Browsed by
Category: Innovating

3 tips on staying creative day in, day out

3 tips on staying creative day in, day out

I often find myself unable to dream or think outside the box during business hours. Day in, day out, I’m stuck in a ritual of fighting fires and managing chaos.

Yet the startup relies on everyone, including myself, to innovate.

So what to do?

I’ve experimented with many different strategies to this effect: From watching a TED talk every morning to working at a coworking space once a week. Here are three tactics I’ve had success with:

1. Work somewhere else

Once a week, I schedule an afternoon to work at a location other than my office. I make sure no meetings are scheduled and block time off on my calendar.

Sometimes, I wander to a coffee shop. Other times, I find a coworking space. I’ve even managed to work at client offices and friends’ workplaces. Once I phone interviewed a candidate at a shopping mall.

Working in different environments stimulates different parts of my brain. No longer in my comfort zone, I pay attention to elements I usually don’t at my desk. I compare how similar activities get accomplished at different places, by different people.

In one case, when I found myself working at a busy coffee shop, I noticed how a new barista found himself overwhelmed and receiving little help from peers. He failed to find paper towels after spilling some milk, and struggled to operate their payment system. The line grew longer while no peers offered to help the young man. I couldn’t help but think whether the manager even gave him a tour of the shop, and why nobody mentored him. It was probably a very demoralizing day for the new barista.

That’s when I thought of my own team’s onboarding process and realized many new team members may also feel overwhelmed. This gave rise to a formal team member onboarding process including scheduled trainings, mentor assignment, and even the creation of best-practices for other managers.

2. Chat with someone unlike you

I’ve had my most creative ideas by chatting with people from other teams and different walks of life.

People I don’t interact with daily, who have differing priorities, help me see my own problems from a different angle. I find this particularly valuable when trying to grasp a new problem, and when brainstorming solutions.

A chat with our marketing data scientist is how we created a cross-team data analysis meetup. I realized we were facing similar challenges after chatting with the individual about data acquisition and quality issues. My team faced these issues with client projects, while he faced similar issues working with our own company’s data. Very early into our chat, we knew we could share best-practices and learn from each other. In the end, the internal analysis meetup was attended by data scientists from three groups: Our client facing group, our marketing team, and our finance team. Together, they found a venue to help each other and share learnings.

3. Keep a daily journal

After reading the “7 Habits of Highly Effective People,” I struggled to keep tap on my progress. I had no idea whether I was improving. I thus decided to start a journal to record highlights of my day and reflect. I now spend the last 15 minutes of my day journaling.

This exercise has allowed me to compare reality versus ideal. Reality is what happened, what I did. Ideal is what I wanted to happen.

For instance, I always compare what I managed to get done in a day versus what I planned to get done. This helps me diagnose why I failed to get to certain tasks, or how I was able to find free time. Over time, I got really good at knowing what is a reasonable to-do list.

Another element I record in my journal is my reaction to emergencies and fires that arise throughout the day. I often find my reaction to bad surprises less than ideal, driven by emotions rather than my rational mind. Journaling allows me to reflect on how I should have reacted to the event. And if this were to happen again, how I can make sure I stay in control. I give my conscious mind an opportunity to recognize mistakes and correct itself.

Are you leading a startup team? Subscribe on the right for new insights every week.

A little bit of success is dangerous for startups

A little bit of success is dangerous for startups

It can be dangerous to think we’ve made it.

Over my startup career, I’ve witnessed many instances where a little bit of success masked important problems and triggered precocious scaling. Resulting in costly mistakes.

The following are three scenarios I’ve learned to watch out for.

1. Positive feedback ≠ Guaranteed sale

Most startup founders have talked to at least one prospective client before building a product. If not a prospective client, then maybe an investor or industry expert. Insight from these individuals helps to gauge the likelihood of an idea becoming a business success. Call it market research. A critical step.

Yet market research can be misleading when the wrong questions are asked and when people are too nice.

For instance, before embarking on my first startup project, I asked for feedback from hospitality and tourism executives about whether forecasting travelers’ intentions (when and where a person would go and do) would be valuable. Almost all parties gave positive feedback and were interested in helping us design the tool. We therefore spent 6 months developing a prototype. As we went back to the same group of prospective customers, asking for a partnership to test and develop the platform, nobody signed up. Nobody wanted to put their job on the line by investing time and money into an unproven tool.

Beyond assessing the viability of a new product, companies also perform market research continuously evolve their product. The risk of being misled by customer feedback is therefore a constant threat.

