Podcast appearances and mentions of ken one

In this episode, Dan welcomes back legendary communicator, connector, and executive coach to the PR industry, Ken Jacobs, for his second appearance on the show. Back in January 2021, he and Dan talked about leadership and purpose in the agency world. Now, with the pandemic in the rearview, has widespread indecision and inconsistency around remote work, hybrid work, and RTO (Return to Office) changed the nature of leadership and management? Ken and Dan dig into some of the changes we've seen over the past few years and try to find some answers. Ken walks us through the nuances of building a team in a remote setting and why managers still must be able to build and manage teams effectively. Remote working doesn't seem like it's going away anytime soon, even as some organizations push for a return to more traditional work settings. No matter what organizations are doing, though, the past few years have highlighted the importance of connection and connectedness for effective leadership - and we need a new playbook.  In this episode, you will be able to: Uncover the ever-progressing dynamics of leadership within the context of the PR industry in a fluctuating global environment. Navigate the ins and outs of remote work and running teams virtually in a post-pandemic world. Find the balance between granting autonomy, instilling trust, and avoiding micromanagement in a team-centric setting. Gain insight into the pivotal role of AI and other groundbreaking technologies in reshaping the PR industry. Appreciate why adopting a learning attitude and making learning a lifetime habit stands as a key cornerstone of successful leadership. Notable Quotes: “I think this whole notion of connecting more and wanting to connect more and wanting more time together is partly due to the lockdown and also, they want to spend time with people who are natural connectors.” – (3:17), Ken “Coaching isn't what we do; it's who we are.” – (5:46), Ken “Make your office a magnet, not a mandate.” – (16:00), Ken “It (remote working for PR) can be done. Can it be done better working together? Probably” – (18:58), Ken “Is the team really a team if they're not together?” – (22:24), Dan “Every time you say it's hard for me or I'm not good at, add the word … now.” – (30:30), Ken “You don't have to be a neuroscientist to use the neuroscience.” – (31:40), Ken “When we say I wonder how that would feel, we actually start to feel it.” – (34:21), Ken “We don't realize it but many people who work for us, our followers, have a vision.” – (36:20), Ken “It feels like the need for certain leadership attributes are on steroids.” – (41:05), Ken “You've got to act in a trustworthy manner no matter the consequences.” – (42:23), Ken “When you look at your past be very mindful to not judge yourself too harshly.” – (46:40), Ken “It's really important that you're nurturing and not micromanaging.”  (51:31), Ken “One thing AI cannot do is mimic or replace emotional intelligence and empathy and trust.” – (1:01:13), Dan “This notion of lifetime learning is absolutely critical.” – (1:04:55), Ken About Ken Jacobs Ken Jacobs is the principal of Jacobs Consulting & Executive Coaching, leveraging his expertise for over a decade to bolster agency growth, client relations, and staff performance. A recognized coach and consultant, Ken holds PCC credentials from the International Coach Federation and additional accreditations from iPEC, including CPC, ELI Master Practitioner, and CLDS. His rich experience encompasses collaborations with top-tier communications agencies such as Catalyst, Coyne Public Relations, and M Booth, to name a few. Before founding his firm, Jacobs dedicated 25 years to leadership roles in renowned PR agencies, notably spearheading the award-winning "MMC Masters" training program at Marina Maher Communications. Beyond his consulting, Ken shares insights in his "Taking The Lead" column for PRSA's Strategies and Tactics. An alumnus of Syracuse University's S.I. Newhouse School, he's also an honored member of PRSA, and a Senior Counselor to Prosper Group. Ken Jacobs Links Jacobs Consulting and Executive Coaching Ken Jacobs - Twitter Ken Jacobs - Facebook Ken Jacobs – Linkedin Dan Nestle Links The Dan Nestle Show (libsyn.com) Daniel Nestle | LinkedIn The Dan Nestle Show | Facebook Dan Nestle | Twitter The key moments in this episode are: 00:00:00 - Introduction,  00:01:48 - Connecting with Natural Connectors,  00:06:07 - Coaching During the Pandemic,  00:10:12 - Accelerated Change and Returning to the Office,  00:13:32 - In-Person Energy and Coordination,  00:15:56 - The Importance of Making the Office a Magnet, not a Mandate,  00:16:42 - Challenges of Remote Work and Real Estate,  00:18:30 - The Value of In-Person Collaboration,  00:19:51 - Leadership in a Remote Work Environment,  00:25:34 - Expectations Gap and Hiring Talent,  00:33:02 - The Relief of a Fresh Perspective,  00:34:16 - Customizing Leadership Styles,  00:36:11 - Building Trust and Connection,  00:42:58 - The Challenges of Virtual Leadership,  00:50:40 - The Importance of Nurturing Relationships in a Remote Work Environment,  00:53:19 - Setting Clear Expectations and Deadlines,  00:56:25 - Embracing AI and the Importance of Integration,  01:00:50 - Approaching AI with a Growth Mindset,  01:04:51 - The Importance of Lifetime Learning and Staying Relevant,  01:07:29 - Learning About AI,  01:08:12 - The Future of AI,  01:08:59 - Pivotal Person in Life,  01:10:49 - LinkedIn as the Platform of Choice,  01:14:35 - LinkedIn Fails and Harassment Timestamped summary of this episode, courtesy of Capsho: 00:00:00 - Introduction,  Dan Nestle introduces the podcast episode and welcomes back Ken Jacobs, a former PR agency executive and leadership expert. They discuss the importance of pivotal moments and the role of people in those moments. 00:01:48 - Connecting with Natural Connectors,  Ken Jacobs talks about the desire to connect more with people who are natural connectors and how it transcends age. He emphasizes the importance of helping one another and how the lockdown during the pandemic accelerated the need for connection. 00:06:07 - Coaching During the Pandemic,  Ken Jacobs shares his experience as a coach during the pandemic and how he continued coaching even when clients couldn't pay. He highlights the importance of purpose-driven work and how emotional intelligence and empathy helped people thrive during challenging times. 00:10:12 - Accelerated Change and Returning to the Office,  The conversation shifts to the accelerated change brought on by the pandemic and the impact on work culture. They discuss the mixed approach of remote and in-office work and the need to reevaluate the purpose of going to the office. Ken emphasizes the importance of using in-person time effectively. 