"Our chief want in life is someone who will inspire us to be what we know we could be."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

In my last role at Cisco, I managed an organization with 7,000 employees and $11B in revenues. From that rather high perch, I stepped into the leadership of Joost - a much smaller organization with great ambitions. Others have done this transition before, but I’ve found it fascinating as it has required a good degree of rewiring for me.

A lot of people asked me which one I like better. Since I’m at Joost now, the “politically correct” answer would be leading a smaller organization, of course. But in reality, I’ve enjoyed both tremendously. While there are definitely differences between the two, fortunately, there are many similarities which have allowed me to apply lessons from Cisco to my life at Joost. After all, leadership is leadership, and while the tactics differ, the overarching elements are very much the same in whatever organization you lead.

I’m too busy managing this small company to cover everything, but I have outlined what I believe to be the most salient similarities and differences between managing the two environments.

Similarities:

(1) Vision and goals. In both big and small companies, you need to have a vision and goals. Employees have to be inspired by the vision and driven by the goals. While the size of the vision is different between large and small companies, its still provides a guiding light for employees and key motivation factor. Goals are fundamental too. It's important to remember that goals come in every size and shape, so in even a bigger company the goals can be quite bit-sized for the smaller groups.

(2) Metrics and accountability. While accountability is easier to track in a small company, it is no less important to embrace it. Employees need to feel that they "own" the result and that the must deliver them. Having a good set of metrics to measure those result are critical. Whether large or small - organizations without metrics have an awfully difficult time building great product and services.

(3) Hiring a great team. No surprise here. Behind every great organization is a great team. In small companies, there seems to be a premium in great ideas ... but there are many good ideas in the world. There are far fewer teams that can execute on those ideas. While the type of team you recruit may differ between a big and small company - the value of team creation is equally important in both cases.

(4) Consistency. One of the most important things I have found in managing over the last 15 years has been the importance of consistency of direction. Especially in an Internet world where things change at a frenetic pace, it’s important to have a sense of direction and to stick with it. Larger companies work in different time horizons (see below), but they have an equally hard time sticking with their direction as small companies do. Now, many people reading this will say - "wrong, it’s important to change." Of course, it’s important to change - no argument on this front, but it’s the frequency of change that I have an issue with. If you change too frequently, you tend to chase your tail a lot.

Differences:

(1) Breadth of scope. Larger companies have the blessing of being able to work on a wide range of activities: multiple product lines; diverse technological approaches; different target markets; and so forth. Focus is always important in defining scope for any organization. But for a small company, it's a matter of life and death. If you spread yourself too thin, chase too many markets, make multiple technology bets ... more often than not, you will run out of money and hit a wall. This is tricky when you are loaded up with entrepreneurs in your company - because the instinct of an entrepreneur is to always challenge every convention. But having a clear and narrow scope is really fundamental for success ... after a while, you can broaden your scope - but only after the organization has the capacity to execute on it.

(2) Time horizons. Some strategies take time - especially when they are dependent on external factors that are outside of the control of the organization. Larger companies that have established businesses models and a self-sustaining cash flow can operate in time horizons that let those long term strategies play out. For a smaller organization, this is a tougher battle. For one, you only have so much cash, but beyond that, you also have the limited attention span that employees will dedicate to you. In a start-up, you really have to think in a 2-3 year horizon - maximum. Beyond that, you may be chasing a strategy that you don't have the resources to achieve.

(3) People. Some people are lucky enough to be able to operate in very diverse environments, but that is the exception rather than the rule. Most professionals have a sweet spot that they operate in and it’s critical to recognize that and have the right people at the right time in organizations. The "sweet spot" can be defined in many ways and for many reasons. A sweet spot can be the size of an organization that a professional is comfortable in, or it can be the breadth of a market segment. But most people - whether is because the like it that way or because they just don't have the adaptability to change - will have a sweet spot. Small companies need employees with a high tolerance for risk and uncertainty; they need employees that roll up their sleeves rather than delegate. They need employees with both specific skill sets because there is limited time to learn new things on the job and a comfort with uncharted territory. Larger companies tend to need more management who delegates; they can also afford to have generalists or "career path" people throughout the organization. This can prove to be a great asset for larger companies because not everyone knows their "sweet spot" from day 1.

As we progress here at Joost, I am sure that I will have a few to add to the list, but I am looking forward to the day that I will have “big company problems” at this little start-up.

For the past two Thursdays, SK Gaming, one of world's top WoW (that's World of Warcraft, for those of you not in the know) guilds has been taking on the Sunwell instance live on Joost. They're going at it again later today, (and next Thursday too), so we thought, what better time then to tell you what goes on behind the scenes here when we do a test of our live service?

(Full disclosure - this actually comes through my colleague Guido, who handles most of our support issues - so apparently, your inquiring minds want to know.)

