你的恐惧是否正在给你糟糕的建议? | Matt Mochary
Are your fears giving you terrible advice? | Matt Mochary
Matt Mochary: The biggest marker that I’ve seen between a botched layoff and a successful layoff is at the moment someone hears that they no longer have a job, did they hear it from their manager in a one-on-one? If that’s when they heard it, it’ll be okay. But if they heard it in an email, in a group chat, in any kind of thing where they were sitting next to or they’re hearing it along with other people, it wasn’t personalized, it wasn’t one-on-one, that is terrible. That’s when people get really angry and that’s when they start going on to Twitter and going to newspapers and et cetera, because it feels dehumanizing. It feels like you didn’t give a shit about me. You don’t even have the courtesy to tell me to my face. And of course, there’s no way to allow that person to express their emotions because they’re in a group. So, that’s the most important thing.
Lenny: Welcome to Lenny’s Podcast. I’m Lenny and my aim here is to help you get better at the craft of building and growing products. Today, my guest is Matt Mochary. Matt is a full-time executive coach, but not just any coach. He’s worked with folks like Naval, the CEOs of OpenAI, Coinbase, Reddit, Rippling, Fair, Front, Notion, the list goes on. He’s also coached partners at VCs like Sequoia, YC, Benchmark, many others.
We are so fortunate that Matt agreed to join me on this podcast and in our conversation we cover a lot of ground. We talk about why learning to fire people is one of the most important skills as a leader and how to do it well, why anger and fear often point you in the exact opposite direction you should be going, how to innovate within a larger company, how his coaching has evolved over the years, where the most successful founders still struggle, and so much more. This may be my new favorite episode and I bet it will be years, too. So much real talk with tactics, templates, all kind of goodness. Enjoy this conversation with Matt Mochary.
To learn more, just go to lemon.io/lenny and find your perfect developer or tech team in 48 hours or less. And if you start the process now, you can claim a special discount exclusively for Lenny’s Podcast listeners, 15% off your first four weeks of working with your new software developer. Grow faster with an extra pair of hands, visit lemon.io/lenny.
Matt, thank you so much for being here. Welcome to the podcast.
Matt Mochary: Thanks for having me. I’m looking forward to it.
Lenny: I am looking forward to it even more. The way I learned about you is back in the day I read this book called The Great CEO Within, which I have right here, and I was like, holy moly, this is the most tactical, practical, useful book I’ve seen for leaders. I need to tell everyone about it, and I did. Then a few weeks ago, someone shared a link in my newsletter Slack community to this document that is called the Mochary Method Curriculum Document. I was like, oh my god, this is the most practical, tactical, useful document I’ve seen in a long time. I got to share this with everyone, and I did. Then I realized it’s the same person that wrote these two things, and so I reached out to you and you kindly agreed to join me on this podcast. And so again, really appreciate you being here.
Matt Mochary: Thank you for having me.
Lenny: Give folks a little bit of background on you who aren’t so familiar with you, and just to help understand a little bit of a how you got so wise. Can you give folks just kind of a brief overview of some of the wonderful things you’ve done in your career, maybe some of the folks you’ve worked with and how you got to what you do now?
Matt Mochary: Right on. I’ve had a very varied career. I started a company back in internet 1.0 called Totality, which was a good financial outcome. Then I went and just had fun for a long time and then I went and did social good and helped ex-convicts get and keep a job by becoming truck drivers. All that was super fun, but I realized I missed my peers and I wanted to get back into the tech world, but I didn’t want to start a company because a company is a lot of work and the end result is you make a lot of money, but I didn’t need money.
And so I thought, how could I get in the tech world and not actually have to do the hard work? Oh, I could be a coach. I could coach people and then I just get to do the fun stuff and advise them and then they have to do the hard work. And so I looked around and thought, well how could I do that because I’m not a coach and so why would anyone listen to me? Then someone told me that there were students at Stanford that had started companies but no one would coach them. They couldn’t get into YC because YC doesn’t accept students. So, I went and started coaching them and it was super fun and very successful and then they started recommending me up the food chain and eventually, I met folks like Naval Ravikant and Sam Altman and Brian Armstrong and they recommended me around to the rest of the tech community, and ended up coaching some of the CEOs and the leaders of the biggest tech companies and biggest tech investment firms.
It’s been a ton of fun and for me, I do things for joy and each and every one of these interactions has been massively joyful for me and the people I coach become my really close friends, so it’s all very selfish on my part.
Lenny: I feel you on a lot of that. I also tried to explore starting a company again and similarly decided this is way too much stress and work, what else can I do instead? And that’s what led to the work I do now, which I love.
Matt Mochary: Right on.
Lenny: How long have you been doing this coaching?
Matt Mochary: That whole process started about 10 years ago, so about 10 years.
Lenny: Awesome. You have a lot of fans on Twitter and the internet and ahead of this chat I polled folks on Twitter and asked them what they would ask you if they were chatting with you, so I thought I’d start off with asking you a few those questions and then we’ll dig into a few very specific topics that I’m excited to talk about. The first question comes from Leo Polovets who’s a GP at Susa Ventures, and he asked, “Matt has coached some incredible founders, what are some of the most common areas where even the most successful founders still struggle?”
Matt Mochary: Great question. To me, the bar is fear and how strongly do people feel fear? There are few people that I coach that just don’t feel fear at all. And frankly with them, we have very tactical conversations, but they’re the minority. The most feel fear to some degree, some feel it a lot, some feel it less, but when they feel it grips their mind and it prevents them from seeing… It prevents them from doing the thing that is difficult but necessary, so that’s a lot of what our coaching is, me pointing out to them, hey, I think you’re in fear.
What happens is very early on in coaching they’ll go, yeah, okay, I’m in fear. So what? I go, great. I believe that fear is actually giving you bad advice and I think you’re predicting that if you do this A will happen. Well, I’m predicting that if you do that, the exact opposite will happen. So, I’ll tell you what, why don’t we make a bet? This is very high stakes, why don’t we pick something that’s lower stakes? You make a prediction, we’ll see if I make the opposite and then let’s bet on it. So we pick something and then we make a bet on it, and whoever wins the bet in the future gets to determine what the actions are.
I’ve made this bet hundreds of times and so far, I’ve never lost. It’s not because I’m magician or a genius, it’s because when someone’s in fear, they’re gripped. They can’t see reality, their brain is making very exaggerated predictions. Whereas when someone is not in fear, and I’m not because it’s not my situation, I am not gripped and therefore, my brain isn’t making exaggerated predictions. And so, we make this bet once I win, then all of a sudden the CEO realizes, oh my God, there’s something to this, fear gives bad advice. Then after that, all I need to do is remind the person that I perceive them to be in fear. That’s all it takes, and they’re like, oh, okay, and then they go ahead and do the thing that they feel fear about. Then of course, later they come back to me and say, Matt, that was magical. It works so well.
I mean, I’ll give you examples. The most extreme is when a CEO realizes that there’s a problem in the business and they haven’t told their board yet and their board doesn’t know, and remember, their board is their investors, and they have another round coming up, they know they’re going to have to raise money in another six to 12 months. They need their current investors to participate in the upcoming round, otherwise outside investors won’t. Then they say, well, what the hell do I do? I’ve got this problem. Do I tell my investors? And most often, the knee jerk reaction is, no, I’m not going to tell them.
Then I say, “Well, I think that’s fear. I think if you actually tell them, tell your investors, the exact opposite of what we think is going to happen is going to happen. You think you’re going to lose their trust. I think you’re going to gain their trust.” And so, if we’ve done this fear exercise before, they do it, they share transparently with their board all the problems and say, and I’m excited to tackle these problems. Every single time that’s happened, the board members have said, “This is fantastic. I love this honesty. Thank you so much. This is one of the only companies that I’m on the board of that actually is transparent and honest,” and they gain trust.
Lenny: I’m glad that you brought this topic up. I wanted to spend time on it. Just to double click a little bit into it, just kind of to summarize your advice here, if you feel fear, which you may not recognize you feel, the advice is: do the opposite of what your brain is telling you to do, right?
Matt Mochary: Generally, I mean, check with someone. Don’t just randomly, I feel fear crossing the street crossing a crowded highway and then go, oh, that’s fear talking. I should cross the highway anyway and then get hit by a cop. No, that’s not what I mean. I don’t mean physical danger, I mean things that we perceive to be danger to our egos, but that the easiest thing is just to check with somebody else who’s not in fear because they will be able to see clearly when you can’t.
Lenny: I was working through your curriculum and you pointed out that you found a way to express to somebody that they are in fear. I think it was your wife that kind of iterated on how to give you feedback that you’re in fear where you didn’t get defensive, you got more fearful and angry and can you talk a bit about that?
Matt Mochary: Yeah, so we iterated, I at times feel anger and I act on that anger and I don’t even realize I’m in anger, so I wanted her to let me know, and so she would say, at first she said, “You’re in anger,” and that just made me feel accused and made me go into more anger. And then she said, “Are you in anger?” And that felt passive aggressive or indirect and that also made me go into more anger. Then finally she said, “I perceive you to be an anger.” So it’s an I statement and it’s simply what she’s perceiving. There’s no judgment. That was able to punch through my anger and then I woke up and went, oh, and then I stopped and just didn’t act until I was able to shift out of anger.
Lenny: Awesome. And anger and fear, I think there’s different pieces of advice for if you feel angry versus fear. Is that right?
Matt Mochary: Yes. I mean, anger, you’re just destroying and what you’re doing is you’re destroying relationships and so you just got to stop because you’re breaking glass. Of course, you’re breaking it with the people who are closest to you. They’re the people who are nearest to you, which are the people you love and care about the most. They’re not only people you work with, but they’re the people you live with and you don’t want to do that. You don’t want to hurt them.
Lenny: Yeah. Maybe one last question along these lines, why do we do this? Is this just we’re trying to protect our ego and ourselves and we just want to do the safe thing?
Matt Mochary: That’s it. I mean, I just learned very recently, and this isn’t written anywhere because I just learned it, someone shared with me that anger is not a base emotion. Anger is actually a cover. It’s a cover for when we feel pain, and so our brain doesn’t want to feel the pain, so instead it externalizes it. But the problem is it shoves that pain onto everybody else around us. The real answer here is not to have people let us know that we’re in anger and then stop. The real answer is just to allow ourselves to feel the pain and it sucks by the way, it actually hurts. But then we’re not… Sorry, I’m getting emotional. We’re not pushing that out onto other people and I only learned this very recently and I’m just starting to practice this and I’m still not good at it, but I’m now at least sometimes not going to anger.
Lenny: It’s interesting how personal this advice is that it sounds like something that you deal with. It’s not just like you’re this coach that’s just like, hey guys, here’s all these problems you have. Here’s how you fix stuff that you help yourself with.
Matt Mochary: I’m human. Yes, and that’s why I try to figure it out with me and if I can figure something out with me, then I can share it with others.
Lenny: Amazing. That was a fruitful question from Leo, and we might come back to this topic.
Matt Mochary: By the way, this also applies to organizations. I mean, the way that I used to get all this information about how to run organizations is I started a company, Totality, and my co-founder and I, we did a terrible job running that company. What happened was I didn’t have any learnings from that which I could share with people because it was just worst practices, not best practices. But then 10 years later, I thought to myself, well, how could I have done that better? How could we have done that better?
So, I picked up a book, a business book, it was High Output Management by Andy Grove. I read it and I was like, “Oh my God, here are all the answers.” And then I read another book, The Hard Thing About Hard Things by Ben Horowitz was like, “Oh my God, there are even more answers.” I just kept reading more and more business books, and every one I read, they were just chock full of answers. But then I needed to test whether or not these really worked, so that’s when I started coaching and I started testing them in companies, but I had to let the people know here, do this, but they weren’t going to read a 350 page book. I had to summarize it in two pages and then share it with them, and then they did, and then they implemented it and it worked.
Then I had all these summaries, and then I started to create my own summaries of little niche cases that weren’t in any book that I’d read. That’s where all these writings came from. Then one day, someone that I was coaching said, “Matt, you got to take all these writings. They’re a book, you got to publish them.” And I said, “No, I don’t.” My friend said, “Well, how about I do all the work? How about I take care of the editing and the publishing?” And I was like, “Okay, if you want to do that, great.” That was Alex MacCaw. Others had offered before, but he was the one that actually followed through all the way to the end. That was it. That’s how the book was born.
But I realized also, recently, that many of my most radical ideas, I can’t get anyone to test them because I’ll say, “Hey, I think you should do blank.” And the CEO will say, “That sounds crazy. Matt, can you point me to other examples of other people that have done this and it’s worked?” And I say, “No, this is an original thought that came out of my head. No one’s done it before that I know of.” They’re like, “Okay, well I’m not going to be the first.”
Then I realized I needed an organization to test my most radical ideas, and also all of my CEOs had been asking me to create software because I have a methodology and it’s step one, step two, step three, and you do it in one-on-ones and then a methodology for a team meeting and then a methodology for feedback and then a methodology for every different motion in the company. It’s all in Google Docs. And they said to me, “Matt, this is amazing. I love this one-on-one process. I love your team process, but I don’t want to have to teach each of my reports the way you’ve taught me. I’d like it just being softer. I just hit a button and boom, it happens automatically.” At first, I said, “No, that’s not interesting to me. I’m not a developer. You, Brian Armstrong, you’re a developer and you have a thousand engineers that work for you. Why don’t you go create it?”
But in the end, I said, “Okay, this could be fun.” So, I hired a team of developers and we started to create the software, and one, the product is working. But two more importantly, I now have a team of humans that we work together that I can start testing my more radical ideas out with. I would say about half of them are wildly successful and the other half complete duds. It almost seems like one are the other. But now I have my own basically laboratory to test things. Of course, when I see radical things that other people are doing, I try them in our organization, and it’s phenomenal.
I’ll tell you the most radical one. I was asking one CEO, I said, “Have you ever let someone go and regretted it?” He said, “No.” And I said, “Well, then you don’t know what the bar is because the bar of where you should be letting people go is here, and the bar that you’ve let people go is here. So until you get close to that line, you don’t know what that line is.” He said, “Wow, that’s true.” Then I thought about it and I thought to myself, uh-oh, I have never let anyone go that I regret it, so I don’t know where the line is.
Then I thought, oh no, I’ve got to go into my team and let someone go, and here’s the problem. We’ve already done talent density, we’ve already done the Netflix thing. If someone is meeting expectation, we let them go. We’ve already let all those folks go. So on our team, it’s only outperformers. So, I thought there was one guy, he’s an outperformer, no question about it, and super positive, an amazing guy and can do anything and is happy to do everything. But there wasn’t much left for him to do because everything else was being covered. I talked to my number two and said, “Can you do what you’re doing and what he’s doing?” And she said, “Give me two weeks,” and she did. She came back and said, “Yeah, I can.” So, we let him go.
Now, when I let someone go, I try to do it with a massive amount of compassion because I know it’s brutal. I mean, losing your spouse, your home, and your job, these are the three most traumatic things that can happen to you. When that happens, of course you go into massive fear and the brain shuts down, so I want to be there and help them through that process and actively help them find their dream job because there is a place that absolutely needs them. So, what I do is I become their agent and I say, “I want to help you discover what it is that your ideal role is, and I want to help you create it or land it.” I did that with him. Turns out, what he wanted to do was go start a company and create a new product so he could just start that day one. But, the litmus for me is that everybody I’ve let go, I believe anyway, that I continue to be friends with. That shows me that the process by which I let people go is a humane one.
Here’s the crazy thing, after letting this guy go, after about 30 days, I was like, ugh, did I do the wrong thing? Was that too much? But then after about two to three months, I realized, no, that actually was the right thing because my number two was able to absorb the things that he was doing and here’s the crazy part, with fewer people in the organization, things work better. That’s the big realization that most people never discover. they hit product market fit, they get tons of money from investors, just higher, higher, higher, higher, but every additional human you have in your organization causes extra overhead and geometrically so, because now you have to keep all those people informed, give them all context, make them all feel heard, because unless they feel like they’re contributing and you understand what they’re saying, then they feel ignored and they feel passed over and they feel disrespected and grumpy.
