I rarely use the word proud or pride because that signals a profound happiness with the status quo.
And I don't have that, you know, because I'm always at odds with the status quo.
That's sort of the natural, milk-content posture that we have.
Yeah, we're here, but we could be there.
So what gives? How do we get there, right?
So we're always envisioning a future that is different than the one that we're currently experiencing.
Welcome to the Knowledge Project, a podcast about mastering the best of what other people have already figured out, so you can apply their insights to your life.
I'm your host, Shane Parish.
If you're listening to this, you're missing it.
If you'd like access to the podcast before public release, special episodes that don't appear anywhere else, hand-edited transcripts, or you just want to support the show you love, you can join at fs.blog.com.
Check out the show notes for link.
Today, my guest is Frank Slutman, one of the most incredible operators that Silicon Valley has ever seen.
Frank is the chairman and CEO of Snowflake.
Before that, he was the CEO of ServiceNow, taking the organization from $100 million in revenue to $1.4 billion.
Prior to that, he was the CEO of Data Domain, leading to an acquisition by EMC for over $2 billion.
I've been trying to get Frank on the show for nearly a year, but luckily, I don't give up very easily.
I wanted to talk to Frank because his no-nonsense, result-based approach really resonates with me.
In this episode, we talk about the first 90 days taking over a company, and while there's no blueprint and each situation is different, there are common methods of thinking and principles that work and you can apply.
We also discuss one of my favorite ideas, doing less and doing better.
The difference between a good sales organization and a great one, how to get the best out of people, positioning yourself for future success, artificial intelligence, and so much more.
It's time to listen and learn.
The Knowledge Project is sponsored by MetaLab.
For a decade, MetaLab has helped some of the world's top companies and entrepreneurs build products that millions of people use every day.
You probably didn't realize that at the time, but odds are you've used an app that they've helped design or build.
Apps like Slack, Coinbase, Facebook Messenger, Oculus, Lonely Planet, and many more.
MetaLab wants to bring their unique design philosophy to your project.
Let them take your brainstorm and turn it into the next billion-dollar app from ideas sketched on the back of a napkin to a final-ship product.
Check them out at metalab.co.
That's metalab.co. If you get in touch, tell them Shane's sent you.
Make an exceptionally delicious cup of coffee in less than a minute with the AeroPress coffee maker.
It's the only coffee press out there that uses a patented 3-in-1 brew technology.
And because it's so unique, so is the flavor.
Not only does it taste incredible, but I love the smooth, full-bodied finish that other coffee makers can't give you.
Best of all, you can pack it in your bag when you travel so you don't have to drink that mediocre coffee at your office or Airbnb.
AeroPress is made in the USA and is trusted by professional baristas who love it for its versatility.
It's the only press that lets you experiment with temperature, grind size, and immersion time.
And now they have a new crystal clear version.
With over 45,000 5-star reviews and sold in over 60 countries, what are you waiting for?
Pick one up today for under $50 at aeropress.com slash Shane and get 15% off exclusively for our listeners.
That's A-E-R-O-P-R-E-S-S dot com slash Shane.
I think when I was thinking about where to start, I want to start with going into a new company and the playbook that you use for the first 90 days.
Can you walk me through what's done before, what's done on day one, and give me some detail over how you look at the next 90 days?
Because that's really the time when you can transform a company.
Yeah, I tend to take a little bit of exception to the term playbook, like it's a cookie cutter thing and it's not.
It's also not a football game.
There's very precise rules on how to play the game.
It's very situational, very much first principles.
I mean, you come into a new situation and you just start processing on what you're seeing.
But that said, yes, there are things that you zero in on each and every time.
And that is, are there right people on the bus?
Are there people that need to get off the bus?
We're inspecting the functions.
Are they working? Are they not working?
Do people think they work?
What can we see very, very quickly?
And then you start prioritizing, okay, some things are obvious.
They need to be dealt with ASAP.
Then everything starts to sort itself.
So there's usually a number of things that happen incredibly fast, like week one.
And then there are things that happen slower.
There may be 30, 60, 90 days.
But in 90 days, I tend to be through sort of the initial three eyes of, okay, let's get ourselves on a solid footing here where we can function and operate and understand.
And then we can much more incrementally, iteratively progress from there.
So that's sort of the, if you're asking for a framework, that would be it.
But I will tell you that every place I've been, they're all different.
You've got to be very careful that you don't get into a rinse and repeat mode where you just think you have a formula or an algorithm and you can just apply it over and over again.
That's just really simplistic thinking.
It will lead you astray because you kind of try to observe things in a way like a five-year-old would.
They've never seen it before and how are you reacting to it?
So I understand there's no repeatable framework that you can just apply, but I would imagine there's sort of repeatable principles and methods of thinking that you use.
What are the ones that you find the most helpful?
Well, I look very hard at what's working, what's not working.
In other words, some things are not working at all.
Some things seem to be working reasonably well and then there's sort of the stuff that you're sort of humbling and hawing on.
So obviously you prioritize the – I mean, I sort of separate it with people very, very quickly because I think the functions that they were responsible for were barely breathing.
At that point, I don't hesitate.
I move on quickly, immediately.
I go after cultural issues.
People that are just egregious violators of just things that we all generally find normal and acceptable.
We very quickly separate on behavior.
Performance is something that we will give more time.
Behavior, we won't. And that's because behavior is a choice, not a skill set.
You come in as a new leader, everybody's watching, not just what you're doing or what you're not doing.
