[HN Gopher] Part II: The failure points from $5M to $100M in ARR ___________________________________________________________________ Part II: The failure points from $5M to $100M in ARR Author : tyoung Score : 159 points Date : 2023-01-12 17:23 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (tracy.posthaven.com) (TXT) w3m dump (tracy.posthaven.com) | candybar wrote: | On the whole, this is a fairly good write-up but this is just not | right: | | > Being at a startup is hard in a way that is almost | indescribable to anyone who hasn't experienced it. | | Being at a startup as an employee isn't necessarily hard. You | hear this type of "startup is so hard" because running companies | well is hard and successful startups will often grow faster than | their founders are able to grow their own ability to run | companies, which makes their own job challenging. And a lot of | startups are poorly run in ways that are entirely avoidable | (often as a result of their CEOs not being able to grow as | quickly as their company) which can make life hard for the | employees as well. But this isn't a necessary part of the startup | experience. | metadat wrote: | Most non-startup jobs tend to be well-defined and come with a | pre-existing business strategy and existing resources, such as | a project codebase and existing at least semi-working solution | to which one can inspect and add to. | | Contrast this with startup companies, where it's often required | to explore and build completely new things from the thin air of | the ether. I'm not saying other jobs don't also have elements | of this, as new projects and opportunities do emerge, but being | at a startup is definitely an extreme situation and arguably a | different game. In the meta lens, it can be viewed as the act | of mining the veins of market realities for golden ideas. | | It's for the risk takers and adventurers. I've witnessed many a | great engineer learn it's too undefined which can be | uncomfortable, and is not a good fit for them. | | It's nothing personal, along the exact same lines as some folks | who can't stand working for a large company. | | Different strokes and all that. This form of diversity is one | of the beautiful things about the spectrum of humanity. In | aggregate, it works! | kolbe wrote: | I got the impression that the 2022 late stage funding implosion | was also the death of ARR as a be-all growth metric. It got | Goodhart's Law'd to death after all the companies that went | public at huge valuations based on ARR turned out to not be as | "recurring" as investors would have liked. | Ataraxic wrote: | I wonder if you have more context or numbers. What companies | are you thinking of. I remember companies like WeWork and | Coinbase dropping in valuation but what more traditional Saas | companies have run into this sort of hurdle? | | I'd argue that ARR is still a good measure just not the growth | at all costs, w/e it takes to get toe 100M ARR/Unicorn status | anymore. After all, sales is sales and if you don't have | repeatable sales you probably don't have much of anything. | kolbe wrote: | There are many shenanigans that startups can play to juice | ARR to render it meaningless. The idea isn't terrible, but | that's why I invoked Goodhart's Law. | | > After all, sales is sales and if you don't have repeatable | sales you probably don't have much of anything. | | That's right, but you're missing the key that it's a | necessary, but _not sufficient_ requirement. When the pool of | investments is 90% with ARR are honest and straightforward, | then it 's good to use ARR as a metric. But when the pool | changes to 50% or less who are honest (as Goodhart would | predict), the metric loses value. | georgeecollins wrote: | I hate this BS about A managers hire A people, B people hire C | etc. This is total MBA thinking (I think it comes form GE, or at | least they espoused it) on a forum where people routinely mock | MBAs. | | I have been lucky to work in a field where teams frequently work | in parallel and success or failure is pretty clear cut. And teams | are often stratified based on the priority of project. Many | times-- not always -- the "B" team crushes the "A" team. Why? | Some reasons include: the A team is performative and focused on | the things that burnish the careers and reputation of its | members. B teams have more of a sense of the wolf being at the | door and that if they don't perform their task they will feel the | consequence. Being underdogs promotes teamwork. | | Obviously people have profound differences in their strengths and | weaknesses and some people are completely inappropriate. But | calling people stars or A player covers up a lot of lazy thinking | that includes a lot of bias. I have worked at smaller startups | that say "we only hire A players". Obviously that is delusional | but worse it covered up the more profound questions. Why did you | hire the wrong person? Why did that person or team fail? | Swizec wrote: | An A player from Google will fail at a 10 person startup. An A | player from a 10 person startup will choke on FAANG bureaucracy | and fail. | | Fit matters. You wouldn't hire Jim Carey for a DiCaprio role. | mooreds wrote: | This is an underappreciated truth. | | The corollary is: find out where you thrive and go there. | | Don't beat yourself up if you get