I’ve never found a great system for bubbling up older content on a blog. It’s so transient. Posts last a week at most and then they disappear into the archive.

I’ve tried a few things, and here’s my latest attempt to collect and organize some of my posts on key topics of interest. In the sidebar, you’ll see a section, Startup Resources, which includes links to pages where I’ve aggregated a bunch of content.

As I write new content that belongs in any of these sections, I’ll try and remember to add the links in. In the meantime, take a look and let me know what you think.

• Lean Startup Resources
• Startup Recruiting
• Startup Financing
• Startup Accelerators
• Giving Presentations

Hope you enjoy!

The questioning (negative) press about startup accelerators and incubators isn’t going to stop. It’s going to continue and likely increase. Some of it will be meaningless drivel mixed in with a healthy dose of ranting and raving (not dissimilar to the endless and cyclical discussions on whether we’re in a bubble or not.) But a lot of the press and blog posts we’ll see about accelerators and incubators will be very meaningful and important. I suspect more and more of this will come from people that have actually gone through accelerators; they being the best ones to reflect on their own personal experience.

Francisco Dao’s article, “The dirty secret behind the incubator boom” is an interesting one. The title is great –perfect for generating page views, retweets and discussion– although a bit over the top (but that’s what you need for blog post titles.) The analogy of entrepreneurs being like the humans in Soylent Green is also catchy.

Francisco makes an important point in the piece:

It is fairly standard practice for incubators to advertise huge rosters of mentors, but I can’t help but wonder how available or effective they are. In many cases, they seem like little more than the photos of fit personal trainers on the wall at the gym. The trainers look great, while the people working out are still flabby and out of shape because they don’t actually get much guidance.

Mentorship inside accelerators is definitely one of the biggest challenges.

I recently wrote about my own approach and issues with mentoring startups. Accelerators have absolutely stockpiled giant lists of mentors in order to create as big a network as possible. The value of those networks remains to be seen.

At Year One Labs we decided to only have 20 mentors (many of whom were investors as well.) We also only had 5 startups, so that’s still a pretty significant ratio. It was hard for us throughout the program to consistently bring the quality mentorship resource to the table. Mentors are extremely busy people, they have varying skill sets, and it’s unclear how structured or unstructured any mentorship component in an accelerator needs to be.

One of the most important things we did was encourage founders to reach out to mentors directly. We cut ourselves out as unnecessary middlemen. We wanted founders to build direct relationships with mentors. And that worked quite well. Even after our companies left Year One Labs, those relationships continued and strengthened, which was precisely the point of having mentors in the first place.

Startup founders: If you want to maximize the value of mentors in an accelerator, then it’s 100% up to you to do so.

Turns out that’s pretty much the case with everything you’re going to do as a startup founder. At the end of the day, even with investors, employees, advisors, parents, friends, support groups, etc. all around you, it’s up to you.

So my suggestion when you enter an accelerator is to go through the list of mentors with a fine-tooth comb. Figure out which ones you think will be most valuable to you, and reach out directly. Build that personal relationship with them using the accelerator as the conduit for initial communication. No decent mentor should ignore your email or call if they’re connected to you through an accelerator. It’s a “free pass” to reach out. And accelerator programs should make those connections possible, even for their most prominent mentors. If the mentorship responsibilities at an accelerator involve nothing more than “teaching a class” or doing one session with the group – and you’re not, as a mentor, available for direct contact and relationship building – I don’t think you should participate as a mentor.

The other benefits that come from having a big mentorship list are around funding, partnerships and acquisitions. The mentors are usually very well connected, many of them are angels as well, and they’ll open doors. That’s the expectation. But if there are no personal relationships between founders and mentors, I don’t see many doors getting opened. People are always careful with their Rolodex, it’s one of their most precious assets. They’re not going to open it up willy-nilly, just because they’re listed as a mentor for an accelerator. It still comes down to personal relationships and trust.

Startup founders: If you want to maximize the value of mentors inside an accelerator, it’s your job to build that trust.

If you run an accelerator, it’s your job to create enough opportunities for that trust building to occur.

As startup founders, you have to remember that you’re competing for attention. That means you need to be extremely strategic and aggressive (within reason) in sucking out as much as you can from the accelerator experience. Don’t wait for anyone to hand over the value; you need to leverage your participation in an accelerator to get all the value you possibly can. Tal Raviv, co-founder of Ecquire has a great post on his experience in two accelerators.

Here are some other ideas for how to maximize the value from mentors:

• Understand their specialities. Mentors all have different skill sets and experience. Do your homework and figure out which mentors are the best ones for you to engage with at specific times. Timing is key here. When it’s time to raise money, go to the mentors with that expertise. When it’s time to focus on user acquisition, get closer with different mentors. You have to build the relationships early though, but time your use of mentors properly.
• Get to the point. Don’t waste mentors’ time, get to the point. Have an ask. Make sure when you connect with mentors that you know why you’re doing it and what you’re looking for. Mentors will appreciate that. Asking for “general feedback” is a death trap. Mentors won’t know how to help, they’ll get frustrated, and you’ll be frustrated as well. Trust will be lost.
• Engage with them on social media. Mentors are people too. Usually with big egos. And many of them are actively working on their own startups or have their own interests. Engaging with them online is a good way of building a relationship. Tracking what they’re doing is a smart way of showing that you care.
• Take the classes / training sessions / etc. seriously. Most accelerators have some structured components to the program. Some founders may feel like this is a distraction, but that’s the wrong way to look at it. Think of it like a crash course in all the elements of running a startup. That’s an education that others just aren’t getting. But also realize that these sessions are an opportunity to build better relationships with mentors. Have questions ready, stay engaged, be the keener and soak it all in.

Going through an accelerator is a journey. For many, I think it’s transformative. Michael Nussbacher throws it all out there with his story, “A slice of humble pie at the accelerator“. It’s a good read.

Not all accelerators are created equal.

The variance in quality between accelerators is probably going to widen as well, although the people running accelerators are always trying to improve. At least the best people running accelerators. I’ve spoken with many directions / managers / founders of accelerators, and they’re working hard to try and provide a great experience and create tons of value for founders. The model for acceleration as we understand it today is fairly new, and it’s evolving very fast. Accelerators are startups themselves, which means they need to keep trying things, measuring the results, and iterating.