So if you're not moving on things that everybody is seeing, your leadership brand is already in question because apparently you're blind and apparently you're hesitating or you're tolerant of behavior that you shouldn't be.
So yeah, there's pressure because it's not just what you want to do, it's the whole world's watching.
You said behavior is a choice, not a skill set.
I've never heard it quite framed that way.
I think that's a very – that's a really interesting way to look at it.
But you also said that you sort of – you'll give time for performance but not for behavior.
How much time? How do you learn – like when do you pull the plug?
When do you reinvest? And how do you think about that?
Well, look, behavior is – it'll smack you in the face usually but I've also seen things happen underground where I wasn't aware of it and I wasn't seeing it but it was happening because of what happened on calls that I wasn't on.
One time I got tipped off by an employee of my former company that set lock.
That office over there is a complete disaster because they knew people there.
And I'll say this to people all right, everybody talks, doesn't matter what company you're in.
And then we started basically peeling away the layers and all of a sudden you come across really bad situations, abusive situations, harassment, all these kinds of things.
Because sometimes it's just not visible.
It's happening. People don't like to talk about it.
They're worried that they're ratting on people and they don't want to go to their manager because they don't trust their manager.
They don't trust HR, which is usually your second choice or maybe your first choice to go when you have real behavioral, cultural problems.
And then it just keeps going on.
I've been surprised before about how much wasn't visible to us, not just to me but also the people that I have brought in that were close to me.
They were not seeing it either.
Eventually, believe me, we will find it and we will get to it.
And then we will move at lightning speed because you want to get bad behavior out of an organization fast.
That is your leadership brand.
You start tolerating that.
There's no end in sight to what you're going to have.
Trust is key to moving quickly of an imagine with velocity in organizations.
How do you go about establishing trust in a performance-based culture?
Well, people need to believe that you're fair and that it's not just personal preference.
You're not doing things because, oh, I don't like your haircut or whatever.
It has nothing to do with that.
It has to do with how do we come together?
How do we behave as a group?
And if you have people behaving in huge conflict with that, then it's like, yeah, we are going to move on.
Sometimes I've had situations, especially with young people, where, hey, we need to do a reboot, reset, come back tomorrow.
I'm sure your parents didn't teach you to behave this way and you can do better.
And I've seen people come back a little bit over the weekend and be a different person because for whatever reason, they were led astray by managers that just were inspiring that kind of behavior.
That happens, right? People learn behaviors from what they see around them with the behavior that gets encouraged.
And they don't realize that they are just getting a drift from their own upbringing and their own personal principles because that's sort of the environment starts to really...
It's a slippery slope that they get on and all of a sudden they're in a place where they don't even recognize themselves anymore.
And that's where a reset can really work because basically you're re-grounding them to normal behaviors and then things can work out really nicely from their own.
But most of the time, unfortunately, it's like, look, you're not a fit here.
This is not who we are, who we want to be.
It's choosing. It's just, look, we want you to be this way, not that way.
And for some people, it's like, hey, they learn behaviors in other companies.
It's part of who they are.
It's their culture. This is not for you, man.
Alan Mulally put it to me this way.
He said, when you're choosing a behavior that's not the organizational behavior that's desired, you're choosing not to be a part of the organization.
I thought that was a powerful way to think about it.
Yeah. You're separating and you're in violation of the code.
Driving culture is really important because if you don't, other people will fill that void, right?
And you get subcultures in a city or a division because strong personalities can do that.
So unless you are filling that void, right, it will get filled by something or somebody else.
And before you know it, you're just a grab bag of stuff and it's just a bunch of thieves that's running a company.
Well, you don't want that.
The company needs to stand for something.
This is who we are. Seems like there's a lot of organizations that are more family-based.
I mean, they take a very similar approach to a family and they don't necessarily think in terms of performance.
What are your thoughts on that?
Well, we've talked about this quite a bit in recent years.
I don't think a business is a family.
Unfortunately, in a family, you can't fire your family even though you sometimes want to.
You have to tolerate them and deal with them.
And sometimes in the most egregious way, that is just the nature of families.
I mean, all the dysfunction that comes with it, but in business, it's more like being a professional sports franchise, right?
You're assembling the best players and we may be friends, but we don't have to be friends because we're not coming together on the basis of friendship.
We're coming together on the basis of mission, in other words, share purpose.
We're very demanding of each other and it's really about our respective contributions to the mission.
That's the basis of our relationship.
So it is much more akin to professional sports.
I think that's the correct analogy.
Some companies don't want to be that way.
Companies like Salesforce and even Google come to mind, but in the end, they're laying people off too by the thousands.
So I guess it's not family after all.
Do you think most organizations try to do too much?
There seems to be a natural entropy that builds up.
You start with one thing, it becomes successful and then you expand your footprint.
Before you know it, before Steve Jobs came back to Apple, they have, I don't know, what was it, like 20 or 30 different products?
The first thing he did was narrow the focus down to four key products.
How do you think about that?
Yeah. Well, the interesting thing about Steve was that he had a standard called insanely great, which I remember at the time that it was kind of a thing in Silicon Valley.
So if it didn't meet that standard, it would get scratched really, really quickly.
If it wasn't incredibly exciting and world changing and all that, we just couldn't be bothered to even have that on the pallet and work on that.
So I think that's a great way to be, by the way, to just demand to be inspired and be in awe of the nature of the mission and what we're trying to do.
Because that gives energy, that gives life, that creates excitement, it creates focus, it creates urgency and people come to work with a sense of mission rather than, well, I have to be here for my paycheck.
