Ever find your team debating a decision in which there are two very different yet justifiable solutions to a given problem? We all have.

Very often these are the most contentious and most complicated decisions simply because despite rigorous review and research there just isn't a clear answer. With no right or wrong, smart people seem to line up behind one set of rational conclusions or another, sometimes pitching battles that can last for weeks or even months without a victor.

In most organizations these are the moments when the CEO is supposed to intervene and make the final decision. While that can get you to a conclusion, the CEO may not know which path to take. So, what should the CEO do? Flip a coin?

Whether the debate surrounds a pricing strategy or feature set, very often the only way to find the right answer is through trial-and-error. Pick a strategy, try it in the market and then re-evaluate if necessary. It's an ugly system, but in many of these cases it's the only way to figure out what to do.

So if that's the case, which path should the CEO try first? The answer might lie in the rule of the one-way street. It's pretty simple. Identify which strategy it would be easier to abandon and start with that first. If it's easier to switch from strategy A to B (then vice versa), then start with strategy A. If you're unsure about which price point, start higher—your customers will be more forgiving of a price break in the future than if you start low and need to increase.

You're not going to make every decision perfectly without market reactions, so always do your best to give yourself room to correct. This mindset should help you unravel some of the most complicated decisions on the horizon.

This post originally appeared on Inc.com.

Kohort was asked by the Startup America Partnership to help celebrate their 1-year anniversary. Alison and I ended up ringing the bell at the NYSE. The video is below.

PS - the "bell" is actually a big green button.

During my first week at Columbia Business School in the fall of 2007, class was interrupted to do an exercise with an improv troop. Not being much of a thespian, I scowled thinking that my time was about to be wasted. I was totally wrong.

While the leaders of this exercise were actors by trade, they came to Columbia to teach us how to brainstorm. Improv is a unique cross-section of theater and comedy. What's special about it is the absence of a script. With no plans, preparation, or choreography a group of people can create a story on the fly, and do so seamlessly.

The key to the technique I learned then, and have since adapted at Kohort, is a two word phrase: "Yes…and…"

While it's a simple little phrase, it's an important one. "Yes…and…" encourages momentum, fluidity, and acceleration in a conversation. No matter what someone mentions before you, if you build on it by saying "yes…and…" the conversation is taken down unexpected paths.

I've found what's so special about this system is that it can transform the most idiotic comments into brilliant insights. When someone provides unfiltered, knee-jerk reactions to another person's suggestions, we have the opportunity to tap into new ways of thinking. Pinned together, a series of knee-jerk reactions can take ideas further and further from conventional thinking, triggering a stroke of genius.

The key to this system is that anything goes. By encouraging people to share any obscure and even bizarre ideas for solving a problem, you introduce new color and perspective that can help other people in the room think about a new dimension of the issue, igniting profound and deeply rational solutions. One person's wacky suggestion can help unearth a deep insight from another person.

We keep the rules for our brainstorming sessions quite simple. We start by all throwing out ideas for the topic of the day, we review them as a team and select one. I then start the brainstorming session by asking the problem as a question.

"How can we promote our product?"

Then the team starts to work their magic.

The first rule is that every person must start their response with the phrase, "Yes…and..."

"Yes..and…" we can rent a hot air balloon."

"Yes..and…" we can fly it over a baseball game."

And so on. No matter how crazy the ideas are we write them on the whiteboard.

The only other rule is that no one is allowed to use the word "no" or ever react negatively to an idea. If "yes…and…" is the gas pedal, "no" is a giant screeching break. It interrupts the rhythm and makes people embarrassed to offer their otherwise ridiculous knee-jerk reactions—killing the creative process.

The vast majority of our brainstorm suggestions are wacky. But the hour-long exercise usually yields some very compelling ideas—ideas we use in our business and would have been far worse off without.

This post originally appeared in Inc.com.

For techies who are nestled in their startup caves some of the major web properties (Google, Wikipedia, etc) protested SOPA/PIPA yesterday by either shutting down their sites or changing some of the content on their homepages.  

While we have a smaller reach at this point, Kohort participated in this movement by replacing the product overview video on our homepage with a video about the issue.  You can check out the video & take action here.

For those who haven't been following the issue or don't fully understand what it's about - check out the video below - the Khan Academy does a great job of explaining the bill & it's implications.

Everyone should be aware and concerned about this to save the web.

Once a company starts operating, brainstorming often falls by the wayside. But there's a cost to that—big ideas get missed and, unexpectedly, your team's morale may lag.

So every week I huddle with the team at Kohort for a brainstorming session. The group and I meet every Wednesday at 5PM. If we don't have a topic we need to address, we brainstorm one. Sometimes we brainstorm about the future, working through how we want the company to operate years down the road.

While at first glance, this might seem like a waste of time, I know it's not. While it does consume the attention of everyone on the team for an hour—and adds up to quite a few man-hours—it's invaluable.

Brainstorming forces everyone to get out of the weeds and focus on the big picture. It's a chance to come up for air and remember how the whole project fits together and why we're here. Brainstorming makes the North Star shine a little brighter.

Brainstorming forces us all to think deeply and critically. We unveil new ideas and illuminate previously unnoticed shortcomings. We find ways to be better. Sometimes, we change our path.

Most importantly, brainstorming unifies our team. The act of brainstorming weaves our various ideas, hopes, and dreams together. It defines a vision for each topic that unifies divergent perspectives and aligns us more closely around a common goal. In this way, it also—I believe—is helping us to reach our potential.

