There are none so blind as those who will not see.
As customer and agile development reinvent the startup, it's time to ask why startup board governance has not kept up with the pace of innovation. Board meetings that guide startups haven't changed since the early 1900's.
Reinventing the board meeting may offer venture-backed startups a more efficient, productive way to direct and measure their search for a profitable business model. Reinventing the board meeting may offer Angel-funded startups that typically don't have formal boards or directors (because of geography or size of investment) to attract experienced advice and investment outside of technology clusters (i.e. Silicon Valley, New York). Here's how.
The combination of venture Capital and technology startups is only about 50 years old. Rather than invent a new form of corporate governance, venture investors adopted the traditional board meeting structure from large corporations. Yet boards of large companies exist to monitor efficient execution and strategy of a known business model. While startups eventually get into execution mode, their initial stages are devoted to a non-linear, chaotic search for a business model: finding product/market fit -- a product people will buy in droves at a sustainable, profitable pace.
In the last few years our understanding that startups are not smaller versions of large companies made us recognize that startups need their own tools different from those used in existing companies; Customer Development (the process to search for a Business Model); the Business Model Canvas (the scorecard to measure progress in the search); and Agile Engineering (the tools to physically construct the product).
Yet while we've reinvented how startups build their companies, investors are still having board meetings like it's the 19th century.
Why Have a Board Meeting? From a VC's point of view there are two reasons for board meetings.
- It's their fiduciary responsibility. Once a startup gets going it has asymmetric information. Investors get board seats to insure themselves and their limited partners that they are duly informed about their investment.
From a founder's point of view there are three reasons for board meetings.
- It's an obligation that came with the check.
What's Wrong With a Board Meeting?
The Wrong Metrics. Traditional startup board meetings spend an insane amount of wasted time using Fortune 100 company metrics; income statement, cash flow, balance sheet, waterfall charts. The only numbers in those documents that are important in the first year of a startup's life are burn rate and cash balance. Most board meetings never get past that. That's simply a failure of a startup boards fiduciary responsibility.
The Wrong Discussions. The most important advice/guidance that should be coming from investors in a board meeting is about the metrics around the search for a business model: What are the business model hypotheses? What are the most important hypotheses to test now? How are we progressing validating each hypotheses? What do those numbers look like? What are the iterations and Pivots - and why?
Not Real-time. Startup board meetings occur every 4-6 weeks. While that's great when you showed up in your horse and buggy, the strategy-to-tactic-to implementation lag is painful at Internet speeds. And unless there's rigor in the process, most often there's little follow-up on the outcomes.
Wastes Founders' Time. For the founders, "the get ready for the board meeting" drill is often a performance rather than a snapshot. Powerpoints, spreadsheets and rehearsals consume time for materials that are used once and discarded. There are no standards for what each side (board versus management does.) What is the entrepreneur supposed to be doing? What are the board members supposed to be contributing?
The Wrong Structure. If you read advice on how to run a board meeting you'll get advice that Andrew Carnegie or John D. Rockefeller would have felt comfortable with.
Yet in the age of the Internet why is it we need to get together in one room on a fixed schedule? Why do we need to wait a month to six weeks to see progress? Why don't we have standards for what VC's want to see?
Angels In America
For angel funded startups, life is even tougher. Data from the Startup Genome project shows that startups that have helpful mentors, listen to customers, and learn from startup thought leaders, raise 7x more money and have 3.5x better user growth. If you're in a technology cluster like Silicon Valley you may be able to attract ad hoc advice from experienced investors. But very little of it is formal, and almost none of it approaches the 50-100x experience level of professional investors.
As there's no formal board, most of these angel/investors meetings are over coffees. And lacking a board meeting there's no formal mechanism to get investor advice. Angel investments in mobile and web apps today are approaching the "throw it against the wall and see if it sticks" strategy.
And for startups outside of technology clusters, there's almost no chance of attracting Silicon Valley VC's or angels. Geography is a barrier to investment.
So given all this, the million dollar question is: Why in the age of the Internet haven't we adopted the tools we to solve these problems?
- Early stage board meetings are often clones of large company board meetings
- That's very, very wrong
- Angel-funded startups have no formal mechanism for experienced advice
- There's a better way