Here on the scene, in Leiden, we have a group of people on standby. During March Madness, this meant that people didn't get much sleep - fortunately, the WoW event is held at 8 p.m. CET (2 p.m .EDT) so our LIVE team is much more rested these days. The technology that powers LIVE is complex, to say the least, and though it's working better every week, we want to make sure that there are real live people available to solve any issues and guard the streams and their delivery.

We find out about issues viewers might be having through the Channel Chat (go to My Joost -> Widget Menu and choose Channel Chat if you want to join). A bunch of employees participate on the Channel Chat to answer questions and make sure we work as quickly as possible to solve any issues.

How is it working? Well, it's getting better every week. Check it out at SK Gaming Does Sunwell LIVE, (by the way, my sources tell me that Sunwell is the hardest WoW instance) and let us know what you think. We're also re-"broadcasting" each instance through our VOD service, so if you want to catch up on all the action before tonight's raid instance, you can check them out here.

Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer.
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

Consumers want ample and unfettered access to the Internet. They want lots of megabits at low prices without caps and thresholds and blocks. Adam Smith wasn’t big on Facebook, but he has the right idea to get consumers what they want today.

For a brief period after the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the U.S. was flush with shiny new ISPs laying fiber and offering attractive Internet services to consumers. During the Internet bubble, capital was easily accessible and billions of dollars were invested in the creation of broadband infrastructure.

That all stopped in 2001 when the telco bubble went the way of the Internet bubble and investors went off to buy subprime mortgages (not to mention the fact that enforcing the Telecommunications Act became an afterthought).

Since then, the ISP market has steadily been consolidating to a smaller number of more powerful carriers. In most markets, US consumers have the choice of only two ISPs. In some markets, there’s only one choice (which is not much of a choice at all). Advocates of Net Neutrality legislation have witnessed a steady path back to Ma Bell. Concentration of power in the hands of a few business behemoths makes us all nervous, so the Net Neutrality crew has proposed that we regulate ISPs so that traffic cannot be blocked or “managed.”

Now, our company provides video services on the Internet, so we should be the first to cry wolf and want regulation against the big bad guys. Not to mention that as a dyed-in-the-wool Silicon Valley guy, I should be going along with Vint Cerf and crew. But it turns out that’s the wrong answer, because it’s treating the symptom and not the cause of the problem.

Most economists will tell you that two players in one market makes for pretty bad competition. That’s the real problem. If there is sufficient competition in the market for broadband services, companies would win over consumers by offering them ample broadband at low prices. Just look at the bandwidth pricing that corporations get at data centers. It’s been dropping like a rock for years. Why? Because unlike the consumer market, there is plenty of competition in the data center bandwidth market.

The challenge with creating competition in the broadband market is that building a national network (with any technology – wired or wireless) requires a lot of capital – capital that is not so available in these economically challenged times. The two existing broadband networks – built with telephone wires or coaxial cables – both received governmental help in their creation – one through taxpayer dollars (Ma Bell) and the other through franchise rights that were granted to cable operators.

If the Federal Communications Commission and other regulatory bodies are to create a competitive playing field, the answer is to figure out how to encourage the investment dollars and reduce the capital requirements for building the third and fourth major broadband networks. There are lots of ways to do this. Set aside good wireless spectrum that the dominant carriers can’t have access to, or give tax breaks to newcomers that are building consumer broadband infrastructures for a few years. Basically, signal to the people who have the capital, “Hey, put your money at risk and we’ll make it worth your while, because we think it’s good for America.”*

As for the technology of choice – wireless, like WiMax or LTE, or wireline, like fiber – it doesn’t matter that much. Smart engineers and entrepreneurs will figure out how to make the best use of the asset that is available them. If we can put 25Mbps on a 100-year old copper plant … we can figure out how to do anything.

So there you have it. Regulation has a heck of time keeping up with the world of fast-moving technology businesses. Just set the groundwork for a competitive environment, and let Adam Smith rip.

* If you want to see an example of where regulatory policy jump started competition and the build out of residential broadband, you can look to France or Japan (and if you live in one of those countries, consider yourself lucky, because you probably have a faster broadband connection for less money than the average American pays for his slower connection).

“I want my MTV.”
- Dire Straits

I used to be in the telecommunications business and have always admired the evolution of cellular telephony. When mobile phones were originally introduced, they were not a substitute for landline phone. They were designed for use in places where there was no access to landline phones – in your car, at a conference, on the beach – few people ever used a mobile phone in the presence of a landline phone. But over time, as prices dropped, quality improved and mobile phone service became richer and richer – they became a substitute for landline phones. In fact, many of us rarely use a plain old telephone anymore. We have become such avid users of contact lists, SMS/MMS, call logs, Google maps – an endless source of mobile information at our fingertips … that the landline phone is the functional equivalent of a paperweight on our desks.

