• A New Earth:  Awakening to Your Life's Purposes by Eckhart Tolle.  My former business partner Michael Bronner recommended this excellent book to me.  I found the lessons regarding managing your ego and maintaining personal equilibrium to be so compelling that I wrote down a dozen or so excerpts and put them up in my office.  
• Happier:  Learn the Secrets to Daily Joy and Lasting Fulfillment by Tal Ben-Shahar.  This book is a thoughtful exploration into what makes you happy, encouraging self-awareness and wise choices.  My friend Dan Allen recommended it to me.  An insightful study covered by the Atlantic Monthly on this important topic of happiness is also worth a read.
• Younger Next Year: A Guide to Living Like 50 Until You're 80 and Beyond by Chris Crowley and Henry Lodge.  One of my softball teammates pushed this one on me and I adored it.  I've given it to a dozen friends as a gift – encouraging them to maintain the philosophy that health, fitness and well-being does not have to degrade as you get older.

Family/Kids

My three kids remain one of my most passionate obsessions, so I'm a sucker for any recommended books about child-rearing and family management.  A few of my recent favorites:

• Nurture Shock: New Thinking About Children by Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman.  David Kidder of Clickale suggested this one to me and I have enjoyed it as a book that cuts against conventional wisdom in many areas of raising children.
• The Talent Code:  Greatness Isn't Born, It's Grown. Here's How by Daniel Coyle.  My partner Jon Karlen recommended this one to me.  Jon was an all-American squash player and his wife was a 12-letter athlete (!) at Harvard, so I take his recommendations about raising talented kids seriously!
• The Three Big Questions For a Frantic Family by Patrick Lencioni.  Lencioni is one of my favorite business book writers (see my recent blog post on his work on team dysfunction) and so this book was a refreshing way to apply some of his core business lessons to family management.

Fiction/Fun

When you don't feel like serious non-fiction, a little light fiction hits the spot.  For example:

•  The Strangler by William Landay.  Full disclosure:  Billy is my brother-in-law, but as a former prosecutor in the DA's office, he's got a great angle on crime mysteries.  His third book, Defending Jacob, comes out next winter and is also outstanding.
• Delirious by Daniel Palmer.  This is a very fun and a bit freaky fictional work about a start-up CEO who goes insane.  Murder, drama and software all play heavily.  Palmer used to be a start-up executive and gives a great view into this world. 
• The Finkler Question by Howard Jacobson.  A hedge fund buddy of mine recommended this to me.  Wry and somewhat bizarre depiction of a philo-Semitic (as opposed to anti-Semitic) world view. 
• Cityboys:  Beer and Loathing in the Square Mile by Geraint Anderson.  A buyside equity analyst buddy of mine recommended this one to me.  Anderson is a London-based trader who provides a laugh out loud fictional (but based on fact) inside look at the hypocrisy and idiocy on the trading floor. 

So those are a few of my top suggestions – many are a bit off the beaten track but very enjoyable.  Happy reading!

Every summer we invite our portfolio company executives and their families along with friends of the firm to Kennebunkport, Maine for some fun and sun.  The event is all about having fun and community building – no conferences or panels allowed.  On Saturday night, we have a costume bash and in past years, people get really into it.  

This year's theme was Saturday Night Live and my (very creative) partner David Aronoff produces a video each year to show at the party.  You can see this year's video here, with numerous guest stars and a brilliant "Mr. Bill raises VC money" skit:

David promises me this is the last year he'll make fun of me for writing a book.  I'm not holding my breath.  Here's a picture of the Flybridge team in full regala:



My wife and I have picked out the perfect spouse for my son.  They have developed a wonderful relationship together over the years, with great chemistry and warmth.  She comes from a family that has identical values and priorities to ours and would make wonderful in-laws.

They are both 9 years old.

This example – admittedly absurd (although we still do talk about it!) – got me thinking about the challenge of arranged marriages in the world of entrepreneurship.