Matt Mochary: There’s this morale problem that exists. There’s this friction of information flow and a morale problem that grows and grows and grows. Really, the only answer is, I mean, that’s why people bring me in because they’re growing, growing, growing, and things are breaking. I have a system that keeps things together, but it doesn’t make it perfect. It just makes it so that the company doesn’t fall apart. But really the ideal is just to keep the team super small. That’s what WhatsApp did, that’s what Instagram did, that’s what Linear is doing right now. That’s what Notion has been doing for a while. Those, to me, are the real success stories.
Lenny: This reminds me of a story I just listened to on Lex Fridman’s podcast. They were interviewing the head of AI at Tesla, or former head of AI, and Lex was asking him, “Why did you get rid of LiDAR on your cars? Like aren’t more sensors good so that you can be better at self-driving?” And he’s like, “If you have LiDAR, you got to think about the supply chain and getting all those parts. You got to think about all the additional data that it brings and adds more chaos to your data, and you have to think about that. Think about if that one part is gone, everything slows down, and in theory it is better, but then all these other factors end up making it worse.” Talking about how Elon’s philosophy is the best part is no part. It feels like that’s exactly what you’re saying.
Matt Mochary: That’s right.
Lenny: You’re getting to all the stuff I want to talk about, which is awesome. So firing people, this is good. We were chatting earlier and you mentioned that this is a skill that most managers are really bad at and maybe is the most important skill to develop as a leader and as a manager. People are just bad at it. You shared a few pieces of advice there, but is there anything else that you could share about just how to get better at firing people and that skill?
Matt Mochary: Yeah, the reason people are bad at this is because they think that they’re hurting the person who they’re letting go. I mean, how many times have I heard from someone, “Yeah, this person’s not performing, but gosh, they really need this job and their mother has cancer,” and whatever personal situation they’re in. Wei Deng, who is the CEO of Clipboard Health, who’s one of my favorite CEOs, who frankly I learn more from her than she learns from me, she shared with me her framework for making decisions, which is she separates the decision from the implementation, meaning she thinks about who is the stakeholder here that I’m solving for? And almost always in a company, you’re solving for the customer. So, what would the customer want to see happen? That’s the decision. Of course, the customer would want to see only the best employees and anyone who isn’t a great employee, don’t be there.
Now the implementation is, if I do this, if I let this person go, who gets hurt? Well, the employee gets hurt. Maybe I get hurt because it’s a painful conversation. Maybe the rest of the team gets hurt because they’re sad that their friend is leaving. Then you look at, well, what can we do? Each person who gets hurt, what is it that they really want? Let’s see if we can help them get what they really want. Well, the person let go, what do they want? They want a great job where they’re actually needed and they feel fulfilled, so they enjoy what they’re doing and they’re actually critical to the company or organization that they’re with. Right now they’re not, by the way, they’re not critical, clearly. So you’re actually holding them back from what it is that they really want.
What you do is you help them find that place that really needs the skill or the passion that they have. Yourself, what do you really want? You want to not have a difficult conversation? Well, cognitive behavior therapy, the best way to get over that is to actually have one and realize it’s not that bad. Then the rest of the team, they feel sad because their teammate left. Well, here’s how you solve what they really want is they want to know that… They want to release their emotions. Okay, great. Listen to them, let them share their emotions, let them share the sadness that they feel, and then it’s released out of their body.
Decision is one thing, implementation is completely and utterly separate. That’s the same thing here in letting someone go. But if you let them go kindly and humanely, the key is, in my opinion, you become their agent, like Michael Ovitz, the CAA agent. You help them find their next job actively. Michael Ovitz is the one who reaches out to employers for his clients and says, “Hey, do you have work for my client?” That’s what I mean by being agent, not by, if you need a reference from me, I’ll be happy to give you reference. That’s bullshit, that’s passive.
I’m talking about active, and it doesn’t take long. Maybe one to two hours of my time reaching out to people I know saying, “Hey, I’ve got this great person.” Oh my God, of course they’re going to pay attention. Of course, they’re going to react. Now you might say, well, wait a second, what if the person isn’t great? What if they’re a bad performer and my posit is that they’re good at something. You have to find out what it is they’re good at. And really what they’re good at is what they’re passionate about, so find out what they’re passionate about and that you can recommend them for. That’s what I do.
I think for almost all managers that aren’t good at letting go, it’s because A, they’ve never done it, or B, they’ve done it badly. They didn’t help the person, and that person then went off and had a very painful time and now hates that manager. But if you actively help that person, they will appreciate it. Now, there are situations when a person says, “Screw you, I don’t want your help.” Okay, but they still recognize that you offered.
Lenny: Who’s the best person at firing that comes to mind when you think of this person’s really good at this?
Matt Mochary: Wei Deng from Clipboard Health. She’s the most compassionate.
Lenny: Awesome. The framework you shared reminds me of something my manager once taught me similarly. They missed the final piece of actually being their agent and finding their next gig, but just the idea of separate the emotion and doing the thing from, if there were no feelings involved, what would you do? And then you should do that, and that might be hard.
Matt Mochary: That’s exactly right. By the way, this whole thing about no feelings, I do have probably two CEOs that don’t feel emotions. They don’t feel fear, they don’t feel anger. One, in particular, feels zero emotions. I have to say, he’s a machine, he’s an operating machine and there’s zero time between ah, this is the right thing to do and doing it. It’s amazing. It’s an incredibly well run company and an incredibly valuable company. So yeah, emotions typically, again, typically fear and anger are the ones that derail our brains.
Lenny: It makes me think of Alex Honnold, I think is his name, the free climber, the solo dude. His amygdala doesn’t quite function so he doesn’t-
Matt Mochary: That’s right.
Lenny: That’s interesting. He could be a free solo climber, he could be a CEO.
Matt Mochary: That’s right. CEO’s a little safer. The prediction for Alex is that he will at some point, unfortunately die.
Lenny: Yeah. Did you see The Alpinist? Not to spoil anything.
Matt Mochary: Yes.
Lenny: Okay, moving on from that, I’m curious, in a remote world, does your advice change in terms of firing? It seems like everything you shared you could do easily in person or remote, but does something change when you’re doing it over Zoom?
Matt Mochary: No, it doesn’t change at all. There is one point I didn’t include, which I’ll include now, is there’s helping the person be their agent, but there’s also allowing the person, whenever I have a difficult conversation, I start it off, “Hey, this is going to be a difficult conversation. I want you to take a few seconds and prepare yourself. You are not going to enjoy this.” What I found is that the way the amygdala gets triggered is often because of surprise. So, if you give someone just a few seconds to mentally prepare, then the amygdala often doesn’t get triggered nearly as hard because if they’re aware that they’re going to go into fear, they’re going to go into anger, they’re going to go into sadness, then they can see it coming and they go, oh, that’s what it is. But if they don’t see it coming, just a surprise and all of a sudden it grips their whole brain and now they’re in it and they don’t even know they’re in it.
That’s the first thing I do. This is going to be a difficult conversation. Are you ready? Then I share the news. I’m letting you go, here’s why. Then second, I deliver the message. The third thing is now they’re feeling emotions, strong ones. Even though I warned them, they’re still feeling them. Now you want them to be able to release those emotions, and so I say to them, “My guess is you’re feeling a lot of anger right now, fear, sadness. Is that true? And if so, would you be willing to share with me what you’re feeling and what you’re thinking?” Sometimes they don’t answer, but many times they do and they share with me and they let it out. That’s important to allow them to let it out. Then I make them feel heard and I actively listen. That makes them realize that I’m not trying to run away from the pain that they’re feeling. I’m not trying to leave them alone with it. I sit with them as they have it and then I try to help them get through it.
Lenny: That’s something else I wanted to chat about is the feeling heard lesson that you have for people. I’d love to just get your advice on just how to help people feel heard. It’s like, oh yeah, I know that’s important. I want people to feel heard. I will listen and it’ll go great. But you have some very tactical advice on how to actually make people feel heard.
Matt Mochary: Yeah, there’s sort of a few different levels of it. One way to make people feel heard is, let’s assume you’re talking to them because there’s another way, there’s an even more surface way is verbal. Sometimes what I do is I ask, if I’m in a group of people, and there’s a question or a problem that we’re trying to solve, instead of going around the room and hearing people’s verbal opinions, which takes forever, I ask everyone at the same time to take five minutes to write down their solution. Then we all drop it in a doc and then I just read it. When I read it I say, “Thank you, Lenny.” And that makes you know that I at least read it, so that’s a little bit of feeling heard.
Second, if I want to make you feel more heard, I ask you to say it verbally and then I repeat it back to you. “Lenny, I think what I heard you say is… Is that right?” And you’re like, “Yes.” Or you’re like, “No, not quite a little bit different.” Then if it’s a little bit different, I repeat it again until you say, “Yes, that’s it.” Now you know that I understood you.
Then there’s a third way which is even deeper, which is especially if you’re giving me feedback, you likely don’t want to hurt my feelings. So what you’re doing is you’re giving me the feedback, but you’re couching it, you’re polishing it, you’re rounding the edges, you’re making it softer. It’s not really what you’re thinking, but it’s what you’re willing to say. If I want to make you really feel heard, I reflect back what I imagine are the thoughts in your head. If I think you’re feeling anger, I sort of think to myself, well, what would anger feel like? I cause myself to feel that anger, then what are the thoughts that appear to me? I say something to you like, “Lenny, I think what I’m hearing you say is you’re off and you’re thinking, screw you, Matt. How dare you walk into the office and not even say hello to me? Is that close?” And you’re like, “No, Matt.”
People either say one of two things, they say, “Yeah, that is it.” Or they say “No, that’s stronger than what I was thinking, but directionally that’s right.” What that really means is, yeah, that’s what I was thinking. Almost always their thoughts are bigger than their words, but they really feel heard when I share their thoughts. Now, that’s not the end of the process. I mean you actually have to then do something. Once you made them feel heard, you have to say, okay, well either I accept or don’t accept this feedback and if I accept, here’s what I’m going to do about it. If I don’t accept, I need to explain to you why. Here’s what’s going on. You shared with me what’s going on in your world, now let me share with you what’s going on in my world. Hopefully, you can see why this thing that’s going on in my world doesn’t allow me to accept what it is that you shared, and hopefully now that you see what’s going on in my world, your feedback changes and that’s it. That’s the whole process.
Lenny: I’m listening to this advice and I’m like, yes, I will do this next time I’m talking to someone. I imagine people don’t and they forget, and it takes time to actually learn these things. Like the firing advice you just shared, how do you actually get good at this and practice these things is like I have to work with a coach who will continue to reinforce these things? Is it follow these steps next time? Have them written down? What advice do you have for folks that are like, I want to get better at this. I want to start doing this stuff.
Matt Mochary: Well, these docs are all free to the public in the curriculum. You can post them here, you can post them on Twitter, you can post the whole curriculum on Twitter, frankly, other people have. It has a step-by-step. There’s a doc in there that is a step-by-step script. All you do is you read it and you follow the script in letting someone go or in making someone feel heard. My posit is once you do it one time, you’re like, oh my god, that worked so well. That’s the only motivation you need. And you’ve got the script, so you can just keep doing it. I don’t think you need a coach.
In fact, I remember one time I asked an investor who their best up and coming CEO was. The investor gave me a name. I was like, “Great, can I please get introduced to him? I want coach him.” I reached out, the guy responded immediately. He’s like, “Matt, I’ve read your book. I love your book. I read it three years ago. I’ve been implementing all the elements in our company. It’s fantastic.” When someone says that they know my work, they’ve already implemented it and it’s worked, 10 out of 10 times, that person wants me to coach them. Then I said, “Great, that’s fantastic. I’d love to coach you.” And the guy said to me, “No, thanks.” I was shocked. I was like, “Why?” He said, “Well, because it’s all working. I don’t have any problems. I don’t think I need to be coached by you.” I couldn’t have heard a better answer. That, to me, is the ultimate answer. And he is right. He doesn’t need me, doesn’t need anyone.
Lenny: I was going to ask if that’s the goal of all of this writing down and systemizing is just to make yourself unnecessary.
Matt Mochary: Totally.
Lenny:
If you don’t have a SOC 2, there’s a good chance you won’t even get a seat at the table. Beginning a SOC 2 report can be a huge burden, especially for startups. It’s time consuming, tedious, and expensive. Enter Vanta. Over 3000 fast growing companies use Vanta to automate up to 90% of the work involved with SOC 2. Vanta can get you ready for security audits in weeks instead of months, less than a third of the time that it usually takes.
For a limited time, Lenny’s Podcast listeners get $1,000 off Vanta. Just go to vanta.com/lenny, that’s vanta.com/lenny to learn more and to claim your discount. Get started today.
That actually reminds me of another question a reader asked on Twitter who happened to be the one on only Ryan Hoover. He asked, “How has your approach changed in your coaching since you started?”
Matt Mochary: Ryan obviously started Product Hunt and then he sold the company to AngelList, so he was part of AngelList when I went there because I was coaching Naval. What we realized coaching Naval is that Naval did not want to be CEO and he just didn’t know how to get out. So, I said there’s a way and I can show you, and so I did and made Naval’s life 10 times better. Frankly, made AngelList 10 times better because Naval wasn’t enjoying being CEO, therefore he wasn’t good at it. We ended up putting someone in who did a fine job, then put someone else in who’s doing an insanely good job. Now, of course, AngelList is massively valuable.
Ryan was there at the time, Ryan Hoover, great guy, I love Ryan. So, what has changed since then? I think what’s changed is I don’t think back then I had any of this fear and anger give bad advice. I think back then it was all very tactical. It was all very high up management type stuff, which is you need to have goals and at the company level, at the department level, at the individual level, you then need to track those goals. You need to track all the agreements that people make, all the actions they say they’ll do. You have to put it all in Asana. Everyone has to be able to see each other’s Asana board so they can see what each other is doing. I still do that, but now I’ve added on this piece of oh, you’re in the moment and you’re feeling fear? Okay, you still got to go forward. That’s sort of the big change.
Lenny: I noticed that’s at the top of the curriculum. Do you find that’s where a lot of the biggest transformations happen, that curriculum component?
Matt Mochary: Absolutely. I cause people when they first start coaching, they have to read that first. There’s sort of three seminal documents: on time, top goal, and fear and anger give bad advice. On time just says, hey, we’re going to start our meetings on time and you’re going to show up and if you don’t show up on time, you’re going to let me know first. That’s just because I don’t want to… And by the way, I showed up two minutes late for us. That’s because I was on the Google Hangout for 10 minutes. I didn’t realize, I thought you were-
Lenny: I’m trying to fix that bug. Every time we send an invite, there’s a Google meet button there. I think I cracked it finally. Yeah, that would’ve been a funny podcast where I’m just sitting here starting on time and for two minutes. Hello, we’re just waiting.
Matt Mochary: Exactly. Second one is top goal, which is this concept from McKeown, who wrote Essentialism, which is everyone is making requests of you, but if all you do is spend all day is responding to other people’s requests, you never actually march towards your own priorities. You need to A, create priorities and then set aside some amount of time each day, 30 minutes, an hour, two hours that you just work on your own priority. If you do that, you’ll make massive gains. And that’s true. I mean, in five minutes I can change someone’s life just by having them follow that practice. Then the third one is, if you’re in anger, give that advice and that’s what I have people read and say, “Does this resonate with you?” If it does, we can work together and if it doesn’t, we shouldn’t work together. So yeah, that’s kind of like the crux document of whether or not people philosophically are going to resonate with what I have to share.