So it's really applying that filter rather than I got too many things going on.
There just aren't too many insanely great things.
It will naturally sort itself to a small set.
When you come in, you also believe in sort of doing less but doing better and narrowing the focus.
How does that manifest itself in an organization?
Like how do you go through and decide where to focus and what to cut on?
We constantly have conversations around prioritization.
We can't do everything.
So we have to choose. Not choosing is the worst thing you can do because now you're compromising everything.
So the question is, I use all kinds of different ways of trying to figure out what is most critical.
And then, by the way, we revisit that conversation constantly.
It has to be sort of reaffirming.
But it's like, hey, if you can only do one thing, which one would you pick and why and what would be the consequences of not doing the other things.
So we start sort of strapping it on for size and like, can I live with that or what would happen if that was the scenario here.
The problem is, over time, people create, they're a mile wide and an inch deep.
We create more and more and more and then pretty soon we're swimming in glue.
We're lethargic. We're moving like molasses and that saps the energy out of the people and the organization.
So what I go through is, okay, let's just take things out.
Let's just do things in sequence rather than in parallel because we just want to be lightning fast on the things that really matter and really make sure that we're appropriately provisioned.
Because oftentimes, everybody gets 100th of the resources as opposed to getting 50% of the resources.
Things all of a sudden go a lot faster when you have the focus and the resource and the provisioning.
Things really move. Whereas if you have to share with 50 other things, then nothing moves now.
Being very aware of it, now you can create focus in different groups.
When you get bigger as a company, it's really about, you will be multi-focus and you will be multi-purpose.
But you have now way more resources.
We often have done that by creating product teams with general managers on them that were measured on the progress against their targets.
So they could really go after their targets for their vertical industry or their product type or their channel.
They could own it. They could declare victory at the end of the month.
So you can create focus in a multi-mission organization.
You absolutely can't. Certainly Google was actually quite legendary for doing a lot of that stuff because they had a lot of successful things that they did.
I think there are many other companies that have done that as well.
But you don't do it through a large, monolithic, functional organization.
Because now everybody is a small cock in a giant wheel and that doesn't create the momentum that you want.
In your experience, is there a number of priorities that people can focus on and deliver really exceptional results?
Is it like one or two or three?
Obviously it's probably not ten.
Is there a number that seems to be key?
Obviously it greatly depends on what it is.
I don't start off saying it has to be this number or that number.
I just want to see what it is because these things are not created equal.
It might just be one thing because it's just so big that it's going to consume us, which is then fine.
Sometimes it's not. We can address more than one thing.
Most product organizations obviously have lists of projects and maintaining, moving all these things along with the focus and velocity and momentum.
That's the art of management.
You will know when things are grinding down to a halt and things are too slow, momentum is not happening.
Revisiting prioritization over and over again is really important.
You want to convince yourself again and again, this is correct.
This is correct. Or no, it's not working based on what we're seeing.
That's okay. You don't know everything ahead of time.
You learn day by day and you calibrate and adjust from there.
It seems like bureaucracy naturally creeps into organizations if it's not fought.
How do you go about fighting bureaucracy?
What's your role in that?
That's a really important observation because larger companies, they tend to become their own worst enemies.
It's not what the world does to them.
It's what they do to themselves.
In other words, undue process, a lot of friction in terms of getting things done.
I often talk about this in my communications to the company.
We have to hang on to our youth, our innovative muscle, our audacity, our daring.
I always say, look, hierarchy or charge mean nothing to us.
We operate through influence.
If you can convince people, great, and if you can't, then you just can't.
It doesn't matter where your title is or what organization you come from or who your boss is.
It's an extreme meritocracy.
It's really your ideas are judged on their merits, not on where they're coming from.
You fight it. I always say, let's be like Peter Pan.
We never grow up, at least not entirely.
We maintain that chip on our shoulder, that attitude, and back to the insanely great thing.
If we're not inspired what we're working on, that's a problem in and of itself.
We've got to go get that back fast.
I think I remember from one of the interviews I was listening to to prepare for this that you look for maladjusted people.
I'm probably one of those people myself, but yes, I mean, look, where does drive come from?
Where does ambition come from?
It is a lack of adjustment because if you were a perfectly balanced person, you wouldn't have any ambition.
You're so happy with where things are, you barely have a reason to get up in the morning.
But maladjusted people, they just have this disparity between where they are and what they want to do and what they want to prove.
I mean, all of us want to prove things either to our parents if they're still around or our siblings or our friends or people that didn't believe in us.
Totally. We're not going to be able to do that.
We're not going to be able to do that.
We're not going to be able to do that.
We're not going to be able to do that.
We're not going to be able to do that.
We didn't have product market fit for the longest time and we were a bigger accident than the next 10 competitors combined, all this kind of stuff.
But then people started saying, oh, you're just lucky.
You know how that goes, right?
Well, that just puts on the afterburners for me.
It's like, I'll show you luck.
And that's attitude and attitude is something I like in people.
I like people that have attitude that have a chip on their shoulder that have a burning need and desire to prove something.
Now, over the years that will wear off a little bit.
That is just a nature of things.
I mean, when you're 18, you have a very different life experience than when you're 40 years older, depending on what happened in between.
But I generally like people who sort of constantly are very, very strongly aware of where they are versus where they could be.
I rarely use the word proud or pride because that signals a profound happiness with the status quo.
And I don't have that, you know, because I'm always at odds with the status quo.
That's sort of the natural, milk content posture that we have.
Yeah, we're here, but we could be there.
So what gives? How do we get there?