Many entrepreneurs come to us and say "I have this great idea, all I need is a technical co-founder" or "I have a killer technology that I'm developing, all I need is a business co-founder."  They look to us to help make the match in the hopes that they will complete their team and live happily ever after.  

Unfortunately, arranged marriages are hard to execute.  You can't force a partnership.  It has to come naturally and evolve organically.  When two partners have worked together already and come to us, we know that "team risk" has been meaningfully mitigated.  But even when a founding team has a long personal history, if they don't have a professional history together it can be hard to predict whether things will work out harmoniously.

We have had a few examples in the Flybridge portfolio where we have been able to make matches between business builders and technical founders that have really worked.  In particular:

• Virtual Computer, where we were able to match the late Alex Vasilevsky (RIP) with CEO Dan McCall to build a successful desktop virtualization company.
• Cartera Commerce, where we were able to match technical founder Dave Andre with CEO Tom Beecher to build a successful e-commerce and performance marketing company.
• Digital Lumens, where we paired a data communications veteran, CEO Tom Pincine, with a lighting guru, Brian Chemel, to start the leading LED-based solid-state lighting company.

But we have also seen plenty of examples where it has not worked – where putting two strong personalities together to build a venture leads to disaster.  Here are a few tips based on lessons learned in trying to make arranged marriages work:

1. Sign a pre-nup.  Two founding team members may think they have a clear agreement as to how they are going to divide up responsibilities, but unfortunately humans have a tendency to listen to what they want to hear.  To avoid misunderstanding, write it down.  Write down the roles and responsibilities, the mechanisms by which you will resolve disputes, and what the financial deal is (equity split, deferred compensation, etc.)  between the two of you.  HBS Professor Noam Wasserman wrote a good blog post on how to think through the initial equity split that I highly recommend.
2. Celebrate diversity.  I have found that it's best to have two founders who are really different – different skills, backgrounds, different perspectives on the world.  Otherwise, there is a risk that they step on each other's toes by inserting themselves into the same set of issues.  Which founder will be Ms. Outside vs. Ms. Inside?  Which founder will handle fundraising vs. product development?  These questions should have obvious answers based on skill set and experience, rather than coin-flipping.
3. Don't rush it.  Having a year long engagement period is a good practice in marriages – it allows the newlweds to "try on" the whole marriage concept over a long period of time.  Similarly, allowing a founding team to have some hang time together and not rush into a relationship is an important practice.  With a fast-moving industry, a year is typically not practical, but take a few months to "try it on" before you jump in to a founding partnership.
4. Talk it out – in private.  I believe it was President Bill Clinton who began the practice of weekly lunches with his Vice President, Al Gore (cute joke on that here).  That cadence of private 1 on 1 sessions is a valuable mechanism to set up between two founders to make sure they remain in synch.  If employees sense even slight disagreements between founders, it can lead to confusion and misalignment.
5. Seek a counselor.  I am a big fan of busines coaches and would advise founding teams to consider hiring a professional coach or nominating an advisor to help them resolve disputes – before any disputes arise.  There's a good reason complex business contacts have a built in agreement on the dispute resolution process.  In the heat of the moment, that's the last thing you want to negotiate.  Similarly, founders should setup a neutral party and process to assist them in resolving issues so that when they inevitably arise, it's an orderly, rational process.

My wife and I will keep a close eye on my son's evolving relationship with his nine year old girlfriend.  In the meantime, I'll keep looking to make more great entrepreneurial matches.

I can type faster than my assistant.  If she is reading this blog, she may dispute this (and we may have to have a show down with the help of an online typing test), but I'm a pretty darn fast typer.

But, if my assistant were to sit in on my board meetings for me while I stayed back in the office and typed, I'm not sure my entrepreneurs would be very happy (at least, I hope not!).

Thus, despite the fact that I may be a faster typer than she on an absolute basis, it's way more important for my job as a VC that I maximize my time working with entrepreneurs, something I am comparatively better at than she is.