Lenny: The top goal piece, I’m reading a book called Make Time right now and that’s a big part of it. I actually just added top goal to my calendar every day. It’s not working yet. Every time I get to it, I’m like no, I’m going to just check Twitter right now. But I’m working on it.
Matt Mochary: That is the hardest part. Now, what I’ve done is I’m similar. During my top goal time, I have somebody sit with me and they prevent me from doing anything but my top goal.
Lenny: Wait, can you talk a bit more about that? Is this like a coworker? Are you just like, “I need you here for this hour every day?”
Matt Mochary: Yeah, I mean it’s like the same idea as a trainer in a gym. A trainer in a gym, maybe they’re teaching you a little bit, but more often than not they’re just forcing you to do the thing that you know need to do. But if they weren’t there, you would kind of go eh and not do it. That’s all this is. It’s what I call an accountability partner.
There’s even an app now where you can go online and you can sign up and I think it costs like $5 a month and you can sign up to meet someone else and you become accountability partners to each other. It’s insanely effective. I’m not the only one that has a problem focusing on tasks that I don’t love that are necessary, but I don’t love. Like a meeting, I could take a meeting, I could take 20 meetings, I could take 10 hours of meetings, no problem. Especially when I’m the presenter, when I’m the active one. But doing asynchronous tasks for me because so people-oriented that when there isn’t another human with me, it’s painful, so I just have another human with me.
Lenny: I love that. And that person is doing other work, I imagine they’re not just watching you full-time.
Matt Mochary: No, they can do whatever they want.
Lenny: Is this what you recommend to leaders and CEOs? Just have someone there for an hour. Wow.
Matt Mochary: If your personality is like mine, yes, have someone there. It can be remote, it can be in person, it doesn’t matter. In person’s a little bit more effective.
Lenny: Right, there’s like a little zoom window.
Matt Mochary: I have my kids do it. They love it.
Lenny: I love that. There’s an app I use called Centered, that app that I’m an investor in, but I use it all the time and they have this buddy feature actually where you can be paired with a buddy in real time.
Matt Mochary: Yes, yes.
Lenny: To close a loop on the firing piece, something I was thinking about while you were talking is there’s a lot of layoffs happening right now. When you’re letting go of like a thousand people, you can’t really be their agent unless you’ve seen that happen. Do you have any advice for just like there’s a large layoff how you could do this?
Matt Mochary: Absolutely you can be their agent, not you personally, but they each have a manager and the manager usually has 12 reports and they’re rarely letting go more than 50% at a time. That means six people that they’ve got to be the agent of maximum. Yes, each manager can be the agent for six people. My companies have done a lot of layoffs and here’s why. Back in March of 2020, there was a chance that the world economy was imploding. Now of course, by April and May we realized that wasn’t the case, that the tech world kept going, in fact, it was even flourishing.
But in March of 2020, we didn’t know that. And so you needed, if you were being fiscally responsible, you needed to prepare for that eventuality, so you needed pare costs. 80% of costs in any tech company is payroll, is humans. If you’re going to pare costs, you actually have to let go of humans. Almost every one of my companies did. Some on the low side of 5%, some on the high side. One company that is a hotel company let go of 40% because it looked like their business was about to get obliterated and the results were crazy. Within 60 days of each layoff, the CEO reported back to me: It’s insane. I don’t know how this happened, but the company’s now operating better. I’m not talking on a relative scale, I’m talking on an absolute scale. We’re putting out more features, more code. Our NPS is up, whatever it is, whatever department is performing better. The only answer for it was we’ve got less people, so this coordination issue is reduced.
Then now in May, June of this year, we had this huge reset of valuations where growth tech stocks dropped by 50 to 90% value and all of a sudden, which we’re still in and we don’t know how long this can last, it’s all based on interest rates so it’s likely that growth stocks will be at these valuations until interest rates come back down again, which could be two to three years. These companies now they can go raise money, but it’s going to be at a big down round and down rounds are very painful. So now these companies have to make sure that they don’t need to raise money in the next three years. They’ve got to conserve cash once again.
Here we are, we’re in the land of layoffs again, but this time it’s different. This time these CEOs know that the company actually gets better. And the CEOs that have never done this before, I simply connect them with the CEOs who have done this before and then they get convinced like, oh man, my company will be better. And now this time, people have been even more aggressive. We’ve had companies that have laid off 50% of the company and the results have been frankly, phenomenal.
But the key to doing it well is there has to be a humane delivery. The biggest marker that I’ve seen between a botched layoff and a successful layoff is at the moment someone hears that they no longer have a job, did they hear it from their manager in a one-on-one? If that’s when they heard it, it’ll be okay. But if they heard it in an email, in a group chat, in any kind of thing where they were sitting next to or they’re hearing it along with other people, it wasn’t personalized, it wasn’t one-on-one, that is terrible. That’s when people get really angry and that’s when they start going on Twitter and going to newspapers and et cetera because it feels dehumanizing. It feels like you didn’t give a shit about me. You didn’t even have the courtesy to tell me to my face. Of course, there’s no way to allow that person to express their emotions because they’re in a group. That’s the most important thing.
The second thing is then later, so tactically, this is how it happens. You have an inner circle. I think that inner circle should include all managers in the company and you say, this is how much we need to let go. Here’s how much each of you needs to let go. First of all, you don’t say to each department head or team leader, manager, tell me who you can let go because they’ll all say nobody. You actually have to give them numbers. You have to let this dollar amount go or this many people go, dollar amount is better because if you say people, then they’ll just let go of the cheapest people, the most junior, and often the most junior are the ones that are actually doing the most work. You want it to be dollars because that’s actually really what you’re trying to save. You’re trying to save dollars.
So, you say you have to save this many dollars, come up with a number, they quickly come back with a number. You don’t want to have department heads choose for managers because if you have a team lead and all of a sudden they’re told to let go these three people, the team lead will go, that was crazy. Those are my three best people. So you want to let each manager choose and that doesn’t need to take long. That could take 48 hours.
Then you move to implementation. At implementation, you spend the morning and have each manager reach out to people and just Slack them say, “Hey, can I talk to you for 15 minutes?” And then they have these meetings back-to-back-to-back or as close as they can and they deliver the news, the difficult conversation that we talked about before. “It’s going to be a difficult conversation. I’m letting you go. I imagine this feels crappy or feels like worse than that. This is horrible. If you’re willing to share your feelings and I want to be your agent now. I don’t have time to do it now, but I’d like to schedule with you another hour tomorrow, the next day whenever, so that we can go and dig in and I can help be your agent.”
Then, that takes the morning. By the afternoon, you’ve scheduled an all hands for the stay team. With the stay team, you’d tell them what had just occurred and you answer their questions. The questions are almost always around fear. Like, “Holy shit, is this going to happen to me? Did these people even get feedback that they weren’t performing? Does this mean that we’re dying as a company and that we’re going to implode?” You have to address each one of these questions and hopefully the answer is: no, to the first one, is this going to happen to me? No, this isn’t. We cut deep so that we only cut once. The people to your left and right and you, you are the state team. This is the team that we’re going to building the company with going forward. It’s important to be able to say that. You actually want to cut deep because cutting two times or three times creates PTSD in an organization. It’s trauma one, trauma two, trauma three. Now they’re like, ah, it’s just going to keep happening.
Then, the third piece is, and this not everybody does, if you don’t do this, your company within 60 days will be performing better. If you do this, your company within two weeks will be performing better because people now, the stay team, they feel sadness, they feel anger, they feel fear. Yes, you addressed their questions in the all hands, but not fully because some people didn’t even talk in the all hands.
So, what you do is with each and every person on the stay team, you have a one-on-one with their manager for one hour and all the manager does is say, “I’d like to know your thoughts and feelings,” and the person shares and then all the manager does is make them feel heard. I think what you’re telling me is you feel sad because your three buddies are now no longer here and you feel anger because you think this is bullshit and you think why did we hire this many people if we’re going to fire them? That was just irresponsible. You feel fear because you’re not sure if the company’s going to implode or if your job is safe. Is that right? And they’re like, “Yes.”
Matt Mochary: It doesn’t take away the emotion entirely, but it knocks it down by a good 25%, which is enough that the person won’t do something rash, they won’t quit, they won’t stop working, they won’t say bad shit to other people, and it allows them to accelerates their recovery. Within two weeks, they’re now seeing how the company’s operating better and morale then comes up and the company’s now performing better than it was before. So, three elements.
Lenny: That was thousands of dollars of advice I think, in just five to 10 minutes.
Matt Mochary: That’s after having probably gone through this with CEOs maybe 40 times and iterating AB testing, and what’s the difference, and what works well, and what didn’t work well. Yeah, I can’t imagine there’s somewhat out there who has advised more people through a layoff process, certainly in the tech world, than I have. I’m not saying I’m proud of that, but it just is.
Lenny: What a fun place to be. As you were talking, I was thinking a little bit about Twitter and Elon and the experience that’s going through right now. It feels like on the one hand, he’s letting go of a lot of people, which matches kind of your advice. On the other hand, not being handled too well. I think it’s emails and just a lot of random quick things. What’s your perspective on this whole thing?
Matt Mochary: I haven’t been following it directly, so I don’t know how he’s implementing the layoffs or how much he’s doing. Frankly, just haven’t been following it at all. But here’s the sad reality, even if it’s handled incredibly poorly, the company ends up performing better. It just takes a little longer for people to recover, for the stay team to recover emotionally. But the worst case scenario, it’s handled terribly, within two months, the company will be performing better.
Lenny: Fascinating. That’s actually a good segue to this last topic I wanted to touch on, which something that I think you have a lot of thoughts on is building new products within a larger company and innovating inside of a larger kind of scaled company, and especially the challenges around that. What are your thoughts on just how to do this well, how to innovate within a larger company?
Matt Mochary: I can tell you the short version, but I’ll tell you the long version. The long version is that this was a real problem for everyone I was coaching and I didn’t know the answer. But it was obvious that YC startups were crushing and just iterating so much faster. And then I had the thought, well, why not just create your own YC startup and have it crush you but you own it? It, of course, has to really look like a YC startup. It has to have a founder mentality person as the head of the team, someone who’s willing to just break glass and just won’t stop until they run through the brick wall. It’s actually pretty easy to find founder mentality folks. You just literally go to the YC alumni list and the ones whose startups failed, perfect, they’re available and they are founder types and now they want to join a company that’s actually succeeding because they realize how hard it is to create something on their own, but they still have the mentality.
Then you want to keep the team really small because then they can, again, there’s no buy-in required, like everyone’s on the same page with the same information. We started testing that and it worked, and then I thought, well wait a second. The reason that a big company has a hard time innovating, it’s because once a product is scaled, it’s now got millions of users. So you have two things that you need to make sure stay true every day: the site is up and running and there’s no security breach. Every time you add code, you’ve got to test it thoroughly to make sure it doesn’t take down either one of those. The review process is insane.
So now you’re innovating, you’re writing prototype code on new features. You can’t get it approved it takes so long. That’s what you’re trying to decouple and you’re trying to create an entity that isn’t touching the core code, but you also don’t want to have to go through the approval process of the product team or the head of product. That takes way too long, as well. That’s why it has to be a small team that reports to outside of EPD. It can’t report to the head of engineering, head of product, head of design, it can’t. It’s got to go outside, usually directly to the CEO. That’s the only other place to report that’s outside.
Then I had this idea, well wait a second, there’s also a brand question and so why don’t you create an entirely new name for this product that isn’t the core, the base business? Why don’t you actually just create its own C corp? Why don’t you make it so clear that this is its own entity? So I wrote this whole thing up and created its own C corp. I shared this with a few people and one CEO said to me, “Matt, this sounds radical and sounds like it could work, but is anyone actually doing this?” I thought to myself, oh shit, no, nobody’s actually doing this. Nobody that I know has created new C Corps for the entities, the new products they’re developing.
Then 30 days later, I got in a call with Wei Deng. I told you before, I’m a huge fan, and we talked about product and I shared with her this write up. She’s like, “Oh yeah, that’s what I do.” She said, “I created five C Corps in the last two months.” I was like, “What? Someone’s actually doing it.” I was like, “Well, what are the results?” She’s like, “They’re fantastic.” She goes, “The team doesn’t worry about trying shit because they know that it doesn’t hurt our core brand, and so they’re iterating fast.” And she said, “Not only do I do that, I actually have two teams, independent, working on each new product. One I have is more engineering focused, they build custom code. The other is more sort of customer relationship-focused and maybe they don’t even have engineers and they build a manual solution or they use off the shelf products to build a solution, and just see which one makes more progress faster.” Wow, insane. That’s why, again, I have so much respect for Wei.
Lenny: When I think about these ideas, I think of the NPE team at Facebook and I think it’s called Area 21 at Google, which works on new ideas and I don’t know if anything amazing has come out of those groups maybe, I don’t know. But it feels like the missing piece, and you didn’t mention this piece, is feeling like there’s a huge upside if you get something. Like founders having equity of their company feels like such a motivator. I could become a billionaire if this works out, versus I’m helping my startup in some small incremental way. Is that an important piece or do you think it’s not critical?
Matt Mochary: I’m going to be radical here. I don’t think it matters at all. I think that what really motivates people is building shit that gets used in the world. I think people will say, and they’ll fight for equity and money, but in the end, that’s not what actually motivates them. Because I’ve seen this work in companies where they don’t have big equity, but they have autonomy, they have ownership, not equity ownership, ownership over decision making, ownership over creation. That’s what I think people want. Amazon does this. They’re not giving their people… Amazon’s famous for being cheap bastards, but someone has a great idea, okay, here’s 5 million bucks, go do. Amazon is definitely innovating successfully.
Lenny: What about the flip side of that of not necessarily the huge upside, but the I’m staking everything on this startup, I need this to work, this is my thing, my name’s on the line. I feel like that’s a big motivator also for founders, like I’m not going to give up this feeling of grit. Is that important?
Matt Mochary: Yeah, it’s also fear. It’s fear, which is like if this doesn’t work, I’m screwed. Fear, frankly, is an excellent motivator. It gets people to move fast and move hard. The only problem with fear is it’s also corrosive, so it eats out my insides as I go along. It makes it that I don’t enjoy life, but it’s highly motivated. Now, I think joy is actually even more motivating or they say it’s as motivating, but it’s noncorrosive, so I can last much longer if I’m doing something for joy. Fear is short term, extreme motivation. It’s adrenaline. Joy is long term, consistent motivation that also allows me to look back on my life and go, wow, that was a great life. So yes, that is effective motivation, but I don’t recommend putting oneself in that position to get motivated.
Lenny: For companies that want to try this method that you’re describing, is there a curriculum document for this approach out there?
Matt Mochary: There is.
Lenny: Okay, we’ll link to that. Are there any other companies that are doing this well that come to mind? You mentioned Amazon, Clipboard Health.
Matt Mochary: In my portfolio, I know Scale and Attentive Mobile are both doing this well. More and more companies that I coach are starting to do this because I have more and more examples of it working well, so more and more companies are then copying. I don’t have other names offhand that I can share though.
Lenny: What was that first company? Scale?
Matt Mochary: Scale.
Lenny: Cool. Is that Scale AI?
Matt Mochary: Yeah.
Lenny: Okay, cool. I love that. Love that founder. Maybe a last question, something that I noted just in case we had a little more time is around energy audit. This is something that you advise folks to understand what gives them energy, what zaps their energy, can you talk a bit about that?
Matt Mochary: Sure. It turns out that what we’re really good at is what we love and what we love is often space and time disappear when we do it. Therefore, we actually probably don’t even value it because it comes so easily to us that we don’t ascribe value. Whereas things that we don’t love but we’re good at, we often ascribe value there and other people want us to do those things because they’re often creating value for the whole team or the family or the group.
There are four zones I posit and I learned this from Diana Chapman at Conscious Leadership Group. I don’t know where she learned it from, but almost everything that I have, I poached from somebody, but at least I tell you where I poached it from. The concept is you have four zones.