In the next 5-10 years, I’d expect the model to have changed significantly. That’s almost a given.

That doesn’t mean you should cut accelerators any slack – we need to hold them accountable to very high standards and goals – but at the end of the day it’s up to you. There’s not a single accelerator anywhere that can guarantee success. And while they can make some things easier, they don’t grease the wheels that much. Be careful about your expectations going in; the process is not going to be easy. Accelerators in a lot of ways make things harder because they compress time, create intense demands, and throw a ton at you all at once.

The only people that radically and continuously change the odds of success are the people running the startups.

Fred Destin wrote a fantastic blog post recently on how to be a good startup mentor. It made me think a great deal about how I mentor startups, where I’m effective, and where I could improve. As Fred notes, “good mentoring is hard.”

He’s absolutely right.

I’m currently mentoring a number of companies inside of FounderFuel (a Montreal-based startup accelerator.) I also work with the companies that graduated from Year One Labs (Localmind, Massive Damage and HighScore House.) I recently agreed to be a mentor for a new accelerator in Washington, DC called Acceleprise, which focuses on B2B startups. And I mentor a couple other companies as well.

Hopefully I’ll have the capacity and ability to continue mentoring startups for many years to come. It’s an incredibly rewarding experience. So in thinking about how I like to mentor, how I think I mentor, and how I try to add value, I’ve come up with a bunch of thoughts below. Hopefully they’ll prove helpful to entrepreneurs looking for mentors (and trying to understand what to expect), and to other mentors trying to figure out how to get involved in startups.

Side note: If you’re an entrepreneur looking for advice on how to pick a quality advisor, I wrote this post: Promises and Platitudes – The Dangers of Low Quality Advisors.

The Lean Canvas
If you’ve read my blog before, you know I’m a fan of Lean Canvas. Here are some blog posts related to Lean Canvas that I’ve written.

As a tool for presenting to advisors and mentors, it’s perfect: clear, simple and to the point. I rarely work with a startup now that isn’t using a Lean Canvas. And one of my first questions when someone asks me for advice is, “Do you have a Lean Canvas we can look at together?”

Asking “Why?”
Mentors are in the enviable position of not being “blinded by love” for your startup. Entrepreneurs get blinded; mentors shouldn’t. The simplest way of cutting through the blindness is to ask “Why?” It’s not any more complicated than that. Keep asking “why” over and over and you’ll cut through the blindness very quickly.

I’m probably too soft
Entrepreneurs don’t need sugarcoating (although once in awhile we all need a solid ego boost!) I’m too soft, but I’m trying to be more and more critical, without being a complete ass about it. Mentors only pop in occasionally, entrepreneurs live and breathe what they’re doing, so it’s not fair to be insanely critical without understanding everything that’s going on. Still, it’s hard to be completely honest all the time.

Introductions don’t flow freely
I genuinely enjoy connecting people, but I’m also cautious with introductions (more so than I used to be.) If I make too many introductions and they don’t go anywhere, people will value my introductions less, and that’s going to negatively impact everyone I work with. There has to be a genuine purpose for an introduction, the timing has to be right (for everyone involved), and expectations have to be clearly set.

I value learning a great deal
Along with the Lean Canvas, I’m a big advocate of Lean Startup. I’ve made so many mistakes in the past; I definitely put a premium on learning as a measurement of progress. It’s not the only measurement, but it’s absolutely critical in the early stages.

You don’t have to agree with me
I’m there to help if I can and provide advice. But that doesn’t mean you have to agree with me. If you disagree with me and go down a different road, I’ll still support you, as long as you’re demonstrating genuine progress. I’m there to keep you honest (and a little less blinded and overwhelmed by everything that’s going on), not make sure you do everything I think you should be doing.

I can’t chase you
If you want my assistance, I’m available (as much as I can be), but I don’t have time to chase people around. I think this is universal for mentors (and people in general) – everyone’s busy with their own stuff. So if you don’t ask for something, you’re not likely to get it.

I want to work with people I like
It’s important for me to work with people I like, people I want to hang out with. Life’s too short to spend it with people you don’t really want to be with.

But that doesn’t mean the relationship is always perfect and friendly. Mentors and founders should be comfortable enough to disagree, have open discussions, and get into each other’s faces (within reason). As long as it remains reasonably constructive and civil, I’m OK with (and want to see!) people’s passion emerge. Don’t be afraid to get in my face and tell me what you think.

Mentors have to devote serious time
I take the commitments I’ve agreed to very seriously, and I genuinely care about what happens. You can’t be a good mentor without agreeing to devote serious time to it, and when called upon, be able to respond and dig in. Mentoring isn’t something you can do flippantly; the people you’re helping are depending on you.

Mentoring is hugely rewarding for me
I can’t stress this enough. I’m fairly certain I get as much ut of mentoring startups as they get from my efforts. I learn a ton. I meet great people. I get to explore tons of different ideas, tackle interesting problems and try to connect dots where there weren’t any connections before. I love it.

And here’s the thing — in writing this post I’ve realized that “mentoring startups” is actually incorrect.

You don’t mentor startups, you mentor people.

It’s the same reason why an advisory board should be dedicated to the founders, not the company (or others involved in the company.) Companies come and go, they change many times over before they succeed (if at all) – but the people are the same. I’m not mentoring startups, I’m mentoring people. And there have been times when I’ve provided advice to founders that isn’t necessarily in the “best interests” of the startup. That’s because I care about the founders above anything else. And if a startup fails and the founders go on to other adventures, but our relationship remains good and valuable, then I’m ready to jump in again.

Today, April 22nd, marks the 26th anniversary of my brother’s death.

He died in 1986 at the age of 8 from Leukemia. I was 10 at the time. He was my only sibling.

Strangely enough, he and I share a birthday – May 14th. He was born two years after me. I don’t know what the odds of that are, but they’ve gotta be small. And April 22nd, the day Jacob died, is also one my aunt’s birthdays. She was (and is) our closest aunt, dearly loved by Jacob (and me).