At the latest startup I worked, we regularly asked customers how to make their lives easier, what features they’d like to see, what frustrated them. Yet even after developing features they had asked for, some customers still canceled their contracts with us.

Why? In my experience, some people are too nice and want to avoid conflict. If a client knows that they’re moving away from our platform eventually, because they fundamentally don’t need what we offer, or want to bring it in-house, it can be difficult for them to be honest and express that intention during a call. It has the potential of making the existing relationship awkward. So they say nice things to keep us at bay.

In my opinion, a much more accurate way to gather market intelligence is to observe customers, rather than asking questions.

Examples of startups that were misled by feedback abound. Here are two high profile ones:

  • Quirky: The community led invention / engineering business wanted to develop and sell novel products its users voted for. Yet votes didn’t turn into sales. It blew $185M.
  • Boo.com: The company burned thru $185M dollars in 18 months. They gained positive feedback and support from top fashion houses, newspapers, and even investors before even launching, but failed to actually build something of value to customers.

2. Getting funding ≠ ready for growth

I’ve often witnessed a tendency for startups to scale up operations right after a successful funding round.

As soon as the money hits the bank, dozens of new positions open up, the list of product features to develop swells, and the marketing budget grows exponentially.

In the best case scenario, this growth is proportional to growth in demand and the company scales effectively. Yet in reality, many startups outstrip demand. They end up cutting costs and laying off people as fast as they hired them.

Why? Let’s start at the source of the money. Rational investors invest in a company based on its growth potential. How investors assess “growth potential” varies, but is likely based on a company’s historical performance. So some founders interpret a VC investment as a vote of confidence for their business strategy, their business model, their product.

Yet investors are not customers. Getting funding does not mean that we have a successful business. Otherwise 9 out of 10 VC funded startups wouldn’t have failed.

We need to be careful.

So what do we do after getting funding? In my opinion, it’s best to continue testing market demand. Observe what product features and changes resonate with users. Experiment with small scale marketing campaigns to see what’s most effective at converting customers. Hire people only when we absolutely need to. Essentially, work as if we didn’t have funding. Be cheap.

Only scale up when there’s proven demand.

So what do we do with the extra cash? As we operate on a shoestring budget, we’re bound to break the limit of what we can support. The extra cash allows us to scale up supply when demand outstrips it. The latter part is key: Only scale up when there’s proven demand.

While this sounds easy, it is not. Investors look for a fast return on their money. Many will pressure companies to scale and grow asap. They want to see 100% growth month-to-month. It can be difficult to resist this urge.

A couple high profile cases of startups that scaled up too quickly and flopped include:

  • Fab.com: The flash-sale design retailer raised millions within months of launching. It then missed its aggressive sales target within a year. It thus had the option of scaling growth back and get the business model right in the U.S., or keep expanding globally with a target of 100% YoY growth. All board members except one pushed for the latter. The rest is history: It blew $336M in 3.5 years.
  • Color.com: The photo/video sharing app raised over $40M before even launching. They likely felt like a success from day 0. Yet they failed to acquire users, managed to spend $15M in a matter of months, and finally got acquired by Apple for a paltry sum of $7M.

3. Having early adopters ≠ everyone wants it

Some founders may still be careful about scaling up after receiving funding, but not many will refrain from it with a fast growing user base.

Startups solving a painful problem can experience fast customer growth very early on. These early adopters often overlook the immaturity of the solution and are willing to invest time and energy to make it work for them. The old solution is simply too painful.

Seeing this demand, the startup then scales up its operations and plans for hyper growth.

Yet I now know having early adopters doesn’t mean the rest world is ready for us. The number of early adopters, people willing to pay for an immature product, is limited. It plateaus and peaks. To scale up operations when the product only appeals to early adopters will inevitably outstrip demand. A better plan is to build a product that appeals to the masses before scaling.

Another threat to startups with disruptive solutions is the launch of competing products after they’ve proven a business case. These late entrants have the potential to create a mature product in less time by learning from the pioneer’s mistakes. They can offer a better product for cheaper. Strategy Professor Michael Porter explores in detail the benefits and risks of first-mover advantage in Competitive Advantage.

Nebula.com is an example of a startup that found early success, yet failed to find customers beyond early adopters. It blew $38M.


Recommended exercise

Ask yourself: Is capacity outstripping demand?


Are you leading a startup team? Get started on the right foot with the Start-up Manager Handbook. And subscribe on the right for new insights every week!