Right? So we're always envisioning a future that is different than the one that we're currently experiencing.
If we could do it all over again, what will we do?
Right? Those kinds of conversations.
So it's very refreshing.
You're constantly sort of reinventing what's going on and also keeps you safe because there are people out there who don't have legacy.
They don't have nothing existing.
They start from scratch.
Well, they're going to get the better of you unless you develop that attitude in your own company, in your own business as well.
It seems like the natural state for most people is to get reasonably good at something like driving a car and then there's a bit of a complacency that sort of sets in.
It's like I get to average or slightly above average in my job and then I sort of let off the pedal.
How do you prevent that?
Obviously, the relationship with the people around you, your team and your managers, are people driving you to higher standards or are they not?
Are they accepting of the way things are?
But one way we do this is throughout the organization.
All our employees that are not in sales because salespeople are on commission plans.
But every quarter, the company has to earn the bonus pool.
In other words, the money that we're going to use for bonus, we have to earn it.
And then we tell people how we earn it, exactly what the metrics are.
And we share all of that so they know, hey, none of us are going to get bonuses unless the company gets paid.
But once the company earns it, now we're starting to allocate the bonus money to managers and departments.
And we just say, look, you use this money to send messages to all your people.
There needs to be a bell curve.
We want to know who is deserving of 2x3x versus who is deserving of zero so that we see the full spectrum, the bell curve, if you will, of people that are performing incredibly well and the ones who are not in good standing.
This is not so much about, oh, I don't want to give money to people who aren't doing well.
It's more, are we giving enough to the ones who are doing great, right?
I don't want the great ones feel like the treat the same way as people that are obviously not in good standing.
That just, you know, that creates a, that's not a performance culture.
So we do this every quarter and in the beginning when people have not lived this life before, it's very challenging for them.
It's like, oh my God, I got to have a conversation like this about money and performance.
Every single quarter, every single person, how do I do that?
Well, people get used to it because during the quarter they now start to have a different, you know, a much sharper lens on the work and how the work's getting done and they keep notes and they make notes and then they can really give a credible message back.
And employees will also ask, hey, if I want to have 150% bonus or whatever number, what do I have to do?
And by the way, this is exactly the conversation you want to have.
What do I have to do? Damn good question.
Let's go have that conversation.
What do you have to do? Right?
Everybody wants to aspire to something.
They want to be better, but you got to force that conversation to happen in such a way that it has consequences, right?
In terms of compensation and recognition and celebration and all of that.
Don't beg on recognizing, you know, great work.
I think great people need to be celebrated and rewarded and singled out in every way possible.
Again, that's a merit performance culture these days that is being frowned upon in popular culture.
But in enterprises, this is really important.
People need to become the best version of themselves.
And this is part of how we go about doing that.
Aside from money, what other sort of mechanisms do you use internally to reward people?
It's recognition and celebration.
You know, we, for example, we have equity awards in sales for people that are landing designated customers that we desperately want.
And, you know, we, they're often surprised because they may have forgotten about it because it's not, you know, it's just something that only happens when you, you know, you land certain customers.
And, you know, we all get on it, you know, to send notes, you know, have conversations, references and other conversations.
All of a sudden, everybody knows the whole company like, wow, this guy, this team did this.
And they're like, wow, you know, they're bathing in glory, you know what I mean.
And, you know, salespeople live for that.
I mean, yes, they live for money.
I know, you know, they're, they're, they're corn operated, but they also live for, for recognition because that is just, you know, it's, it's very, very rewarding.
It's in a very deep, you know, psychological way.
It's very rewarding. So you want to bring that.
Don't take it for granted, you know.
It's not like, oh, that's just doing your job.
Yes, it is. But at the same time, man, this is, this is, this is amazing.
Okay. Especially when it comes from me as a CEO, and they're like, my God, you're taking time out of your day to tell me this.
I'm like, yes, we are. Well, most organizations are sales organizations.
And I guess I'm wondering, we all sort of recognize a bad sales organization because that business will go out of business.
But what's the difference between a good sales organization and a great sales organization?
You get much better sales organization when you have full alignment in the entire company so that everybody works, you know, for sales.
Effectively, we always say that we're all working for sales here because they're the tip of the spear.
And the rest of us are really the wood behind the arrowhead, you know, sort of the way I characterize the relationships between sales and the rest of the company.
And sales needs to feel that wood behind the arrowhead, like everybody is, you know, is killing themselves to help me succeed.
And it's not so much that it's all about selling stuff and transactions and deals and all of that.
It's just that sales experiences the reality of the marketplace, the first and the most profound, in the most profound way, right?
The rest of the organization sits much farther away from the cold winds of competition and somebody ugliness that happens and the uncertainties and anxieties and all these kinds of things.
So yeah, sales is harder, which is why the rest of the organization needs to be in alignment and in support, you know, off them.
So the alignment is really important, right, that we really provision the whole company behind that because they are experiencing a reality in the marketplace.
And we, the rest of us have to adjust to that.
We got to help them. We got to change things.
So it's a constant process of basically living their experience and what does it mean and how often are we seeing this and what are we going to do about it.
But in terms of your question, I mean, one thing that's really important to me, I'm a stickler for consistent execution in sales organization, meaning that every quarter, everybody shows up.
You know, what we can't have is like, well, you had a bad quarter, but I'm going to do better next quarter.
I don't want that. Okay.
We need to run ourselves and our organization in such a way that we show up all of us every single period, you know, every single line of business channel geography and so on.