This simple example is derived from an economic law discovered by David Ricardo that has always fascinated me, called the Law of Comparative Advantage.  This law says that it does not matter  whether a nation is better at producing a particular good on an absolute basis as compared to another nation.  What matters is whether a nation is comparatively better at producing a particular good as compared to other goods it can devote its resources to producing relative to another country.

Unfortunately, I see too many founders ignoring the entrepreneurial corollary to this law, the Start-Up Law of Comparative Advantage.  I'm no David Ricardo, but it seems to me that if entrepreneurs followed this "law", the gains to their start-ups would be akin to the gains attributed to free trade.  Here's why:  founders are typically gifted, multi-talented, versatile professionals.  As such, they get sucked into spending time doing things that they may be better at than the others in their organization on an absolute basis, but that, comparatively speaking, they are worse at in relation to the handful of things that they are uniquely suited for.

I work with one founder/CEO who is so talented, I think he literally could perform the job function of each of his direct reports better than they could.  But if he spent all his time doing operational project management or tactical sales activities, he wouldn't be able to spend time on the things that only he uniquely can do relative to his teammates.  

In a fast-growing start-up, a founder needs to be very protective and strategic with how they spend their time.  Founders are always complaining that they are spread too thin, are overwhelmed with the job at hand, and struggle to figure out how they should be prioritizing their efforts.

I would submit that, above else, there are two areas a founder should not delegate:  product and people.  Product-related activities include developing customer intimacy (studying the "voice of the customer"), designing features, thinking through product strategy and setting priorities.  People-related activities include hiring, setting the culture, coaching and mentoring.

If a founder finds themselves spending the bulk of their time on issues not related to product or people issues, they are violating the Law of Comparative Advantage.  They need to rethink whether they're delegating in the wrong areas, and not being (appropriately) obsessively hands-on in the right areas.

I remember reading once that in the early days at Microsoft, Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer would review each other's calendars on a monthly basis and give feedback to each other on where they should be spending their time.  That concept has always stuck with me, and my partners and I endeavor to do the same periodically. 

Try the following exercise:  at the end of the week, write down the top 6-8 categories of time spent on your start-up (e.g., product, people, project management, operations, marketing, sales, investor relations, miscellaneous).  Just as a lawyer would, track your hours at the end of the week by "billing" each of these buckets.  When you step back and analyze how much time you are actually spending (as opposed to how much time you think you are spending), you may find you can make appropriate adjustments to better deploy your time. 

Adhering to the Start-Up Law of Comparative Advantage may not earn you the Nobel Prize in Economics, but it will help you direct your time more productively when starting your company.

There has been a recent dialog around a theme I'll call "hacking the corporation" – creating novel approaches to building young companies, particularly when they are in their formative start-up stage and pre-product market fit.  One of them, reinventing board meetings (or, "Why Board Meetings Suck"), has gotten some attention from leading thinkers like Steve Blank and Brad Feld.

I'd like to submit another item to add to the "hacking the corporation" punchlist:  elimnating titles.

At business school, I learned all about titles and hierarchies and the importance of organizational structure.  When I joined my first start-up after graduation, e-commerce leader Open Market, I found the operating philosophy of the founder jarring – he declared no one would have titles in the first few years.  If you needed a title for external reasons, our founder told us, we should feel free to make one up.  But we would avoid using labels internally.  In other words, there would be no "vice president" or "director" or other such hierarchical denominations.

Why?  Because a start-up is so fluid, roles changes, responsibilities evolve, and reporting structures move around fluidly. Titles represent friction, pure and simple, and the one thing you want to reduce in a start-up is friction.  By avoiding titles, you avoid early employees getting fixated on their role, who they report to, and what their scope of responsibility is – all things that rapidly change in a company's first year or two.