Don’t let instincts get in the way of doing the right thing

Don’t let instincts get in the way of doing the right thing

I like to believe that I am an objective being, actively in control of my decisions and actions, especially at work.

Yet time and again, I find myself less than proud of some of my past behaviors. I’ve had demographic biases toward people; I’ve opposed arguments without assessing their basis; and I’ve agreed to ideas that are against my personal values.

Fact is, I am often a slave of my subconscious, of my brain running on cruise control. And I’m starting to recognize that like animals, I have instincts that are challenging to overpower.

Why is this a problem? It’s a problem if our actions differ from our desired actions. If our brain on autopilot takes decisions that go against those we’d take consciously. It’s especially a problem if our instincts get in the way of creating a fair, transparent, and innovative workplace. The type that startup companies in this globalized world need.

So let’s take a moment to recognize our instincts. Allow me to share three instinctual behaviors that get in the way of…

… debating with the boss

I can recall numerous occasions where I’ve disagreed with my boss and yet didn’t try to voice or argue the matter. I’ve disagreed over the team’s compensation plan, our holiday policy, and even our company strategy. Yet on many of these issues, I’ve kept my thoughts to myself.

Why?

Well, to survive of course. Self-preservation is the need to keep myself alive and economically healthy. It is also the reason I will avoid arguing with my boss. Fact is, I see my boss as the hand that feeds me, so the last thing I want to do is to create conflict and paint myself as an enemy. I simply don’t want to get fired.

How can I become more vocal with my thoughts?

Everytime that I disagree with my boss nowadays, I first note it down in my journal to first avoid losing that thought. I then let it sit for 24 hours to ensure that my reactionary emotions are gone. If I still disagree after that, I will start to work on a way to introduce my disagreement, gathering evidence to support my thoughts, and planning for the right time to speak up. I also find it helpful to state my goals (why I’m of this different opinion), because they are often the same as my boss’s goals, so it helps us start the conversation from the same footing.

… being excited about changes

Most people I know react to a new proposed change with skepticism. Not many individuals react to a surprise change with a “Hooray!” Ok, maybe extreme sport athletes do. But for most of us commoners, we love a good old routine.

Why?

For the simple reason that we are creatures of habit and routine. As explored by NPR and Psychology Today, our habits and routines help us navigate our days with greater ease, greater comfort. As I’m typing this blog post, I am not actively thinking about which letter to press on my keyboard, my brain has made typing a habit, and I only have to think about what I want to say. There are dozens and dozens of tools that each of us depend on to do our work. To become more productive, we make a habit of using all these tools.

Yet when things change, our habits and routines have to be reset. We thus are naturally upset by change. If someone was to change the letter placement of my laptop keyboard, I’d be frustrated regardless of whether it’s better for my health or not. It simply takes me outside my comfort zone and I have to re-learn basics of typing again. We thus dislike it when people change the tools or processes we’ve grown accustomed to.

Being skeptical of change is in my opinion a good thing – it ensures that we take the time to properly review any proposed change’s potential impact, and take the necessary precautions. Yet this instinct can also backfire when people are stubbornly opposed to change without reason. According to some studies, 70% of change management initiatives fail. I’m willing to bet that people’s instinctive opposition to change has something to do with that.

How can a workplace assess changes objectively?

On our team, we first make sure that there are no surprises. No changes are made or even proposed before we first accurately pinpoint the problem at hand. We then work to ensure that all stakeholders agree on the problem. Only then do we start working to find a solution to the problem. Since all impacted parties are already involved and have agreed to participate in solving the problem, there is usually little to no opposition to any proposed changes. They architected it together.

… objectively judging people, especially individuals that are different

When I interview candidates, I often find myself asking more questions to people that did not come from a background (education, experience) similar to those of existing team members. In a way, we could call it playing it safe, but on another level, I’m simply judging people differently because they come from different walks of life.

As I consulted colleagues from other companies and startups on how they handled these situations, it became clear that this problem exists across industries, and in companies large and small. Age, gender, education, ethnicity, and even fashion discriminations were rampant. My colleagues and I both suffered such discriminations as well as contributed to them. We realized that most of the time, people were not even aware that they were discriminating. We’re talking about really smart, often Ivy league educated managers that would fight for feminist causes or march with Martin Luther King should he still be with us.

Why?