Right. And if that becomes the culture, the expectation and the reality, you're going to do way better than the rest of them because, you know, sales tends to be, you know, very unevenly distributed.
You know, unevenly distributed thing and you want to work on that.
And so the expectation is, you know, I don't care how far ahead of playing you are.
You have a shitty quarter.
That's not a problem with me.
I can't build on you. I can't trust you.
I can't expect that you're going to deliver.
You work on that all the time, right?
People that are not consistent, you better find a way to get there.
Not overnight, but you're going to make moves.
What moves are you going to make?
What are the reasons that this is inconsistent?
What are you doing differently?
Right? Because we always say a good quarter is one where you exceed your numbers, but also one where you set yourself up for the next one.
You got to do both. It's not just about making the quarter.
You also have to lay the foundation for the next one and the rest of the year.
So you got to think much more long term, much more strategic, you know, about your business rather than I'm just trying to hit a number for the quarter.
I think of that sort of like running a billiards table, right?
Where you leave the ball matters for the next shot.
Anybody can make one shot, but you want to run the table.
There's a natural tension between sales and product.
At the start of an organization's life cycle, you can sort of get away with customizing the product per sale.
But when you start getting into enterprise, you can't do those things.
How do you think about the relationship between sales and product and who's driving the bus and who's not and how that looks?
Yeah, you know, there's tension there.
Sometimes healthy, sometimes not as healthy.
It's a relationship that has to be managed very aggressively.
Certainly one of product organizations that really views the reality of sales as their problem.
Okay, as opposed to, well, you guys are just not smart enough or whatever.
And they're interested in all kinds of things that have nothing to do with the sales organization succeeding.
The alignment, again, is number one, but you have situations where sales goes, this is not working.
Okay, and we have enough data points to say that it's not working.
Okay, what are we going to do?
So that dialogue goes on all the time.
We make mistakes. We prioritize incorrectly.
We're too slow on certain things.
I mean, all these things happen, right?
But that's a continuous force field that we're working on.
The thing about sales is that great salespeople can't sell a bad product, right?
But lousy salespeople can sell a great product.
Okay, and that's very important because, you know, oftentimes in Silicon Valley, they think that sales is the problem.
And I'm like, no, because if you had a great product, you know, even an average or a below average salesperson will be able to sell it, right?
And typically sales problems are product problems.
But typically that's not the initial assessment because, you know, you don't want your baby to be called ugly.
And, you know, investors around the table have invested in your technology, so you don't want to openly face your demons and really confront things the way they really are.
And that then leads to a focus and solutions that don't work like, oh, let's hire another VP of sales.
Well, that won't work because your product is the problem, you know?
So I do hold the product people to a very high standard because we have to make very average salespeople productive in a very predictable manner.
That's hard. And that's exactly right.
That is where the focus should be.
Because if I have to hire brilliant salespeople, even though even brilliant salespeople can't sell lousy product, there aren't that many of them.
So that's not a scalable model.
Would you go as far as saying a great product sells itself?
Almost. I've certainly seen that, you know, with my own eyes in various companies.
You know, I used to say about Snowflake, it's like a two year old golden retriever.
All I got to do is separate them around and everybody's going to want one.
And it sometimes wasn't that far off because the benefits were amazing.
I mean, you benchmark these products and sometimes they were an order of magnitude faster, you know, because of all the architectural breakthroughs and the provisioning of their workloads.
So people were like, wow, I mean, that wow experience is just priceless.
So all you have to do is get people to try it.
And they go like, yeah, this is a no brainer.
And so in that sense, it almost sells itself.
I mean, we used to see that with companies like VMware as well.
I mean, you know, once people were sold on virtualization, I mean, all they were doing is picking up orders, right?
This is actually, you know, a bit of a problem because, you know, you hire people from a very successful company.
They've never really sold because they were just riding the momentum, you know what I mean?
And then they get into a company where they do have to really sell and they do have to campaign and they do have to fight.
And they have no idea because we didn't we never had to do that before.
So I like to hire salespeople who have really been in shit fights because that breeds, you know, the type of skills and focus that you really want to have, right?
I don't have people that are good at, you know, coding and picking up orders.
That's an incredibly valuable point.
I don't think I've ever heard anybody mention that before.
What are the methods of thinking that you would use sort of in the first 90 days to assess the degree to which the problem is not sales or product?
Like how would you go about determining where that problem lies?
Do we have the wrong sales organization, the wrong culture?
Do we have the wrong product?
And obviously it's probably a little bit of both, but how do you go about thinking about that?
Yeah. And by the way, it is often a little bit of both, which is what creates the confusion, you know, around these topics.
But look, you know, I can't tell you how many customers last prospect calls I've already been in this week.
It's Friday, you know, and there were numerous when I was just talking to seven or eight banks this week, you know, the CIO, CEOs.
I experienced reality the way the salespeople are obviously a little bit differently because I talked to higher level people and organizations.
But, you know, I experienced things firsthand.
What you don't want to do is sort of, you know, rely on information, you know, because you just get a second hand, third hand, fourth hand, and you don't know whether you're dealing with a feeble person that has no fortitude or whether you're dealing with a real issue.
So there's no substitute, you know, for inspecting things at the front lines and really be part of it.
I always tell salespeople that if I can't sell it, I'm not expecting you to sell it.
Okay. So if you're going to get your nose blooded, I'm going to get my nose blooded, right.
And so you need to get to reality.
In other words, you need to see things as they really are.
So you got to be very, very careful with what's second and third hand, you know, information.
And sometimes, you know, I got to whip people up the hill.