Ever since I started blogging in 2006, I’ve tried to write this post. There was the occasional draft, some scribbles in a notepad, and a lot of “writing in my head.” For some reason, I’ve decided to write it now, although I agonized over whether or not to publish it. And while I’m publishing this on the Internet for anyone to read (and presumably to remain archived for as long as the Internet exists), I’m really writing this for myself.

So if you’re not interested in a long, super-personal post about my life, don’t read on.

Jacob was diagnosed with cancer when he was 6. He suffered – off and on – for two years. There was the occasional bout of remission, but they never lasted long. Most of the time he was shuttling back and forth between Guelph (where we lived) and Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children. He spent a lot of time at that hospital. So did my parents. I visited Jacob there, but never stayed for long periods of time. I was still going to school, and I think my parents wanted to shield me from what was going on. So I stayed with family friends, often for weeks at a time, and tried to lead a “normal life.”

I miss my brother.

I often wonder what it would be like had he survived. In that fantasy world, we’re best friends, close enough in age to have shared many milestones together: turning 30, getting married, having kids. Who knows…

I often wonder what he’d be like. He and I were very different; I was always more serious, he was always sillier and more fun. He liked tuxedo costumes, I couldn’t care less what I wore (still sort of true.) He put a lot of effort into holidays and parties, I didn’t. Even when he was sick, he had a jovial personality and enjoyed himself as much as he could, although as you might expect, there were occasions when he was so sick and in so much pain (made worse by the chemotherapy) that even his bright personality could not shine through. I really don’t know what he would be like, but I have a feeling he’d be a fun guy to hang out with. And caring. Ridiculously caring.

My memory of my childhood is very spotty. My memory overall is bad, but it’s amazing how little I remember of my brother’s illness. Maybe I blocked it out to get through the situation, I really don’t know. But there are things I certainly do remember.

I remember we both enjoyed LEGO. We used to build Transformers and Thundercats out of LEGO, playing in our bedroom (which we shared with bunk beds) for hours.

I remember eating a lot of hospital food (don’t do that), including ham and cheese sandwiches on white bread. I’m pretty sure I ate as a coping mechanism.

I remember throwing things at each other from our bunk beds (I was on the top bunk, he was on the bottom bunk) and joking around while we were supposed to be sleeping.

I remember going on vacation to Cape Cod, near the end of his life. My parents already knew it was over, but I didn’t. We had a great time buying a ton of gear at an Army surplus store and playing G.I. Joe. Did he ever love G.I. Joe.

I remember the day he died, when family friends came to pick me up at school. I was called out of my classroom and I walked to the top of a set of stairs. Looking down the stairs I saw our family friends and knew instantly my brother had died. One of them said, “It’s time.” I went back into the class, collected my things and they took me home. It must have been a 20-30 minute car ride at least, but I have no clue what we talked about or said during that time. I also don’t remember the last time I saw Jacob alive. I wasn’t at home the night he died, my parents knew it was coming to an end, so I was staying with family friends.

The world is a shitty, brutal place. It’s absurd how much suffering there is in the world. And when people say “life is short,” are they ever right. Most people don’t really know what that means. Some certainly do.

It’s difficult to say how my brother’s death changed me. I don’t know what I would be like had it not happened. While I feel like I grew up more quickly than my peers (at the time), I also never outgrew a lot of “kid” stuff. I still love cartoons, comic books and toys. So do a lot of people, but for me, “capturing a bit of my childhood” is so much more than a touch of nostalgia. It’s a way of remembering my brother.

Reflecting on oneself is hard. I look back on my life and the experience with Jacob, and wonder why it didn’t propel me more in terms of career choice (although I always wanted to be a doctor, I couldn’t handle the years of school), or why I don’t donate more money to research and charity. I don’t know if my experience made me a better person. Somehow personal selfishness and laziness overruled my desire to help. That’s not to say that I think I’m a bad person, but I look at what some people do in the world -how they devote themselves to making a difference in huge ways- and I marvel at their desire and ability to do so.

People are incredibly resilient, more so than they realize. Few people are ever pushed to their absolute limit. My grandparents on my father’s side survived the Holocaust. They spent years in ghettos and concentration camps. Talk about pushing past one’s limits. People survive horrible, horrible tragedies and experiences every single day. And most persevere. You’ve gotta believe in the human spirit and will to live. They’re almost insurmountable. Having said that, I’m not an optimist when it comes to the human race. I’m not really a pessimist either. I’m … neutral. It’s not where I want to be, it’s just where I am. We (collectively) do some fantastic things, but we’re also so easily capable of evil that it’s impossible for me to believe we get it all right “in the end.” Life is just too complicated for that.

People are also insanely stubborn and irrational. We know right from wrong, and still go down the wrong path a lot. I know I should eat better than I do, but I don’t. I know I should exercise more and I don’t. Not that either would have helped Jacob, but I should know better. Sometimes I think it’s my way of saying “Fuck you” to the world (and death). “I’m going to do as I please, you won’t get me.” Of course something will get me someday. As long as it’s not cancer; you’ve already taken enough from me.

While stubborness and irrationality can be bad qualities, they’re also good. I don’t think I would have achieved much of anything in my life if I wasn’t stubborn and irrational. I would have just turned over and given up.

I haven’t mentioned my parents much here. I can’t begin to imagine what they went through (even though I was there), and the pain they felt burying their son. We all suffer loss in our lives -that’s part of life itself- but losing a child is unimaginable, even for me. It’s something I have to force myself not to think about, given that I have two boys of my own.

My parents and I have our differences, just like any family. But I love and respect them dearly for the people they are and what they’ve gone through in life. They gave me a happy, good childhood.

For my kids, I’m saddened by the fact that they’ll never get to know my brother. I think Jacob would have been an awesome uncle. And I’m scared. Every time one of my boys gets sick, I’m scared. I hide it, but on the inside I’m a mess. Jacob’s leukemia started with flu-like symptoms. That’s it. From “having a cold” to a “rare form of Leukemia” is a hell of a jump. But that’s often how it happens. Most parents don’t think the same way that I do (although parents are universally and constantly afraid for their kids), because a cold is 99.99% of the time just a cold.