spun out of a FAANG, or a | startup or a smallco or a bootstrap or a founding role or a | mid-tier enterprise. Don't contort to a role or company that | isn't a fit. | | If you have solid skills, you can find a place. | albertgoeswoof wrote: | You obviously haven't seen eternal sunshine of the spotless | mind | Swizec wrote: | I have. Pretty sure I've seen every movie he was in, huge | fan. | | He's a great actor, but he hasn't shown the range that | other A-listers have. Whether that's because of skill, | interest, or typecasting, I couldn't say. | rockostrich wrote: | Kind of dumb to say an actor that's clearly proven he has | immense range when there are so many other obvious | choices. Vin Diesel for example is an A-list star who | clearly does not have anywhere the range that Carrey or | DiCaprio have. | lencastre wrote: | Bestest movie together with Lost in Translation | googlryas wrote: | Can I guess you're between 37 and 42 years old. | pryelluw wrote: | Jim Carey as the protagonist of titanic does sound like a | great movie. I'm sure he would have found space on that piece | of wood and survived. | kingforaday wrote: | I saw this over the holiday period last month. James | Cameron commissioned a study because he got sick of people | yelling at him for killing Jack. | | https://www.insider.com/james-cameron-had-forensic- | analysis-... | neilv wrote: | > _" We took two stunt people who were the same body mass | of Kate and Leo and we put sensors all over them and | inside them and we put them in ice water and we tested to | see whether they could have survived through a variety of | methods and the answer was, there was no way they both | could have survived. Only one could survive," he said._ | | This is peak underappreciated stuntpeople. | rockostrich wrote: | Speaking in absolutes is never useful even though I think | this advice might apply when looking for a new role, but | small companies tend to grow if you help them succeed so it | would be difficult to say your fit is at 10 person companies | when that means you would have to jump ship every year just | to stay in your comfort zone. | | I joined my current company when it was 40 people (and around | 10 developers). Almost 6 years later we're ~1500 and the | engineering org is something like 200-300. I think I was most | comfortable around 20 or so developers but that doesn't mean | I can't make continue to have meaningful impact now that | there's an order of magnitude more people and the org has | completely changed. | | I've seen folks who were supposedly "A player"s from small | start-ups and FAANG join the company at different stages. | Some succeed and some fail but I never noticed any | correlation between current size of the company they're | currently thriving at and our size when they joined. | | Fit is never going to be perfect so don't give up on | something just because it might be a little uncomfortable. | Give up if you've tried to make it work and it's clear you | can't find a way to have impact. | vasco wrote: | In general good people will be able to identify good people | (colloquially: game recognizes game). And good people will know | they are being interviewed by someone who is not so good, and | they won't want to join. A hires A. | | Additionally, people who are not so good tend to be threatened | by good people. So they will rather hire someone that won't | threaten or "find them out". B hires C. | toss1 wrote: | Yup, this is the one thing that struck me wrong in the essay. | | After spending multiple paragraphs about how they found that | they had to dig much deeper into the background of every exec, | getting 10+ references from reports, peers, and their managers, | and developing specific lists of red flags . . .they end the | section with: "Takeaway: Always trust your gut on people. " | | Yes, for sure, if you 'gut' tells you something is off about | someone, seriously consider and trust that also, but what was | really effective was not gut-trusting, but gathering more hard | data and observations to evaluate. | | Just seems like the author didn't really think it through. | naijaboiler wrote: | I have hired before. A few times. "Trust my gut" is still the | best predictor of success for me. Every hire i have talked | myself into didn't end up working out. Nowadays for hiring, i | live by, "if it's not a strong yes, it's not a yes" | candybar wrote: | This is just garden-variety narcissism telling you that when | you made the right decision, you were right and even when you | made the wrong decision, you were actually right all along, | you just let your true self be overridden. In reality, a lot | of difficult decisions involve you being on both sides of the | decision at different times, so it's very easy to look back | on any wrong decision you made and decide that the real issue | was not trusting yourself. | | I'm also a bit surprised that she's throwing the "big company | executive" under the bus here, given that it's very easy to | identify who this is. She doesn't seem to be merely saying | that the fit was the issue, given this: | | > 1. They frequently use the wrong pronoun "I" followed by | "[contribution to the company]". | | > 2. You dread having 1-1s with them. | | > 3. They blame you or their peers. | | > 4. They complain laterally and downwards. | methyl wrote: | I