that’s taken some VC but is at real risk of settling into a mere 20% growth rate with a sight to profitability but only making, say, $30m a year, they’re going to push you out of that comfort zone. They have to. They’ll ask you to raise a “growth” round so you can “really scale this thing”, or they’ll try to sell the company. If that doesn’t work, they’ll just fire you and put someone in place who will do it for them. It’s not because they’re evil, it’s because their contracts essentially require it. They can’t return the stock of a private company to their LPs, so what choice do they have?
Now that we understand how investor behavior is driven by how capital is returned to investors, let’s discuss what it means to the technology startup ecosystem as a whole. (There are VCs for things outside of tech, but the asset class was basically invented for technology, and that’s where it is centered.)
If you’re seeking funding for your technology company, you essentially have to promise that you can and will sell your company for an outsized return, or that you can and will take it public. In reality, almost no one invests with the expectation of a sale; they’re all betting on an IPO, recognizing that a sale is a good second option. It doesn’t matter if you can generate a ton of profit; they have no use for that. In fact, it might get awkward if you started distributing dividends.
This has two big consequences. The first, of course, is that companies that don’t have a realistic shot of going public can’t get venture capital. This is a striking constraint, given how much of our economy consists of small, profit-generating businesses that generate jobs and cash locally, whereas the ranks of public companies that distribute returns only to the investment class have been shrinking for decades. The story they’ll tell you is that only those really high-growth companies “need” VC money, but it’s much simpler than that: Their business model doesn’t work if your company doesn’t sell or go public.
Bank loans do ok at providing funding for low-risk actions by mature companies, and VC does well at funding high-risk companies with the chance to be huge, but there’s a huge gap in the middle that struggles to get any funding. (Both of these funding mechanisms in the US also suffer from being overwhelmingly biased toward only funding white men, but that’s a different essay.) Medium-risk companies often do need funding, but can’t get it, which in many cases means the businesses either don’t exist or end up much smaller than they could be.
The second major consequence is that a lot of companies are able to convince themselves, and thus investors, that they could get big enough to go public. Yes, this is sometimes true, but in so many cases it is instead a lie that both parties tell in order to get the funding done. If you love your company, and the only way to keep it alive is to promise to keep growing, you will. You understand the risks, but they’re better than just letting your company die.
In too many cases, this absolute demand for continued growth is exactly what kills companies. They never learn the operating discipline necessary to generate cash (which, in the end, actually still is king), and they get too big to sustain themselves. At some point, the lie gets out, they can’t get more funding, the fundamental unsoundness of their business model becomes clear, and the whole thing deflates.
When you hear a VC say you should focus more on growth than cash, what they’re saying is, you should worry more about my ability to return capital to my investors than your ability to still have a company in a few years. It might be that growth is the right thing to invest in, but it isn’t automatically the right thing, and it’s at least fair to say that the investor is not a neutral party in this recommendation.
So now we see that so much of what we find poisonous in the world of venture capital is actually the result of how returns are distributed to investors. The growth-at-all-costs mentality, the huge amount of dead companies, pushing employees to work to the bone until you get an exit, and much more can be laid at the feet of this simple constraint.
I don’t know if there is an alternative model that will work in the world of high-risk tech startups, but I do know there are plenty of other investment models that are able to deliver returns without introducing this kind of dysfunction. Conglomerates like Berkshire Hathaway are able to own significant chunks — or even the entirety — of companies and deliver great returns whether via growth, dividends, or anything else. This provides them the flexibility to let their portfolio companies choose their own best means of returning capital to investors. Coincidentally, Berkshire Hathaway is the one non-VC-backed company in that list of six largest companies.
This essay series is an attempt to capture what I’m learning as I’m looking for a new way to invest in great startups. I think it’s possible to build an investment model that directly attacks the weaknesses of VC; success in this quest would mean both huge returns for whoever cracks it, but also a sudden increase in new companies with completely different promises and risk profiles.
I’m a tech founder and recovering SysAdmin. I helped found DevOps and grew up in open source. These days I am convalescing from a decade of physical and mental neglect while running Puppet.
Read more