My older son Sam looks quite a bit like Jacob. Family friends that knew my brother noticed it immediately, especially when Sam was younger. And Sam is a ridiculously caring kid too. He’s often thinking of others, protecting others (especially his younger brother Quinn), and trying to keep other people happy. If there’s a little Jacob in Sam that’s OK with me.

I think about Jacob a lot. Not on a daily basis, but he’s never too far from my thoughts. I think about him in good times (playing with my kids), and bad times. I think about him when I’m going to do something hard, and remember what he went through. I get a sense of strength from him that helps me a lot. More than I probably realize. It’s still hard though – twenty six years later – to think about him. Our time together was just too short, and the pain is still there.

My goal with this post was to share a part of me that’s never really been shared. I’m sharing with myself and for myself, and sharing for my brother and with him. For my kids too. I would never presume to preach to you – I don’t know what you’ve been through. The truth is, you can’t really know someone until you know everything they’ve been through. But I can tell you this: whatever it is, I bet you can get through it. It’s in our very core to fight (in a good way, and unfortunately in a bad way too) and survive. You can make it.

One thing Jacob taught me for sure, was to be happy.

It’s a cliche, but so genuinely important. Unfortunately, most of us never really get there. And while I admire the few people that can drop everything and do exactly as they please all the time, I’m just not wired that way. But I do seek happiness. Hell, I am happy. And I think I’ve done a pretty good job charting my own path (with the occasional hiccup along the way), always in an attempt to be and stay happy. If you can achieve even a little bit more happiness in your life -through anything- you owe it to yourself to at least try.

In Jacob’s short life he touched a lot of people. Even today, people still visit his grave, evidenced by the small stones or pebbles they leave on his headstone (which is a Jewish tradition.) One of his childhood friends still leaves small toys on the headstone; a tiny connection to the friendship they shared. Just before my brother died, he asked my mother to take care of his friends. To the end, Jacob was thinking about others he cared about.

He was an awesome kid. He was an awesome brother. And I love him.

If you’re still with me at this point, here are some photos of my brother and I. His personality shines through incredibly well (even though the photo quality is bad.)

I’ve turned comments off. But you can always reach me here: byosko@gmail.com.

Lately, I’m getting more and more feedback from entrepreneurs that Lean Startup is holding them back.

I’m seeing this in action as well; startups that are “stuck” in a permanent mode of analysis with little to no action.

Entrepreneurs blame the Lean Startup process. They point out that the need to validate everything before moving forward slows them down and confuses them too much. They’d rather just go ahead with something and define that as progress.

There are a few things at work here.

For starters, I’ve written about the pace of Lean Startup before, because at certain stages it does feel slow.

The goal of Lean Startup isn’t to slow you down, but it is designed to make you think critically about what you’re doing and amass (some form of) proof that you’re heading in the right direction before barreling ahead. Those that go through the early customer development and Lean Startup process may feel paralyzed or derailed for a bit, but they come out the other end with a much clearer picture of where to run. And then, you run. As fast as you can.

Secondly, it seems that entrepreneurs are genuinely struggling with how to run good experiments.

It’s a combination of not knowing how to do it and also not wanting to. Being good at running experiments and following the Lean Startup methodology takes practice. It’s really as simple as that. You either put in the effort or you don’t. You either believe it adds value or you don’t. If you want to remain completely delusional throughout the startup process, you’re welcome to do so, but your odds of success are terrible.

Entrepreneurs also struggle a great deal with the idea that they’ll be forced to “throw out their work.” The idea that a hypothesis and experiment may fail feels like a total waste of time. And I get that; no one wants to feel like they’re wasting their time. You have to realize that a failed experiment – if it was well designed and intended – is incredibly valuable. Rovio tried 51 games before hitting on Angry Birds. It took them 8 years. No one is suggesting you try 51 things over 8 years before finding something successful, but as long as you’re genuinely learning through failed experiments, then you’re moving closer to success.

A good experiment needs a clear outcome. The same holds true with customer development interviews. There needs to be a very specific point to the effort. Good experiments and customer development interviews are supposed to make decision-making easier, and lead to specific next steps. If that’s not happening, you need to figure out why and change how you’re running experiments and interviews. Otherwise you’ll absolutely be paralyzed.

Finally, I get the feeling that entrepreneurs think that Lean Startup is sucking the guts out of startups.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. No startup succeeds by simply following a methodology. There’s no formula for success. There are simply too many variables, most of which you cannot control. Your guts (or instincts) are crucial throughout the startup experience. You’ll make decisions on imperfect data (even following Lean Startup). You’ll have sudden sparks of inspiration and insight, connecting dots that no one else has in quite the same way, and have to execute on those sparks quickly. You’ll play your hunches.

At the end of the day, you – as the founder of your startup – make the decisions. You’re in charge. No one’s trying to take that way from you, or turn your guts and instinct into a mechanical, fully calculable process. Startups are too crazy for that. Just as you can align big vision and Lean Startup you can do the same with instinct and Lean Startup. So don’t use this as an excuse. Lean Startup is a framework for helping, for de-risking things and guiding decision-making. But Lean Startup is not a guarantee.

You can escape analysis paralysis in a number of ways. You can listen to your instincts and just do something, pick a path and plant a flag in the ground. You can also run more experiments. You can do both together. Startups are crazy but they don’t have to be insanely messy. You can apply some method to the madness and improve your focus. Run small experiments in a few days to get out of a funk and learn something. Make some quick decisions, test your assumptions and go from there. Don’t sit in the office staring at your screen waiting for something to happen. Mentors can help too. They bring an honest, outside opinion that may shake you loose. They might also confuse the situation further though, if they’re providing disparate feedback. So be careful.

Almost every startup goes through analysis paralysis at some point during its existence. But if it’s happening consistently and for long periods of time, you have to look at your decision-making processes and your willingness to experiment outside of your comfort zone (and fail). You can’t sit there and blame Lean Startup or anything else; it’s up to you to break out of it and push forward.

A lot of people think meetings are a complete waste of time.