Zone one is your incompetence, you’re not good at it, someone’s better at it than you. That’s like fixing a car. You should let someone else do that.
Second is your zone of competence, you’re fine, you can do it fine. But so can somebody else do it fine. Like cleaning your house. Yes, you could do it, but it would take a lot of time and you’re not creating that much value. You should let someone else do that.
Third zone, your zone of excellence. This is something that you’re uniquely good at, but you don’t love it. This is the danger zone. This is likely what you’re getting paid for and you’re likely to getting paid a lot of money for it. Other people want you to do it. You are creating value, but it’s also sucking the life force out of you and it doesn’t allow you to become amazing and create massive value.
Then there’s your zone of genius. This is the thing you do that’s uniquely good in the world and you don’t even notice that you’re doing it because you love it so much. The key is to go and look at your day. How do you move into the zone of genius? It’s not that you figure out what it is and do more of that, it’s that you figure out what it isn’t and eliminate that and then naturally, you’ll be drawn toward what it is that you love.
What I do with the energy audit is you go through a calendar, two weeks of a calendar, a representative two weeks and you first look at all the meetings you have, but then you fill in there’s time in between meetings. What were you actually doing? Take your best guess, write it in and then hour by hour, take a green marker and a red marker and each hour from Monday, 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM and the same thing each day for two weeks, each hour ask yourself at the end of that hour, did I have more energy or less energy?
If it’s more energy, you mark it green. If it’s neutral or negative, you mark it red. Then, once you’ve done that for two weeks, you look at all the reds and say what’s with the themes here? Oh, one on ones with people who are no longer by direct reports, team meetings where nothing was prepared in advance and everything was verbal. Recruiting meetings, interviews with people that we didn’t end up hiring. Informational interviews from people that wanted to meet me and just know me but provide no value to me. These are all things that are energy draining.
Great. Now what you do is you go through each one of them and say, one, do I need to do this at all? Does it need to be done? If the answer is no, just cancel it. Two, it needs to be done, but someone else can do it. Great, delegate it to them. Three, and this is the most common, it needs to be done and only I can do it. Great, then the question is, what would make it exquisite? Well, it’s the exec team meeting. I’m the CEO, I have to be in it. Well, what would make it exquisite?
You know what would be exquisite? It would be exquisite if everyone pre-prepared their update, which said how they’re doing against their priorities, regular green, what they did last week, what they’re going to do this week, and then they pre-route any problems they saw in the company and any proposed solution they had for those problems. If everyone did that, then we could spend the first 15 minutes of the meeting just reading, processing the decisions and we could take a three hour meeting down to a 45 minute meeting. Great, go write that up, share it with a group and say, hey gang, this is what would make this meaning exquisite for me. What do you guys think?
Nine out of 10 times people look at it and go, yeah, that would be amazing because they’re feeling the same way. Then you go with a new methodology and it turns out to be great. That’s how you take what you do each day from a lot of energy draining things into open space or energy raising things which will then allow you to start doing more and more of the things that you love. You keep doing this energy audit repeatedly, 1, 2, 3 times until your calendar is 80% green. Once that happens, magic will occur. All of a sudden, your life will become phenomenal and you will start to create massive value. I did it. That’s what happened to me.
Lenny: I did that too actually, a simpler version where I just paid attention to what gave me energy and what didn’t give me energy when I was on this journey post Airbnb and I thought I was wanted to start a company, I thought I wanted to do some advising and consulting and I realized none of that gives me energy, but writing interesting things that people like, that was fun. So I just kind of doubled down on that path and had no idea was going to make any money and it ended up making money and that’s what I do now. So yeah, two thumbs up for this method and it’s a more sophisticated version, which I like.
Matt Mochary: Right on. That’s also trusting that there will be, if you need to monetize, eventually you will be able to monetize, but you got to start with doing the thing you love first.
Lenny: Right. Yeah, I feel like there’s a lot of people on Twitter and newsletters that are just doing it because they think this is something they will enjoy and other people are doing it. But I find that with this content life, you get on this treadmill where you have to continue producing things and if you don’t actually enjoy it and it’s not interesting to you, you end up just building this job for yourself that is no fun at all. Extra important if you’re kind of going down this path.
One quick question I had along these lines is you’re talking about how you focus on yourself and your energy and what works for you or not. And I was like, do these collide with other people on your team because they maybe get energy from something you don’t? But your point is that oftentimes, everyone’s like, “Yes, this is good for me too. We should do this because it’s going to help everybody feel better.”
Matt Mochary: That’s exactly right. I remember one time we did this energy audit process, I did it with Henrique and Pedro from Brex and it was revolutionary for them. It caused them to change how the two of them operated together. They realized one really enjoyed the internal meetings and the other really enjoyed the external meetings, so well great, let’s just do that. It changed the trajectory of the company so much so that they said, “Matt, would you please come in and do this energy audit with all of our managers?” And we did. We did a big group thing and what they found was that process also changes the trajectory of the company because for everything that you don’t enjoy but needs to get done, there’s someone out there that loves to do it. You just got to find out who it is, and that’s what happened.
Lenny: I was just talking to my mom who’s a CPA and I’m like, “Do you even enjoy this job you’re doing?” She’s like, “I love it. I love doing taxes. It’s so interesting.” I’m like, I’m so happy somebody out there enjoys this. I would pay anything for someone to take this off my plate. You can charge me. Because my mom does my taxes.
Matt Mochary: That’s exactly right.
Lenny: Matt, any final thoughts you want to share before we wrap up?
Matt Mochary: This was fun. Thanks, Lenny. I appreciate this.
Lenny: Super fun. I feel like a sign of a great conversation is it feels like we’ve been talking for maybe five minutes, but also a lifetime. Maybe we’ll do this again. There’s like a million other questions I’d love to get into, but until then, where can folks find you online if they want to reach out and learn more and how can listeners be useful to you?
Matt Mochary: Where can people find me? I don’t know. Don’t find me. I won’t be able to respond. I get too many inbounds and I can’t respond to them. In terms of people helpful to me, just read the content and use it and don’t pay me to coach you. Just do it on your own because you don’t need to pay me to coach you.
Lenny: I love that. It’s the first time someone’s like, “Do not reach out. I got it all for you online.” We’ll link to the show notes of the doc and everything. Matt, thank you. This was incredible.
Matt Mochary: Thank you, Lenny. This was great. Take care.
Lenny: Thank you so much for listening. If you found this valuable, you can subscribe to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app. Also, please consider giving us a rating or leaving a review as that really helps other listeners find the podcast. You can find all past episodes or learn more about the show at lennyspodcast.com. See you in the next episode.
Glossary
| English | 中文 |
|---|---|
| accountability partner | 责任伙伴(accountability partner) |
| Alex Honnold | Alex Honnold(徒手攀岩者,保留原文) |
| Alex MacCaw | Alex MacCaw(保留原文) |
| amygdala | 杏仁核 |
| Andy Grove | 安迪·格鲁夫(英特尔前 CEO,国际知名人物,使用公认中文译名) |
| AngelList | AngelList(公司名,保留原文) |
| Asana | Asana(项目管理工具,保留原文) |
| Attentive Mobile | Attentive Mobile(公司名,保留原文) |
| Ben Horowitz | 本·霍洛维茨(知名风险投资家/作家,使用公认中文译名) |
| Brex | Brex(公司名,保留原文) |
| Brian Armstrong | Brian Armstrong(保留原文) |
| CAA | CAA(Creative Artists Agency,保留原文) |
| Centered | Centered(app 名称,保留原文) |
| Clipboard Health | Clipboard Health(公司名,保留原文) |
| cognitive behavior therapy | 认知行为疗法 |
| Conscious Leadership Group | Conscious Leadership Group(机构名,保留原文) |
| CPA | 注册会计师(CPA) |
| curriculum | 课程 |
| Diana Chapman | Diana Chapman(Conscious Leadership Group 联合创始人,保留原文) |
| ego | 自我(ego) |
| Elon | Elon(指 Elon Musk,保留原文) |
| energy audit | 能量审计(energy audit) |
| Essentialism | 《精要主义》(Essentialism) |
| executive coach | 高管教练 |
| GP | GP(General Partner,普通合伙人,保留原文) |
| inbound | inbound(指主动联系的请求,保留原文) |
| Leo Polovets | Leo Polovets(Susa Ventures GP,保留原文) |
| Lex Fridman | Lex Fridman(播客主持人,保留原文) |
| LiDAR | LiDAR(激光雷达,保留原文) |
| Make Time | 《创造时间》(Make Time) |
| Matt Mochary | Matt Mochary(硅谷高管教练/创始人教练,非国际知名公众人物,保留原文) |
| McKeown | McKeown(《精要主义》作者,保留原文) |
| Michael Ovitz | Michael Ovitz(CAA 联合创始人/经纪人,保留原文) |
| Naval | Naval(指 Naval Ravikant,保留原文) |
| PII | 个人身份信息(PII) |
| Product Hunt | Product Hunt(公司名,保留原文) |
| product market fit | 产品市场契合 |
| Ryan Hoover | Ryan Hoover(Product Hunt 创始人,保留原文) |
| Scale AI | Scale AI(公司名,保留原文) |
| show notes | show notes(播客节目备注,保留原文) |
| SOC 2 | SOC 2(安全合规标准,保留原文) |
| Susa Ventures | Susa Ventures(风险投资机构,保留原文) |
| talent density | 人才密度(talent density) |
| Vanta | Vanta(公司名,保留原文) |
| Wei Deng | Wei Deng(Clipboard Health CEO,保留原文) |
| YC | YC(Y Combinator 的缩写,不翻译) |
| zone of competence | 胜任区(zone of competence) |
| zone of excellence | 卓越区(zone of excellence) |
| zone of genius | 天才区(zone of genius) |
| zone of incompetence | 无能区(zone of incompetence) |
Reformatted by reformat_english.py
你的恐惧是否正在给你糟糕的建议? | Matt Mochary
文字记录
Matt Mochary (00:00:00): 我见过的搞砸的裁员和成功的裁员之间最大的区别在于:当一个人得知自己不再有工作的那一刻,他是不是在一对一的场合从经理那里听到的?如果是这样,那就还好。但如果他是在邮件里、在群聊里、在任何一种他和其他人坐在一起或者和其他人同时听到的方式里得知的——不是单独的、不是一对一的——那就很糟糕。那正是人们真正愤怒的时候,也正是他们开始去 Twitter 上发帖、去找报纸媒体等等的时候,因为这让人感到被非人化了。感觉就像你根本不在乎我。你甚至连当面告诉我的礼貌都没有。而且当然,在群体中也无法让那个人表达自己的情绪。所以,这是最重要的一点。
Lenny (00:01:08): 欢迎收听 Lenny’s Podcast。我是 Lenny,我在这里的目标是帮助你更好地掌握打造和增长产品这项手艺。今天的嘉宾是 Matt Mochary。Matt 是一位全职高管教练,但他不是普通的教练。他与 Naval、OpenAI、Coinbase、Reddit、Rippling、Fair、Front、Notion 的 CEO 们合作过,名单还可以继续列下去。他还指导过红杉(Sequoia)、YC、Benchmark 等多家风投公司的合伙人。
Lenny (00:01:34): 我们非常幸运 Matt 同意来参加这期播客,在我们的对话中涵盖了很多话题。我们谈到为什么学会解雇人是作为领导者最重要的技能之一,以及如何做好这件事;为什么愤怒和恐惧往往把你推向与你应该去的方向完全相反的方向;如何在大型公司内部创新;他的教练方法多年来如何演变;最成功的创始人们仍然在哪些方面挣扎;以及更多内容。这可能是我新的最爱的一期,我猜你们也会这么认为。大量的真话,配有策略、模板和各种好东西。请享受与 Matt Mochary 的这段对话。
Lenny (00:02:12): 本期节目由 AssemblyAI 赞助。如果你正在音频或视频产品中构建强大的 AI 驱动功能,那你需要了解 AssemblyAI。AssemblyAI 是一个提供最先进 AI 模型的 API 平台,成千上万以产品驱动增长的公司如 Spotify、Loom 和 CallRail 都在使用它来将 AI 融入产品中。通过简单的 API,开发者和产品经理可以获取强大的 AI 模型,用于转录、摘要以及数十种其他任务,快速、安全、可直接用于生产环境。他们所有的模型都是由内部研究并训练的,由 AI 专家团队持续更新,对产品经理来说,这让构建和上线新的 AI 功能变得很容易。初创公司和大型企业的产品团队正在使用 AssemblyAI 来自动转录和摘要电话及虚拟会议、检测播客中的话题、定位敏感内容的出现时间、从音频视频中编辑个人身份信息(PII),以及更多功能。访问 AssemblyAI.com 免费试用 AssemblyAI 的 API,并在他们的无代码沙盒中开始测试模型。网址是 AssemblyAI.com。
Lenny (00:03:26): 本期节目由 Lemon.io 赞助。你已经达到了产品市场契合,你能够激活、吸引和留存你的客户,但你没有足够的工程师来按照你想要的速度推进,因为快速找到优秀的工程师很难,尤其是在你试图控制烧钱速度的情况下。来认识一下 Lemon.io。Lemon.io 会快速为你匹配合格的高级开发者,他们都经过审查,注重结果,随时准备帮助你成长,而且价格有竞争力。初创公司选择 Lemon.io 是因为他们只提供经过精挑细选、拥有三年以上经验和强有力的作品集的开发者。申请者中只有 1% 能入选,所以你可以放心他们为你提供的都是高质量人才。如果出了任何问题,Lemon.io 会提供快速替换,所以你基本上是带保修的雇佣。
Lenny (00:04:15): 了解更多,请访问 lemon.io/lenny,在 48 小时或更短时间内找到你的理想开发者或技术团队。如果你现在开始流程,还可以享受 Lenny’s Podcast 听众专属折扣——与你的新软件开发者合作的前四周 15% 优惠。多一双手的帮助,更快成长,请访问 lemon.io/lenny。
Lenny (00:04:43): Matt,非常感谢你来。欢迎来到播客。
Matt Mochary (00:04:47): 谢谢邀请,我很期待。
Lenny (00:04:49): 我更期待。我了解你的方式是这样的:早些时候我读了一本叫 The Great CEO Within 的书,我手边就有一本,当时我就想,天哪,这是我见过的对领导者来说最实用、最落地、最有用的书。我需要告诉所有人,我也确实这么做了。然后几周前,有人在我的 Newsletter Slack 社区里分享了一个链接,指向一份叫做 Mochary Method 课程文档的文件。我想,天哪,这是我很长一段时间以来见过的最实用、最落地、最有用的文档。我得把这个分享给所有人,我也确实这么做了。然后我发现这两样东西是同一个人写的,于是我就联系了你,你很爽快地答应了来参加这个播客。所以再次感谢你来到这里。
Matt Mochary (00:05:30): 谢谢你邀请我。
Lenny (00:05:32): 给不太熟悉你的人简单介绍一下背景,也帮助大家理解你是怎么变得这么有智慧的。能不能简要讲讲你职业生涯中做过的一些精彩的事情,也许还包括你合作过的一些人,以及你是怎么走到现在这一步的?