For example, one of my first bosses in the company later became a peer, and then later still reported to me.  Our headcount went from 0 to 200 in two years.  Our revenue grew from 0 to $60m in 3 years.  We went public only two years after the company was founded.  We were moving way too fast to get slowed down by titles and rigid hierarchies.  Over the course of my five year tenure, I ran a range of departments – product management, marketing, business development, professional services – all amidst a very fluid environment.  Around the time that we went public, we matured in such a way that we began to settle into a more stable organizational structure and, yes, had formal titles.  But during those formative first few years, avoiding titles provided a more nimble organization.

So when I co-founded Upromise, I instituted a similar policy:  no titles.  We had an open office structure and functional teams, but a fluid organizational environment and rapid growth.  One of our young team members changed jobs four times in her first year.  Only after the first year, as we settled into a more stable organizational structure and I recruited senior executives who were more obviously going to serve as my direct reports on the executive team did I begin to give out titles (CTO, CMO, CFO, etc.).  With the title policy, there was some early tension and discomfort (one young MBA kept referring to himself as a VP externally, although he was clearly playing an individual contributor role and was soon layered).  Often, when you are running your start-up experiments, you are not even sure of the right profile for employees or organization structure for optimal execution.  But you can establish role and process clarity without having to depend on titles.

I haven't been able to institute this systematically in our portfolio, but whenever young start-ups are formed, it's one of the first things I counsel the founder.  Don't let your founding team and early hires get too attached to titles and hieararchy.  In fact, in that formative first year, see if you can avoid them altogether.

In ancient history, the Fertile Crescent extended from lower Egypt, through modern-day Israel and into Assyria and Mesopotamia.  Thanks to the waterways, population density, and diversity of peoples, it was characterized by an unparalleled flow of goods and services and intellectual foment.  The region's nickname, "The Cradle of Civilization" is well-deserved.

Today, Harvard University is announcing that the school is finally progressing with its stalled expansion in Allston to create 700,000 square feet of new lab space and a 36-acre enterprise research campus with a dozen building to house start-ups, biotechs and VCs.

If this project can be completed as planned (something Larry Summers tried to complete during his term as president, but it was stalled due to the economic crisis), it will form a modern-day, intellectual fertile crescent between Harvard and MIT's Kendall Square, linking academia, industry and capital along the Charles River.

To be clear, this is not just a Boston phenomenon.  The scientific progress being made in Kendall Square and throughout the region in the areas of human genomics, bioengineering and personalized medicine at the Whitehead Institute, the Broad Institute and the Wyss Institute are having international impact.  If the Harvard Stem Cell Institute were to move to the new campus and sit alongside the newly created Harvard Division of Engineering and Applied Sciences, nestled next to Harvard Business School and the newly created Innovation Lab, the amount of collaboration and innovation would simply explode.  Notably, each of the institutions mentioned above are 5-10 years old and thus are still extremely early in their progress in bringing to market all the implications of the intersection of the human genome project, big data, cloud computing, Moore's Law and advancements in nanotechnology.

There is a big idea nestled in here.  Let's hope local, state and national leaders recognize the opportunity…and seize it.

When evaluating company documents and filings, a hedge fund manager friend of mine has a simple mantra: "read the footnotes".  So when the Groupon S-1 was posted last night, I was eager to pour over it and find a few hidden nuggets that might explain the company's success and provide some indication of what the future might hold.

I think I found it on pages 74 (not the footnotes, I grant you, but buried quite deeply in the 110 page document).  The company presents two case studies for its two oldest cities, Chicago and Boston, and provides a few datapoints that allows one to infer two of the most important metrics for the business – customer churn and customers per merchant.

Let's look at the longest-tenure city – their hometown of Chicago.  Here's the chart they provide in the S-1 for performance over time:



All the numbers are growing, which is terrific.  But what matters in these situations is the ratios of growth, not just the absolute growth.  So let's do some simple calculations.  First, subscriber (defined as someone who receives an email from them) growth per quarter and percentage growth:

As you can see, quarter over quarter subscriber growth is slowing considerably in Chicago.  In Q1'10 it was 81%.  In Q1'11 subscriber growth was only 37%.  This is incredibly important because there are going to be inactive subscribers – also known as attrition or churn – and that number will likely grow over time.  Groupon needs to fill this leaky bucket with new subscribers every quarter.  If not, growth will slow, flatten or decline.