think it's trusting your gut when it says ,,no", not that | you can trust only your gut when it comes to hiring. Wasn't | clear but that's how I understand it and agree. | gumby wrote: | > A managers hire A people, B people hire C etc | | If that is the case, how do the B people get jobs in the first | place? Who hires them? | Nevermark wrote: | The same reason A engineers can put out B work: | resource/time/reward tradeoffs and the inevitable unknowns. | nikanj wrote: | Nepotism | [deleted] | [deleted] | mbesto wrote: | > Many times-- not always -- the "B" team crushes the "A" team. | Being underdogs promotes teamwork. | | It's clear you don't understand what A and B people are then. | If the "B team" is crushing the "A Team", then they aren't the | "B team". Also, notice how you switched "player" with "team"? | The quote is "A players hire A players", not "team". | | The point is that top tier individuals typically hire top tier | individuals. The reason this notion isn't so clear cut is | because its hard to identify A players before the fact. It's a | retrospective truthism. | endisneigh wrote: | Seems like a no true Scotsman | reasonabl_human wrote: | Thanks so much for sharing these insights! Especially the | humanizing points around life still unfolding around you | regardless of how much success you achieve. | lbriner wrote: | A common theme seems to be founders who want to keep all the cool | stuff about being a small business while they scale to the ARR of | a corporate. It can't happen. 1000 people don't all care about | some new feature shipped by someone over in the payments team so | don't subject them to it. | | Most of us have been there in the painfull all-hands meeting | falling asleep because the more people you have, the less they | will care about the business. In a a team of 5, I have a lot of | skin in the game and also a lot of influence. In a company with | 100K employees, most of us are just a cog and some cogs don't | even move anything! | dilyevsky wrote: | I could see it happening in b2c just not your regular b2b saas | [deleted] | xenadu02 wrote: | As employee #36 I lived through some of these things first hand | and definitely agree with them (I think we were over 200 people | when I left). | | It was painful going through the enterprise focus transition | along with a nonsensical reorg imposed by the aforementioned Big | Tech VP. One day we had focused platform-specific teams working | on satisfying customers, the next we were moved to cross- | functional feature teams and focused on enterprise features that | (from our perspective) no one ever asked for. | | I also felt the sting from mediocre engineering managers. I | remember sitting down with Tracy and Ralph at Uptown Bar and | giving them both barrels on what I thought of several managers. | To their credit those managers weren't working there very long | after that conversation. | | IIRC Ralph asked if I wanted to move to being a manager and I | declined but in hindsight I think that was a mistake - we needed | good management in engineering more than we needed my code. | | Another thing that hurt us was hiring a bunch of PMs. Most of | them were condescending, ignorant, or both... but suddenly they | were telling the engineers who had built everything what to do? | IIRC we could have cut that department down to two people with no | loss. | | The leader of this product team was a manager that just didn't | seem to be doing his job, only pushing paperwork and giving | scatterbrained presentations. I never did find out why he was | kept on so long. I think I very cheekily asked Tracy one time | which of his relatives worked at Y2K or Sequoia such that he | couldn't be fired because it was clear everyone in engineering | was fed up with his nonsense. I'm pretty sure at least several | top engineers quit due to that guy specifically. | | Either way I don't regret my time at PlanGrid. It was a great | team and I'm proud of what the team did and what I did. | Ben-G wrote: | Hah - what a vivid recollection. | | It's been a while - we should catch up soon :) | fakedang wrote: | As an outsider to the tech industry, it seems to me that the | Product Manager/Product Owner role seems to be not only the | most BS role, but also the most damaging role? Considering that | I saw a post a few weeks back, I saw a similar post (I think on | HN itself) where PMs were being fired en masse, I wonder if | there is any real utility with the product team, or if it's | just a holdover from Google doing its thing back in the days | that everyone decided to copy. | ZephyrBlu wrote: | PMs tend to have a lot of leverage, so a bad one makes a very | large negative impact. A good PM is worth their weight in | gold though. | | I think of them as basically glue. They just help make shit | get done. That could be helping co-ordinate between eng and | design, doing customer research, managing expectations, etc. | Whole range of things that different PMs do. | pixiemaster wrote: | I wouldn't agree with the BS label, as a good PM/PO can | really help along. | | but with that kind of role, contribution quality is rarely | assed correctly, and at the same time, the sandwhich role | between contributors, management, and customers, combined | with a usually communication-savvy skillset can be extremely | dangerous. even worse