00:13:32 - In-Person Energy and Coordination,  Ken and Dan discuss the energy that comes from in-person interactions and the need to find a balance between remote and in-office work. They highlight the importance of coordinating in-person time to brainstorm and collaborate effectively. 00:15:56 - The Importance of Making the Office a Magnet, not a Mandate,  Ken Jacobs emphasizes the need for companies to give employees a reason to come back to the office beyond just basic perks like Taco Tuesday. Making the office a place for collaboration and idea generation is crucial, but it must be done in a way that respects individual preferences and safety concerns. 00:16:42 - Challenges of Remote Work and Real Estate,  Many companies had to downsize their office spaces during the pandemic due to financial constraints. However, finding the right balance of remote work and in-person collaboration remains a challenge. Different industries and organizations have unique needs and must determine what approach works best for them. 00:18:30 - The Value of In-Person Collaboration,  In agencies, where brainstorming and collaboration are vital, being physically present can enhance creativity and energy. While virtual collaboration is possible, the magic often happens when diverse teams come together in person. However, organizations must be mindful of including remote team members to ensure everyone feels connected. 00:19:51 - Leadership in a Remote Work Environment,  Great leaders must be empathetic, good listeners, and understand that it is impossible to please everyone. Balancing the needs and preferences of team members who want to work remotely or in the office requires careful consideration. Dialing up empathy and seeking feedback from employees are essential for effective leadership. 00:25:34 - Expectations Gap and Hiring Talent,  The expectations gap between agencies and employees spread across different locations has grown 00:33:02 - The Relief of a Fresh Perspective,  The conversation explores the feeling of relief and a breath of fresh air that comes with challenging preconceived notions and adopting a learner's mindset in leadership. It emphasizes the importance of self-growth and highlights the motivation that comes from imagining how achieving new perspectives and growth would feel. 00:34:16 - Customizing Leadership Styles,  The discussion delves into the significance of customizing leadership styles for each team member. It emphasizes the importance of understanding their values, vision, and learning styles to create alignment and motivation within the team. Taking the time to think about individual team members before interactions can greatly impact their engagement and fulfillment. 00:36:11 - Building Trust and Connection,  The conversation emphasizes the need for leaders to build trust and connection with their team members. This involves understanding their values, vision, and role in achieving the group's goals. By creating alignment between the organization's values, the leader's values, and the individual team members' values, leaders can foster a sense of belonging and fulfillment in their team. 00:42:58 - The Challenges of Virtual Leadership,  The discussion explores the challenges of building relationships and trust in a virtual work environment. It highlights the need for leaders to demonstrate courage, bravery, and trustworthiness, as well as to act as a source of stability and certainty during uncertain times. The importance of leading with empathy, emotional intelligence, and trust is emphasized, particularly in an unpredictable world. 00:50:40 - The Importance of Nurturing Relationships in a Remote Work Environment,  In a remote work environment, leaders need to be proactive in nurturing relationships to prevent complacency and maintain strong bonds within the team. Building trust and rapport is crucial, and leaders should focus on nurturing rather than micromanaging their employees. 00:53:19 - Setting Clear Expectations and Deadlines,  Leaders should have open and honest conversations with their team members about assignments, deadlines, and expectations. It is important to establish a contract where both parties agree on what success looks like and communicate any challenges or struggles early on. 00:56:25 - Embracing AI and the Importance of Integration,  AI is becoming increasingly important in the PR industry, and leaders should embrace it as a tool to enhance their work rather than fear it. Integration is also crucial, as PR professionals should explore how different channels and platforms can work together to maximize impact. 01:00:50 - Approaching AI with a Growth Mindset,  Instead of approaching AI with fear, leaders should have a growth mindset and view it as an opportunity to learn and improve their practice. AI can automate certain tasks, allowing professionals to focus on higher-value work and think of new ways to contribute. 01:04:51 - The Importance of Lifetime Learning and Staying Relevant,  Staying relevant in any field requires a commitment to lifetime learning. Professionals should continuously seek to expand their knowledge and skills to adapt to changing technologies and industry trends. Relevance is key to 01:07:29 - Learning About AI,  The guest expresses fascination with AI and how it can lead to deep exploration and questioning of what is true. They also express nervousness about being asked about their use of AI in their coaching practice in the future. 01:08:12 - The Future of AI,  The guest speculates about the possibility of speaking with an AI-generated simulacrum of the host in the future. They express their love for having conversations like these and the importance of maintaining a learner's mindset. 01:08:59 - Pivotal Person in Life,  The host expresses gratitude for the guest being a pivotal person in their life and discusses the importance of maintaining a learner's mindset as they move forward. They provide information on how to find the guest on LinkedIn and their website. 01:10:49 - LinkedIn as the Platform of Choice,  The guest discusses their decreased activity on Twitter and their preference for LinkedIn as a platform for professionals to connect. They also mention the annoyance of receiving LinkedIn messages from non-certified coaches. 01:14:35 - LinkedIn Fails and Harassment,  The host and guest discuss the humor in sharing LinkedIn fails and their experiences with fake profiles and spam messages. They acknowledge the entertainment value but also express frustration with the harassment. *Notes were created by humans, with help from Capsho, my preferred AI show notes assistant.

