Learning from Google ... and the Marine Corps

In 1998, while still serving on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps, I co-founded what later became a speech recognition web development company. The following year, I completed my military service, moved to Silicon Valley to join my three partners on a full-time basis, and unwittingly launched myself onto a personal and professional path centered on entrepreneurship and innovation.

You would think that the transition from military life to a high-growth startup at the epicenter of the "Internet Boom" would have been jarring. Ironically, it was not. It took me a while to realize that the Marine Corps and High-Growth Tech Startups share a common culture, and so my military training actually helped to prepare me for the crazy hectic life of a startup leader.

In Corps Business: The 30 Management Principles of the U.S. Marines, author David Freedman seemed to agree with my assessment. His research indicated that Marines are uniquely trained to handle quick decision-making in uncertain situations with limited information. Perhaps more important--and contrary to popular misconceptions about Marines--the Marine Corps fosters a culture of de-centralized decision-making that empowers even the most junior enlisted Marines to make significant critical decisions, often with life-and-death consequences or even international policy ramifications.

Years later, former Google executives Eric Schmidt and Jonathan Rosenberg wrote How Google Works to provide some valuable lessons on how to foster an "Internet Century" culture in a corporate environment. As you can see from their slide presentation below, they focus on the "smart creatives" that are so essential for modern business success.

How Google Works from Eric Schmidt

The environment that enables companies to recruit such talent and allow them to thrive is in many ways the exact same environment that the Marine Corps has been pushing religiously for over two centuries. In this way, perhaps business executives seeking new ideas for how to turn their companies into innovative growth engines should look to both Google and the Corps for some valuable lessons?

Semper fidelis!

"Newsroom" -- Opening Scene

First, let me say that I have been a huge fan of Aaron Sorkin ever since I fell in love with West Wing. His writing style is unmistakable, providing rapid-fire inspirational and insightful dialogues among various intelligent characters. And he is unafraid to be honest.

This was on display in spades with last year's opening scene of his latest creation, Newsroom, an HBO series. I believe every American should watch this scene, especially starting at 3:07.

On Leadership and Space

Whether it is teaching entrepreneurship to students, analyzing leadership with colleagues, or discussing myriad issues with my three kids, I have always found a powerful tool in drawing parallels to popular culture. Points really seem to hit home when viewed through the lens of something that we otherwise feel is benign or simply entertaining.

About a year ago, Alex Knapp, a staff writer for Forbes, wrote three wonderful blog posts about leadership. The posts would have been fine as stand-alone analyses of sound leadership principles. However, what really drove home his points--and made the pieces such an easy read--was his framing the arguments within terms of two popular space media franchises, Star Wars and Star Trek.

Regardless of whether you are a fan of either series, his articles still focus on solid leadership advice.

	Five Leadership Mistakes Of The Galactic Empire
	Five Leadership Lessons From Jean-Luc Picard
	Five Leadership Lessons From James T. Kirk

Gary Vaynerchuk

In April 2011, I had the privilege of spending a few days with 1,000+ fellow entrepreneurs and "world changers" on a cruise ship during a unique experience called "Summit at Sea". It was a huge life-changing experience for me, and it gave me the courage to continue following my passions as a social entrepreneur. Not only did I meet some amazing people with incredible talents, but I also listened to several motivational--and entertaining--presentations by various awesome speakers.

One of the most hilarious talks was given by Gary Vaynerchuk, whose brazen delivery of heart-felt insights brought down the house. During the presentation shown below, delivered a couple of years before I saw him in person, he talks about one of the key messages I try passing on to every entrepreneur I meet (as well as my kids): to be happy in life, you have to pursue your passions. It is a valuable lesson to learn ... and apply.

Felix Baumgartner & Red Bull Stratos

Like nearly 8 million other people around the world, on October 14, 2012, my family and I were glued to the Web (and Discovery News) watching Felix Baumgartner and the Red Bull Stratos team break several skydiving records as he jumped from his capsule at an altitude of 128,000 feet (roughly 24 miles!) and broke the sound barrier on his way down.

Not only did he succeed on virtually all of his record attempts (he came up ~10 seconds short of the record for longest freefall), but also the entire event was executed phenomenally well by Red Bull and all of its partners around the world. It was a huge publicity bonanza, continuing to garner public attention even weeks later. I wished that James Cameron, National Geographic, and their partners had executed nearly as well during his March 2012 record-breaking solo submarine dive to the deepest point in the ocean.

This is one of my favorite images from the historic day.

Here is an official Red Bull summary video.



Here is an official Red Bull video where you can faintly hear the sonic boom at :25.

"How to Start a Movement"

In one of my favorite TED talks, Derek Sivers presents a funny -- and insightful -- analysis into the types of people required to "start a movement". Although it reminds me of Macolm Gladwell's much more analytical framework from Tipping Point, this video is much more digestible, so I have used it in several of my own presentations. Thanks, Derek!