It's like, look, you know, you guys, you guys are basically you're intimidated by the marketplace, you know, your own worst enemy, because you just lack fortitude and confidence.
And you can't, you know, articulate things.
And that's, you know, that's all under the header of sales enablement, right.
And, you know, I personally get after this.
I'm very aggressive in terms of, you know, really pressing our case in front of, you know, the customers in the marketplace, because I need my organization to do the same thing if I'm not doing it, you know, then, then, you know, they're not either or they're not going to go at it with the same confidence and fortitude.
So leadership is important there.
You want to set an example that people go like, Oh, I guess that's the way it is then.
And, you know, I should be too.
So you bring forward. But, you know, people see me talk in front of a customer, they go, and they see the customer react and they see the customer ask questions.
They're like, Hey, I can do that too.
Okay. There's no better learning than right in front of where the action happens.
So you want to bring that.
If you just want to post some data sheets and some videos and what have you and sit back and wait for things to happen.
You're going to get killed.
So you want to press all the way into the end zone and people go like, Okay, I think I can do it.
You know, I've seen it. The results are there.
It works. So you talked about positioning yourself for future success.
And we sort of use the analogy of running the billiards table.
What are the ways that an organization positions themselves for success tomorrow that it is hard to do today that's hard to compete with, but makes tomorrow easier?
And I was told, told other CEOs, especially people that are the sort of first time CEOs and new that you can count on the fact that you will be confronted with a need for transformation because it happens to all of us.
And the question is, will you recognize it?
Will you recognize it in time?
And will you be able to execute on it?
These are all super big questions because you walk into a situation.
It works. And then one day you wake up, it's not working as well anymore.
The world has changed and the world does change.
The technology changes.
I mean, you see a lot of that right now with AI, obviously, people's perspectives and narratives, they're all up for grabs.
And it's one of the most disruptive things I've ever seen happening in the world of software, Elma years of doing things.
But you also, the early adopters, and Jeffrey Moore style of thinking, are very, very different than when you get across the chasm and you're dealing with a more mainstream customer.
Because they buy differently.
People ask me, why do you think this is sort of a late adopter?
I'm like, well, because he hasn't bought yet, that's why.
He would have bought already if he was an earlier adopter.
So by definition, he didn't.
Why didn't he? So he has different ways of assessing and thinking about the value, about the risk, all these kinds of things.
And these things are difficult to observe.
Sometimes you just wake up and you're like, you know what?
Things are different now.
They have changed. Just in the aggregate, you just sense the change that is happening.
And then it becomes a question, okay, we have to adjust.
We have to change. We've got to do all these things.
But the need for transformation, people don't expect that because we have a very, you know, humans have a very linear attitude about the world.
In other words, it's just going to continue as it is.
We rinse and repeat and it will never change.
No, it will change. And it's just a matter of, you know, can you recognize it?
And can you do it in time?
And then will you know, you know, how to successfully deal with that?
And a lot of people can't.
They'll fail on recognizing it or they fail on the timing of it or they fail on the execution of it.
And we've had a lot of great enterprises, obviously, that we all know.
I mean, you look at, you know, the 1,400, the 1,500, I mean, how many companies are still there that were there 20 years ago and 30 years ago and 50 years ago, right?
So you got to, as a leader, as a CEO, you got to be extremely open-minded about what is happening, right?
And not assume the linearity of the business.
It takes many forms. Some things are incredibly disruptive.
You know, some things are, you know, are marginal.
So that's, you know, by the way, the rest of your organization will not have this posture because they've got their heads down.
They're very much in a pattern in the mode.
So that means that you really, you don't want to have that mode about you as the CEO, as a leader.
You want to be, basically, you make everybody else work.
You get your head up when they have their head down.
You mentioned AI as the most transformative thing you've seen.
Talk to me a little bit about AI.
I've not always been the world data, but I started out very early in my career in the world of data and I've gotten back to it again and again and again.
So I've seen the challenges from the early days, you know, just being able to take transactional records and being able to put them into a format where it was sort of human readable and sensible, you know, for humans to consume.
I mean, this is going all the way back to the late 80s, you know, when we have what we back then called position support systems.
We didn't, I mean, we didn't even have the term of business intelligence or none of those terms even existed back then.
But, you know, especially in the, by the way, there was only certain verticals that did this, like retail was really big on it.
You know, they would be able to sort of break the skews down by, you know, by location and channel and store and all these things.
Very, very granular detailed data.
These are massive mainframe processes that would run usually on a monthly basis, you know, 24 hour cycle.
So every month you would get data.
That was already a big deal back then.
So things have progressed.
Our relationship with data has progressed, you know, very, very slowly, painfully difficult.
And obviously the biggest change we had until now was really the introduction of search, right?
I mean, it's not 25 years ago.
I mean, I became a search junkie.
I still am to this day because I find it's so empowering in terms of your relationship with data.
But search now feels old because, you know, it matches on strings.
It's stateless. I mean, it doesn't remember a damn thing from one search to the next and it has no context.
You know, if you search on Snowflake, you might get the weather.
You might get, you know, you might get the social phenomenon or you might get the company because it doesn't know.
It just knows the word. So we now have opportunities to massively enrich and contextualize, you know, search, you know, searches for data.
So our relationship with data is going to just get catapulted into the future here.
It's just unbelievable.
We'll be able to ask harder and harder and harder questions of our own proprietary data and get better and better and more valuable answers.
I mean, it's fairly easy, you know, to use natural language interfaces.