When you purchase an item after clicking a link from this post, we may earn a commission.Devin: What do you see as your superpower?Ken: One of the things I've learned is that I work well with entrepreneurs. I've been a five-time entrepreneur myself, but I've also enjoyed working with other entrepreneurs.“We're the oldest, and we believe also the largest business accelerator in the clean tech climate space,” says Ken Hayes, executive director of Cleantech Open.Cleantech Open was created to help climate and environmentally-focused entrepreneurs get support, attention and financing they weren't receiving in the marketplace.The goal was to help these entrepreneurs build successful businesses. “If a business is not successful commercially, it won't also be able to succeed in the environmental realm,” Ken says.Over 1,900 companies have gone through the Cleantech accelerator.“We work with about 100 companies a year. We match them to business mentors. So we have over 1000 volunteers,” he says. “These are business people that volunteer their time. So, we're one big community working together to try to help these entrepreneurs become successful.”From each cohort, the team chooses a grand prize winner. Ken emphasizes the experience that all the participants receive over the four to five-month curriculum. They all benefit.The winner of the last cohort was Renegade Plascis, which is producing an environmentally friendly alternative to PVC-coated fabrics. “Our low-carbon coated fabrics curtail plastic waste and reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” the website says. “They have a high UV, thermal and chemical resistance and do not contain any PVC, heavy metals, PFAS or phthalates.”The accelerator works with companies in eight categories:* Energy generation, * Energy storage, * Energy efficiency, * Information and communications technologies* Transportation,* Green building * Agriculture, water and waste* Chemicals and advanced materialsCleantech Open is also concerned with climate and environmental justice. Ken says:We all have the right to have fresh air, fresh water, clean, clean air. A lot of the companies that are going through Cleantech Open are targeting these communities in order to improve them, make sure that their technologies are not just for wealthy people or wealthy homes but can be used in many different situations and can become affordable and available to people of all backgrounds and all communities.Over his career, Ken has developed a superpower working to support entrepreneurs.How to Develop Working With Entrepreneurs As a SuperpowerOne key to Ken's success in building this superpower was the decision to develop it. “I've wanted to expand the scale of my impact in a positive way,” Ken says.“What I'm good at is starting small companies, getting them to about 20 people and selling them,” he says. “I wanted to figure out how I could leverage that skill to help others become successful.”“When you have your own startup, you're only impacting yourself and your direct colleagues, and all of your eggs are in one basket,” Ken notes.As an angel investor, he learned he could help more people but limited resources constrained his impact. He co-founded a venture capital fund called Canyon Creek Fund II. That increased the breadth of his impact with funds from limited partners, allowing it to invest in 40 companies.“Still, I thought there was an opportunity to do more,” he says. “I was approached by the leaders from Cleantech Open to join Cleantech Open. Here it was! Wow! We have 100 to 150 companies a year.”“I'm a catalyst; I'm a sounding board,” Ken says. “I can provide lessons from the trenches, from past wars, so to speak, and create the system and a platform that can help these entrepreneurs learn and become better.”“Going through the program for 99% of these companies, they do not give up any equity,” he says. “So we're not out here trying to make ourselves wealthy. We're here to help those entrepreneurs become better entrepreneurs.”Ken says, “We're here to make the world a better place and make these entrepreneurs successful.”As an example of the impact of his work supporting entrepreneurs, he highlighted FIGS, a company in which he invested early (and that was coincidentally featured on my show nearly a decade ago.)Although the successful female entrepreneurs bought him out after 18 months, they went on to list their enterprise on the New York Stock Exchange.Ken has two critical tips for learning to help entrepreneurs succeed.The first is “radical candor.” He says, “Be real. Tell them how it really is. Don't sugarcoat it because you're not doing them any favors. But do it from a place of sincerity and empathy.”The second point is to remind the entrepreneurs of an essential fact. “Those who learn fastest are the ones that are going to be successful.”He prefers the phrase “learn fast” to “fail fast.”There's another business technique called fail fast. I don't like that word because it connotes failure. Like, who wants to fail fast? Like, I don't want to keep failing. I would I rather use the term learn fast, which means you're testing. You're trying out new ideas. Maybe you're doing iterative campaigns, but the whole point is to learn as fast as possible about what's going to work, whether it's trying to discover a customer segment, trying to discover how a technology is going to get adopted. It's all about learning that as quickly as possible and ideally based on evidence.By employing Ken's example and counsel, you can learn to master the art of helping entrepreneurs succeed, making it a superpower that enables you to do more good in the world.Recently, I read The Man Who Broke Capitalism by David Gelles. I keep recommending the book to people, so I figured I should take a moment share it with you. Get full access to Superpowers for Good at devinthorpe.substack.com/subscribe

12/18/20 - Host Doug Stephan and Dr. Ken Kronhaus of Lake Cardiology (352-735-1400) begin with news about Dr. Ken's schedule to receive COVID 19 Vaccination. There are a few scattered reports of allergic reactions to the Vaccine. Over-the-counter home Coronavirus testing kits have received FDA approval and should be available by early Spring. One in five people are likely to be carriers of Coronavirus. Depression seems to be at an all time high right now, which can weaken the immune system. The FDA has also approved a new treatment for skin spots that can turn into Melanoma. Plus, lots more great tips and ideas to help you maintain your Good Health.