This was originally posted on Inc.com.

The cultural norms in the venture capital industry change. What I mean is that deal terms – valuation, control rights and beyond – change over time. A sweetheart deal last year is an outrage this year.

A few years back a typical Series A round was characterized by a $1-5 million investment. As capital requirements for tech startups took a noise dive, entrepreneurs began to seek smaller rounds of capital – they could prove milestones and potentially reduce their total dilution by raising less money initially. Entrepreneurs demanded and investors listened – seed investments came into vogue like jean shorts in the early 80s.

While Seed rounds started out as $100-500K slugs, as they became popular and investors dog-piled in seed rounds have increased in their bite size to $750-2 million. As a result, Seed rounds have inched up to look more and more like the Series A of old leaving many entrepreneurs with an increasingly hard time finding investors who would give them their very first $100-500K.

To help entrepreneurs, today High Peaks is announcing its Seedlet Program.  After just a meeting or two, we’ll write small checks ($50K to $150K of a round up to $500K). You can read more about the program here.

Want to learn more? My partner Brad Svrluga also wrote a post on the topic here.

There's some very interesting research presented in this TED talk about how our biochemistry drives our happiness & good intentions.  

Interestingly his studies have shown the engaging people in our lives through social media also triggers the biochemistry that makes us happy.

Check it out.

 

The phrase ‘minimum viable product’ has become part of the start-up lexicon. It’s a useful term for that significant milestone in the start-up life cycle—when an entrepreneur has built a stripped-down most basic version of his or her product so he can begin to get customers and feedback.

Borrowing from this phrase, I’ve found myself highlighting a different inflection point in the start-up lifecycle: when it has a ‘minimum viable team.’ This is the group of initial employees that enable the CEO to focus exclusively on performing the duties that CEOs are supposed to do.

At each stage of start-up development, additional employees increasingly specialize in their roles. In the extreme, when founders first setup shop they do everything. Founder-CEOs initially act as CEO, CTO, head of HR, head of sales, administrative assistant, junior operations managers, and mail boy. As the company grows, those functions are divested to members of the team who specialize in those respective areas.

Eventually founder-CEOs find themselves entering a state of operational nirvana in which they transcend into handling only the core responsibilities of the CEO. In my view, this is a very short list limited to: strategic alignment, company culture, talent recruitment and optimization, and broadly being the firm’s face for marketing and fundraising.This nirvana is likely to be interrupted. When a team changes, the CEO may temporarily pick up slack. The inherent volatility of running a new company will also inevitably bring unexpected challenges that sit on the rocky banks of the CEO’s river of duties.

For some CEOs, there isn’t a team large enough to liberate him or her from non-core tasks. A CEO also needs to be capable of appropriately delegating, and giving over certain responsibilities, so that the minimum viable team can free up the CEO.

Whether or not the minimum viable team phrase makes it into the mainstream start-up terminology, the concept should, as CEOs should be working toward developing an environment in which they can focus 100 percent on properly doing their job…and only their job.

This post originally ran on Inc.

I came across this TED talk over the weekend.  The speaker argues that the greatest driver of social issues in developed countries is economic disparity within the country, not the actual growth rate of the economy.  In other words, he argues that once you're wealthy enough growth is less important than relative equality.

Kind of a big concept.

From the read of it - there is some controversy around his work, but should make for some interesting discussion/ food for thought.  

Worth a watch.

 

You probably don't know nearly as much as you think you do. I certainly don't. In the spectrum of knowledge even the most insightful human only sees a sliver of light.

Here's the beginning of a long list of what you—and all entrepreneurs—don't know:

• What people are feeling in other parts of the world 
• What folks are concerned about elsewhere in your city 
• What is happening outside of your front door 
• What the whole story is behind anything you are told
• What's happening right behind you 
• What your body is doing right now 
• Why you have your worldview 

The list goes on and on. We really don't know much. To say we know even 1 percent of what's happening would be a gargantuan overstatement.

So how are we able to make decisions?

In our heart-of-hearts we all believe that we make decisions about our personal lives and work based upon the facts—our understanding of the context of the choice. But if you think about it, we typically make decisions based upon only a sliver of what we actually need to know.

"It's a good idea to buy this house because it suits my needs and the value is lower than it was last year."

Well, what happens when you discover your wife is pregnant with twins, the local mayor is thinking about proposing a tax hike next week, your boss is thinking about relocating you to another country, or a flood is on its way?

"I should target kids as customers because they're in need of my product."

Well, what happens when you discover that one of your suppliers put lead in the plastic, grandmas love your product even more than kids, or a competitor you've never heard of is on the verge of launching a slightly better, faster, cheaper version of what you built (and oh yeah…she patented it)?

When you start to think about what you don't know it might seem a bit paralyzing. If you don't know nearly enough to make a decision, how can you continue to run your business?

The answer: You can continue to operate. You can continue to move quickly. But, you have to do so knowing your primary limitation: You're ignorant. You don't know much of anything.

So what does knowing that you don't know much tell you? A few things:

1. You need to listen…a lot. 
2. You're going to get it wrong. 
3. You should be ready to change directions when you do get it wrong. 
4. You need to be ready to forgive yourself for screwing up.

From a business perspective, there's only one comforting thing in all of this: Nobody else knows anything either.

This was first published on Inc.com.