Matt Mochary (00:05:47): 好的。我的职业经历非常多样。我在互联网 1.0 时代创办了一家公司叫 Totality,财务回报很不错。然后我去玩了很长一段时间,之后又去做社会公益,帮助刑满释放人员通过成为卡车司机来找到并保住一份工作。这些都特别有趣,但我发现我怀念我的同行们,我想回到科技圈,但我不想再创业,因为创业太辛苦了,最终结果是你赚很多钱,但我不需要钱。
Matt Mochary (00:06:15): 于是我想,我怎样才能进入科技圈而又不用做那些苦活呢?哦,我可以当教练。我可以指导别人,然后就只做那些有趣的事、给他们建议,而苦活由他们来干。于是我四处看了看,想我该怎么做呢,因为我不是教练,凭什么有人会听我的?后来有人告诉我,斯坦福有一些学生创办了公司,但没人愿意指导他们。他们进不了 YC,因为 YC 不接受学生。所以我去开始指导他们,过程非常有趣也非常成功,然后他们开始沿着食物链往上推荐我,最终我认识了 Naval Ravikant、Sam Altman、Brian Armstrong 等人,他们在科技圈的其他地方推荐了我,最终我指导了一些最大科技公司和大牌科技投资公司的 CEO 和领导者。
Matt Mochary (00:07:07): 这一路非常有趣。我做事情是为了快乐,而每一次这样的互动都给我带来了巨大的快乐,我指导的人成了我非常亲密的朋友,所以这一切对我来说都非常自私。
Lenny (00:07:21): 你说的很多我都感同身受。我也曾尝试重新创业,同样得出结论——这压力太大、太辛苦了,还有什么别的可以做呢?而这正是引导我走到现在所做的工作的原因,我很热爱现在做的事。
Matt Mochary (00:07:33): 好极了。
Lenny (00:07:34): 你做教练多久了?
Matt Mochary (00:07:36): 这整个过程大约从 10 年前开始,所以大约 10 年了。
Lenny (00:07:40): 太棒了。你在 Twitter 和互联网上有很多粉丝,这次对话之前我在 Twitter 上做了个投票,问大家如果有机会和你聊天会问什么问题,所以我想先问你几个他们的问题,然后我们再深入聊几个我很期待聊的具体话题。第一个问题来自 Leo Polovets,他是 Susa Ventures 的 GP,他问道:“Matt 教练过一些非常厉害的创始人,即使是最成功的创始人,他们仍然在哪些最常见的方面挣扎?”
Matt Mochary (00:08:11): 好问题。对我来说,核心标杆就是恐惧,以及人们感受到恐惧的强烈程度。我教练的少数人完全不感到恐惧。坦白说,跟他们的对话都很战术性,但他们是少数。大多数人都在某种程度上感受到恐惧,有些人感受很强烈,有些人弱一些,但当他们感受到恐惧时,它会攫住他们的心智,让他们看不到……它阻止他们去做那些困难但必要的事情,所以我们的教练工作很大一部分就是,我向他们指出,嘿,我觉得你处于恐惧之中。
Matt Mochary (00:08:55): 发生的情况是,在教练过程很早期他们就会说,好吧,我确实在恐惧中。那又怎样?我会说,很好。我相信恐惧实际上在给你错误的建议,我认为你在预测如果你做这件事,A 就会发生。而我的预测是,如果你做了这件事,完全相反的事情会发生。所以,这样吧,我们打个赌怎么样?这个赌注太高了,不如我们选一个赌注低一些的事?你做一个预测,我做相反的预测,然后我们赌一把。于是我们选一件事,然后下注,未来谁赢了赌注,谁就来决定行动方案。
Matt Mochary (00:09:31): 这个赌我打了上百次,到目前为止,我从未输过。这不是因为我是魔术师或天才,而是因为当一个人处于恐惧中时,他被攫住了。他看不清现实,大脑在做非常夸张的预测。而当一个人不处于恐惧中时——而我确实不恐惧,因为这不是我的处境——我没有被攫住,因此我的大脑不会做出夸张的预测。所以,我们打了这个赌,一旦我赢了,CEO 就会突然意识到,天哪,原来是这样,恐惧给的是错误的建议。之后,我只需要提醒对方我察觉到他们处于恐惧之中就够了。就是这样,然后他们会说,哦,好吧,接着就去做他们原本恐惧的事情。当然,后来他们会回来对我说,Matt,这太神奇了。效果太好了。
恐惧的典型场景:向董事会坦白问题
Matt Mochary (00:10:23): 我可以给你举些例子。最极端的情况是,当一位 CEO 意识到公司出了问题,但还没有告诉董事会,董事会也还不知道——记住,董事会就是他们的投资人——而他们还有一轮融资即将到来,他们知道未来六到十二个月内需要再融资。他们需要现有投资人参与下一轮,否则外部投资人也不会参与。然后他们说,我该怎么办?我有这个问题。要不要告诉投资人?大多数情况下,本能反应是,不,我不告诉他们。
Matt Mochary (00:11:01): 然后我说,“嗯,我觉得这是恐惧。我觉得如果你真的告诉他们,告诉你的投资人,会发生的事情和我们以为会发生的事情恰好相反。你以为你会失去他们的信任,我觉得你会赢得他们的信任。“所以,如果我们之前做过这个恐惧练习,他们就会去做,向董事会透明地分享所有问题,并说,而且我很兴奋要去解决这些问题。每一次发生这种情况,董事会成员都会说,“太棒了。我喜欢这种诚实。非常感谢。这是我所在的董事会中少有的真正透明和诚实的公司,“然后他们赢得了信任。
Lenny (00:11:42): 我很高兴你提到了这个话题。我本来就想花时间聊聊它。稍微深入展开一下,简单总结一下你的建议——如果你感到恐惧(而你可能并没有意识到自己在恐惧),建议是:做你大脑告诉你不要做的事,对吗?
Matt Mochary (00:11:57): 一般来说是的,但要先跟别人确认一下。不要随便来——我感到恐惧,然后在穿一条车流密集的高速公路,然后说,哦,那是恐惧在说话,我还是穿过去吧,然后被车撞了。不,我不是这个意思。我指的不是物理上的危险,我指的是那些我们认为是危险但其实是针对自我(ego)的事情,最简单的办法就是找一个不处于恐惧中的人确认一下,因为当你看不清的时候,他们能看得很清楚。
“我察觉你处于恐惧中”:如何给人反馈
Lenny (00:12:24): 我在学习你的课程时,你提到你找到了一种方式来告诉别人他们处于恐惧之中。我记得是你太太,她和你反复磨合如何给你反馈说你在恐惧中——因为你不会变得防御,反而会变得更加恐惧和愤怒——你能聊聊这个吗?
Matt Mochary (00:12:40): 好的,我们反复尝试过。我有时会感到愤怒,然后在这种愤怒的驱使下行动,但我甚至没有意识到自己处于愤怒中,所以我希望她能提醒我。一开始她说,“你在生气,“这让我觉得被指责,反而更生气了。然后她说,“你在生气吗?“这感觉像被动攻击或者拐弯抹角,也让我更加愤怒。最后她说,“我察觉你处于愤怒中。“这是一个”我”开头的陈述,只是表达她的感知,没有任何评判。这句话能够穿透我的愤怒,然后我醒过来,哦,然后我停下来,不再行动,直到我能从愤怒中走出来。
Lenny (00:13:25): 太棒了。而且愤怒和恐惧,我觉得对于愤怒和恐惧有不同的建议,对吗?
愤怒与恐惧的区别
Matt Mochary (00:13:32): 是的。愤怒的话,你就是在破坏,你在破坏关系,所以你必须停下来,因为你在打碎东西。当然,你打碎的是和你最亲近的人的关系。他们是离你最近的人,也就是你最爱和最在乎的人。他们不只是你的同事,还是和你一起生活的人,你不会想那样做的。你不会想伤害他们。
Lenny (00:13:59): 是的。也许沿着这条线再问最后一个问题,我们为什么会这样做?是不是就是我们在试图保护自己的自我(ego)和自己,所以只想做安全的事?
Matt Mochary (00:14:06): 就是这样。我是最近才学到的,这个在任何地方都找不到,因为我刚学到——有人告诉我,愤怒不是一种基础情绪。愤怒其实是一种掩盖,是当我们感到痛苦时的掩盖,所以大脑不想感受痛苦,就把它外化了。但问题是,它把痛苦推给了周围的所有人。真正的答案不是让别人告诉我们我们在愤怒中然后停下来。真正的答案是让自己去感受痛苦——顺便说一下,这很糟糕,真的会疼。但这样我们就不会……抱歉,我有点激动了。我们就不会把痛苦推到别人身上。我也是最近才学到这个,现在刚开始练习,做得还不好,但至少有时候我不会再走向愤怒了。
Lenny (00:15:02): 有趣的是,这些建议非常私人,听起来像是你自己也在面对这些问题。你不是一个只是在旁边说”嘿大家,这些都是你们的问题,这是我帮你们自己解决问题的方式”的教练。
Matt Mochary (00:15:15): 我是人啊。是的,正因如此我才先在自己身上摸索,如果我在自己身上找到了解决方案,那我就可以分享给其他人。
Lenny (00:15:24): 太精彩了。Leo 提的这个问题很有收获,我们稍后可能还会回到这个话题。
Matt Mochary (00:15:30): 顺便说一下,这也适用于组织。我是说,我以前获取所有关于如何运营组织的知识的方式是——我创办了一家公司,Totality,我和我的联合创始人在管理那家公司方面做得一塌糊涂。结果就是,我从中没有得到任何可以分享给别人的经验教训,因为那全是最差实践,而不是最佳实践。但十年后,我对自己说,好吧,我怎么才能把那件事做得更好?我们怎么才能做得更好?
Matt Mochary (00:15:55): 于是我拿起一本书,一本商业书,是安迪·格鲁夫(Andy Grove)的《High Output Management》。我读完之后心想,“天哪,这里全是答案。“然后我又读了另一本书,本·霍洛维茨(Ben Horowitz)的《The Hard Thing About Hard Things》,心想,“天哪,还有更多答案。“我就不停地读越来越多的商业书,每一本读下来都塞满了答案。但我需要验证这些东西是否真的有效,所以我开始做教练,开始在各个公司里测试它们。但我得让人知道——来,做这个——但他们不会去读一本 350 页的书。我不得不把它浓缩成两页,然后分享给他们,然后他们照做了,然后执行了,确实有效。
Matt Mochary (00:16:29): 然后我就积累了所有这些摘要,然后我开始针对那些在我读过的任何书里都没有出现的小众案例,写自己的摘要。所有这些文章就是这么来的。后来有一天,一个我在辅导的人说,“Matt,你得把这些文章整理出来。它们就是一本书,你得出版它们。“我说,“不,我不需要。“我朋友说,“那这样,我来做所有的工作?我来负责编辑和出版怎么样?“我说,“好吧,如果你愿意做的话,太好了。“那个人就是 Alex MacCaw。之前也有人主动提过,但他是唯一一个从头到尾真正坚持到底的人。就这样。这本书就是这么诞生的。
激进想法的试验田
Matt Mochary (00:17:06): 但我最近也意识到,我有很多最激进的想法,我找不到任何人来测试,因为我会说,“嘿,我觉得你应该做某某事。“然后 CEO 会说,“这听起来太疯狂了。Matt,你能不能给我指出其他做过这件事并且成功的例子?“我说,“不能,这是从我脑子里冒出来的原创想法。据我所知,以前没人做过。“他们说,“好吧,那我不会做第一个。”
Matt Mochary (00:17:33): 然后我意识到我需要一个组织来测试我最激进的想法,而且我所有的 CEO 们也一直在要求我开发软件,因为我有一套方法论——第一步,第二步,第三步——你在一对一会议中这样做,然后有一套团队会议的方法论,然后有一套反馈的方法论,然后公司里每一个不同的动作都有对应的方法论。全部都在 Google Docs 里。他们对我说,“Matt,这太棒了。我太喜欢你的一对一流程了。我喜欢你的团队流程,但我不想每次都去用你教我的方式再教我的每一个下属。我希望能更自动化一点。我按一个按钮,砰,就自动完成了。“一开始我说,“不,我对这个不感兴趣。我不是开发者。你,Brian Armstrong,你是开发者,你手下有一千个工程师。你为什么不去开发呢?”
Matt Mochary (00:18:21): 但最后我说,“好吧,这可能挺有意思的。“于是我雇了一个开发团队,我们开始开发软件,第一,产品跑通了。但第二,更重要的是,我现在有了一个团队,大家一起协作,我可以在他们身上测试那些更激进的想法。我会说大约一半取得了巨大成功,另一半则是彻底的哑炮。似乎不是这个极端就是那个极端。但现在我基本上有了自己的实验室来测试各种想法。当然,当我看到其他人在做的激进事情时,我会在我们的组织中尝试,效果非常惊人。
找到”后悔线”
Matt Mochary (00:18:59): 我告诉你最激进的一个。我问一位 CEO,我说,“你有没有解雇过某人之后后悔过?“他说,“没有。“我说,“那么你就不知道那条线在哪里,因为你应该解雇人的线在这里,而你实际解雇人的线在那里。所以直到你接近那条线,你才知道那条线在哪里。“他说,“哇,确实如此。“然后我想了想,对自己说,糟了,我从来没有解雇过谁之后后悔过,所以我不知道那条线在哪里。
Matt Mochary (00:19:34): 然后我想,糟糕,我得走进我的团队,解雇某个人,而问题在于——我们已经做过人才密度(talent density)了,我们已经做过 Netflix 那套了。如果某人只是达标,我们就让他走。那些人我们已经全部送走了。所以我们的团队里只有超出预期的人。于是,我想到了一个人,他是一个超出预期的人,这一点毫无疑问,而且超级积极,一个非常棒的人,什么都能做,什么都乐意做。但已经没有太多事情留给他做了,因为其他所有事情都已经被覆盖了。我跟我的副手说,“你能把你正在做的事和他正在做的事都做了吗?“她说,“给我两周时间,“她做到了。她回来说,“是的,我可以。“于是,我们让他走了。
用同理心解雇
Matt Mochary (00:20:19): 现在,当我让人离开时,我试着用极大的同理心去做,因为我知道这是残酷的。我的意思是,失去配偶、失去家园、失去工作,这是一个人可能遭遇的三件最创伤性的事情。当这些事情发生时,你当然会陷入巨大的恐惧,大脑会停摆,所以我想在那里陪伴他们,帮助他们度过这个过程,主动帮他们找到理想的工作,因为一定有一个地方绝对需要他们。所以,我做的就是我成为他们的经纪人,我说,“我想帮你发现你理想的角色是什么,我想帮你创造它或得到它。“我就是这么对他做的。结果发现,他想做的事情是去创业,做一个新产品,所以他第一天就能开始。但对我而言的试金石是,每一个我让他走的人,我相信——不管怎样——我都继续和他们保持朋友关系。这向我表明,我让人离开的过程是一个有人性的过程。
少即是多
Matt Mochary (00:21:17): 疯狂的是,在让这个人离开大约 30 天后,我心想,唉,我是不是做错了?是不是太过分了?但大约两三个月后,我意识到,不,那其实是正确的事情,因为我的副手能够把他原来做的事情吸收过来,而疯狂的部分是——组织中的人越少,事情运转得越好。这是大多数人永远不会发现的一个重大认知。他们达到了产品市场契合,从投资者那里拿到了大量资金,然后就招人、招人、招人、招人,但你组织中每多一个人就会带来额外的开销,而且是呈几何级数增长的,因为现在你得让所有这些人了解信息,给他们所有上下文,让所有人都觉得自己被倾听,因为除非他们觉得自己在贡献,并且你理解他们在说什么,否则他们会觉得被忽视、被忽略、不被尊重、满腹牢骚。
规模带来的摩擦
Matt Mochary (00:22:11): 然后就会出现士气问题。信息流的摩擦和士气问题会越来越大、越来越大。说真的,唯一的答案是——这也是人们请我来的原因,因为他们不断扩张、不断扩张,然后事情就开始崩坏。我有一套让事情维持在一起的系统,但它并不能做到完美。它只是让公司不至于散架。但真正的理想状态是保持团队极其精简。WhatsApp 是这么做的,Instagram 是这么做的,Linear 现在也在这么做。Notion 一直以来也是这么做的。对我来说,这些才是真正的成功典范。
Lenny (00:22:53): 这让我想起我在 Lex Fridman 播客上刚听到的一个故事。他们当时在采访特斯拉的 AI 负责人,或者说是前 AI 负责人,Lex 问他,“你们为什么去掉了车上的 LiDAR?传感器不是越多越好吗,这样自动驾驶不是更厉害吗?“他说,“如果你有 LiDAR,你就得考虑供应链,得去弄那些零部件。你得考虑它带来的所有额外数据,这些数据会给你的数据集增加更多的混乱,你得去处理这些。想想看,如果那一个零件出了问题,一切都会慢下来。理论上它确实更好,但所有这些其他因素最终反而让整体变得更糟。“他讲的是 Elon 的理念——最好的零件就是没有零件。感觉你说的正是同一个道理。
Matt Mochary (00:23:36): 没错。
解雇是一项技能
Lenny (00:23:37): 你把我所有想聊的话题都带出来了,太棒了。说回解雇人,这个话题很好。我们之前聊过,你提到这是大多数管理者非常不擅长的一项技能,而且可能是作为领导者和管理者最需要培养的技能。大家就是做不好。你之前已经分享了一些建议,但关于如何提升解雇人这项技能,还有什么可以分享的吗?