Summary: Now that everything everywhere has changed, let’s ask one of the burning questions: do you even need an office anymore? Would that huge expense be better placed elsewhere? Many companies are abandoning the office completely, so what exactly has changed? Why is it ok to not have an office now where it wasn’t 3 months ago? And is fully remote a good thing? Sure, it sounds great to work from the beach everyday, but is that really a reality that is sustainable? Today we debate these questions as we determine the new work conditions of our own agencies. We also discuss another hot topic - what services are ACTUALLY selling right now?    Resources Mentioned:  Hubspot Covid19 Sales Data   Top 3 Curtain Pulls in this episode:  Rethinking the way you run your day-to-day business, including where you physically do that business. The stigma once attached not having an office is probably gone for good.  In rethinking the way you run your internal business, rethink the way you provide value to your clients! Seriously, rethink it from the ground up. If prospects are closing, you need to adapt. Don’t be afraid to ACT. Providing that feedback and helping a client find a solution allows YOU to gain new experience and even proof of success for future clients.   For more tips, discussion, and behind the scenes: Follow us on Instagram @AgencyPodcast Join our closed Facebook community for agency leaders   About The Guys:  Bob Hutchins: Founder of BuzzPlant, a digital agency that he ran from from 2000 -2017. He is also the author of 3 books. More on Bob:  Bob on LinkedIn twitter.com/BobHutchins instagram.com/bwhutchins Bob on Facebook Brad Ayres: Founder of Anthem Republic, an award-winning ad agency. Brad’s knowledge has led some of the biggest brands in the world. Originally from Detroit, Brad is an OG in the ad agency world and has the wisdom and scars to prove it. Currently that knowledge is being applied to his boutique agency. More on Brad: Brad on LinkedIn Anthem Republic twitter.com/bradayres instagram.com/therealbradayres facebook.com/Bradayres Ken Ott: Co-Founder and Chief Growth Rebel of Metacake, an Ecommerce Growth Team for some of the world’s most influential brands with a mission to Grow Brands That Matter. Ken is also an author, speaker, and was nominated for an Emmy for his acting on the Metacake Youtube Channel (not really). More on Ken:  Ken on LinkedIn Metacake - An Ecommerce Growth Team Growth Rebel TV twitter.com/iamKenOtt instagram.com/iamKenOtt facebook.com/iamKenOtt   Show Notes: [1:45] The Guys talk about the new feelings of slight freedom that we’re starting to experience here in Nashville- though many are still quarantined, there isn’t as much anxiety about being out in the world as there was three months or so ago.  [3:00] Brad: “There’s been good and bad during this quarantine… but I don’t want to take for granted the freedom that we have and the ability to just be human.” [3:40] Bob asks Ken about new data from Hubspot. [4:00] Ken: “One of the things I would like to know is what agency services are selling these days? What kind of leads are we getting and… how has that landscape changed?” Hubspot’s data has been aggregated from thousands of clients, separated by industry and sorted into deals created vs deals closed. Charted from January through to May, the number of deals created and closed were as low as 40% below baseline. That number is gradually increasing, which is telling and encouraging.  [5:56] Brad asks if the guys think that part of that uptick was because of the stimulus checks that were handed out.  Overall, Americans are saving more and spending less, but also seeing light at the end of the tunnel because of the stimulus. Even still, with that glimmer of hope there is a lot of uncertainty from a consumer side.  [6:46] Bob asks: “Is this rise that we’re seeing… of business coming back going to happen quick enough to coincide with the end of the payroll protection plan, which was 90 days…. 8 weeks from however you got it.”  Recently changes were made recently that will allow an extension of the ability to use your PPP past the 8 weeks initial date. Limits to spending still apply.  [8:15] Bob clarifies: “So the question is from the time that that starts to end- the payroll protection plan… to the point where business comes back up… are things going to get better?” [8:31] Brad talks about how many encourage others to buy in the stock market right now, while things are low. But we don’t know how long these benefits are going to last, right now people are getting a little bonus for their unemployment but that won’t last forever.  There is fear that this summer is where the recession will truly hit. In many economic spaces, the attitude is that this hasn’t happened yet, attitudes are high and positive.  [10:15] Bob talks about how this type of uncertainty and change will naturally lead to certain industries being more hard-hit than others. For example, the real estate industry is being disrupted and may be in store for even more disruption, as many companies are asking themselves if office space is really necessary for their business.  Companies like Twitter are moving to 100% work from home, opening up a LOT of real estate availability.  [11:15] Ken: “I think reexamining the things that you do just because you do them every once in a while is healthy. And I think the way we work is definitely one of those things.”  [11:30] Brad talks about how in recent months and years, there has been a natural movement towards more open spaces and allowing employees to come and go as necessary, and this change in style of work has just sped up the process of moving towards mobile and remote work across the board.  [13:25] Ken talks about how many agencies have probably felt for a long time that they don’t need an office space, and how there has been social pressure to be ashamed if you don’t have a physical presence- almost as if you’re not a real business until you have an office.  “Rethinking that… is a healthy thing.” [14:45] Bob talks about how that need to save face exists in other industries as well. New real estate agents are told to not drive a car older than 3 years, because then it would tell the client that you’re selling a lot of houses.  [15:30] Ken mentions the mindset shift that has happened recently- that to some, having an office may actually appear wasteful and not a sign of health. Physical office spaces may have offered credibility in the past, but other things have taken the place of that.  [16:45] Bob talks about the “phases” of leveling in business- the internet was the first leveling. And now a second leveling is happening and has been expedited. Currently, the focus is more on the work, the message, and the result.  [19:19] Brad speaks to this “leveling.”  “The honeymoon’s over and the environment doesn't matter anymore… it just works.” [21:15] Ken speaks on his experience of having a physical space that isn’t a huge, elaborate office or the standard “wow” factor that many agencies go for. Metacake has a small, 1920’s house that has many original features and is historical. It’s impressive, but not typical, interesting without being imposing. So there is a way to “wow” without being showy or grandiose about your workspace.  Even Metacake will eventually switch to a majority remote schedule and some time/days/projects at the office.  [22:45] Bob mentions that although an open workspace is a great idea in theory, “... it doesn’t take into account the uniqueness of every individual. And I think with an open workspace… some people are miserable… some people need to be sequestered. A closed door, need to be in silence. They can’t be interrupted or else they don’t function at a high level.”  [23:39] Ken points out that that also depends on the task at hand- more creative tasks sometimes thrive in that co-working environment.  [24:17] Brad says that even in his open-air office, most people wear headphones. Doing so is a way to isolate yourself, and tell everyone that you’re busy. Sometimes he wonders if they had their own office, would they be wearing their headphones?  [26:05] Ken speaks to the down side to people working from home exclusively- when there is no teaching or mentoring around staying responsible for yourself, keeping a schedule, being disciplined, being taught some of these things can err too much on the side of irresponsibility. [25:55] Brad: “I think great mentorship happens through observing… I don’t know that through Zoom calls I could get that… being in a physical space with them, seeing how they interact with their employees, the way they keep their desk, etc…” [29:00] Ken speaks to the challenges of bringing new people on to the team, and how a new culture of working remotely will bring new challenges to the idea of building team culture and onboarding people to the systems for success that a company already has set in place.  Previously Metacake has embraced the “working remote” concept with team remote work days at cafes, wine bars, and even a Vineyard in their area.  In quarantine this has translated to virtual happy hours and more intentional one on one interactions.  [29:41] Brad talks about how easy it might be to “get lost” and isolate themselves even further from the team… things that go on at home, dynamics that they can’t control… isolation for them might become even more difficult. [30:27] Bob speaks about how giant companies with huge overhead are changing the overhead costs to create team-building for these people. That team-building budget has now been allocated to a weekly or twice-monthly team bonding exercise.  [31:49] Brad: “I don’t often feel the need to connect deeply with people… it’s a deficit of my own that struggles because that’s not the case of my team… it doesn’t come naturally as a need or desire to me.”  [33:05] Ken talks about how Metacake had been moving towards remote work days and being in relationship with each other even before the pandemic, so now things are moving towards that even more.  [34:55] Ken continues: “In some ways, I found that it was easier to make these deeper connections… because you had a reason to ask how someone is doing.”  The focus is productivity and work, but more so how the person is doing, how life is going, how they feel about their position and role.  [37:15] Bob mentions that his wife has talked about new business opportunities for those who can help get home offices organized, get things set up for those who are moving towards remote working. This led to deeper thoughts about new opportunities for services that we can offer our clients.  [38:50] Brad talks about employees asking for stipends to support working from home, and expresses that there is some hesitation about the challenge of maneuvering that with employees in the future.  [39:25] Ken says that Metacake has been coaching their customers to ask how they can repurpose their knowledge. “You can naturally help with those skills and that provides value.” [41:00] Brad speaks about a live event that had a lot of RSVP’s prior to quarantine happening, so they created solutions to that virtual RSVP problem, which opened the event up virtually to a lot more people, and in turn provided more value that it would have otherwise.  “Now we have proven results and successful stories, and so we could easily do that for other companies.”  [44:33] Ken talks about new opportunities within other industries to change how you do business. Gives example of an architectural firm running in a very antiquated way, and with the pandemic that has shifted massively, the governing body of that industry has been forced to change.  Drive-in concerts are happening, drive-in theaters are becoming popular again.  [47:20] Brad talks about a client who has just recently been forced to pay via ACH instead of a handwritten check, because quarantine makes getting signatures on checks very difficult. Forced change has been great for his company!  Some companies have been surprised by how many new opportunities are opening up because of that forced change. New ideas are coming to the table that are progressive and give everyone confidence.  [49:30] Ken asks again: What are the services that your clients want?  [40:50] Brad responds: There has been a mixture of freezing up with a lack of action, and being overzealous and taking action without thinking things through.  Being a thought partner with clients is valuable- thinking through the benefits and costs of the different options they see in front of them.  [52:30] Ken: While there are clients who say they don’t know what to do or how to take action, there are more that are looking for specific solutions and thought partners to think through problems that are similar across multiple industries. [54:20] Bob: “The opportunity now is for those of us in an agency who have done ecommerce, who have done social media marketing, who have done branding, who have done digital strategy… there’s going to be a lot of people pop up… and so to be able to separate ourselves and say that we are the experts.”

