By James Santagata
Principal Consultant, SiliconEdge


I came across this interesting Silicon Valley Business Journal article entitled "Why do startups fail? Here are the top 20 reasons" which summarizes a large post-mortem analysis of startup failures conducted by CB Insights

One quick takeaway to highlight:

"After reading through every single of the 101 post-mortems, we’ve learned two things. One — there is rarely one reason for a single startup's failure. And two — across all these failures, the reasons are very diverse."

Here's the top twenty reasons:
(Note: percentages don't add up to 100 because sometimes there are multiple reasons for failure)

1. Building a solution in search of a problem: Falling in love with an idea or building it out with market validation. 42 percent cited this. 

2. Cash Out. No Mas: We'll assume this wasn't due to financial mismanagement or malfeasance but a natural outcome of a sane burn rate over an extended period with trailing revenues of a lean nature. 29 percent reported this.

3. Wrong team: Lacking key members or skill sets This was cited by 23 percent of the companies. 

4. Beaten by the competition: About 19 percent of the companies reported this.

5. Pricing/cost issues: Reported by 18 percent in the study.

6. Poor product: This was reported by 17 percent of the companies.

7. Need/lack business model: A lack of a viable model killed 17 percent of these companies.

8. Poor marketing: Knowing how to code or build good products isn't enough. Reported by 14 percent of the companies.

9. Ignoring customers: 14 percent of the companies in the studied pointed to this.

10. Mis-timed product (releases): 13 percent of the companies in the survey reported this. A Calxeda employee told CB Insights, “We moved faster than our customers could move. We moved with tech that wasn't really ready for them... We were too early.”

11. Lost focus: 13 percent reported this.

12. Founder/investor strife: Creative tension is far different than toxic infighting. 13 percent of the companies succumbed to this.

13. Pivot gone bad: As has been said, "The pivot used to be called the f****up".  10 percent pointed to this.

14: Lack passion: The passion to stick it out, to execute. 9 percent identified this as the reason.

15: Bad location: For hiring/retaining talent, customers, investors and so on. This was cited by 9 percent.

16. No financing/investor interest: This was pointed to by 8 percent.

17. Legal challenges: Cited by 8 percent of the companies.

18. Don't use network/advisers: Again cited by 8 percent of the companies.

19. Burnout: Never a good thing, many reasons why a team can burn out. 8 percent pointed to this as the culprit.

20: Failure to pivot: As has been said earlier, "The pivot used to be called the F****up" and while that may be true it doesn't change the fact that continuing down the same messed up path is going to get your any place faster (other than bankruptcy court) and certainly no where better. 7 percent cited this.

By James Santagata
Principal Consultant, SiliconEdge


Have you ever wondered why companies so often overpay for talent that just doesn't perform or worse negatively impacts the company's performance?

By the same token, have you ever wondered why companies seem to so often inadvertently or even consciously block, reject and trample Top Talent?

The fact is, the so-called War For Talent most often resembles a War On Talent.

By James Santagata
Principal Consultant, SiliconEdge


This is a quick update to an earlier post I made: 
(So Where's The Next WhatsApp & How Did The Tech Cheerleader Press Miss It?)

As the Silicon Valley Cheerleader Tech Press continues to desparately look for the next WhatsApp, it's apparently been found....in China....and it's called Alibaba.

But China is apparently too far away from Sand Hill Road.  

And most Valley VCs don't do China....sure they dabble, but they don't do China...

http://www.businessinsider.com/american-investors-missed-out-on-alibaba-2014-5

By James Santagata
Principal Consultant, SiliconEdge


If it seems that we're under a constant barrage by the Western Media Myth (WMM) that (a) Japan is "failing" and that (b) this "failure" of Japan's is primarily due to Japan's "talent problem", it's because we are.

We're also told through this WMM that Japan's supposed "lack of talent" has further manifested itself in such as way as to be responsible for Japan's supposed "lack of creativity" and "lack of innovation", thus, contributing to again, the so-called "Lost Decade".

