Joost Blog

"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.