02/14/20 - In this episode, Host Doug Stephan and Dr. Ken Kronhaus of Lake Cardiology (352-735-1400) discuss a new study that indicates that one-third of all women are not happy with their breasts, and as a result do not pursue breast exams. Another study shows that the number of women with heart disease now exceeds men. Have a peanut allergy? Try Palforzia. It's just been approved by the FDA. Having a sleep score of 5 is likely to prevent you from heart disease and stroke by one-third. What symptoms should be aware of to help you detect lung cancer? Then, keep a check on "Burn-Out" to avoid abnormalities of heart rhythm. Next, Dr. Ken explains what causes foot fungus. Plus, lots more great tips and ideas to help you maintain your good health.

The theme of this episode is centered around the lessons learned in charging for software development. Starting with a question from the Infinite Red Community, Todd, Ken, and Jamon touch on hourly vs. project pricing, the tension between time and value, how software estimating is a lot like weather forecasting, and the many experiments conducted over the years to find the right pricing model for Infinite Red. Episode Transcript JAMON HOLMGREN: We received a question from the community, community.infinite.red, it's a Slack community that we have. Trent asks, "Hey Jamon, I'm enjoying the podcast. Will you guys be covering hourly pricing versus project pricing? It's a question we're dealing with right now. Which do you guys prefer, and what are some lessons learned to bring you to that choice?" I think this is a really great question. Todd, do you wanna talk about what we're doing right now? And then we can go into maybe what we've done in the past, and what brought us to that choice? TODD WERTH: Sounds good. Yeah that's a great question, and it's actually a really tough one to deal with. So, what we do now, is we do weekly pricing. We charge per person-week, and we call it "person-week" as opposed to "a week of work" because it could actually be two people working maybe half a week each and that would be one "person-week." Because we're doing person-weeks, we have a point system. So, 100 points equals a person-week. We don't track time. We used to, and we can talk about that—we used to bill hourly. We don't track time, we don't actually know how long things take, it's just, we estimate our tasks in points, and if we've reached a hundred or more per person-week and we charge per person-week, then we're accomplishing our goal. JAMON: There's a bit of a tension between time and value, and this has been something that we've dealt with, I mean, I've dealt with, since I started my first consultancy. Of course, value-based pricing is kind of a holy grail of pricing for consultancies, and we've heard this for a long time, that you should charge for the value, not just the time that it takes. So an example, this would be fixed-bid pricing, where you're essentially betting on delivering the software in a reasonable amount of time, but you're getting paid on the value to the client. The problem is that our costs are not based on value. So, we're not necessarily paying our people based on the fixed-bid, a percentage of the fixed-bid, or something like that. There are industries that do that, but ours is not one of them. So we're paying people salaries, and our costs are over time, and so if something takes a very long time, then our profitability and the ability of the company to remain financially solvent is threatened. Conversely, you have, of course, hourly. We've done that in the past, and the nice thing about hourly is that it corresponds, obviously, very tightly with the amount of time that it takes to do. But the problem is that every hour is not equal. You have hours that are maybe really valuable, you've automated something and in a lot of cases you're actually delivering more value than the client is paying for, quite a bit more. And then there are others where the person's getting spun up, or they're hung up on a particular problem, whether it's their fault or not, and that turns into a bit of an issue, because then you're billing hundreds of dollars an hour for something where the client isn't really getting a lot of value. So I think that's why we ended up where we are, in a way. TODD: Yeah, both have issues. When you're doing hourly, it might seem to a client that's more fair, but it's not. It means every time there's a bug, or any time there's an issue, we basically are nickel-and-dimeing them, and they don't necessarily like that. We have to spin up someone, like Jamon said, where in our value system that we use now, they don't see any of that. We fix the bugs because it's part of the value of that particular feature. It does mean, though, sometimes, that we can produce a feature faster than the hourly would've been, and so they get charged, I guess, more for that. KEN MILLER: There's a couple of different ways that hourly works out sometimes, though. There's certainly the very literal, like, you sit there and you run a clock, like the way a lawyer would, you actually have a little timer that shows exactly what you're doing. When I worked for a large sort of corporate consulting company, Big Five-style, back in the '90s, I remember my first week I was filling out my time card, and I filled in the insane hours that I worked, because that's the kind of work that you do. And my project manager comes over to me and he's like, "No no no no no no no no, this is not what you do." And he took my time card and he filled in "eight, eight, eight, eight, eight." (laughter) TODD: That's ridiculous. But... KEN: Right. So that's how the Big Five work, often. TODD: So it's completely fake in that situation. KEN: It's completely fake. It's basically pretty close to what we do now, which is that weekly billing. Where an hour is just a way of measuring a week. To answer the question directly, you know, do we prefer hourly or project-based, we prefer hourly. JAMON: Yeah. KEN: Hourly leads to less problems in the long term because the trouble with fixed bid, although it seems like it's appealing—It's appealing from your point of view, if you think you can be really efficient, and it's appealing from their point of view if they think you can't. But that's exactly it right there, it creates this adversarial relationship. Todd? TODD: Yeah, clients all– not all, but many clients think they would love a fixed bid. And in truth, they will hate a fixed bid. Ken's right. Fixed bids create an adversarial situation. Even if both sides are extremely... They're at the table in good faith, and they're trying to do the right thing and do their part and stuff, it still means that the client is trying to get as many hours as possible out of you for the same price, and us would be trying to