Founders at Work.pdf

Steve Perlman 189
employees aren’t so happy, maybe they don’t think so highly about their jobs,
maybe they don’t work as efficiently, but the company can keep plowing along.
But, in the early days, you’ve got nothing. All you’ve got are problems—
problems that need to be solved, obstacles that need to be overcome. You need
to have an incredibly strong bond and an incredibly synchronized view of the
world amongst the key players if you are going to succeed.
A synchronized view of the world doesn’t mean you don’t argue about
things, that you don’t have disagreements. You must agree on the philosophy,
though, and on the vision. There are many ways to get there, but if you can’t
agree on the vision, then obviously you’re never going to agree on how to execute.
And you’ve got to respect each other. You’ve got to have cordial relationships.
You’ve got to be decent people. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen
companies where people are fighting or arguing or nasty things are happening––fists
punched through walls.
There’s one example where a pair of pliers was tossed by the CEO at the
controller. They sailed over her shoulder and lodged into the wall behind her.
She dropped her papers and said, “I quit,” and stormed out the door. I’ve seen
this stuff happen at different places, and these companies—no surprise—have
not prospered.
But, then again, I’ve seen companies that really have a lot of execution
problems. General Magic is a good example of that. They really did not execute
well in what they were doing. The product was very expensive; it was over
$1,000. It was heavy. The battery didn’t last long. The screen was not very
bright. And it was loaded with all sorts of features that were not really needed
by a mobile professional, which is what a PDA—this was 1990—was targeted
for. Palm, on the other hand, made something small, light, the battery lasted a
long time. It was inexpensive and focused on things like a calendar and address
book. I saw General Magic working on getting bunny rabbit animations working
to make it cute. It had infrared output, and they were making it so it could
tune channels on a TV. They were doing things that were just taking sideways
turns from the core product, which were interesting things to work on in a playground
kind of environment as engineers, but were not focused on the product
execution.
But the thing about it is, the three founders were very, very closely bound
together. They worked together well, for better or for worse. They projected a
common vision. They exuded stability, which made everyone else feel stable in
the company. And it made the company strong. They were able to survive. The
company ended up lasting over a decade. It did an IPO, though it finally fizzled
out. And the product was never successful in the market. It only sold a few
thousand units. But it shows an example of where you have so many things
working against you—the product was not one that was marketable, and you
are facing all these problems—but because they had a very strong core, they
were able to survive as an organization. To me, that was the most important
thing.
The key thing about Phil and Bruce is that they had hearts of gold. They
were nice people. They were not in it to get rich. I mean, money certainly is