Matt Mochary (00:24:03): 好的,人们之所以做不好这件事,是因为他们觉得自己在伤害被辞退的那个人。我听过多少人跟我说,“这个人业绩不行,但是天哪,他真的很需要这份工作,他妈妈得了癌症,“诸如此类的个人处境。Wei Deng,她是 Clipboard Health 的 CEO,也是我最欣赏的 CEO 之一——坦白说,我从她身上学到的东西比她从我这里学到的还多——她跟我分享了她的决策框架,就是把决策和执行分开。也就是说,她会想:我在为谁解决问题?这里的利益相关者是谁?在一家公司里,几乎总是在为客户解决问题。那么,客户希望看到什么结果?这就是决策。客户当然希望只留下最优秀的员工,任何不够出色的员工就不应该留在那里。
Matt Mochary (00:24:52): 然后来看执行层面——如果我这样做,如果我让这个人离开,谁会受到伤害?员工会受到伤害。也许我也会受到伤害,因为这是一场痛苦的对话。也许团队其他人也会受到伤害,因为他们的朋友要走了。然后你看,我们能做什么?每一个受到伤害的人,他们真正想要的是什么?看看我们能不能帮助他们得到他们真正想要的东西。被辞退的那个人,他想要什么?他想要一份他真正被需要的好工作,在那里他感到充实,享受自己做的事情,并且对他所在的公司或组织来说是不可或缺的。而实际上他现在并不是——顺便说一句,他并不是不可或缺的,这很明显。所以你其实是在阻碍他得到他真正想要的东西。
Matt Mochary (00:25:36): 你要做的就是帮他们找到一个真正需要他们技能或热情的地方。你自己呢,你真正想要什么?你想要不用进行艰难的对话?认知行为疗法告诉我们,克服这个最好的方式就是真正去进行一次,然后发现其实没那么糟。然后是团队其他人,他们因为队友离开而感到难过。他们真正想要的是……他们想要释放自己的情绪。好的,那很简单。倾听他们,让他们分享自己的情绪,让他们分享感受到的悲伤,然后这些情绪就从他们身体里释放出去了。
Matt Mochary (00:26:12): 决策是一回事,执行是截然分开的另一回事。让一个人离开也是同样的道理。但如果你以善意和人性化的方式让他们离开,关键在于——在我看来——你要成为他们的经纪人,就像 Michael Ovitz 那个 CAA 经纪人一样。你要主动帮他们找下一份工作。Michael Ovitz 会替他的客户主动联系雇主,说,“嘿,你有没有适合我客户的工作?“我说的经纪人就是这个意思,而不是说”如果你需要我提供推荐信,我很乐意提供”。那都是废话,那是被动的。
Matt Mochary (00:26:50): 我说的是主动出击,而且这花不了多少时间。可能也就我一两个小时的时间,给我认识的人发消息说,“嘿,我这儿有个非常棒的人。“天哪,他们当然会重视。当然会有反应。你可能会说,等一下,如果这个人并不是很出色怎么办?如果他的表现不好怎么办?我的前提是他在某个方面是擅长的。你需要找到他擅长的是什么。而他真正擅长的往往就是他热爱的事情,所以找到他的热情所在,然后为此推荐他。我就是这么做的。
Matt Mochary (00:27:25): 我认为几乎所有不擅长辞退人的管理者,原因要么是 A,他们从来没做过,要么是 B,他们做得很糟糕。他们没有帮助那个人,那个人然后经历了一段非常痛苦的时期,现在恨上了那个管理者。但如果你主动帮助那个人,他们会心存感激。当然,有些情况下对方会说,“去你的,我不需要你的帮助。“好吧,但他们依然会认识到你主动提供了帮助。
Lenny (00:27:56): 说到擅长解雇人,你脑海中浮现的做得最好的人是谁?
Matt Mochary (00:28:01): Clipboard Health 的 Wei Deng。她最有同理心。
Lenny (00:28:07): 太好了。你分享的这个框架让我想起我以前的经理教过我的类似方法。他少了最后一步——真正成为对方的经纪人、帮他找到下一份工作——但核心理念是一样的:把情绪和做事分开,想一想如果没有感情因素介入,你会怎么做?然后你就应该那么做,即使这可能很难。
Matt Mochary (00:28:26): 完全正确。顺便说一句,关于没有感情这件事,我确实有大概两位 CEO 是没有情绪感受的。他们感受不到恐惧,感受不到愤怒。其中一个尤其如此,零情绪。我得说,他就是一台机器,一台运转的机器,从”这是正确的事情”到实际去做之间零延迟。令人惊叹。那是一家运营极其出色的公司,也是一家价值极高的公司。所以是的,情绪——再说一次,通常是恐惧和愤怒——是我们大脑脱轨的原因。
Lenny (00:29:08): 这让我想到 Alex Honnold,应该是这个名字,那个徒手攀岩的人,单独攀岩那个。他的杏仁核功能不太正常,所以他不会——
Matt Mochary (00:29:19): 没错。
Lenny (00:29:21): 有意思。他可以去当徒手攀岩者,也可以去当 CEO。
Matt Mochary (00:29:25): 没错。不过当 CEO 稍微安全一点。对 Alex 的预测是,他终有一天——不幸的是——会死。
Lenny (00:29:33): 是的。你看过《The Alpinist》吗?就不剧透了。
Matt Mochary (00:29:36): 看过。
Lenny (00:29:38): 好的,不说这个了。我很好奇,在远程环境下,你关于解雇的建议会有变化吗?看起来你刚才分享的内容,无论当面还是远程都很容易做到,但通过 Zoom 来做的时候,有什么不同吗?
Matt Mochary (00:29:51): 没有,完全不会变。有一点我之前没提到,现在补充一下——除了帮对方做他自己的代理人之外,还有一点是:每当我要进行一场艰难对话时,我都会先开场说:“嘿,接下来会是一场艰难的对话。我想让你花几秒钟准备一下。你不会喜欢接下来要听到的内容。“我发现,杏仁核被触发往往是因为意外。所以,如果你给别人几秒钟做心理准备,杏仁核通常就不会被触发得那么强烈。因为如果他们意识到自己即将进入恐惧、愤怒或悲伤的状态,他们就能看到它来了,然后说,哦,原来是这样。但如果他们没有预料到,突如其来的冲击就会瞬间占据整个大脑,他们已经深陷其中却浑然不觉。
Matt Mochary (00:30:43): 这是我做的第一件事。“接下来会是一场艰难的对话。你准备好了吗?“然后我才传达消息。“我要让你离开,原因是这样的。“第二,我传达信息。第三,此时对方会感到强烈的情绪。即使我事先提醒了,他们仍然会感受到。这时候你要让他们能够释放这些情绪,所以我会对他们说:“我猜你现在一定感受到了很多愤怒、恐惧和悲伤。是这样吗?如果是的话,你愿意告诉我你现在的感受和想法吗?“有时候他们不回答,但很多时候他们会——他们会向我倾诉,把情绪释放出来。允许他们释放出来很重要。然后我让他们感到被倾听,我会积极倾听。这让他们意识到我并没有试图逃避他们正在经历的痛苦,我也没有打算把他们独自留在那里。我陪在他们身边,和他们一起承受,然后尽力帮助他们走出来。
让人感到被倾听
Lenny (00:31:47): 这正好是我想聊的另一个话题——你关于”让人感到被倾听”的课程。我很想听听你关于如何让人感到被倾听的建议。大家都知道这很重要,我也想让别人感到被倾听。我会去听,一切都会很顺利。但你有一些非常具体的实操建议,教人如何真正让对方感到被倾听。
Matt Mochary (00:32:05): 对,大概有几个不同的层次。一种让人感到被倾听的方式是——假设你在和一群人讨论,有一个问题需要解决,与其让大家轮流发言表达意见——那样太耗时——我让所有人同时花五分钟写下自己的方案。然后我们把所有方案放进一个文档里,我直接读。读的时候我会说,“谢谢你,Lenny。“这让你知道我至少读了你写的东西,这也能产生一点被倾听的感觉。
Matt Mochary (00:32:40): 第二个层次,如果我想让你感到更被倾听,我会让你口头说出来,然后我复述给你听。“Lenny,我觉得我听到你说的是……对吗?“你会说,“对。“或者你会说,“不完全是,有一点不一样。“如果有出入,我就再复述一遍,直到你说,“对,就是这样。“这时你就知道我真正理解你了。
Matt Mochary (00:33:00): 然后还有第三种更深的方式。特别是当你在给我反馈的时候,你很可能不想伤害我的感情。所以你在给我反馈时会加以修饰,润色措辞,磨平棱角,说得委婉一些。那并不是你真正的想法,而是你愿意说出口的话。如果我想让你真正感到被倾听,我会把我认为你脑子里的想法反射回去。如果我觉得你感到愤怒,我会在心里想,愤怒是什么样的感觉?我让自己去感受那种愤怒,然后看看会出现什么念头。然后我对你这样说:“Lenny,我觉得我听到你说的是你很恼火,心里在想,去你的吧 Matt,你怎么走进办公室连个招呼都不跟我打?接近吗?“你会说,“不,Matt。”
Matt Mochary (00:33:49): 人们通常会回答两种之一:要么说”对,就是这样”,要么说”不,比我心里想的要强烈,但方向是对的。“后面这句话真正的意思就是,对,我就是这么想的。几乎在所有情况下,他们心里的想法都比嘴里说出来的更强烈,但当我把他们的想法说出来时,他们真的会感到被倾听。不过,这并不是整个过程的终点。你接下来确实需要采取行动。一旦让对方感到被倾听了,你就要说,好,我接受或不接受这个反馈。如果我接受,这是我打算采取的行动。如果我不接受,我需要向你解释原因。这是我的情况。你向我分享了你的处境,现在让我也向你分享我的处境。希望你能理解,我这边的情况使我无法接受你提出的建议,也希望你了解了我的处境之后,你的反馈会有所调整。就这样,整个过程就是这样。
如何练习这些技能
Lenny (00:34:45): 我听着这些建议,心想,对,下次我跟人谈话时一定要这样做。但我估计很多人实际上并没有这么做,他们会忘记,而且要真正学会这些东西需要时间。就像你刚才分享的解雇建议一样,人到底怎样才能练好这些技能、在实践中运用它们?是不是需要找一位教练来持续强化这些东西?还是说下次照着步骤来就行?把它们写下来?对于那些说”我想变得更好,我想开始实践这些东西”的人,你有什么建议?
Matt Mochary (00:35:09): 这些文档在课程里都是公开免费的。你可以把它们发在这里,可以发在 Twitter 上,说实话你可以把整套课程都发在 Twitter 上,其他人已经这么做了。里面有逐步指引。有一份文档是逐步的脚本。你只需要照着读,在解雇某人或让对方感到被倾听的时候按照脚本来就行。我的假设是,你只要做过一次,就会说,天哪,效果太好了。这就是你唯一需要的动力。而且你有脚本,可以一直照着做。我认为你不需要教练。
Matt Mochary (00:35:42): 事实上,我记得有一次我问一位投资者,他们见过的最有潜力的 CEO 是谁。那位投资者给了我一个名字。我说,“太好了,能帮我引荐一下吗?我想做他的教练。“我联系了他,对方立刻回复了。他说,“Matt,我读过你的书,很喜欢。三年前就读了,之后一直在公司里实施里面的所有方法。效果非常好。“当有人告诉我他了解我的工作成果、已经付诸实践并且效果不错时,十次有十次,那个人会希望我做他的教练。然后我说,“太好了,那我很乐意做你的教练。“结果他对我说,“不了,谢谢。“我很震惊,问,“为什么?“他说,“因为一切运转得很好。我没有任何问题。我觉得我不需要你来 coaching。“我再也听不到比这更好的回答了。对我来说,这就是终极答案。他是对的。他不需要我,也不需要任何人。
让自己变得不必要
Lenny (00:36:39): 我正想问,把这些东西写下来、系统化,目标是不是就是让自己变得不必要。
Matt Mochary (00:36:45): 完全正确。
Lenny (00:36:48): 本集节目由 Vanta 赞助播出,Vanta 帮助您简化安全合规流程以加速增长。如果您的企业在云端存储任何数据,那么您可能已经被问过、或者将来会被问及 SOC 2 合规的问题。SOC 2 是一种证明您的公司采取了适当安全措施来保护客户数据的方式,能够与客户和合作伙伴建立信任,尤其是那些有严格安全要求的客户和合作伙伴。此外,如果您想向企业客户销售产品,证明安全性是必不可少的。SOC 2 既能为您打开更大更好交易的大门,也可能让您的业务停滞不前。
Lenny (00:37:22): 如果您没有 SOC 2,很可能连上桌的机会都没有。启动 SOC 2 报告可能是一个巨大的负担,尤其对初创公司而言。它耗时、繁琐且昂贵。Vanta 应运而生。超过 3000 家快速增长的公司使用 Vanta,将 SOC 2 相关工作中高达 90% 的部分自动化。Vanta 可以在几周内而非几个月内让您准备好安全审计,不到通常所需时间的三分之一。
Lenny (00:37:49): 限时优惠,Lenny’s Podcast 的听众可以获得 Vanta 的 1000 美元折扣。只需访问 vanta.com/lenny,就是 vanta.com/lenny,了解更多信息并领取您的折扣。今天就行动起来吧。
Ryan Hoover 的提问
Lenny (00:38:05): 这倒让我想起另一位读者在 Twitter 上问的问题,这个人恰好就是 Ryan Hoover。他问,“从你开始教练工作以来,你的方法发生了什么变化?”
Matt Mochary (00:38:16): Ryan 显然创办了 Product Hunt,然后把公司卖给了 AngelList,所以我去 AngelList 的时候他也在那里,因为我当时在给 Naval 做教练。我们在给 Naval 做教练的过程中发现,Naval 不想当 CEO,但他就是不知道怎么脱身。所以我说有办法的,我可以教你,然后我就这么做了,让 Naval 的生活好了十倍。坦率地说,也让 AngelList 好了十倍,因为 Naval 不享受当 CEO,所以他并不擅长。我们最终安排了一个做得不错的人接手,然后又换了一个做得极其出色的人。现在,AngelList 当然价值巨大。
Matt Mochary (00:38:53): Ryan 当时就在那里,Ryan Hoover,很棒的人,我很喜欢 Ryan。那么从那以后有什么变化?我觉得变化在于,我当时应该还没有总结出”恐惧和愤怒会导致糟糕建议”这套东西。那时候全都是非常战术性的内容,全都是非常偏高层管理类的东西,就是你需要设定目标——公司层面的、部门层面的、个人层面的——然后跟踪这些目标,跟踪所有人做出的承诺、所有他们说要做的事情,全部放进 Asana 里。每个人的 Asana 看板要互相可见,这样大家就能看到彼此在做什么。这些我现在还在做,但现在我又加了一层——你正在某个当下,感到了恐惧?好,你仍然得往前走。这大概就是最大的变化。
课程的核心三份文献
Lenny (00:39:42): 我注意到那部分放在课程的最前面。你是否觉得很多最大的转变就发生在那里,课程的那个部分?
