There are two very different ways to play in Silicon Valley: playing to win versus playing to make plan. VC moonshots dominate the first. PE platform acquisitions and roll-ups dominate the second. But these plays are very different, attracting different investors and different employers. And the catch is most of the main strategy books in Silicon Valley were written for the playing to win world. The biggest risk is run strategies and hire people more appropriate to one world than the other. In this post, I'll explore both and the differences between them.
One of your best post Dave. The extract from "A Few Good Men" reminds me some memories :) . Very few understand what it takes to drive revenue in hyper growth company who's here to "plays to win". Candid questions, what's your writing process that allows you to bring so many references / links to articles? PS: "Opinions" link on your page https://kellblog.com/frequently-asked-questions/ is broken. Thank you Dave!
Dave Kellogg, not to mention, VC and PE funds have VERY different return-patterns - just under 50% of the VC funds return their capital, compared to ~85% of PE funds! That is bulk of the VC funds lose money.
Another great ‘cold clarity’ post where I feel that I had a front row seat during the germination (or should that be rumination?) stage of the ideation process 😊
Yes this is true. Channeling a bit of Roger Martin here I see. But they are extremely different approaches. Very rare to find companies/founders who are serious about the former.
You really outdid yourself with this one Dave! Knowing who you are is as important for companies as it is for the people who run them. Leaders need to know what kind of startup they're leading to set meaningful goals, align and motivate employees to pursue them, and prioritize the actions required.
Great post! Very different.
Analyst and Enterprise SaaS CxO | Cybersecurity, AI, and Next-Gen Platforms | Ex-Google, SAP, Oracle | Lifelong learner
7moFascinating post, Dave! Thanks for writing it so clearly, and saying what others are afraid of saying. "Playing to win" and "Playing to make plan" require very different leadership teams, and most start-ups have followed a simple recipe to hire folks that are stage-appropriate. That no longer works. Just like how PE operators have optimized the leadership talent, VC-backed companies will have to be very precise about who they hire, especially on the product and technology side (beyond sales), how they build an ecosystem, how aggressively they acquire companies, how they balance product-led against sales-led, and many more dimensions. Your growth plan simply can't be "we are going to grow as fast as possible, and then we will figure out the next steps."