do as few hours as possible. Like I said, even if you're both being very nice and very ethical in the way you're billing, that always creeps in. It also means that you have to lawyer every change. You'll have companies that have change order systems that are pretty complex. Clients hate that. When I talked to especially start-ups, one of the things I say is if the project we're working on at the end ends up exactly as you envisioned at the beginning, that's a huge red flag. That means you didn't listen to your beta testers, that means you didn't think at all during the process even after you got in your hands what could be better, it means a bunch of different things. So, we have a pretty strong process, but it's designed to be flexible. We wanted it to be flexible. So when we get to the point when we do estimation after a research phase, it's fairly accurate. The likelihood that it will actually produce your project for this estimate is extremely low. Not because we're incompetent– I'm sometimes incompetent– not because we're incompetent, but because you're gonna make a bunch of changes, and we welcome that. We don't lawyer that. But that's a little bit difficult, there's a little bit of education involved in getting people to understand that fully. JAMON: One of the objections is that, well, there are other companies that do fixed-bid, and they seem to do just fine. They're able to sustain that and their customers are generally happy, and things like that. But I think there's a hidden cost in there that people don't take into account. Which we've sort of driven a stake into the ground, we've said, "Hey, we're not willing to go down this route." And that is that those companies put the burden of hitting those estimates onto their employees. They essentially say, "Okay, well, we estimated this amount, you're not done yet, so you're gonna stay late until it's done." And they push, and push, and push, and they really, really just drive the screws in on their employees. Maybe not overtly, maybe not directly, but there's a culture and an expectation of being able to hit those estimates that puts a lot of stress on the employees. KEN: Yeah, that doesn't necessarily look like a slave driver. It can look like a "Rah-rah, sleep when you're dead," "work hard, play hard." "Rah!" But like, that kind of corporate culture. There are firms out there that I respect that do fixed-bids, and they seem to make it work, and that's fine. But in our experience, someone is paying for that somewhere. JAMON: Exactly. TODD: There's another type of fixed-bid which isn't just slave-driving your employees into the dirt. It is, you think it's gonna cost $100,000 on this project, you bid $800,000. So no matter what, unless you're ridiculously off, you're fine. The problem comes in when clients want both the lowest possible price and a fixed-bid. That just... It's not really possible. JAMON: So, our system is different. And Todd, I'd like you to talk a little bit about why our... Because, we are giving an estimate with points, and we're trying to hit those points, so it may feel like a fixed-bid, but do you want to explain what we're doing differently, where it really does change over time as you do a project? TODD: Yeah, so we do spend a decent amount of time doing research, architecture, that kind of stuff, before we estimate the points. So we're not just doing a ballpark estimate. We do a ballpark estimate at the beginning, but that's a few hours of our time. But we spend a few weeks or whatever doing research, architecture, that kind of stuff. And at the end of that, we produce an estimate in points. So those are fairly accurate. Obviously, anyone out there who does software development... By the way, everything we're talking about here is for development. On the design side, we do fixed-bids, and that's a different discussion. The gentleman who asked us the question was more towards the development side, so that's what we're talking about. JAMON: Right. TODD: So, our estimates are based on a whole lot more information than a lot of people do. And we do have clients who want an accurate estimate earlier, and we just have to push back, because in that situation we have only two options: We either push back against them and try to educate them in the process and help them do a successful project, or we lie to them. (laughter) And unfortunately a lot of companies just lie. They just come up with a number, they act like they put some thought into it– they didn't. I worked for a consulting company in the late '90s where the way we estimated was we asked the sales person how much they could afford. That was our miracle estimate. Which to me, I hated as an engineer. I just loathed it. I'm digressing a little bit here, but I don't want to make it out that our estimates are super accurate or that estimating software at all is an accurate thing at all. We know it's not. KEN: One of our sort of colleague companies out there calls them "forecasts," which I really like. People understand, like, a weather forecast is not necessarily going to be accurate. It's like, "Based on what we can see right now, this is what we think is gonna happen." And everyone understands that. So I really like that as a bit of language. TODD: Yeah, we should call it "forecasts." KEN: I'm tempted to steal that, but... (laughter) TODD: The other cool thing about a forecast is it's known: the further out you are from the date, the less accurate the forecast is, and the closer you get, the more accurate, and that's very true in our situation as well. JAMON: That's a great point, Todd, because we will definitely adjust those estimates as we get into things, and as we learn more. And I try to, I do a lot of the sales calls now, and one of the things I try to do is set the expectation that over time, the estimates will get more and more accurate, as we know more. The same thing with the weather forecast. You look at the ten-day, and you look at day number ten, and as you get closer and closer, you're gonna see a better and better forecast. And it's not uncommon for that to change even quite drastically, because weather systems can get delayed a little bit or something, and that can impact which day they land. KEN: Unless you live in California, in which case our weather never changes. JAMON: Yeah. No, I live in the Pacific Northwest near the Columbia River Gorge, and nobody understands the weather here. TODD: Our weather's hot and sunny. Tomorrow? Hot and sunny. The next day? Hot and sunny. JAMON: What if it's- KEN: And then a terrifying thunderstorm. And then hot and sunny. TODD: Once a year, we have terrifying water from the sky. I live in Las Vegas, Nevada, which is in this very small patch– I'm totally digressing here– but it's a very small patch in the US with