Matt Mochary (00:39:49): 绝对是。我让刚开始接受教练的人必须先读那个。基本上有三份核心文献:关于准时、关于首要目标、以及关于恐惧和愤怒会导致糟糕建议。“关于准时”就是,嘿,我们的会议要准时开始,你要出席,如果你没准时到,你要先通知我。这只是因为我不想……顺便说一句,我刚才迟到了两分钟。那是因为我在 Google Hangout 上等了十分钟,我没意识到,我以为你——
Lenny (00:40:21): 我正在修复那个 bug。每次我们发送邀请,上面都会有一个 Google Meet 按钮。我觉得我终于解决了。是啊,那就会变成一个很好笑的播客——我就坐在这里准时开始,等了两分钟,“大家好,我们就在这等着。”
Matt Mochary (00:40:33): 没错。第二份是”首要目标”,这个概念来自 McKeown,他写了《精要主义》(Essentialism),就是所有人都在对你提要求,但如果你整天只做回应别人要求的事,你永远无法朝着自己的优先事项推进。你需要做的是,A,设定优先事项,然后每天留出一定时间——30 分钟、一小时、两小时——只做你自己的优先事项。如果你这样做,就会取得巨大的进步。这是真的,五分钟之内我就能改变一个人的人生,只要让他践行这个方法。第三份就是,如果你处于愤怒中,给出的建议会很糟糕——我让大家读这些,然后问,“这些内容与你有共鸣吗?“如果有,我们可以合作;如果没有,我们不应该合作。所以,这基本上就是一份判断人们是否在理念上与我分享的东西产生共鸣的核心文献。
首要目标与责任伙伴
Lenny (00:41:25): 关于首要目标这部分,我正在读一本叫《创造时间》(Make Time)的书,这也是书中的一个重要部分。我实际上刚刚把”首要目标”加到了每天的日历里。不过还没起作用。每次到了那个时段,我就想,不,我先刷一下 Twitter 吧。但我正在努力。
Matt Mochary (00:41:38): 这是最难的部分。现在我的做法是,我也类似。在我的首要目标时间里,我会让一个人坐在我旁边,他阻止我做任何不是首要目标的事情。
Lenny (00:41:51): 等等,能再详细说说吗?是同事吗?你是不是就说,“我需要你每天这一小时在这里?”
Matt Mochary (00:41:56): 对,就像健身房教练一样的道理。健身房的教练,也许他们会教你一点东西,但更多时候他们只是逼你去做你明知道需要做的事。但如果他们不在,你就会觉得”算了吧”然后不做了。就这个道理。我称之为责任伙伴(accountability partner)。
Matt Mochary (00:42:15): 现在甚至有一个 app,你可以上网注册,我觉得大概一个月 5 美元,就能和另一个人配对,成为彼此的责任伙伴。效果惊人地好。不止我一个人有这个问题——对那些我不喜欢但必须做的任务无法专注。比如开会,我可以开会,我可以开 20 个会,我可以开 10 个小时的会,没问题。尤其是当我是主讲人、当我是活跃的那一方的时候。但做异步任务对我来说就很难,因为我非常以人为本,当身边没有另一个人的时候,就很痛苦,所以我就找另一个人陪着。
Lenny (00:43:04): 我很喜欢这个。那个人在做其他工作,我猜他们不是全程就盯着你吧。
Matt Mochary (00:43:09): 不是,他们想做什么都可以。
Lenny (00:43:12): 这是你向领导者和 CEO 推荐的方法吗?就叫人陪一小时。哇。
Matt Mochary (00:43:18): 如果你的性格像我一样,是的,找个人陪着。可以远程,可以当面,都没关系。当面效果稍微好一点。
Lenny (00:43:27): 对,就像一个小的 Zoom 窗口。
Matt Mochary (00:43:28): 我让我的孩子们来做。他们很喜欢。
Lenny (00:43:32): 太棒了。我用的一个叫 Centered 的 app,我投资了那个 app,但我自己也一直在用,他们其实有这个伙伴功能,你可以实时和一个伙伴配对。
Matt Mochary (00:43:40): 对,对。
大规模裁员的建议
Lenny (00:43:42): 回到解雇那个话题收个尾,你说话的时候我在想一个问题——现在正在发生很多裁员。当你需要让一千人离开时,你不可能做每个人的代理人,除非你亲眼见过那种场景。对于大规模裁员,你有什么建议吗?应该怎么做?
Matt Mochary (00:43:58): 完全可以做他们的代理人,不是你亲自做,而是他们每个人都有一个管理者,而管理者通常有 12 个直属下属,而且很少会一次性裁掉超过 50%。也就是说,他们最多需要做 6 个人的代理人。是的,每个管理者可以做 6 个人的代理人。我辅导的公司做过很多次裁员,原因如下。回到 2020 年 3 月,当时世界经济有崩塌的可能。当然,到了 4 月、5 月我们意识到情况并非如此,科技行业不仅没有停摆,实际上还在蓬勃发展。
Matt Mochary (00:44:38): 但在 2020 年 3 月,我们并不知道这一点。所以,如果你在财务上负责任的话,就需要为那种可能性做好准备,就需要削减成本。任何科技公司 80% 的成本是人力成本——是人。你要削减成本,实际上就不得不裁人。我辅导的几乎每家公司都这么做了。有的只裁了 5%,属于较少的;有的裁得比较多。有一家做酒店的公司裁掉了 40%,因为看起来他们的业务即将被摧毁。结果非常出人意料。每次裁员后 60 天内,CEO 都会向我汇报:太不可思议了。我不知道这是怎么发生的,但公司现在运转得更好了。我不是说相对更好,而是说绝对更好。我们产出了更多功能、更多代码。我们的 NPS 上升了,不管什么指标,每个部门的表现都在提升。唯一的解释就是人少了,所以协调成本降低了。
Matt Mochary (00:45:49): 然后到了今年 5 月、6 月,我们经历了一次大规模的估值重置——成长型科技股的市值下跌了 50% 到 90%。我们目前仍处于这个阶段,而且不知道会持续多久,这完全取决于利率,所以成长股很可能在利率重新下降之前都会维持在这个估值水平,这可能需要两到三年。这些公司现在可以去融资,但会是大幅折价的一轮,而折价融资是非常痛苦的。所以这些公司现在必须确保自己未来三年内不需要融资,必须再次节省现金。
Matt Mochary (00:46:33): 于是我们又回到了裁员的境地,但这次不一样。这次这些 CEO 们知道公司实际上会变得更好。而那些从未做过这种事的 CEO,我只需要把他们跟做过的 CEO 连接起来,然后他们就会被说服:天哪,我的公司会更好的。而这一次,人们甚至更加果断。我们有公司裁掉了 50% 的员工,结果坦白说,非常惊人。
人道地执行裁员
Matt Mochary (00:47:02): 但做好这件事的关键在于,传达方式必须人道。我观察到搞砸的裁员和成功的裁员之间最大的区别在于:当一个人得知自己不再有工作的那一刻,他是否是从自己的管理者那里一对一亲口听到的?如果是,那还可以。但如果是通过邮件、群聊,或任何形式——他们和其他人坐在一起同时听到,没有被单独对待,不是一对一的,那就很糟糕。那是人们真正愤怒的时候,那时他们会去 Twitter 上发声、去找媒体等等,因为这让人感到被非人化对待。感觉就像你根本不在乎我,你连当面告诉我的礼数都没有。当然,那样也无法让那个人表达自己的情绪,因为他是在一群人中间。这是最重要的一点。
裁员的操作步骤
Matt Mochary (00:48:17): 第二点,接下来就是具体操作层面,整个流程是这样的。你有一个核心圈。我认为这个核心圈应该包括公司所有管理者。你告诉他们:我们需要裁掉这么多。你们每个人需要裁掉这么多。首先,你不能对每个部门负责人或团队主管、管理者说”告诉我你能裁掉谁”,因为他们都会说”没人能裁”。你实际上必须给他们具体数字。你必须让他们裁掉这么多金额,或者这么多人——金额更好,因为如果你说人数,他们就会裁掉最便宜的人、最初级的人,而往往最初级的人才是真正干活最多的。你希望用金额来衡量,因为那才是你真正要省的东西。你要省的是钱。
Matt Mochary (00:49:07): 所以,你告诉他们必须省下这么多金额,让他们给出一个数字,他们会很快回来给你一个方案。你不想让部门负责人替管理者做选择,因为如果一个团队主管突然被告知要裁掉这三个人,那个主管会说:这太荒谬了,那是我最好的三个人。所以你要让每个管理者自己做选择,而这不需要花很长时间,48 小时就够了。
Matt Mochary (00:49:29): 然后进入执行阶段。执行的时候,你用一个上午的时间,让每个管理者联系相关的人,就在 Slack 上发一条:“嘿,能聊 15 分钟吗?“然后他们把这些会议一场接一场地排起来,尽量紧凑,传达消息——就是我们之前讨论的那种困难对话。“这会是一场困难的对话。我要让你离开。我想这感觉会很糟,或者比糟还严重。这很痛苦。如果你愿意分享你的感受,我想现在做你的代理人。我现在没时间深入聊,但我想跟你约明天或后天再找一个小时,我们可以好好聊聊,我来帮你做代理人。“
留守团队的全员会议
Matt Mochary (00:50:12): 然后,一上午就搞定了。到了下午,你为留守团队安排一场全员会议。对留守团队,你告诉他们刚刚发生了什么,然后回答他们的问题。这些问题几乎都是围绕恐惧的。比如,“天哪,这种事会发生在我身上吗?那些人之前有没有收到过绩效反馈?这是不是意味着公司快不行了,要崩溃了?“你必须逐一回应这些问题,而理想的回答是:不会——第一个问题,这种事会发生在我身上吗?不会。我们一次裁够,只裁一次。你左右两边的人和你,你们就是留守团队。这就是我们未来一起建设公司的团队。你必须能够说出这句话。你确实想要一次裁够,因为裁两次、三次会在组织中造成创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)。一次创伤,两次创伤,三次创伤。到那时大家就会想,唉,这种事还会一直发生。
帮助留守团队消化情绪
Matt Mochary (00:51:10): 然后,第三步——这一步不是每个人都做的——如果你不做这一步,你的公司 60 天内会恢复到更好的状态;如果你做了,你的公司两周内就会变得更好,因为留守团队的人们现在感到悲伤、愤怒、恐惧。是的,你在全员会议上回答了他们的问题,但并不充分,因为有些人在全员会议上根本没开口。
Matt Mochary (00:51:34): 所以你要做的是,和留守团队的每一个人,由他们的管理者进行一小时的一对一面谈,管理者只说:“我想了解你的想法和感受。“然后对方分享,管理者所做的就是让他感到被倾听。“我想你是在告诉我,你感到悲伤,因为你的三个好同事现在不在了。你感到愤怒,因为你觉得这是扯淡——既然要裁人,当初为什么要招这么多人?这太不负责任了。你感到恐惧,因为你不确定公司会不会崩溃,或者你的工作是否安全。我理解得对吗?“他们会说:“对。”
Matt Mochary (00:52:11): 这不会完全消除那些情绪,但能将其削减大约 25%,这足以让人不会做出冲动的事——不会辞职,不会停工,不会跟别人说坏话——并且能加速他们的恢复。两周之内,他们就会看到公司运转得更好了,士气随之回升,公司的表现也就超过了裁员之前。所以,三个要素。
Lenny (00:52:44): 刚才那五到十分钟的建议,我觉得值好几千美元。
Matt Mochary (00:52:50): 那大概是我陪 CEO 们经历这个过程大概 40 次之后、反复 AB 测试、观察差异、总结什么有效什么无效之后的结果。是的,我想在科技行业里,比我指导过更多人经历裁员过程的人应该不多了。我不是说我为此感到自豪,但事实就是如此。
Lenny (00:53:17): 真是个”有趣”的位置。你说话的时候,我脑海里闪过了 Twitter 和 Elon 以及他们正在经历的事情。一方面,他在裁掉很多人,这在某种程度上符合你的建议;但另一方面,处理方式看起来不太好——似乎就是发邮件,还有很多随意的操作。你对整个这件事怎么看?
Matt Mochary (00:53:39): 我没有直接跟进这件事,所以不知道他是怎么执行裁员的,也不知道规模有多大。说实话,我完全没有关注。但现实是残酷的:即使处理得极其糟糕,公司最终的表现也会变好。只是留守团队在情绪上的恢复需要更长一点时间。但最差的情况——处理得一塌糊涂——两个月之内,公司也会表现得更好。
大公司内部如何创新
Lenny (00:54:09): 有意思。这恰好可以自然过渡到我想聊的最后一个话题,我觉得你在这方面有很多想法——那就是在大型公司内部打造新产品、在已经规模化的大公司内部创新,尤其是其中面临的挑战。关于如何做好这件事、如何在大公司内部创新,你怎么看?
Matt Mochary (00:54:30): 我可以讲简短版,但我想讲完整版。完整版是这样的:这对我来说是我所有被辅导者的一个真正难题,而我不知道答案。但很明显,YC 的初创公司正在碾压式地前进,迭代速度要快得多。然后我冒出一个想法:为什么不自己创建一个 YC 式的初创公司,让它来碾压你,但你拥有它?当然,它必须真正像一个 YC 初创公司。它必须有一个具备创始人思维的人来带领团队——一个愿意打破常规、不撞南墙不回头的人。其实找到具备创始人思维的人并不难。你直接去翻 YC 校友列表,找那些创业失败的人——完美,他们有空,他们是创始人类型,而且现在他们想加入一家真正在成功的公司,因为他们意识到自己从零开始有多难,但他们依然保有那种心态。
Matt Mochary (00:55:24): 然后你要让团队保持很小的规模,因为这样他们才能——同样,不需要层层审批,每个人都在同一页面上、掌握同样的信息。我们开始测试这个方法,效果很好。然后我想,等一下。大公司之所以难以创新,是因为一旦一个产品规模化之后,它已经有了数百万用户。所以你有两件事必须每天确保不出问题:网站正常运行,以及没有安全漏洞。每次你添加代码,都必须彻底测试,确保不会破坏这两者中的任何一个。代码审查流程极其繁重。
Matt Mochary (00:56:06): 所以当你在创新、为新功能写原型代码的时候,根本无法通过审批——耗时太久了。这就是你需要解耦的东西。你需要创建一个不触碰核心代码的实体,同时你也不想走产品团队或产品负责人的审批流程——那也太慢了。这就是为什么它必须是一个小团队,而且汇报关系要在 EPD(工程、产品、设计)体系之外。它不能向工程负责人、产品负责人、设计负责人汇报——不行。它必须跳出来,通常直接向 CEO 汇报。这是唯一一个在体系之外的汇报对象。
Matt Mochary (00:56:48): 然后我又想到,等一下,还有一个品牌的问题——那为什么不给这个产品取一个全新的名字,而不是核心业务的名字?为什么不干脆成立一个独立的 C Corp(C 类公司)?为什么不把这个东西做得极其清晰——它就是一个独立实体?于是我把这些想法写成了一个完整方案,成立了自己的 C Corp。我把这个分享给了几个人,一位 CEO 对我说:“Matt,这听起来很激进,听起来可能有效,但有没有人真正在这么做?“我心想,糟了,没有,没有人真正在这么做。据我所知,没有人把他们在开发的新产品成立为独立的 C Corp。
Matt Mochary (00:57:34): 然后 30 天后,我和 Wei Deng 通了电话。我之前说过,我非常佩服她。我们聊了产品,我把那份方案分享给了她。她说:“哦,我就是这么做的。“她说:“我在过去两个月里创建了五个 C Corp。“我说:“什么?真有人在这么做。“我问:“效果怎么样?“她说:“非常好。“她说:“团队不用担心试错,因为他们知道不会损害我们的核心品牌,所以他们迭代得很快。“她还说:“我不仅这么做,每个新产品我实际上会安排两个独立的团队。一个更偏工程导向,他们写定制代码;另一个更偏客户关系导向,可能连工程师都没有,他们搭一个手动的解决方案,或者用现成的产品来搭建解决方案——就看哪个推进得更快。“太疯狂了。这也是为什么我对 Wei 如此敬佩。
Lenny (00:58:36): 当我想到这些做法的时候,我会想到 Facebook 的 NPE 团队,还有 Google 那个叫 Area 120 的团队——专门做新想法的。我不确定这些团队有没有产出什么了不起的东西,也许有吧,我不知道。但我觉得缺失的一块——你刚才没提到——是那种”如果做成了就有巨大回报”的感觉。创始人拥有自己公司的股权,这是一种巨大的激励——做成了我可能成为亿万富翁,而不仅仅是在某个小维度上帮助我的公司。这一块重要吗,还是你觉得并不关键?