In my opinion, it comes down to the fact that we fear the unknown. We are afraid of things we are not familiar with: Foreign cultures, people, ideas. Here, foreign can take the form of a different neighborhood in the same city, not just another country. In its worst form, our fear morphs into Xenophobia, as witnessed in the recent Brexit. Day-to-day, we avoid certain parts of the city, sit with colleagues that are similar to us at the cafeteria, or ask some people more questions than others at interviews.

Again, why?

The question then begs… Why in our multicultural society (at least in much of the western world), are we still so afraid? Haven’t we been exposed to enough different people, cultures, and ideas that we can comfortably shed away our biases?

Well, fact is that even though there are multiple cultures found near each other geographically, there are limited interactions between them. Cultures are not mixing.

Simply glossing over a demographic map of the USA will expose the fact that most neighborhoods in cities are segmented demographically. African Americans, White Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanic Americans can all be found living apart from each other, in different neighborhoods. How do we expect to really understand other cultures if we are never exposed to them? Do we really understand their differing values and cultures? The situation is even worse in rural areas and smaller cities.

So this leaves us popular culture to educate us on the values and lives of foreign cultures. Yet no luck there either. According to research from USC, 73% of actors in Hollywood are white, 13% black, 5% Asian, and 5% Hispanic. That means that we are all overwhelmingly educated on white American culture, but little else.

All these stats are further augmented by the fact that 75% of white Americans do not have non-white friends. White Americans thus have no clue about the values, culture, and ideologies of the ~70 million non-white neighbors they share their land with.

This problem persists in the startup ecosystem and Silicon Valley, where most people are White or Asian. It reflects the demographic of university populations.

So how can I avoid being biased toward foreign people / cultures?

Simply being aware that we feel safer around people like us, and less so around those that look and think differently is a good start. Acknowledging we need people who think differently for innovation may be the next step. Let’s not fear our differences, but embrace them. We are all different, not better or worse.

The next time that candidates are being interviewed, perhaps we should take cues from musical orchestras and do it behind a curtain with voices masked. I’m kidding. Let’s all start with being more aware of how our brain operates on cruise control.


Recommended exercise

The next time that someone proposes a change, at work or at home, on how we do things, take note of our initial reaction. Did we oppose it instinctively, or did we keep our mind open and curious?


Are you leading a startup team? Get started on the right foot with the Start-up Manager Handbook. And subscribe on the right for new insights every week!

Checking our blind spot when making a decision

Checking our blind spot when making a decision

In a previous post, I discussed a tendency for startup teams to be blindly optimistic.

So today I’m going to share a simple exercise to help check our blind spots when taking decisions.

We start by asking ourselves…

… how do we tend to react by default?

Understanding our default behavior provides critical details on who we are, what we stand for, and how we behave in our job.

It helps us acknowledge where we stand, and whether we’re going in the desired direction. By reflecting upon our natural tendencies, we shine a light onto behaviors that we don’t usually notice. It allows us to make corrections to subconscious actions.

For example, I once asked my team: “what is the first thing that you do when you get to work and why?” 

To which a team member responded: “I check my emails to check for any fires to fight, but I really should review and adjust my to-do list before reacting to anything…” Simply thinking about something that is more or less a habit can trigger a correction.

To paraphrase famed author David Foster Wallace, a fish may not even know what water is, being surrounded by it since birth. Similarly, there are so many elements in our day-to-day that require our active focus that we may not know how our subconscious is behaving. Personally, I had a tendency to hyper-focus on my work and neglect chats I receive throughout the day, leading some people to think that I don’t care about them. I only realized it after a team member joked about the situation over lunch, after which I became more aware of my chats throughout the day.

In the context of an organization (or a team), default tendencies act as a reflection of its culture. A proactive diagnosis thus helps to ensure that the team’s culture is aligned with its desired culture.

To diagnose my team’s tendencies, I like to first recognize three entities including:

  1. The team;
  2. The team leadership; and
  3. The team’s relation with other teams.

Next, I ask each team member to reflect on the tendencies and behaviors from these three perspectives. Specifically, I ask: “In your perception, what does the team or the team leadership…” OR “In your perception, when collaborating and working with other teams, what do we…”

  • “…enjoy spending their time on?”
  • “…don’t enjoy spending time on?”
  • “…excel in?”
  • “…repeatedly fails to achieve?”
  • “…never get the time to do?”
  • “…usually ask about?”
  • “…not ask about?”
  • “…forget about?”
  • “…get confused by?”

Compiling results from all team members provides us with a comprehensive picture of our tendencies, our blind spots, and our culture in general. Our goal is not to judge, but to effectively observe differences.