in impact than a highly visible ,,bad" | EVP/SVP. | HatchedLake721 wrote: | Of course there is. | | If not for the PM, who will speak with the customers, gather, | analyze and understand their needs and problems? | | There should be a person that drives the product in the right | direction based on customer conversations. | | In the early stages founder is the product owner. | | But as the company grows, the role of the founder/CEO | changes. You now build the people, and people build the | business. | | Engineers or CEOs building features no one asked for is IMHO | one of the major reasons lots of tech startups fail. | | Awesome idea, cool product, but no one asked for that feature | you were building for 2 months. (guilty here myself) | skrtskrt wrote: | You need both good PMs and an organization that is set up to | utilize PMs well. | vasco wrote: | I good PM does great things if they are very busy across | teams and don't have time to hassle people about shenanigans | and instead talk to users and understand the product deeply. | Many places though have too many PMs that never talk to users | and pretend like they know what they want. | mariambarouma wrote: | Ha! one of the slam-your-own-dick-in-the-door moves that startups | seem destined to repeat | | Seen it SO many times when startups decide they need "grownups" | in big positions to be credible externally | dilyevsky wrote: | Hey it worked for google (eric) and facebook (sheryl) so it | will work for us! | manv1 wrote: | A lot of the enterprise requirements he talked about add no | actual value to the product; they're just checkboxes on an RFP | that are required. | | Theoretically applying all of those requirements to your product | might make your product more secure, scalable, or reliable. It'll | also make your product harder to maintain, harder to test, and | harder to improve. | | Many of those requirements are there because vendors put them | there. If you're part of the RFP process (and you should be if | you're actually selling to that sort of customer) you should be | actively pushing back on requirements that you feel are | pointless...making them optional instead of required, or at the | very least providing a delivery date instead of delivering day 1. | | In the enterprise space there's no guarantee you'll get the | contract; to an extent the decision more political than | technical. You should do a brutal assessment of your actual | chances before engaging in any work implementing their | requirements before the contract is signed. And since the sales | cycle will be at least 6-9 months you'll have plenty of time to | figure things out. | | Lastly, if your product is highly desired the "requirements" can | be bent or delayed. They're guidelines and can be overridden, if | you have the right relationships. | donnythecroc wrote: | Interesting you assumed the female CEO writing this was male. | a_c wrote: | Hiring is like a code base, you have to have the right | abstraction at the right time. Starting out, better everything be | a concrete implementation, that is everyone is directly | responsible for making things work. | | Next is what I found most people doing differently from my ideal | - abstract and refactor base on your existing implementation, not | because of some framework doing it, nor because the previous | project did it this way. Do you need a data access layer, a | library, a folder, to talk to database where the first | implementation was just storing things as a variable? You | probably need a database and plain SQL. Do you need site | reliability engineer to keep your site online while your traffic | all comes from friends? Do you need a QA for testing? Or do you | need a product manager where, as a founder, the value proposition | has yet to be proven? How often do you see a code base spinning | up all the folders/empty files because "we may need it". And how | often when you hire someone, they spin up various incarnation | people * time like teams, sprints, squad, function, _BEFORE_ | understanding the current implementation. This is why you hire | the wrong people. And you know it only 1 year down the road. | Wrong abstraction. Using framework has its appeal, where a cookie | cutter solution mostly work. But it also has its limitation, | bloat. | | Once a wrong abstraction is in place, the more code/people | depends on it, the more effort it takes to refactor | a_c wrote: | Btw, the most important point from OP's is the last one. Life | is fragile, treat people well. That's more important than all | the three letter acronyms in the world. | ipaddr wrote: | "And remember that A players can recruit other A players, but B | players can only recruit C players" | | In point one they list this. In point 3 he mentions his biggest | mistake was hiring someone with starpower from a public company | who didn't work. | | Unless the founder is an A player in terms of recruiting everyone | hired would be a C player or less. And in point 3 we learn he is | not an A player. | | How do B players ever get hired? | georgeecollins wrote: | Your point just illustrates how shallow this analysis is. | oragnediscussy wrote: | The point is that B players have a very hard time ever | recruiting A players and actually almost always hire people | that are worse than themselves (i.e. c players). This is very | true and should be something founders watch out for very | carefully as they scale. | sokoloff wrote: | "Yes and..." I think a lot of times this is _intentional_. | | A player wants to hire A players so the A player can more | effectively beat their rivals in the marketplace. | | B player wants to hire C players so the B player can more | effectively beat their rivals in the company. | molsongolden wrote: | The A player thing is less about how good they are at hiring | and more about how strong of a player they are overall. | Founders generally need to be A players to be successful | founders. | | An A player will still make hiring mistakes but they have the | skills/ability/aura/whatever to convince other A players to | come work with them. | | Many A players won't want to work for/with a B or C player | because they won't see this as a good opportunity. | | Not sure if they actually meant that B players can't hire B | players but maybe. This sort of framing is pretty high level | though. | mlhpdx wrote: | Yep, just put people in bins so you can keep them organized. | It's always worked, so why stop now, right? | | It's not as easy as A and B and C people (or any other | labels). | | I've professionally led a team doing physical labor, and | currently a team of teams doing intellectual labor (software | development) and several between. They have been excellent, | productive and profitable as well as respectful, ethical and | honorable. | | The reasons behind their success are complicated but always | start on the same foundation: respect. Genuine, difficult to | come by, and more difficult to maintain, respect. For the | customer. For the user. For each other. For other | departments. For the community. For the competition. | | From there builds trust, and from trust comes ambition and | the ability to focus on the purpose of the job (yes, it's a | job in most cases, not a mission or vision). | | This is what I see some growth CEOs miss. They lack respect | for people outside the "right" mold and don't hire (or keep) | them. Then to their surprise, their teams become | dysfunctional. | | Many tired anecdotes teach us about this (too many chefs, | etc.) yet the same mistake is made with relentless | repetition. | skrebbel wrote: | Meta nitpick, and I'm not certain, but I think the author | (named Tracy) is a she. Or a they which lets you avoid the | problem altogether. | eadmund wrote: | > Or a they which lets you avoid the problem altogether. | | At the cost of being ungrammatical, inelegant and IMHO | profoundly disrespectful. | williamstein wrote: | You are correct. The author's pronoun is "she" and there is a | bio page about her here: https://leade.rs/speaker/tracy-young | sieabahlpark wrote: | [flagged] | williamstein wrote: | The assumption is: "And remember that A players can recruit | other A players, ...", not " "And remember that A players can | ONLY recruit other A players, ...". | | (Added: My Ph.D. in mathematics is useful for something.) | bibanez wrote: | I cracked a laugh at the end :) I wonder what their faces | will look like when they learn about contraposition | tyoung wrote: | This is helpful, thank you. | triceratops wrote: | Any articles about the failure points from $0 to $5M ARR? | moneywoes wrote: | This please, I think 99% of businesses don't even get to $5M | jrudolph wrote: | also on the same blog -> https://tracy.posthaven.com/part-i- | founder-led-enterprise-sa... | [deleted] | jvanderbot wrote: | It's right on the same site. It is called "part 2" after all. | | https://tracy.posthaven.com/part-i-founder-led-enterprise-sa... | riku_iki wrote: | part 1 assumes you built strong product with strong market | fit already. Author could consider writing part 0 about | missing most critical part. | HorizonXP wrote: | Love seeing you back in the game Tracy. | | I'm currently knee-deep in the enterprise world, and trust me, | the point about selling into these orgs is very true. My team | just spent the last year moving our client off a Salesforce | Lightning-based solution onto our custom-built one. No one in the | org could tell us why they chose to build it in Lightning, but | everyone now says they love our solution. | | The lessons you learn building a startup are good and always | usable, but you need to be ready to learn what it's like to work | in and with an enterprise, to figure out how to adapt and sell | your product to them. It's an arduous process, but worthwhile. | [deleted] | thexumaker wrote: | So 3/4 of the main points here are in regards to hiring the right | people... Almost makes me wonder if hr teams/operations shouldn't | be measured on just headcount but rather getting the right people | in | Ataraxic wrote: | Hiring speed, hire quality, compensation (including things like | work/life balance, healthcare, flexibility). I think you can | try for two. | | Once you get large enough your ability to really selectively | recruit gets a lot harder when natural attrition means you need | to replace X amount of people just to continue operating as | before. | | Of course earlier on, the fewer the people the larger the | impact each one will have so just like the article says about | transitioning to enterprise, the focus and requirements of the | HR team change as well. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-01-12 23:00 UTC)