Meeting with people in and of itself isn’t a waste of time, it’s just that most meetings are poorly run. For entrepreneurs this is a killer – your time is insanely precious, but you also want to be talking to as many people as possible and “getting out of the building.”

Meetings can easily get out of hand. I experienced this recently in a group mentorship session. There were a few mentors and two entrepreneurs. I applaud the entrepreneurs for getting all the mentors in a room together, the opportunities for brainstorming and collective participation are great in those settings. But the meeting fell apart very quickly. One participant (who shall remain nameless!) took over the meeting and in the blink of an eye, our hour was up. I know the entrepreneurs still got some value out of the meeting, as did the mentors, but it could have been much more productive.

You could lay blame at the feet of the mentor in question, who is definitely a talkative and excitable guy, but really the blame lies with the entrepreneurs. To their credit, I think they get it now, and I’m certain future group sessions will be incredibly productive. (Side note: I just got an agenda from them for another meeting that’s very precise and follows some of my suggestions below, which I hadn’t even suggested yet. Nice!)

In any meeting that you organize, particularly as an entrepreneur speaking with mentors or board members, you need to stay in control. That doesn’t mean you stop others from talking – quite the contrary – but you need to keep tight reins on what’s going on. This is also true when doing customer development interviews; there’s room for customers to talk freely of course, but if you don’t have a script and solid agenda, you’ll find that you spend the time chatting casually with customers and not really learning anything. You might feel great after, because the meeting was friendly and positive, only to realize it was largely a waste of time.

Here are 5 quick tips for staying in control of meetings:

1. Prepare people in advance. Send a meeting agenda in advance. Don’t assume everyone knows what you want to talk about, or that everyone has the same priorities. Spell it out for them.
2. Have very specific goals. The more specific your goals, the better. Remind people at the beginning of the meeting about what you’re trying to accomplish and how they can best help. Ask specific questions. “We’re thinking about such and such…” might be a good conversation starter, but more often than not it’ll lead into a rathole.
3. Timebox everything. Allot specific amounts of time to specific parts of the agenda. Keep tabs on the time and pace of the meeting.
4. Cut people off. Don’t be afraid to cut people off and bring them back on track. Even if everyone has the best intentions, you need to be prepared and capable of telling them to stop and be quiet (in a nice way!)
5. Mutual goals and value. Harley Finklestein from Shopify has a very interesting Mixergy interview about Agile Business Development with some related points. One of the concepts he describes is “Candid Objectives” (which is similar to #2 above). But he also talks about explicitly describing the mutual goals and value you’re trying to create in a meeting. For business development that makes a lot of sense, but it also rings true for meetings with mentors, and particularly for board meetings (where everyone needs to get value out of the process.) “What’s in it for me?” (for other meeting participants) is something you should think about in any meeting.

Meetings somehow auto-magically fill up the time that you’ve allotted for them. If you say it’s a 1 hour meeting it’ll take 1 hour. If you plan for 2 hours, somehow it takes 2 hours. I’ve been in meetings that took less time than planned, and people actually felt awkward about it – “Um, so is that it? There’s nothing else? We’re probably missing something, so we should schedule another meeting…” Ugh.

Try shorter meetings with more precise agendas and goals, and see if you get things equally accomplished. You’ll probably get more done in less time. It’s all about focus. And control.

Seems these days I start almost every blog post talking about Lean Canvas. I’ve seen the Lean Canvas work effectively – as a planning, strategy and communication tool – and encourage any startup I’m working with to give it a try. Ultimately it’s about focus. Focus is incredibly elusive in a startup. A lack of focus kills. Flat out. You might get lucky (and you need luck no matter what to win), but more than likely if you’re not hyper-focused on what matters, you’ll flounder and sputter out. And it sucks big time.

Running Lean is Ash Maurya’s book on how to focus (and use Lean Canvas).

He calls it “Running Lean” and the title is important: this isn’t about going slow, getting paralyzed by analysis, or lost in the weeds. It’s about running as fast as you can (remembering that it’s still a marathon) in as focused a way as you can. I read the first edition, and this second edition is even better.

Ash has mastered the science (and art!) of honing in on what matters. Running Lean is the guidebook for that. It’s definitely worth reading.

When Ash was working on the 2nd edition, he asked me to review the book and submit a quote for it. Here’s what I wrote:

Running Lean is THE practical guide for understanding and implementing Lean Startup. It’s clear, well-organized, and detailed. Ash doesn’t guarantee success, or claim Lean is perfect (it’s not!), but he’ll help you avoid the most common and painful pitfalls of running a startup. If you want to be systematic, rigorous, and honest in your startup efforts, as opposed to throwing a Hail Mary pass while blindfolded in space, read and use Running Lean.

Ash continues to create value from and beyond the book on his blog at ashmaurya.com and by extension through his company Spark59. Check both resources out, and the book … and enjoy!

Most companies don’t have a serious, repeatable interviewing process for hiring.

Instead they wing it, bringing people in for interviews, asking a few questions, turning it into a fireside chat, and then hoping for the best. In my experience that’s not good enough.

At Standout Jobs (2007-2010) we hired some great people. I still consider them friends today, but more importantly they’ve all gone on to bigger and better things. And many of them still say that their experience at Standout Jobs was a fantastic one, even though the company wasn’t a success. They learned a lot, grew as people, and found teammates that they genuinely respect and appreciate. A few of the guys went on to work together in other projects and startups, and I’m sure some of them will re-connect in the future.

That feedback is a testament -in part- to the effort we put into hiring and interviewing people. I’ve seen a lot of different hiring strategies, from the nonchalant to the super intense (even more than our approach, which I’ve shared below.) I can’t say there’s one approach that works for every company, or that our approach is even “the right one” for you, but I do know that everyone we hired that went through the process was successful and stayed with us; those that we bent the rules for (often to expedite the hiring process) didn’t pan out quite as well. So for us, the interview process we implemented was a very good filter.