However, just when the WMM would have us give up all hope that Japan can saved, the WMM preaches that these "unique problems" that Japan faces can simply and quickly be solved by (a) increasing the number of English-speaking Japanese and (b) internationalizing the apparently "backwards" Japanese-only speaking speakers and/or (c)  increasing the number of immigrants  Japan accepts. Apparently, the WMM proponents believe that even a US-Open Border policy would "help" the Japanese economy if not "save" it.

To support such silly myths, memes and the previously proposed "solutions", the Western Media often holds up statistics showing Japan's lack of internationalized workers (however you define this), Japan's relatively low TOEIC and TOEFL scores compared to other Asian countries as well as the dearth of Japanese college students now studying overseas compared to the figures thrown up by countries such as India and China (for the record, the Japanese figures are low even when comparing this on a per capita basis, but this begs the question -- so what?).

As I have argued for over a decade now, these claims and even statistical comparisons by the Western Media are not only useless but downright dangerous to those that want to fully understand Japan's current situation as they ignore the real root causes of Japan's underperformance.

And note that I say "underperformance" here and not failure. As the third largest economy in the world (behind China that has ten times the population along with zero controls on economic externalities), it's pretty silly to continue to paint Japan as an economic basket case or the "sick man of Asia".

The key to all of this is to understand that Japan lacks leadership. That is what is hampering Japan.

Japan doesn't lack creativity, Japan doesn't lack innovation, Japan doesn't lack talent and Japan doesn't lack  English-speakers, although Japan could improve in all of these areas. 

The Western Media's arguments or framing of these issues, especially in terms of Japan's supposed lack of  "English-speaking" talent becomes even sillier when we consider that it ignores what I have deemed the "tip of the spear" or "tip of the sword" strategy.

As I have stated many time before, business is warfare, the only difference being that in business there is no Geneva Convention and prisoners aren't routinely taken.

In a war, it is considered completely unwise to judge the strength of an army solely by the total number of troops. One must judge an army by its effectiveness in killing and maiming people as well as smashing, burning and breaking things. One would also be well advised to measure an army's effectiveness in terms of its ability to project power. Again, the number of troops is mostly irrelevant.

This becomes even clearer when we analyze a war dominated by air power,

In such a case you don't measure a military's effectiveness by the number of pilots deployed in theater or even the total trained (and active) pilots but rather you measure a military's effectiveness (related to these air campaigns) by the efficacy of the pilots that are deployed and the results which they attain.

For instance, even on a conventional basis, one pilot and perhaps one navigator can wreak enormous havoc on an enemy force, and yet, this one pilot and navigator are backed up by thousands of others ranging from ground crews that handle maintenance, fueling and ordnance. Air traffic controllers to mid-air refuelers (who in turn are supported by their own ground crews) and this ripples through the entire supply chain from the men and women who cut the paychecks, the cooks, the water purification teams, the truckers, the doctors and dentists to the nurses and so on. 

Thousands and thousands of non-combatants are involved to support a relatively small group of pilots and this doesn't even include all of the time and effort that went into designing and producing each plane and each weapons systems, all to support one pilot and perhaps one navigator.

And yet it works because that plane and that pilot are, indeed, the tip of the spear.

You can see this as well in a US Navy Carrier Task Force when you consider how many personnel are on one aircraft carrier -- mutiple thousands. And this one carrier in turn supports a relatively small group of pilots. But it goes far beyond this, because that one aircraft carrier is in turn supported by a group of other ships - submarines, cruisers, destroyers and so on.

All of these assets and personnel are supporting this one aircraft carrier which in turn supports her air crews who are, by definition, the tip of the spear.

Unsurprisingly, businesses and economies work in the same way. This should be common sense and yet evidently the Western Media still doesn't get this nor does most of the Silicon Valley "Cheerleader Press".

In concrete terms, what does this mean for Japan?

Well, this means that in Japan not every person or employee needs to speak English or be internationalized. It's a silly notion to assume that they do. Moreover, even if each Japanese worker did have these skills there is no guarantee that the Japanese economy would stronger since there is a huge opportunity cost to skill-up in these areas which could, in fact, dampen Japanese creativity, innovation and productivity.