Now, let's look at customer growth.  Typically, I would expect the definition of a customer to be someone who purchases a Groupon in that period.  But a footnote on page 8 provides a different definition.  A customer is defined as anyone who has purchased a Groupon since January 1, 2009.  That is, it is a cumulative figure representing anyone who has purchased in Groupon's history.  Thus, the change in customers is far more important than the absolute number.  Here's what that looks like:

As with the subscriber numbers, this figure is slowing in quarter-over-quarter growth.  In Q1'10, the change in cumulative customers (that is, new customers) was 69%. In Q1'11, it was 35%.

Now let's look at things from the merchant's view.  The number of Groupons sold per merchant and the number of Groupons sold per customer per merchant are two important ratios of merchant success and customer activity.  Here's what that looks like:

As you can see, these ratios are also in decline, with Groupons per merchant per 1000 customers dropping 10x from Q3'09 (21.3) to Q1'11 (2.3).  This ratio is a good proxy for how active the cumulative customer base is.  The lower the ratio, the more likely there are large pools of inactive customers.  Again, if customer engagement attrits over time, then there is a leaky bucket that can only be filled with new customer acquisition. In saturated markets, it is typical for new customer acquisition to slow down and become more expensive over time.

To be clear, I'm incredibly impressed with this company and what it has achieved.  But a careful read of the rations is instructive when thinking about persistence and durability of the model.  Groupon has so many assets at their disposal and is so early in their innovation cycle, that I'm sure we haven't seen anything yet in terms of targeting, loyalty and other techniques to provide sticky customer relationships.  But the ratio data above suggests that the basic model they're executing on right now has some weaknesses that will become more acute over time.

There has been a surge in interest with the world of the Navy SEALs since the Osama bin Laden action (this piece in the WSJ was a particularly good profile) and I confess to being caught up in it myself.  One of my portfolio company CEOs, Will Tumulty of Ready Financial, is a former Navy SEAL (1990-1995).  Will was kind enough to introduce me to a SEAL classmate of his, Brendan Rogers (SEAL 1990-2000), who joined me and 20 NYC CEOs/founders from the tech scene last night to talk about the SEALs – the training, the planning and the operations behind their combat operations – as well as draw out some relevant lessons for entrepreneurs.  Brendan went on to HBS and McKinsey after the SEALs and then started his own hedge fund with a partner, so he had an interesting, multi-faceted perspective.

The discussion was wide-ranging and entertaining.  The five key lessons Brendan highlighted were as follows:

• What's hard is good.  SEALs go through an intensive 6 month training program called Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training (BUD/S).  That training program is designed to test a candidate's physical and mental limits.  Traditionally, by the time of SEAL graduation, the attrition rate is as high as 70%.  SEALs quickly learn that the punishment and pain of training hardens their minds and bodies and adapt to embrace the tough environs.  Brendan pointed out that start-up executives who go through hard times should learn to relish them, recognizing that the hard times will toughen the team and train them properly for "battle".
• 80% training, 20% execution.  SEALs are incredibly well-trained and when they are not on acutal combat deployments, they are spending the vast majority of their time training for a number of different types of missions.  In contrast, at start-ups, executives typically spend 100% of their time executing and 0% of their time training.  Brendan emphasized the importance of training and practice in all areas – employee onboarding, management practices, etc.  He commented on the importance of training for unexpected situations.  The simultaneous shooting of three Somali pirates at sea as part of a hostage rescue two years ago was an example of the kind of outcome possible when  SEALs train under all possible conditions.  The CEOs in the room had wide eyes and were certainly thinking hard about their training regimens and scenario planning after that example.
• Every seat counts.  Brendan pointed out the price of settling for mediocrity, even in a big organization.  Every SEAL needs to know with 100% confidence that the man behind them will be able to save their life and get them out of a bad situation.  The CEOs in the room were asked if they could say the same about their management teams and if those management teams, in turn, could say that about their lieutenants.  One CEO objected that he had 1000 employees in his company and couldn't possibly hire all "A's".  Brendan replied by citing the example of DDay.  Eisenhower planned DDay with a small number of subordinates who he turned to and said, select 12 men underneath you who can trust with your life to execute this mission.  Each of those men did the same.  And so on and so on.  That cascading effect resulted in the successful employment and combat engagement of over a 2 million troops throughout Europe.  The lesson?  Don't let a large organization be an excuse for mediocrity.
• Everyone is expendable.  The SEALs are trained in a nearly identical manner and no one SEAL is indispensible to the unit or the mission. The nature of combat is that anyone can be lost at any time.  Entrepreneurial companies have a harder time executing on this philosophy since there are specialists and superstars, but Brendan's message was to make sure contingency plans were thought through for any set of personnel circumstances.
• You never know the measure of a person until they are tested.  As mentioned earlier, the SEALs training program weeds out 70% of participants.  Brendan conveyed that the people he thought would never drop out did while others proved to be more resilient and tougher than imagined.  Until your people are really tested (see "what is hard is good"), you can never be sure who will step up and who will falter.  One sure sign, based on pattern recognition, is that those that talk tough and are full of bluster are predictably those that are the first to blanche in the face of adversity.  Quiet strength and determination in a start-up are invaluable.  When you see it in your people, bottle it.

Everyone left with a great appreciate for those brave men who serve our country so ably, and the system behind it that produces such a consistent, excellent "product".  Brendan is also the co-founder of the Navy SEALs Foundation, a non-profit that helps take care of the families of SEALs when things don't go as smoothly as they did in Pakistan a few weeks ago.  I was inspired to make a donation to the organization immediately after the dinner.  You can read more about them here.

One final humorous note – Brendan observed that the spouses of Navy SEALs are as tough as nails themselves and impossible to impress.  They still make their spouses take out the garbage, do the dishes and change diapers – no matter how impressive their accomplishments in the field of battle.  I suspect many start-up executives have similar, appropriately humbling marital arrangements!

In addition to my day job as an early-stage venture capitalist, I spend some time on civic activities – I think I must have gotten the social justice gene from my Dad.  One of my passions is my work as co-chair of the Progressive Business Leaders Network (PBLN), a nonpartisan group of business leaders that are committed to pro-business, pro-competitiveness policies that are also sustainable and socially responsible.

Last Thursday, I helped lead a delegation of over one hundred CEOs to Washington DC – our most impressive turnout ever – to advocate for policies consistent with our values.  We met with over a dozen senators, a handful of Members of Congress and a number of executive branch leaders.

There were many highlights, but here were a few:

• Start-Up Visa. Rep Jared Polis (D-CO), a former entrepreneur, reports that the Start-Up Visa initiative is languishing because there isn't a single Republican in the House that will co-sponsor it.   Sen Kerry (D-MA) and Sen Lugar (R-IN) put forward a bill in the Senate (Start-Up Visa Act of 2011) but it's not moving because of the House.  Rep Polis also shared that he is starting a Congressional Caucus on "Innovation and Entrepreneurship" along with Rep Vern Buchanan (R-FL) – clearly an important movement to focus and coordinate policy efforts.
• Internet Privacy. Kerry and his staff told us about the recent Internet Privacy Bill he and Sen John McCain (R-AZ) have proposed.  They believe a business-friendly, consumer-friendly version will get passed into law eventually after some negotiations with Sen Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), who is pushing for a more liberal bill that includes a Do Not Track provision.
• Deficit Reduction. Sen Mark Warner (D-VA) briefed us on his work as part of the "Gang of Six" – the six senators who are trying to develop a bipartisan, deficit-reduction plan.  As everyone knows, the deficit data is scary (I recently read analyst John Maudlin's book Endgame, which is about as scary a book about the global economy as one can imagine).  To take $4 trillion out of the deficit over the next 10 years (the common number focused on by the Ryan Plan, the Obama Plan and the Simpson-Bowles Plan), it is clear that entitlements, taxes and draconian spending cuts are all on the table.  Many insiders believe a proposal will be put forward this week.
• Investment and Growth Policies. Austan Goolesbee, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors and a frequent guest on The Daily Show, provided his views on the economy and the policies required to drive growth.  He seemed less focused on the deficit (scarily, frankly) and more focused on "growing our way out of this".  He highlighted the President's focus on innovation policies and job growth, although when pushed he was squishy on details.  He did observe that the fixing the IPO market malaise needs attention (an issue that is dampening growth – as analyzed extensively by these two Grant Thornton Reports, one titled "A Dysfunctional IPO Market Fuels Unemployment"). 
• Deregulation.  Will Marshall and Mike Mandel from the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) briefed us on the need for deregulation.  There is a growing awareness in Washington on the importance  of reducing regulatory burdens on business.  What a pleasure to hear a Democratic group advocate for this!  In fact, Mandel shared a good insight:  governments should apply regulatory policy during business cycles much like they do monetary and fiscal policy – loosen during times of economic weakness, tighten during boom times.  He highlighted Sarbanes Oxley as a huge mistake, just when the economy needed less regulation in the IPO market, not more.  He also railed against regulatory overreach on the part of the FCC.

These were just a few of the many highlights.  The call to action given to us by the elected leaders still resonates.  "We need you.  Keep caring.  Stay engaged." pleaded Senator Warner.  We have only a few months left to achieve a long-term deficit reduction plan and making progress on pro-innovaton policies over the next few months before election fever strikes.  Everyone needs to stay engaged in what happens next.

The unemployment rate in America is hovering around 9%. But if you are a competent engineer, sales executive, online marketer or general manager in Silicon Valley, NYC, Boston or other start-up hotspots, the unemployment rate is 0%. 

The talent market has gotten as competitive and aggressive as I have ever seen in the last 20 years. CNN recently reported that 40% of the 130,000 job openings in Silicon Valley are for software engineers.  Senior executives have never been harder to secure.  That's why, even though it flies in the face of conventional wisdom, I'm advocating that all my portfolio companies hire recruiters when they are trying to fill senior or key positions.  Immediately.

Typically, when a young company gets financing and begins to hire, they seek to leverage the network of the founding team and their investors. This network provides some valuable leads and perhaps a few hires. Leveraging existing networks has greater benefits than simply cost savings and convenience.  Teams that have worked together in the past simpy are well-positioned to out-execute those that haven't due to their common history, language and relationships.  I have read studies that show that one of the factors that correlates highly for success in a startup is if the team has worked together and made money together in a previous startup. 

But tapping those informal networks alone doesn't scale. And reacting to inbound people flow generates an adverse selection bias – the best people are not looking, so they will never contact you and respond to your job posting. 

As an entrepreneur, I was initially very skeptical of fast-talking, expensive recruiters. I thought hiring them represented a personal failure on my part as an entrepreneur.  After all, it was my job to secure the best and brightest talent through my own efforts and my own network. But my years of recruiting have taught me that startup CEOs are at a distinct competitive disadvantage if they don't get outside help for recruiting. Here are the top five reasons why:

1) You Never Have Enough Proactive Time. As an entrepreneur, you are always battling dividing your efforts into proactive time (where you direct the activities through your own energy) versus reactive time (where you are reacting to people and forces around you).  With the inflow of real-time information and people coming at you from all sides and demanding your attention (employees, investors, customers, etc), it's hard to find enough proactive time in the day.  Recruiting is a proactive exercise.  It requires effort and energy from the entrepreneur to generate candidate flow, meet candidates, vet them, check references.  It is therefore important to have an outside force push you to react to candidates and help you prioritize the recruiting effort, just as your VP Sales is pushing you to prioritize sales and your VP Marketing is pushing you to prioritize marketing.