Next, we need to ensure that our culture is moving in the right direction. I thus pull all team members together and review whether each trait is desirable or not. In the case that it is not, we try and identify ways to actively remind ourselves of our bias and compensate for it. For example, if we have a tendency to avoid working with other teams, we could compensate by first asking “Does any other team need to be involved?” before kicking off any new projects.

How often should we assess our tendencies? I recommend performing this exercise every quarter or two. Culture is slow to change.

I do advocate for someone to act as a culture champion to hold people accountable to any tweaks and changes we decide to pursue. In the example above, a champion would praise people when they remember to consider whether other teams need to be involved in a project, and reprimand when we fail to do so.

In my opinion, success does not translate into achieving our dream culture, but very much being conscious of our existing culture. Simply being aware our biases, weaknesses, and tendencies helps to avoid taking decisions blindly.


Recommended exercise

The next time that we’re faced with a decision, let’s analyze our immediate response (default tendency) and then take a day to think and see if we change our opinion. Is our default state of mind limiting our abilities?


Are you leading a startup team? Get started on the right foot with the Start-up Manager Handbook. And subscribe on the right for new insights every week!

How to not let failure hurt morale and diminish ambition

How to not let failure hurt morale and diminish ambition

We had missed our quarterly sales target. Again.

The news was given during a company all-hands. All over the room, I saw people staring at our CEO, not sure how to react. Frustrated, confused, and scared.

We had extremely ambitious targets to begin with, as is the case with most VC backed companies. Most individuals knew we’d be lucky to meet them. Yet as results were announced, we all felt like failures.

In the following weeks, the mood in the house was grimmer than usual. People were doubting the company’s ability to succeed, ever. Many feared losing their job as this downtrend continued.

Personally, the bad news didn’t surprise me, nor did it hurt my optimism. I never expected to hit those numbers, knowing full well they were best-case scenarios. They were not set based on what we could realistically achieve, but rather on numbers investors wanted to see (~somewhat imaginary). So it didn’t affect my outlook of the future. I knew we had a strong team and we did the best we could.

To help my team get back on track, I set up a meeting and said something along the lines of:

“Team, I know that some of you are feeling grim about the fact that we missed our sales targets again. I’m not going tell you that things will be better in the future or that the sales team will do better next quarter. I can’t predict the future.

However, I will remind you of the reason all of us are here for. Every single one of you told me that you wanted to join a startup to make an impact and to learn by doing. And the only promise that I ever made to you is that you’ll be able to do both. Does anyone in this room feel cheated by my promise?

Nobody ever promised you that it’d be an easy ride. In fact, you knew from the beginning that it was going to be a challenging and chaotic ride. Yet you still joined.

Many of us are doing things for the first time. It’s my first time leading a team. It’s our founders’ first company. For many of you, it’s your first job. So I don’t expect us to always get things right.

What I do expect of all of us is to work hard and work smart. To never let bad news and missed results beat us down. To always get back up and continue our journey.

We’re all here to do one thing and one thing only: Give out best shot. So I don’t care if we missed our targets. Let’s focus on the day-to-day and do our best.”

My point isn’t that a pep talk will fix things. Rather, it’s that people are too emotionally and mentally attached to results. So much so that when they fail to achieve their goals, regardless of how realistic it was, they lose confidence. I needed to remind my team that hitting targets, winning deals, and achieving milestones only play a small part in our overall success. It’s our day-to-day work, the time that we spend grinding and planning, that matters.

We missed our targets. So what?

I attribute our team’s grim reaction to prevalence of a fixed mindset in our culture.

[To quickly remind readers of the meaning of a fixed mindset versus a growth mindset, allow me to quote Carol Dweck (top researcher on the subject): “Individuals who believe their talents can be developed (through hard work, good strategies, and input from others) have a growth mindset. They tend to achieve more than those with a more fixed mindset (those who believe their talents are innate gifts).” I find it fascinating how these two mindsets affect how we approach life. To learn more, I highly recommend readers to checkout Mrs. Dweck’s book: Mindset.]

In my opinion, people with a growth mindset would look at the missed targets and say to themselves: “Well, looks like there’s more work to do and things to learn. Let’s try harder.” On the other hand, a person with a fixed mindset would say: “Shit. Maybe we’re just not cut for this.”

I like to think I have a growth mindset, and that my team does as well. Yet fact is many of my colleagues have quite fixed mindsets. I don’t blame them for it. It’s my opinion they’ve received too many praises supporting a fixed mindset.