Now the whole text to SQL has become, you know, table stakes.
I mean, you can interrogate, you know, Salesforce data on Snowflake, you know, what just text to SQL.
And it's really nice, by the way.
I mean, it helps a little bit better than using dashboards for the most part.
Not all of it, but for the most part.
So fine, you know, let's just step forward.
But, you know, I want to ask very business specific questions.
You know, the insurance company may say, hey, you know, I have this proportion that, you know, bodily injury claims in this state compared to the surrounding states, you know, a, what's going on.
B, I'm going to have it again next quarter.
See what might I do about it, right?
So we just stop, you know, underwriting in this geography altogether, which is what's happening in California right now.
And or, you know, we obviously pricing issue because how do we price risk, you know, is it a policy issue?
Those are questions that, you know, God analysts will be launched on, right, because people would do the reasoning, not the system, that the system becomes like an advisor to you in literally in damn near real time.
So this is this is this our relationship with data is going to get amped up here to use a term in ways that we just can't even imagine.
Obviously content generation is what everybody's looking at.
And they find it very cool and it is, you know, but how is it going to work in medicine?
How is it going to work in education?
I mean, it's just it's it's going to be a renaissance, you know, in intelligence and computing and how we mobilize data for purposes.
Yeah, it's a great time to be be alive.
And I think the innovation will drive a lot of a new employment.
We will also, you know, have a lot of, you know, obsolescence, you know, and in jobs and even in functions and industries and processes.
But that's the nature of, you know, of a capitalist, you know, free economy created destruction is just a nature of stuff.
And we do pretty well with that, even though it can be disruptive.
I mean, we used to learn one profession and that would last us for our lifetime.
Now you need to shift gears more than once a year, lifetime, because it's moving so much faster, right?
Than anything we've ever seen.
So the acceleration is going to be dizzying.
There's no two ways about it.
Is there anything that gives you hesitation about AI?
Yes, of course. And people talk about this, you know, all the time.
I mean, social media created the fake news phenomenon because, you know, so many people use social media to inform their reality, which I don't I don't recommend that.
By the way, I always tell people, turn that shit off, man, because, you know, you're distorting what you how you really should be interpreting things.
And I don't like that. But social media had a lot of good things, you know, obviously, but it also had, you know, the flip side, you know, is that, you know, people, it became very, very powerful influencing people in terms of how they experienced the world.
Obviously, this can take that to the nth degree, you know, I mean, it can change the world.
I mean, it can change the realities.
How's that going to go? Right.
You can see the opportunities for abuse becoming extraordinary.
Yeah, we're going to have to deal with that, you know, but we have to still count on the goodwill of men and women because, you know, that's all we have at the end of the day, right?
One of the things we talked about earlier, I want to come back to you just before we end the interview is you talked about we all make mistakes.
How do you handle a mistake at the moment?
How do you recognize that you've been a mistake and then what do you do when you've made a mistake?
You personally. I use mistakes as it's a cultural moment and a teaching moment because it's actually good for me to go, oh, I really screwed this up because it's sort of you can do really well in the world by being a fast course corrector.
What is devastating in organizations is when people defend bad decisions.
Okay, but if you can fail fast, that was Scott McNeely used to say that, fail fast.
If you can fail fast and correct, you can do really well.
So mistakes can become a real cultural moment like, hey, you know, I really screwed this up.
Let's unpack this and understand what were we thinking?
You know, what were the assumptions that were wrong?
Right. And then, you know, that's a good culture because now everybody goes like, look, I can revisit my dumb decisions now.
All right. In other words, fail fast, you know, have urgency around your bonehead, you know, the decisions that you've made and the things that are not working.
That's really what you want.
And when I do it, you know, it's basically now it gives permission to everybody else to do it.
I'm basically politically neutralizing, you know, the idea of making mistakes because making mistakes, everybody who makes decisions will make mistakes.
You know, people always asking me what are your biggest mistakes?
Well, my biggest mistakes are always around hiring, you know, it's like, you know, I've hired a lot of great people over the years, but I've also made my share of mistakes because that's just the nature of things, right?
But if you're willing to confront it, I sometimes I talked about this in the book as well.
I may make mistakes again and again on the same topic, you know, but the one thing I will tell you is I won't stop until I get it right.
Okay. And I will, in other words, I'm willing to say again and again that I screwed it up, but I won't stop, you know, until we're in the place that we need to be.
So that's very powerful message to people to say, look, this is the behavior we want to confront your demons.
Basically, you know, go after the things that didn't work that were wrong.
God, you can get people to because most people, you know, they're afraid they're going to defend their decisions.
And, and especially when it's a gray zone, right?
In other words, it's, you know, some people are, you know, not good enough to keep not bad enough to fire.
Those are the worst cases because like, well, you know, person looks nice, speaks, speaks well, articulate, you know, but they're the ultimate passenger to never move a dial, right?
And, and, you know, those are the ones that always survive, you know, way too long, you know, until we have mass layoffs and all this kind of crap going on.
But you can get people to say, no, you know, when there's doubt, there's no doubt, you know, have a higher bar, you know, have high conviction.
That's hard, you know, trying to get your organization to get to that level, you know, of, of, you know, basically very unyielding, uncompromising.
That's hard because most people want to lay the bar lower and, you know, not rocked about, not be confrontational because all that stuff is hard, hard, hard, you know.
Those passengers are probably the easiest ones to hire too because they get to the interview, they say the right things, they check all the right boxes, and then they come in, interviews are notoriously like difficult to hire with, I would imagine, because you just really want to see on-the-job performance.