2) Hiring Inexperience.  Most entrepreneurs are first time CEOs or even second time CEOs who simply do not have a lot of experience hiring, particularly hiring the particular executives they're hiring for (Try this exercise – ask your favorite CEO/entrepreneur how many times they've hired a CFO. Most never have but even if they've done it once or twice in the past, are they really now an expert at it?).  Like anything else, hiring is a science.  A recruiting friend of mine likes to say, "interviews are inquisitions, not discussions".  Too many entrepreneurs don't actually know how to interview well.  Further, they're not experienced at assessing their current human capital needs, analyzing the gaps of management team members, and then understanding the market and how to fill the gaps.  Good recruiters are invaluable in this regard.

3) Shallow reference checking.  Busy entrepreneurs and busy VCs typically do cursory reference checking when making even senior hires.  They allow themselves to be swayed by their own conviction, let the candidates spoon feed them their top fans from past jobs and ignore the opportunity to push for a deep understanding of candidates' histories and claims.  When I make an investment in a company, I typically do 8-10 reference checks and get a wide variety of perspectives from people who have worked with the entrepreneur in the past and seen them in a range of different situations.  It's hard to have the discipline to replicate this thoroughness when making a senior hire, particularly when trying to move quickly in a competitive hiring market (see "You Never Have Enough Proactive Time" above).

4) Quarterbacking the Selling Process.  Many hiring managers don't realize that the due diligence process for a candidate is as thorough, if not more so, than your due diligence on them.  The best candidates have choices and are sought after.  Even though you are deciding whether to "buy" over the course of a series of interviews, you need to be in a position to sell every step of the way.  "Everyone's trying to be the coolest place to work," observed one Stanford junior who is being barraged with job opportunities.  Recruiters can be very helpful in quarterbacking the selling process – proactively surfacing objections and handling them with data and follow-up conversations, linking candidates to the right people at the right time in the process.

5) Focus on closing.  Closing candidates in this competitive a market is very hard.  Counter-offers, compressed timeframes and personal considerations all get in the way of smooth closes.  Again, if you don't have alot of proactive time available to you (and who does?!), there's great benefit to having a focused closer.  Further, I have found having an intermediary helps tremendously with the negotiations.  A candidate will be unafraid to tell a recruiter what it takes to get the deal done, and a tough back and forth with the help of an intermediary can avoid bad feelings aftewards between two principals that will need to work together as a team when the dust settles.

Too often I hear entrepreneurs say, "I'll work my network for a few weeks and then we'll hire a recruiter."  Many VCs are over-confident about their own recruiting prowress and will tell entrepreneurs to wait until they talk to their partners and surface a few great candidates from their network.  The problem, of course, is that everyone gets busy and distracted. A few weeks turns into a few months, a few candidates get turned up and interviewed but then discarded, and finally when the network comes up dry, the group reconvenes and decides to hire a recruiter.  Now the recruiters need to be selected, interviewed, reference checked, negotitated with and ramped up – causing more delay.  By the time you get around to getting the recruiter ramped up, the board and CEO feel frustrated that they are already behind.  To be clear, not all recruiters are created equal and some are a waste of time and money. But if you can find a good one, don't let them go. 

Paul English, cofounder of Kayak, is a truly gifted recruiter and there has been alot written about his approach to hiring.  If you can be that exceptional, perhaps you don't need a recruiter.  And, believe me, the price you pay for these folks feels exorbitant, particularly if you are in the scrappy, lean start-up phase of development.

My bottom line advice is to just bite the bullet and hire a recruiter now. The difference will cost you an incremental $50-100k, but everyone knows hiring an "A" has a massive positive impact as compared to a "B" – and that impact is compounded if it can be achieved 3-6 months sooner.