As my friends know all too well, mine is a life immersed in baseball. Yes, there’s that venture investment stuff, but in between board meetings, team meetings, meeting new companies, staying in touch with my networks and breaking down the barriers to data entrepreneurship at Michigan and Columbia there is baseball. Both my kids are intense baseball players. My wife is a Little League executive (and holds a Ph.D in psychology, which helps) and division coordinator. And I am a long-time manager and coach of teams with kids ranging from ages 7-17, from Junior Minors all the way to Seniors. It has almost become a third career of mine (Wall Street, venture capital, baseball coach). Along the way I have learned a ton about strategy, human psychology - and life.
Newly-minted baseball teams and start-ups have a tremendous amount in common. Every Spring there is a Little League draft and the managers sit around and pick their teams, not dissimilar from kicking off a new start-up. Those of us who have been around Little League a long time know most of the kids, their playing histories, their personalities and their families. But this anecdotal knowledge is augmented with objective data that are generated in a common League-wide tryout the morning of Super Bowl Sunday. Players are scored on their batting, fielding, pitching and catching (if they pitch and catch), and there are various sub-categories in each of these areas. Think of these scores as their resumes and conversations with prior coaches as being reference checks. Drafting players, like hiring team members, is an inexact science but the goal is to get as much quantitative and qualitative data as possible to make the most informed decision you can. Assuming all the mangers work reasonably hard in the data collection process, there is a somewhat common view of how players rank by position based upon skill. But somehow, people’s draft boards look very different post facto. The reason: managers draft for different things.
Year after year, in my experience newer managers tend to underperform more experienced managers. Why is this? My hypothesis is that the newer managers tend to draft based on the theory of “best athlete available that meets my position requirements,” while the old timers tend to draft with a particular team construction in mind. This means taking into account factors such as “Is the kid a team player? Does the player show up for practice on time? Are they humble and do they work hard? Are their parents over-involved and stressing out the kid (and the coaches and other team members in the process)? Is the player a potential leader? Has the player previously been on teams with other kids where they’ve been successful?” In short, the objective function is building the best team, not assembling the most talented group of individual players. And in Little League, as in life, teams win when they function as a single unit and not as an amalgam of autonomous parts. So I have consistently passed up more skilled players in order to draft players who are good, but even more importantly, are good kids and fit within the team concept.
This is a movie I’ve seen many times before in start-ups I’ve backed. There is the seduction of hiring the “rock star, 10x performer, force of nature” contributor, even if they are a prima donna and most assuredly not a team player. I’ve witnessed this from the perspective of whether or not to hire these people as well as whether or not to fire these people who are already in the company. It is a very painful decision to make, but in my experience these people almost never work out in a start-up environment, where every person is so crucial to getting the business off the ground. Positive team chemistry and culture is critical at all times, but especially when a team needs to be working in perfect synchrony, backing each other up and focused as a single unit on the task at hand. Selfish but talented people mess up this dynamic, even if they can write beautiful code but piss off their team members or treat them in a disrespectful way. Fortunately there are talented people who aren’t destructive to a firm’s culture, and these are the people start-ups need to find. Optimizing for team, not simply talent, is the message.
When building a high-performance team the question you should be asking yourself is: what is the goal and what are the resources I need to get there? Because the goal invariably requires multiple skill sets spread across several individuals, ensuring that you build the connective tissue among these people who are receptive to this “team first” notion is Job #1. It’s not about finding the brightest stars in the sky, it’s about finding those stars that make the constellation you want to call your own.