真正的驱动力是创造而非股权
Matt Mochary (00:59:09): 我要说一个激进的观点:我觉得股权根本不重要。我认为真正激励人们的是打造出被世界使用的东西。人们嘴上会说、也会去争股权和钱,但归根到底,那不是真正驱动他们的东西。因为我见过一些公司,没有给大额股权,但给了自主权、给了主人翁感——不是股权意义上的所有权,而是决策上的主人翁感、创造上的主人翁感。我认为这才是人们想要的。Amazon 就是这么做的。他们并没有给员工……Amazon 出了名的抠门,但只要有人有个好主意,好,给你 500 万美元,去做吧。Amazon 毫无疑问在成功地创新。
Lenny (01:00:02): 那另一面呢——不一定是巨大的上行回报,而是那种”我把一切都押在这个创业项目上,我必须成功,这是我的事业,我的名声绑在上面”的感觉。我觉得这对创始人来说也是巨大的驱动力——那种”我绝不放弃”的咬牙感。这重要吗?
Matt Mochary (01:00:21): 对,那也是恐惧。是恐惧,就是”如果这事搞不成,我就完了”的那种恐惧。坦白说,恐惧是一个极好的 motivator。它让人行动快、用力猛。恐惧唯一的问题是它同时也具有腐蚀性,所以它一边推着我往前走,一边侵蚀我的内在。它让我无法享受生活,但确实让我高度有动力。而现在,我认为快乐其实动力更强——或者说至少同样强——但它不会腐蚀你,所以如果我是出于快乐做一件事,我能持续得久得多。恐惧是短期的极端动力,是肾上腺素。快乐是长期的、持续的动力,而且它还让我在回顾人生时能说,哇,那是美好的一生。所以是的,恐惧是有效的动力,但我不建议把自己逼到那个境地来获得动力。
Lenny (01:01:14): 对于那些想尝试你描述的这种方法的公司,有没有相关的课程文档可以参考?
Matt Mochary (01:01:21): 有的。
Lenny (01:01:22): 好,我们会在节目里附上链接。还有没有其他做得好的公司你能想到的?你提到了 Amazon 和 Clipboard Health。
Matt Mochary (01:01:29): 在我辅导的公司里,我知道 Scale 和 Attentive Mobile 都做得很好。越来越多的被我辅导的公司开始这样做,因为我有越来越多的成功案例,所以越来越多的公司在跟进模仿。不过我没有其他能随口说出的名字了。
Lenny (01:01:43): 第一家叫什么?Scale?
Matt Mochary (01:01:45): Scale。
Lenny (01:01:46): 酷。是 Scale AI 吗?
Matt Mochary (01:01:48): 对。
Lenny (01:01:48): 好,太好了。我很喜欢那家公司,喜欢那个创始人。也许最后一个问题,我记了一条笔记,以防我们还有多余的时间——关于能量审计(energy audit)。这是你建议人们去理解什么给自己带来能量、什么消耗自己能量的方法,你能聊聊这个吗?
能量审计与四区域模型
Matt Mochary (01:02:06): 当然。事实上,我们真正擅长的事情就是我们热爱的事情,而当我们做热爱的事时,空间感和时间感会消失。因此,我们很可能甚至不觉得它有价值,因为它对我们来说太容易了,所以我们不会赋予它价值。而那些我们并不热爱但我们擅长的事情,我们反而经常赋予价值,其他人也希望我们去做那些事,因为它们往往在为整个团队、家庭或群体创造价值。
Matt Mochary (01:02:39): 我提出了四个区域,这是我从 Conscious Leadership Group 的 Diana Chapman 那里学到的。我不知道她是从哪里学来的,但我几乎所有的东西都是从别人那里拿来的——至少我会告诉你我从谁那里拿的。概念是这样的:你有四个区域。
Matt Mochary (01:02:58): 第一个区域是你的无能区(zone of incompetence),你不擅长的事,别人做得比你好的事。比如修车。你应该让别人去做。
Matt Mochary (01:03:07): 第二个是你的胜任区(zone of competence),你做得还行。但别人也做得还行。比如打扫房子。你确实能做,但会很花时间,而且你创造不了那么多价值。你应该让别人去做。
Matt Mochary (01:03:22): 第三个区域,你的卓越区(zone of excellence)。这是你特别擅长、但并不热爱的事。这是危险区。这很可能就是你正在被付钱做的事,而且很可能是付了很多钱在做的事。其他人希望你做这件事。你确实在创造价值,但它也在抽干你的生命力,而且它不会让你变得卓越、创造巨大的价值。
Matt Mochary (01:03:45): 然后是你的天才区(zone of genius)。这是你做的、在世界上独一无二地好的事,你甚至不会注意到自己在做它,因为你太热爱它了。关键在于审视你的一天。你怎么进入天才区?不是说你先搞清楚它是什么然后多做那件事,而是你搞清楚它不是什么然后把那些消除掉,然后自然而然地,你就会被吸引到你热爱的事情上去。
Matt Mochary (01:04:10): 我做能量审计的方法是:你拿一份日历,两个星期的日历,有代表性的两周。你先看所有你已经安排的会议,然后把会议之间的时间也填上——你实际上在做什么?给出你最好的猜测,写上去。然后逐小时地,拿一支绿色马克笔和一支红色马克笔,从周一早上 8 点到下午 6 点,每一天,连续两周,每个小时问自己:在这个小时结束时,我是更有能量了还是更没能量了?
Matt Mochary (01:04:41): 如果更有能量,标绿色。如果中性或负面,标红色。两周做完之后,你看所有标红的部分,问:这里有什么共性主题?哦,和不再是直接下属的人的一对一,什么都没提前准备、全靠口头说的团队会议,招聘会议,面了最终没录用的人的面试,想认识我但对我毫无价值的信息性面谈——这些全都是消耗能量的。
消除、委派与优化
Matt Mochary (01:05:14): 好。现在你逐条过每一项,问:第一,这件事到底需不需要做?如果答案是不需要,直接取消。第二,需要做,但别人也能做。好,委派给他们。第三——这是最常见的情况——需要做,而且只有我能做。好,那问题就变成了:怎样让它变得精彩?比如,这是高管团队会议,我是 CEO,我必须参加。那怎样让它变得精彩?
Matt Mochary (01:05:41): 你知道怎样才算精彩吗?如果每个人提前准备好更新内容,写明他们各自优先事项的进展——常规绿色状态——上周做了什么、这周要做什么,然后提前提交他们在公司里发现的任何问题以及针对那些问题的建议方案——如果每个人都这样做,那我们就可以在会议的前 15 分钟里只是阅读、处理需要决策的事项,把三个小时的会议压缩到 45 分钟。好,去把这个写出来,分享给团队,说:各位,这就是对我来说能让这个会议变得精彩的方式。你们怎么看?
Matt Mochary (01:06:18): 十次里有九次,大家看了之后会说,对,那确实太好了,因为他们跟你有同样的感受。然后你们就用新的方式运行,结果发现确实很好。这就是你怎么把每天大量消耗能量的事情,变成开放的时间或者提升能量的事情,从而让你开始越来越多地做自己热爱的事。你反复做这个能量审计,一次、两次、三次,直到你的日历 80% 是绿色。一旦做到这一点,魔法就会发生。你的生活会突然变得极好,你会开始创造巨大的价值。我就是这么做的。这就是发生在我身上的事。
Lenny (01:07:05): 我也做过,其实是一个更简单的版本——我只是关注什么给我能量、什么不给我能量。那是我离开 Airbnb 之后的探索期,我以为自己想创业,以为想做顾问和咨询,结果我发现这些都没有给我能量。而写出有趣的东西、有人喜欢看——这让我快乐。于是我就沿着这条路加注投入,完全不知道能不能赚钱,结果最后赚到了钱,这就是我现在做的事。所以,这个方法我双手赞成,而且你这个是更精细化的版本,我很喜欢。
Matt Mochary (01:07:36): 没错。这背后还有一种信任——如果你需要变现,最终你一定能变现,但你必须从做自己热爱的事开始。
内容创作的”跑步机”
Lenny (01:07:51): 对。嗯,我觉得 Twitter 和 newsletter 上有很多人做内容,只是因为他们觉得自己会喜欢,而且看到别人也在做。但我发现,一旦踏上这种内容生活,你就上了一台跑步机——必须持续不断地产出。如果你并不真正享受这件事,觉得它对你来说并不有趣,最终你只是给自己造了一份一点都不好玩的工作。所以如果你打算走这条路,这一点格外重要。
Lenny (01:08:19): 沿着这条线我有一个小问题——你讲到关注自己、关注自己的能量、关注什么适合自己什么不适合。我就在想,这会不会和团队里其他人产生冲突,因为他们可能从你不喜欢的事情中获得能量?但你的意思是,很多时候大家都会说:“是的,这对我也好。我们应该这样做,因为这会让每个人都感觉更好。”
Matt Mochary (01:08:38): 完全正确。我记得有一次我们做能量审计(energy audit)的过程,我和 Brex 的 Henrique 和 Pedro 一起做的,对他们来说简直是革命性的。这改变了他们两个人合作运作的方式。他们发现一个真的很喜欢内部会议,另一个真的很喜欢外部会议,太好了,那就各管各的。这改变了公司的发展轨迹,影响如此之大,以至于他们说:“Matt,你能来给我们的所有管理者做这个能量审计吗?“我们做了。我们做了一个大规模的集体活动,他们发现这个过程同样改变了公司的发展轨迹——因为每一件你不喜欢但必须完成的事,总有某个人热爱做这件事。你只需要找到那个人是谁,事情就是这样发生的。
Lenny (01:09:28): 我刚跟我妈聊天,她是个注册会计师(CPA),我问她:“你现在做的这份工作你真的喜欢吗?“她说:“我热爱。我特别喜欢做税务,太有意思了。“我就想,我太高兴了,这世上居然有人享受这件事。我愿意付任何代价让别人把这事从我手上拿走。你尽管收我钱。因为我妈就是帮我报税的人。
Matt Mochary (01:09:44): 完全正确。
Lenny (01:09:45): Matt,在我们结束之前,你还有什么最后想分享的吗?
Matt Mochary (01:09:49): 很愉快。谢谢,Lenny。我很感谢这次对话。
尾声
Lenny (01:09:52): 非常愉快。我觉得一场好的对话的标志就是——感觉好像只聊了五分钟,但同时又像聊了一辈子。也许我们以后可以再来一次。我还有一百万个其他问题想深入聊,不过在那之前——大家想在线上找到你、了解更多的话可以去哪里找?听众们怎么才能帮到你?
Matt Mochary (01:10:07): 去哪里找我?我不知道。别找我。我没法回复。我收到的 inbound 太多了,我回不过来。至于怎么帮到我——就把那些内容读一读、用起来就好,别花钱请我做教练。你自己做就行,因为你不需要花钱请我做教练。
Lenny (01:10:28): 我喜欢这个回答。这是我第一次听到嘉宾说:“不要联系我。所有东西我都已经放在网上了。“我们会在 show notes 里链接那个文档和所有相关内容。Matt,谢谢您。这次太棒了。
Matt Mochary (01:10:39): 谢谢你,Lenny。很棒。保重。
Lenny (01:10:43): 非常感谢收听。如果你觉得这期节目有价值,可以在 Apple Podcasts、Spotify 或你最喜欢的播客应用上订阅本节目。另外,也请考虑给我们打分或写评论,因为这真的能帮助其他听众找到这个播客。你可以在 lennyspodcast.com 找到所有往期节目或了解更多关于本节目的信息。下期再见。
术语表
| 原文 | 中文 |
|---|---|
| accountability partner | 责任伙伴(accountability partner) |
| Alex Honnold | Alex Honnold(徒手攀岩者,保留原文) |
| Alex MacCaw | Alex MacCaw(保留原文) |
| amygdala | 杏仁核 |
| Andy Grove | 安迪·格鲁夫(英特尔前 CEO,国际知名人物,使用公认中文译名) |
| AngelList | AngelList(公司名,保留原文) |
| Asana | Asana(项目管理工具,保留原文) |
| Attentive Mobile | Attentive Mobile(公司名,保留原文) |
| Ben Horowitz | 本·霍洛维茨(知名风险投资家/作家,使用公认中文译名) |
| Brex | Brex(公司名,保留原文) |
| Brian Armstrong | Brian Armstrong(保留原文) |
| CAA | CAA(Creative Artists Agency,保留原文) |
| Centered | Centered(app 名称,保留原文) |
| Clipboard Health | Clipboard Health(公司名,保留原文) |
| cognitive behavior therapy | 认知行为疗法 |
| Conscious Leadership Group | Conscious Leadership Group(机构名,保留原文) |
| CPA | 注册会计师(CPA) |
| curriculum | 课程 |
| Diana Chapman | Diana Chapman(Conscious Leadership Group 联合创始人,保留原文) |
| ego | 自我(ego) |
| Elon | Elon(指 Elon Musk,保留原文) |
| energy audit | 能量审计(energy audit) |
| Essentialism | 《精要主义》(Essentialism) |
| executive coach | 高管教练 |
| GP | GP(General Partner,普通合伙人,保留原文) |
| inbound | inbound(指主动联系的请求,保留原文) |
| Leo Polovets | Leo Polovets(Susa Ventures GP,保留原文) |
| Lex Fridman | Lex Fridman(播客主持人,保留原文) |
| LiDAR | LiDAR(激光雷达,保留原文) |
| Make Time | 《创造时间》(Make Time) |
| Matt Mochary | Matt Mochary(硅谷高管教练/创始人教练,非国际知名公众人物,保留原文) |
| McKeown | McKeown(《精要主义》作者,保留原文) |
| Michael Ovitz | Michael Ovitz(CAA 联合创始人/经纪人,保留原文) |
| Naval | Naval(指 Naval Ravikant,保留原文) |
| PII | 个人身份信息(PII) |
| Product Hunt | Product Hunt(公司名,保留原文) |
| product market fit | 产品市场契合 |
| Ryan Hoover | Ryan Hoover(Product Hunt 创始人,保留原文) |
| Scale AI | Scale AI(公司名,保留原文) |
| show notes | show notes(播客节目备注,保留原文) |
| SOC 2 | SOC 2(安全合规标准,保留原文) |
| Susa Ventures | Susa Ventures(风险投资机构,保留原文) |
| talent density | 人才密度(talent density) |
| Vanta | Vanta(公司名,保留原文) |
| Wei Deng | Wei Deng(Clipboard Health CEO,保留原文) |
| YC | YC(Y Combinator 的缩写,不翻译) |
| zone of competence | 胜任区(zone of competence) |
| zone of excellence | 卓越区(zone of excellence) |
| zone of genius | 天才区(zone of genius) |
| zone of incompetence | 无能区(zone of incompetence) |
此文档由 AI 分片翻译(translate_long_document)