TROY - opening quote

This is one of my favorite movie quotes of all time, and I play it on my iPad during every business trip. It makes me evaluate every day to make sure I am spending every minute on truly worthwhile activities. It keeps me focused on what is really important and allows me to let everything else slide by.


Men are haunted by the vastness of eternity.
And so we ask ourselves,
Will our actions echo across the centuries?
Will strangers hear our names long after we're gone and wonder who we were, how bravely we fought, how fiercely we loved?

- Odysseus

Clinton in 2008: "Executives" v. "Legislators" in U.S. Presidential Elections

As we gear up for the party primaries heading into the 2008 elections--the first fully contested Presidential election in recent memory--I'm struck by how many U.S. Senators are jumping into the campaign fray on both sides of the aisle. Especially since all of the buzz surrounds the possibility of Sen. Hillary Clinton potentially becoming the first female U.S. President, it got me thinking about whether--gender, experience, political issues, and her husband's prior record aside--the U.S. is ready to elect a legislator to its highest executive office.

After all, the executive branch--by definition--is one based on decision-making, accountability, and the ability to execute ... in other words: leadership. On the other hand, the legislative branch--by definition and organizational structure--is one based on consensus-building, politicking, and the ability to legislate ... in other words: compromise.

Would American voters elect a legislator to its highest executive office?

Reviewing all of the Presidential elections since 1900 provides some interesting insights:

• Since 1900, there have been 27 U.S. Presidential elections.


• Of the 27 winners, only 2 were legislators (Warren Harding won the 1920 election as a sitting Senator from Ohio, and John F. Kennedy won the 1960 election as a sitting Senator from Massachusetts). The rest were executives of some sort: 13 sitting Presidents, 3 sitting/former Vice Presidents, 6 sitting/former Governors, and 3 others (William Taft won the 1908 election as the sitting Secretary of War, Herbert Hoover won the 1928 election as the sitting Secretary of Commerce, and Dwight D. Eisenhower won the 1952 election as the sitting Supreme Commander of NATO).
  


• Of the 27 losers (major parties), only 6 were legislators. However, 4 of those 6 losses came in the 11 elections since Kennedy's win in 1960: Barry Goldwater lost the 1964 election as a sitting Senator from Arizona, George McGovern lost the 1972 election as a sitting Senator from South Dakota, Bob Dole lost the 1996 election as a former Senator from Kansas, and John Kerry lost the 2004 election as a sitting Senator from Massachusetts.
  

I'm not sure why it's so difficult for a legislator to become U.S. President. I would like to believe that the system works so well and American voters are so savvy that they recognize true leadership and always match the best candidate for the job. I've heard theories that focus on the track records of various candidates: executives tend to have records of bold decision-making while legislators have records of waffling and compromise. I've also heard theories related to career cost-benefit analysis: once you've been a Governor, Vice President, or President, there's nowhere else to go so you'll fight like hell to get the job, whereas a legislator (especially a U.S. Senator) could have employment for life so why take the risks of potentially getting a job with a term limit?

As for the recent trend of the major parties running more legislators (in a losing cause), perhaps the advent of television and the Internet since Kennedy's 1960 victory have contributed to Senators being able to command a national following with relatively little effort? I don't know.

However, here's an interesting observation that bodes well for Sen. Clinton: most of the talk surrounding her has focused more on two intangibles (her gender and her husband) than on pure experience, capabilities, or political issues, but the exact same was true of the only 2 legislators to win Presidential elections since 1900. Warren Harding has drawn continual criticism for winning elections based on his "Presidential" looks (he hardly even campaigned for his successful Presidential bid), and John F. Kennedy was more popular for his youth, good looks, and pedigree than for anything else.

Regardless of whether American voters are ready to elect a legislator to the country's top executive post, perhaps history, human nature, and the power of technology will run in favor Sen. Clinton next year? Only time will tell.

Entrepreneurs Are "Risk Aware"

When I relocated from Silicon Valley to the DC area in December 2001, I was thrust into a wild period of "culture shock," going from one extreme on the entrepreneurship scale almost to the other. The experience--coupled with my ongoing travels and work with entrepreneurs from around the world--has helped me appreciate more some of the intricacies of this unique but critical sliver of an economy's machinery. Most specifically, I have been intrigued by the gap between non-entrepreneurs' perception of entrepreneurs and the actual reality, especially on one critical point: risk.

The "conventional wisdom" -- at least outside the world of entrepreneurs -- is that entrepreneurs are "risk lovers" or at the very least have a high tolerance for risk. However, my own experience has been that almost every successful entrepreneur I have met is more concerned with managing, mitigating, or timing risk, and only embraces risk as an essential component of an ongoing "risk-reward" analysis.

Yes, entrepreneurs have the genetic make-up to work with risk on a daily basis--not everyone has the stomach for that in their own lives. However, to say that this translates into being a "risk lover" or taking crazy/unnecessary risks is a bit of a jump. Instead, I would propose that entrepreneurs are simply more "risk aware" than most non-entrepreneurs.

For more on this topic, check out this interesting discussion.