In any event, today I was back on site at a client (a Japanese domestic firm), running interviews for 2015 college graduates. I had eleven Japanese and several foreign student candidates lined up for today. This was in addition to the 15 Japanese candidates I had interviewed for the same client the week before.

And once again, I am and have been extremely impressed with the quality of all candidates, both Japanese and foreign candidates.

This simply adds more empirical evidence to my long made argument that Japan doesn't suffer from a lack of talent, creativity or innovation.

No. 

Japan suffers not just from a lack of but a dearth of aggressive, quality leadership which is able to effectively and profitably deploy and monetize the outstanding domestic and international talent that is already onboard or can be readily acquired.

To counter balance this lack of leadership and the resultant underperforming or ossified firms it produces, Japan must create and maintain a very healthy entrepreneurial ecosystem.

An ecosystem that can continually challenge, engage, kill and compost underperforming  incumbent Japanese corporations, especially ossified incumbents, wherever they may be found.


Related Background Articles:

• Japan's Problem: Severe Lack Of Leadership Not A Lack Of Innovation Or Creativity (Full Interview) (The Globe & Mail)
  
• The Truth About Japan: Can Japan's New Startup Spirit Revitalize The Japanese Economy?
  
• Can Japan Compete Globally? You Betcha And Here's Why
  
• Japan May Be Able To Compete Globally But Not Yet
  
• Can Japan Compete Globally? You Betcha And Here's How
  

By James Santagata
Principal Consultant, SiliconEdge

Over the last twenty years, and accelerating in the last 7 years, not only Japan but the entire world has begun to question Japan's ability to innovate and create as companies such as Apple and Samsung rule Japan's former stomping grounds and gleefully gorge themselves on Japanese companies' bento boxes on a daily basis.

Meanwhile, once mighty and innovative Japanese firms like Sony and Panasonic bleed red and constantly try to slough off workers while peddling a staid if uninspiring set of "me-too" and "also-ran" product lines.

How far has Sony fallen? Well, it's gotten to be so bad that if Sony founder, Akio Morita, were to magically re-appear today and venture over to the front entrance of Sony Japan, he wouldn't  recognize the place.  Worse, if he then decided to apply for a position, not only wouldn't they hire him, they'd most likely call security and have him escorted off the premises.

But all is not lost. 

In our No Box Thinking™ (Volume 3), entitled "How Struggling Japanese Companies Can Beat Silicon Valley's Fast-moving Startups At Their Own Game" we go through exactly what has happened, what has changed and how, in a short time and by using some talent management adjustments, Japanese firms can again perform at our above that of their competitors.

By James Santagata
Principal Consultant, SiliconEdge


Hats off to Sheryl Sandberg and her book Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead.

It's started a valuable conversation but until concrete actions are taken, that's all it is - a conversation, talk. 

And by concrete actions I mean focusing on understanding, developing and utilizing specific tools and strategies to accept the world as it is, and then to use these tools and strategies to create, mold and reframe a new more comfortable and productive reality. 

This training draws extensively from our Psychological Jujutsu training and High-Impact Leadership series to create a body of original material that is specifically tailored for women currently in or seeking leadership roles.

We delve deeply into the fine line separating the 4B's -- Bimbo, Babe, Bitch, Brilliant-Boss -- and more importantly we discuss exactly how to effectively place yourself and stay in the Brilliant-Boss category without triggering negative push backs, mismatches or attacks.

By understanding the impact and deeply embedded, yet invisible,  role that evolutionary psychology plays with regard to the organization and society's view of strong women leaders, we'll explore how to deftly avoid the many traps and pitfalls while learning how to push the correct buttons and trigger the proper scripts allowing women to lead an more effective, efficient, productive and satisfying work and home life.

By James Santagata
Principal Consultant, SiliconEdge

It seems like the peddling of the old standby Myths & Memes is on the rise once again in the Valley. As this is often a lagging indicator of both the Valley's, and even the wider Tech Industry's financial state, it tells me that we're in a very frothy if not overheated market since people are now letting their hair down and apparently gleefully throwing themselves onto the politically correct bandwagon.  But they should be careful, lest they find themselves thrown beneath it. 