Note: Most of the hiring we did was in 2007-2008. That’s a few years ago, and my memory of every specific detail is a touch fuzzy. I wish I had kept more notes on the specifics, questions we asked, etc. There are those out there that may be able to fill in some details…

1. Reviewing Resumes

The process typically started with a resume. The resume isn’t dead, but the format should change, especially for developers that have plenty of resources (like Github) for sharing their work and demonstrating their capabilities. Resumes still contain some nuggets of information that are helpful, and we went through them all. Here are some of the things we looked for:

• Spelling errors (almost an automatic “thanks but no thanks”)
• Lots of short hops between companies (a potentially bad sign)
• Open source contributions, side projects or other work shared in a portfolio
• Twitter account and/or blog (so we could take a look at what people were interested in, talking about, etc.
• Previous startup work and the quality of those startups

Both my co-founder (Fred Ngo) and I reviewed resumes. In some cases we shared resumes with other team members to get their opinions as well. If we were rejecting someone, I’d email them. Every single one. I did my best to make sure everyone that applied heard back from us at least once. This is a tough process, but I encourage every company to do it. After reviewing and filtering resumes, we’d screen the remaining candidates over the phone.

2. Screening Candidates

We put a lot of effort into screening candidates. Given that the next step (in-person interviews) lasted almost a day, we didn’t want to go through that with too many people.

Screening candidates was mostly about:

1. Verifying the validity of their resume (i.e. how much did they exaggerate?)
2. Testing for role fit (i.e. do they understand the role, and is that a good fit?)
3. Testing for cultural fit (i.e. do we think we’ll get along well?)

I tried keeping screening calls to 30 minutes, but they’d often go longer. It was always interesting to see what people talked about (specific work they’d done, accomplishments, interests.) I also gave people an opportunity to ask questions, which was also instructive on their personality and what they cared about.

We had a standard set of fairly open-ended questions, but I wasn’t too concerned if we got through all of them. The goal was to have a conversation and see how it went. Some of the questions I asked included:

• Tell me about [pick something on the resume]…
• What did you learn at [pick company name]?
• What are you looking for in a new company?
• Tell me about the [pick a side project s/he's worked on]… (or: Have you ever thought of doing a side project of some kind? If so, why haven’t you? What would you do?)
• What’s an ideal work environment for you?
• Do you read Hacker News? (i.e. Are you genuinely interested in startups and new technology?)

Some of the gotchas I came across:

• Lying. A lot of people lie on their resume. They drastically overstate their contributions to things that were successful. You expect some exaggeration (or even lack of clarity because it’s hard to measure how valuable a specific person’s code was to a project’s success, for example) but lying is a no-no.
• Dissing past / existing employers. There are a lot of crappy employers out there, and a lot of crappy jobs, but spending 30 minutes complaining about them isn’t the right approach. It’s better to be more politically correct, tease out the positives (you must have learned something, met someone, had your eyes opened up to different ways of doing things) and move on. Badmouthing people isn’t going to win you points with potential new employers.
• Not having any questions. A candidate without any questions is most likely a disinterested candidate.
• Not having done any research on the company. Unfortunately a lot of candidates barely looked at our website when we screened them, so they really didn’t know what we were about. When you’d ask, “What interests you about Standout Jobs?” and they didn’t have an answer, it was definitely a bad sign.

Once screening was complete, we’d decide if the candidate should come in for the in-person interviews. If not, we’d let them know. If so, we’d ask them to block off half a day or more and we’d explain the process to them (verbally or via email) so they’d be somewhat prepared.

3. First In-Person Interview (with me)

I typically did the first in-person interview. Similar to the screening process, I’d prepare a list of fairly standard questions (with some deviation based on the specific person I was speaking to) and we’d spend 1-1.5 hours talking. Admittedly, these conversations got too casual at times, and I caught myself talking more than listening, but generally I found them constructive. You could probably be more rigorous here than I was, and make this interview shorter.

Ultimately, I was really looking for a personal connection. Did I want to bring this person onto my startup roller coaster and ride with them? It wasn’t about being friends (while I’m friendly with many ex-employees, we didn’t spend tons of time outside of work socializing), it was about finding a mutual connection and respect. You are going into battle with them, and a lot of it will get ugly, so there better be a real sense of camaraderie and understanding.

4. Second In-Person Interview (with Fred)

Next, Fred took over and did a more technical interview with candidates (assuming we were hiring programmers). If we were hiring for other positions, Fred still did an interview but didn’t ask technical questions.

Fred had his own style for interviews. He asked theoretical questions, math questions, and worked through different problems with candidates. He also spent a good chunk of time getting to know the candidates, how they communicated, what interested them technically, etc. So it was a combination of practical (does this person know what they’re talking about) and personal. These interviews typically lasted 1 hour.

5. Third In-Person Interview (with the team)

The next interview for a candidate was with a few members of our team. We wanted to give our existing employees a chance to meet prospective employees. This usually lasted 30-60 minutes. The discussions were broad ranging, because the team loved to talk technology and they often found candidates eager to discuss technology as well. I didn’t participate in these meetings (neither did my co-founder, Fred) so I can’t really go into a lot of detail, but I do like the idea of having candidates meet the team. That’s who they’ll be working with every single day. And the truth is that a lot of employees stay at a particular job because of their co-workers, even if they don’t like the job, the company or their boss. That’s how important it is for people to really bond with their co-workers.

6. The Practical

After three in-person interviews (now 2.5-3.5 hours in), we’d move to the practical portion of the interview. We used to call this a “technical test” but it really wasn’t about testing technical capabilities. Candidates coming in for an interview knew there’d be a practical component, but prior to the interview we didn’t provide any additional detail, except perhaps, “we’ll get you to code something.”

Note: This is for developers and technical people, but we did run others (like customer support people) through a practical exercise as well. I’ll share some details on that later.

Here’s how we designed the practical “test”:

(i) The Setup. Fred and I would tell the candidate that we were going to roleplay a scenario, and ask them to participate. At some points during the practical we’d be roleplaying, at other times we’d step out of that and review things. We’d explain the general steps to them – roleplay the initial scenario (where we’re a client asking the candidate to build an app), they’d design the app on paper and present it (partially roleplayed), they’d go build the app (not roleplayed), and they’d present the app after (partially roleplayed.)