How do you assess that? Well, you're exactly right.
Interviews are far less valuable, not for all roles.
I mean, there's roles where interviews, like for example, in engineering, I mean, they're like, they put them in front of a whiteboard and say, here's, you know, right code that does this.
So you can, you can very much, you know, test people's skills, you know, that way.
But, you know, in the other roles where, you know, people become good at selling themselves, right, because they've learned that over the years and they talk well, they look well, and they're very pleasant, and they're getting along and all these things.
But the way to find out anything about people is to fully surround where that person has been, okay?
And, you know, if they've been at Company A, you know, you go find out who in my company was at Company A while this person was there.
And let's go, I'm going to go ask inside the company first, who knows this person, because you were a contemporary, and, you know, what was that person's reputation and so on.
You'll learn a whole bunch of things very quickly.
You don't even have to go outside of your own company to, you know, to find out.
And then you see if consistency, you know, of information is manifesting or it's still confusing and contradicting and all this kind of stuff.
And then we go outside, you know, we go call people that we know or have known and say, hey, you really, and you really want to hear from people that have directly worked with them and said, what was the experience like?
It doesn't have to be an indictment type of conversation.
It's like, look, I just want to know more about this person.
How did this go? You know, tell me some stories, you know.
Because now, now you start to really get color and texture around the person as opposed to the sniff test, which is what an interview really is.
And the thing is, you're going to learn, you're going to get great conviction now because you're like, you know what, I think we're really onto a great person.
Or you're like, wow, you know, I'm glad I made these calls because, you know, we were, this was not trending, you know, correctly at all.
And I find that people rush, especially in fast growing companies, you know, we have hiring targets and they're just slamming bodies.
And it's the worst thing ever, right?
Rather higher, you know, more slowly, but better than faster.
And I have to do a lot of, you know, of course corrections along the way.
And people are lazy. They're like, oh, that's probably okay.
No, probably okay is not the standard.
You need to know and have conviction and you need to take the time and do the work to develop that conviction, especially in places like Europe where it's so difficult to separate and so expensive and so time consuming.
The opportunity cost is enormous.
You really, you know, need to do the work, right?
So you've got to bring that into your recruiting culture.
It's like, it's not like a check a box.
See you on Monday. No, it sounds like you just hit on something that I think is one reason that your cultures are always so successful.
Which is you just elevate the standard.
I mean, having I stand as it goes back to the insanely great Steve Jobs.
I mean, he gets really hard time dealing with mediocrity in any, you know, in any realm.
And it's very hard to live with, by the way, because Steve was super hard to live with.
I mean, everybody was a shithead and didn't know people's names and all that.
Yes, I know what's hard to live with.
And I'm personally, I'm not that way, by the way.
I don't treat people that way at all.
But at the same time, you know, the leadership needs to really reinforce.
We have very high standards and then other people will want to follow that.
Okay, they will, they will do it because they feel like that, that is the way that is the right way.
Leadership sets tone, sets expectations.
And if you don't do that, yeah, you become the California DMV, the worst goddamn place in the world to try and get something done.
You know, the lack of leadership, you know, people go slow, they go substandard.
I mean, it's just a hellish world, you know, it's like, I feel sorry for the people who have to be there.
So as leaders, let's create an environment where great people feel like, yeah, this is a good place.
This is a great place. They have urgency.
They have high standards.
They move fast, you know, all that, that's what you want.
That creates energy. It gives energy.
It just lets people, the right people will love it.
And some of the wrong people will go like, you know what, this place is too intense for me.
I can't handle it. You know, I need to get kids from school at 4, 4 p.m.
I get that, right? But it's like culture, it doesn't mean that people are bad, you know, when they don't like the culture, it just means that they are not a fit.
They're just different, you know.
Totally. We always end on the same question, Frank, which is what is success for you?
You know, it's not a word that, you know, I'm constantly thinking about or you're thinking about that, you know, at all.
You know, I'm, by the way, you're thinking gets sometimes poisoned by the type of words that you use and the concepts that you're preoccupied with.
I mean, people sometimes ask me, what's your legacy?
Legacy is not a word that I use.
Okay. It's not, I find that's very sort of a lot of self absorption around that stuff.
You know, I need to live beyond the grave.
I really don't need to, and I don't want to be, you know, feel so important that that's even a question, you know.
My enterprise is that I'm in charge of must succeed, you know, they must succeed because that is the contract that I have with all my stakeholders, you know, they're not just investors.
Obviously, I want them to succeed because the investors succeed with us.
My employees are going to succeed as well, I mean, I'm trying to give my employees, you know, an incredible shot at changing their, their station in life, advancing their careers where, you know, 10 years from now, they still feel like, well, that's the best thing I ever did.
And I get a lot of that from people that have worked with us in our prior companies, and it's very personally rewarding to hear that, that they still, you know, have, you know, sort of this warm feelings about the experience that they had, not just the money they made, but just the people they were with, the things they did, and they became better than they ever thought
they were, right? That's success to me is, is, is achieving that in my, my, my partner ecosystem.
I want them to be wildly excited about being our partner.
They're succeeding with us, right?
So, so we, we, we try to make all parties, you know, succeed in their own worlds, you know, with us, employees of their own agenda, their families, they have circumstances, they have issues.
So, you know, we help them and everybody else that's, that's part of our, our, our universe.
I guess that's the best way I can answer that question.
Thank you so much for taking the time today, Frank.
That was an amazing conversation.
Yeah, you bet. Anytime.
Thank you. You