Still, it's my guess that whatever problems or disasters may rear their ugly heads in the future due to blind belief and adherence to these Myths & Memes, the folks most involved are betting that they'll be able to quickly paper over it with the waves and waves of cash that are flowing so freely now.

But not everyone believed let alone followed these Myths and Memes and amazingly, they didn't fail or turn into a pumpkin or a toad.

What a perfect example of a person who broke every one of these Myths and Memes?

Try Steve Jobs. Yep, Steve Jobs. And Apple Computer under his guidance during his second tour of duty.

The fact is, no one can deny that, under Steve Jobs, Apple was a smashing success. All the metrics are there: market cap, profits, amazing hit product after hit product. iMac, iPod, iTunes, iPhone. You name it.

Wow!

And for the record, I am by no means an Apple fan nor am I a Steve Jobs / Apple Computer apologist.  I'm simply a reality-based thinker and I call it the way it is, not the way I wish it were.

That said, I'm a very serious student of Steve Jobs and I'm not afraid to look at what really made him successful. I can tell you, it wasn't following the Valley Myth and Memes and it wasn't being politically correct.

In fact, Steve Jobs did the exact opposite of what most pundits and social engineers are preaching. And the reason it worked for Steve Jobs is because Steve Jobs and his communication style was perfectly aligned with the way the world and humans work.

What is most interesting, though perhaps very disconcerting to the social engineers among us, is how Steve Jobs did it.
We're told that if a person studies hard at the "right" schools, gets a "good" education and makes the "right" connections they'll be well positioned for success.

Beyond that we are told, especially in the Valley, that an organization will perform best when it is openly transparent (both internally and externally), when there is diversity, when there are women in senior leadership positions and when we have an open environment of respect and perhaps kumbayahism in the office.

Going even further, we are told that we should be investing and building all kinds of new tech that people have never seen. And by "new tech" I mean core tech, not making sexy cases, new form factors or tinkering with some incremental derivative product like the iPod.

And yet, if we look at Steve Jobs and his management style during his absolutely, amazing and record smashing second run we find something that is completely at odds with what the pundits say is necessary for success:

1. No diversity at Apple (as defined by the politically correct sense of skin pigmentation / reproductive organs).
2. No women in senior leadership positions (see also: Apple Vows To Find Women & Minorities For Board Directors).
3. No Indians in senior leadership positions (see: Why Indian presence in Apple's senior management level is next to nil).
4. Few minorities (see: Apple Facing Criticism About Diversity Changes Bylaws).
5. Steve Jobs didn't go to a "top" university.
6. Steve Jobs didn't even graduate from a four-year college.
7. Steve Jobs was not transparent. At best, he could be characterized as a benevolent dictator, at worst a tyrant.
8. Jobs/Apple was not open -- you leak new Apple products, you'd be hunted down & sued (see: Apple Sues To Stop Product Leaks).
9 Jobs/Apple could be downright nasty, even engaging in potentially illegal activity, if the "no poach" collusion allegations are borne out.
10. Steve Jobs even used his money to find a loophole in California vehicle code so that he wouldn't have to get license plates and had an apparent penchant for parking in the handicap spaces.

And yet again, while Steve Jobs just turned a blind eye to all of these supposed business and organizational "requirements" his results were phenomenal. Can we in any way argue with Steve Jobs' success? It seems that few prominent members of the Valley tech community question his success so I guess not.

Next time, we'll dig a bit deeper and explore why Steve Jobs was so successful, time and time again. The results may surprise you.

Lastly, as quick exercise, we should ask ourselves is Apple really lacking diversity? Or is and has Apple always been diverse but in a more mature manner, such as defining "diversity" with regard to value, thought patterns and productivity rather than with regard to skin pigments and reproductive organs?.

It can easily be argued that a man and women studying the same subject matter from Princeton (not to pick on any school) will be more alike than two men, one of which studied electrical engineering and the other who studied marketing at two different schools in two different states or countries.

Think about it. 
Think. Different.