The mobile phone revolution took 15 years.

When I look at our industry – essentially, video and entertainment over the Internet – I see a similar pattern evolving. I anticipate our transformation will probably take less time – thanks to innovations like the mobile phone, people are more comfortable with technology and, in fact, there are now multiple generations who have never known a world without personal technology …

But as much as video over the Internet has been hyped and discussed – and we all know it has been, and for some time now – I I think the core issue still eludes the broadly accepted view of this service. The most common questions I get about Joost are always about the quality of the video. Our quality is excellent, particularly for the amount of bandwidth we consume (about 500 kbps). But, nestled in the question itself is the fallacy about video on the Internet today.

Most people seem to think of the Internet as just another “pipe” to your home, just like cable or satellite. As a technical matter, the Internet is just another broadband pipe to your home. But this view completely misses the crux of what the Internet represents: a social, entertainment and business medium.

In its simplest sense, the Internet is a collection of computing devices that communicate with each other to disseminate data or information. That data can take any form – text, images, sound, or video. The nice thing about the Internet is that it doesn’t really care about what it’s carrying. Whether it’s a blog, an image, an instant message, or a blockbuster movie – to the Internet, it’s just bits.

What makes the Internet different and better than from other informational or entertainment delivery “pipes” is that it is both fast and bi-directional.

Fast is obviously necessary when you’re talking about an application as data-heavy as video (although nowadays, if I had to use dial-up to download my email, I’d be pretty frustrated). But the bi-directionality is a real breakthrough when you’re talking about video entertainment. No entertainment medium has ever incorporated audience participation on such a massive scale. Yes, you can “vote” on American Idol via SMS. But really, that is the electronic equivalent of a homing pigeon. The explosion of social networking as a phenomenon offers us a clue as to the underlying power of audience participation. The whole experience of watching TV can be completely transformed on the Internet.

To realize how the Internet can change video entertainment, consider the cycle of watching video in a TV-world, and watch the Internet transform it. In the TV world, your friends tell you about their favorite shows while standing around the watercooler … but on the Internet, they share their favorites through their virtual voices: Twitter, Facebook, IM and email. While you’re watching TV on the couch, you enjoy and share your emotions about the show with your friends verbally … on the Internet, you share those moments with anyone, anywhere – in real time. After you watch the show, you went back to the watercooler to share your opinions of it … on the Internet, your ratings, opinions, comments and thoughts can live on in perpetuity, and your friends can respond back.

So all of the wonderful physical experiences that made TV viewing so much better exist – and can be enhanced – with the Internet. We just haven’t done it quite right yet – we haven’t made it easy enough for the consumer. The world still thinks of the Internet as just one big virtual DVD player to play and replay TV’s greatest hits … so let’s see how long it takes before that changes.

“Let’s get together and feel all right.”
Bob Marley

Video entertainment is social. When we’re in front of a television set, we are often with someone. How many times have you felt “left out” when all your friends watched that show last night and you missed it?

So far, viewing video on the Internet has been pretty solitary. You watch your video, have a chuckle and move onto the next. If you’re feeling particularly impressed, you send an email or IM to your friends with a link to the video – and that’s the extent of it. I’ve even gone to parties where we’ve klutzily attached our computers to a projector (“borrowed” from work) and gathered on couches to uncomfortably navigate through clips together. That’s just an example of how much we want to share our videos with our friends.

We love to laugh together, be amazed together, horrified and excited together. Those shared experiences are some of the most entertaining moments for us. Unfortunately, that shared experience is hard to come by online today.

So what can we do about it? Well, Facebook, for one, has taught us some important lessons through its success. Why is it that viewing photos is better on Facebook? It’s because Facebook has placed viewing photos in the context of our social engagement. It’s not just about viewing photos – when I post and tag a photo on Facebook, someone else often comments on it. Another friend is notified that someone commented my photo – so curiosity gets the best of them and they go see what the photo is about. As they surf over to see this photo, they find five others that are interesting and comment on those too … and so the cycle continues.

Facebook has masterfully recreated the simple act of looking through a photo album as a family and placed it online so that we can share or albums seamlessly with our networks. They have done it by creating a set of communication tools that are simple to use and make it easy for us to connect with friends and family everywhere.

The world needs the same thing for Internet video – a set of community tools surrounding video that make it easy for us to recreate the experience of sitting on the couch or dishing at the watercooler. It’s all about recreating the togetherness of watching a great show – except with your friends everywhere in the world – from the ones down the street to the ones in Rio de Janeiro.

These tools have to encompass the full video experience. They have to capture the moment, but also capture what comes before and what comes after you watch the show. The beautiful thing about creating those tools is that they take advantage of one of the things that the internet is brilliant at – connecting people. Our laughs, our tears, our outrage, and our enthusiasm can all be shared with people we know and love (or not) … anywhere in the world.