Allow me to elaborate… Every time that we compliment someone with “Wow, you’re so good at…” or “You were really born to do…,” it gives the impression that success is tied to who that individual is. Their genetics. How they’re wired. It couldn’t be more wrong. Ask anyone successful and they’ll tell you that success comes from thousands of hours of practice, bouncing back from failure, and many iterations. To quote Thomas Edison: “Success is 99% perspiration.” If that’s not enough evidence, I highly recommend Malcolm Gladwell’s book Outliers, which argues that it takes 10,000 hours to master anything. I believe that. I also acknowledge that some people are better positioned to achieve those 10,000 hours faster than others, but nobody said that life was fair. The point being that success is correlated to work and effort, not simply our genes.

Are targets detrimental to the team’s motivation?

No. Targets are absolutely necessary.

Targets and goals provide direction to our teams and help gauge our progress. Without them, we’d be all running in different directions and without a clue about whether or not we’re successful.

But hitting our targets is not the only thing form of success out there. People need to feel good for having tried really hard and giving their best.

How do we prevent missed expectations from de-motivating our team?

In my opinion, it comes down to setting realistic goals, having an underdog mindset, and rewarding a growth mindset. Let’s explore each in detail:

Set realistic targets

Set targets too high and we’re bound to miss them. Team members will feel like we’re asking the impossible. Set targets too low and the team loses the ambition to achieve more (they’re already there, why try harder?). I thus recommend to set targets slightly higher than what we can achieve today.

For example, if we forecast $100 in revenue based on historical performance, and $150 in revenue under a best-case scenario, I’d set our target as a range between $120 and $150. I’d proportionally increase the reward should we hit higher than $120. This challenges the team to do more than they have done historically, while incentivising even better results should they actually hit the lower goal.

If the team fails to meet the target in their first try, I’d keep the target unchanged until we achieve it. The goal is to keep learning and iterating until we succeed. The critical part of this approach is learning how to leverage scenario planning to set targets, instead of forecasting based on the best possible outcome. I thus recommend checking out author and VC Guy Kawasaki’s Art of the Start, which has a great section on how to set realistic goals from the bottom up.

Maintain an underdog culture

The moment that we think we’re successful is the moment that we stop trying.

I therefore believe we need to support an underdog mindset. We need to feel like we’re always chasing a bigger fish with limited resources. We cannot be too positive in our assessment of the company – the best underdogs feel that they’re behind and need to work harder.

For example, we need to avoid saying things like: “We have a ton of money in the bank from our investors;” or “We’re growing faster than any competitor in the field, ahead of the game by a good margin.” Even if these statements were true, it creates the perception that we’re successful and can relax a bit.

In addition to saying the right things, we also have to act like underdogs. Buying $2,500 Macbooks for everyone, giving free lunches and craft beers, and stocking the office with $1,000 chairs and standing desks does not paint the picture of an underdog company. These “perks” create a culture of entitlement, where people fail to value what they have, and perceive that they are in a pretty comfortable spot.

We don’t want our people to feel comfortable. We want our teams to feel like their survival is at risk. We need people to work hard to win. If we’re going to give perks, people need to earn it: e.g. Food should only be offered when there’s progress to celebrate, like when the team pulled an all nighter, or made an awesome attempt at hitting their goals.

We can’t give anything for free.

Praise effort and progress

Creating a growth mindset culture starts by praising team members’ daily effort. As leaders, we need to make the time to observe team members regularly.

A couple years ago, I’d only high five people when they hit their targets (which meant rarely), and had 0 hours dedicated to observe and praise people. Little did I know that I was actually supporting a fixed mindset.

Nowadays, I spend at least 30min to an hour every day to see if team members are trying harder than usual, and praise people’s efforts. For example, if I see someone is practicing ahead of a presentation, I’d stop by and say “Hey, I see that you’re working hard on the presentation. Feel confident yet?” Or if I see team members brainstorming solutions to a problem, I’d approach them before the end of day and say “I saw you spending a good amount of time brainstorming in that room with so and so. Looked like there were some good ideas on the whiteboard. How are you feeling?”


Recommended exercise

Let’s observe team members when they fail to achieve a goal. Are they optimistic and already thinking about how to improve, or are they simply feeling down?


Are you leading a startup team? Get started on the right foot with the Start-up Manager Handbook. And subscribe on the right for new insights every week!