(ii) The Scenario. Now it was time for a bit of roleplay. Fred and I would pretend we want the candidate to build a photo sharing application for our university dorm. We picked this application for a number of reasons:

1. Everyone understood what a photo sharing app was and generally how it would work (we weren’t trying to invent something radically new here)
2. It was a simple enough application, but it had a bunch of important “web” elements (login, user accounts, content management, etc.)
3. People felt like they could build it very easily, which proved interesting later on

Fred and I would tell the candidate, “We want a photo sharing app for our friends in our university dorm,” but wouldn’t provide a lot of details. It was up to the candidate to ask questions, get information from us and propose ideas. Imagine a scenario where you’re doing work-for-hire with a “less than brilliant or clear” customer. That was the scenario.

Ultimately we were testing communication skills and critical thinking. What questions did the candidate ask? What assumptions did they make? How did they approach communication with us as a client? Did they embrace the experience or not?

We learned a lot during this phase.

It was amazing to see how some people dove into the scenario and started designing UIs on paper with us, while others didn’t ask very much at all and said, “OK, I’ll go build a photo sharing app.” In some cases we had to prompt candidates with specific cues: “Um, you didn’t ask us about privacy.” Or Fred and I would start talking to each other, “Do we want everyone to have access? Should people be able to delete photos? What happens if someone starts posting too much junk?” Good point, good point…then we’d wait to see if the candidate jumped in.

We were also looking to see how people prioritized the steps and things they could do, and how they communicated that to us. Some people were great at negotiating: “So is A or B more important? A is easier, but B might do more of what you want.” Some were great at brainstorming new ideas and proposing stuff, which we loved (as “clients” and employers!)

Once we were finished with this process (~30 minutes), we’d break out of roleplaying and move to the next step.

(iii) The Design. At this point we’d ask the candidate to design the system on paper. They’d often ask, “What do you want to see?” And we’d respond, “It’s up to you. What do you think would be helpful for explaining how you’re going to build this for us [as the roleplayed customer], and what do you think would be useful for you as the developer?”

We saw all kinds of things here, from UML to UI mockups. Some people had reams of paper and they’d walk us through the entire application they were proposing to build (soliciting feedback the entire way), others had one or two sheets. It was very interesting to see how people think, structure things, and again, how well they communicate.

Candidates had 30 minutes. At the end we’d jump back into roleplaying so they could present their work; to help us (as “clients”) understand what they were going to do. We’d come to a conclusion with them on what the deliverable should be. Then we’d move out of our roleplayed roles and ask them about their approach, why they did certain things, etc.

Before they could jump into coding, we’d ask the following question:

“OK, so given the scope of the project, how much of it can you get done in 2 hours?”

(Sometimes we only did 1.5 hours depending on time constraints.)

This was one of the most interesting parts of the interview.

Universally, candidates would say that they could get all of it, or nearly all of it done. We’d dive into specifics and they’d give us a list of deliverables they were prepared to commit to. We knew they couldn’t complete all the work, but it was a “just small enough project” to give people confidence that they could. It set the tone: This is going to be hard, stressful and intense, but go for it! Most candidates were eager for the challenge.

Three points:

• Initially we were giving candidates a clean computer. It was almost completely empty, and they could set it up as they saw fit. The idea was to see how well they could stay focused on the task at hand versus setting up the machine to their perfect parameters. It made the situation a bit more challenging. After a couple interviews we stopped doing this. I don’t think it really provided us with a lot of valuable information about candidates, and the task was hard enough as it is.
• We always offered people more time if they wanted it, usually 30-60 minutes. Most people took us up on that offer.
• We always allowed people to ask us questions (either as the clients in the roleplay scenario) or not. If they had technical questions, or got stuck somewhere, they could come to us and talk. Very few did.

No one ever finished.

We knew this would be the case; candidates did not. And what came out of this experience with candidates was always interesting. Occasionally, a candidate would get almost nothing done, spending all their time setting up the clean computer, or just staring at the screen paralyzed. Others quit halfway through. In one particular case, the candidate admitted to us that he just wasn’t ready for a job at an early stage startup (there were personal things going on his life that were just too distracting) and so he bowed out. He was a very good developer, but the timing just wasn’t right. And that’s OK. He’s gone on to be very successful.

7. The Post-Practical

Once the practical was finished, Fred and I would get back together with the candidate and review his or her work. They’d show us a demo of what they’d built (if anything) and talk through their approach, decisions they made, and the places where they got stuck. It was always fascinating to see where people put their energy and limited time: some made sure it looked good even if the functionality was shallow, some wanted to get all the plumbing in place, and others got caught on specific (often minor) details and couldn’t adapt.

We always asked them, “Now that you’ve gone through the process, where did you underestimate the effort / work required?” Again, it was fascinating and instructive to hear people’s answers. We didn’t go back into roleplaying mode at this point, but it was important to see how candidates reflected on the conversations we had in those scenarios. How were they trying to address client needs? How did they shift on-the-fly, while keeping in mind how they would explain their decisions to the client? What assumptions did they make that they could then properly communicate?

We were always looking for clarity and adaptability. How they worked under pressure was certainly part of it, but not the only thing that mattered to us; after all, this was a fake scenario. Their ability to work in this scenario wasn’t completely indicative of their ability to work on a deadline, although I believe it was a decent proxy. You also got a sense for who had that special extra gear; the few people with the determination to plough through, take chances and be capable of clearly and confidently explain what they did after the fact.

Once the post-practical was done, the interview was over. All told, the candidate had now spent 5.5-7.5 hours with us. It was a gruelling, but effective process.

Conclusions

Hiring the right people is extremely hard. If you don’t take it seriously and put the effort into it, you’ll end up hiring sub-par people that don’t have the necessary talent or cultural fit. And as we discovered, timing is important as well; if someone isn’t ready to make the commitment needed, it’s better to find out beforehand.

The fact is you will never be 100% successful at hiring – some hires just won’t work out. There could be any number of reasons (most of which are out of your control), but you can reduce your risk significantly with a thorough interview process.

Here are some final thoughts about our process:

• Very few candidates disliked the process. I remember a few of them thought the roleplaying was silly, and some of them couldn’t understand why we were bothering with the whole thing, but most of them genuinely appreciated the effort. Even those that fell apart during the process understood why we were going through it in the first place. And many of the candidates were more interested in working for us because we put in so much effort.
• The interview process was the best way of presenting our company’s culture. Candidates got to meet most of the team, talk to them, learn about them, and then they were put through the gauntlet, and came out the other side with an appreciation for the intensity of the company.
• Technical ability is fairly easy to measure. Communication skills, adaptiveness, eagerness, heart, intensity and culture are much harder to measure and understand. We already knew (or were fairly certain) about a candidate’s technical abilities before going through the practical, but we didn’t know if they’d be the right coder for us.
• As I’ve said above, our process is just one way of doing things. I think it was effective, but it won’t work for every company. Those that performed the best throughout the interview were definitely some of our best employees. I suppose that could be a fluke, but I don’t think so. We filtered a lot of people out, and I know (now looking back with the power of hindsight) that we made the right decisions.

We also used practical tests when hiring for other positions other than developers. For example, we ran customer support candidates through a test (although a simpler one than above.) Candidates applying for a customer support role went through the same in-person interviews (with me, Fred and other employees). They would then spend 5-10 minutes with one of our customer support people. Our employee would walk candidates through our website and talk through our core benefits, as well as some of the frequently asked questions we received from customers. Candidates then had 5-10 minutes to prepare and were asked to present what they’d learned back to us. Watching a candidate present on the benefits of Standout Jobs was very helpful in assessing their communication skills, personality and ability to adapt quickly.

Some candidates had done some research in advance, and they often performed better because they were prepared. That was just fine with me. Customer support candidates were extremely surprised when we told them we’d go through a practical assessment, but it was definitely helpful for us.

Recruiting successfully is crazy hard.

The pool of talent is always smaller than you’d like, there are always competing interests, and it takes a significant time commitment to recruit consistently and well. When interesting candidates do come knocking, there’s a temptation to hire them quickly and see how it goes. I’ve done that before, and it usually didn’t work out. You get lucky sometimes, but you’re taking a big risk; not just with the one individual you’re hiring, but with the effectiveness and culture of the entire company. There’s merit in the saying, “hire slow, fire fast.” Don’t be too slow about it (or you’ll miss people), but you do need to be extremely deliberate and thoughtful about the process. Put the time into a recruitment and interview process as early as possible in your company’s existence, measure the results, learn and iterate as you go along.

Reid Hoffman and Ben Casnocha — authors of the #1 New York Times bestseller The Start-up of You— are hosting a live, hour-long webcast in which they will discuss how you can accelerate your career today.

• When: Thursday, March 29, at 6:30 PM PST
• Where: Register here

You can get your questions prioritized by leaving them in the comments here or tweeting them with the hashtag #startq.

I’ll make sure these are sent along in advance of the webcast, and they’ll be picking the best from the lot.

Here’s what they’re saying about the webcast:

You will learn the best practices of some of the most successful start-ups on the planet (like PayPal and LinkedIn), and how these strategies can be applied to your career — no matter your industry or job function. You will learn how to launch career plans amid uncertainty; how to change jobs based on what you learn; how to generate breakout opportunities; how to take intelligent risks; how to develop real relationships and build an effective professional network. Most of all, you will learn how to *think* like an entrepreneur when steering the start-up that is your career.

You’re probably already familiar with the authors – Reid Hoffman and Ben Casnocha. Reid is co-founder and executive chairman of LinkedIn and a partner at Greylock. He’s also an active angel investor. Ben is a successful entrepreneur and author. He’s got a great blog. He has spoken to more than ten thousand students and businesspeople in countries around the world.

If you’re an entrepreneur, sitting on the fence thinking about it, or just looking for a little inspiration, I think this webcast will be well worth it.

Why isn’t there a box for Competition on the Lean Canvas?

Someone asked me this question recently, and it’s a good one. Understanding your competition is important, but ultimately it should have very little impact on what you do. For starters, your biggest competitor is likely not another company, but in fact the most difficult alternative to overcome: doing nothing. Getting people to change from a “good enough” option or from not doing anything at all is often a Herculean task. And we haven’t even started talking about competition.

Investors like to know about competitors. They like to see that you understand the landscape and have the appropriate industry knowledge to navigate through and around them. But you’re not building a company to raise funding (it’s not a goal, just a part of the process, potentially…)

The Lean Canvas is designed to be testable. You can take any section of it and test your assumptions through experimentation. Maybe you’re pointing your solution at the wrong target market, or maybe you have the wrong go-to-market strategy. You put in your assumptions, figure out how to test them and gather results. Then rinse and repeat through the riskiest to least riskiest aspects of your business.

Competition really doesn’t play a role in there. You can’t run experiments with the competition. You can’t even learn that much from what they’re doing (just as they can’t learn much from you) because all you see is what they’re showing you on the outside. You don’t really know what they’ve learned behind the scenes. In fact, that’s one of your competitive advantages. While it’s safe to assume that more mature competitors know more than you, it’s also very likely that they’re not going about things as rigorously as they could. Lean Canvas (and Lean Startup) can be a competitive advantage if you can test and learn your way through it incredibly quickly. Younger competitors that are “behind you” may try and copy you, but who cares? What they see is three steps behind where you already are based on what you’ve learned.

Ultimately it’s up to you to find a competitive differentiator that truly matters. If you can’t, you’re finished. And digging deep into competitors won’t help you discover a competitive advantage either; talking to and working with customers will.

You shouldn’t ignore competitors. It’s important that you know what’s going on in your market – that you have your “finger on the pulse” – but initially as you’re validating (or invalidating) your business, don’t get caught obsessing over them. You’ll get overwhelmed. Instead, build your startup with all the rigor and speed you can muster. Leverage tools like Lean Canvas (and models like Lean Startup) to ingrain an insane amount of focus and intensity. You don’t win by mindlessly reacting to what competitors are doing (or what you think they’re doing). You can’t succeed by differentiating yourself without proof that the differentiation actually matters to customers. Spend too much time watching competitors and you’ll get absolutely nothing of value done.