the most sunshine out of the whole US, and it's just basically Las Vegas and around the desert area here. I think it's something ridiculous like 300 and some days of pure sunshine. Which is nice, as I lived in San Francisco for 20 years, and it is the opposite of that. And I enjoyed that for a long time, but I enjoy this. Anyways. So one of the things I wanted to bring up is, and we should talk about estimates. Because estimates are a big part of how you charge. And it is a difficult problem, and we have all sorts of issues that, I think, would be very interesting for listeners to hear that they're not alone in, and that we're still struggling with. KEN: Nobody has a magic bullet. Nobody has a magic bullet on that. TODD: It's a soft problem, it's definitely a people problem, and it's something that I'm actually actively working on all the time. But to finish up what we were saying before, we do find that weekly billing has worked out very well. It does require education. Your clients may instinctively go, "Okay, well they're just doing this to make more money because they're gonna get it done way faster, and they're actually gonna charge me this extra money, and they're not gonna do anything." And that's a perfectly normal human reaction. But one of the ways that we added some sugar to that tea is we say, "A bug comes up, sometimes bugs take five minutes, sometimes bugs take a half a week to fix. That's all included in that estimate. You don't have to worry about that. No nickel-and-dimeing." When the estimate goes up, say we add person-weeks to the overall estimate, and then maybe we add some calendar-weeks... By the way, we have typically a minimum team of two, and most times people work on one project full-time, so if you have a two person team on a project, we're producing two person-weeks per week. From that, and the number of points we estimate, we can calculate the calendar time, as opposed to the person-week time. And the calendar time does get extended, and the person-weeks do get extended. But it's always– not always, but it's usually from changes, and we try to be very good about being very transparent in explaining, and the client should know what all those changes were. They hopefully have approved them, and that's what adds the person-weeks and that sort of thing. JAMON: There are some times where we will feel like maybe we made a mistake, in such a way that it was maybe, we're not comfortable charging the client more for a particular thing. And in that case we will adjust what we're billing for a particular chunk of a project. And we'll take on that risk. There's a shared expectation of being reasonable in this. If a client's asking for something, then we're gonna bill more. If we make a mistake, then we'll try to rectify that as much as possible. But it does have flexibility built in, and that's important. But then also, like you said, Todd, the bug-fixing is built in and things like that. That really helps mitigate the amount of risk that the client is taking on. TODD: And truthfully, it's much easier for people doing the actual work, because they don't have to constantly, "Oh, this three-hour task is now a five-hour task, I have to ask permission for those extra two-hours, and it's just a lot of paperwork and a lot of thought about stuff that has nothing to do with making a great project." But yeah, and I also want to add on to what Jamon just said, the way we deal with issues... Let's say the value wasn't there, we had some problems, we typically deal with it on the invoicing side. We tell our people, "Okay, for whatever reason we're not gonna be charging for these person-weeks." But from their perspective, it doesn't matter. They're estimating points, they're working during the week, they're getting at least a hundred points per person-week, and they just keep on going forward. We'll adjust it on the back side, on the invoicing side so that our process keeps going and we have accurate data, even if we're in a situation where we made a big mistake or something like that, and we're not charging them for, say, a few weeks or whatever. JAMON: Yeah, totally. And Ken, would you wanna talk about the chronic problem of under-estimating? 'Cause I know this is something that's near and dear to your heart. KEN: Yeah, I don't know why engineers... I don't know if they want to feel like they, you know, they're really fast, or they feel guilty, or if it's imposter syndrome, or whatever it is, but it is a chronic problem. Engineers will estimate too optimistically. So we have sort of structures and practices, and this is not an easy problem to solve, right? But we have sort of structures and practices in place to sort of counter-act that, hopefully, whether it's sort of checklists like, "Have you considered these sort of failure cases? Have you included the bug-fixing and the testing time? Is the testing time including every platform that you could possibly use this on?" Et cetera, et cetera. Todd? TODD: Yeah, this is a problem we have not solved. We really try to hire, and I think we have hired, really decent, ethical people. Which is fantastic, and that's the intention, and I very much enjoy working with almost everyone here (maybe not Ken, but that's okay). (laughter) KEN: You can't fire me. (laughter) TODD: I cannot. I've tried many times. KEN: It's a perk of the job. TODD: Actually, it's funny, because I've been working on this a lot lately. We hire good, ethical people, which I very much enjoy. But they tend to feel more guilt, and they tend to be a little... They contemplate it and worry about it a little too much, to be honest. And so we do have chronic under-billing. One of the things we do is, we ask them for estimates, and we never ever– up to this point I've ever said, "This estimate's too high. You need to reduce this estimate." Because this is the estimate they're giving us, and they're gonna do the work, and it's not fair for us to come and say, you know, "You said it's gonna take a hundred points, I think it'd take 50 points." And of course when they do it and it takes a hundred points, they've failed, but only because in my opinion it should've been 50. We never do that. We never push back on that. So you would think that just human nature, in order to alleviate stress, they would say, "Okay, that's gonna take 50 points, but I'm gonna make it a hundred and 50 points just to give me an allowance." No one does that, surprisingly. That is not the problem we deal with. It could be just our team. Probably not just our team, I'm sure there's a lot of people out there who do that. KEN: I mean, I've seen this everywhere I've ever worked, right? People wanna feel like a hero, people don't... It's not as much fun to think about all the ways that things go wrong, well, depending on your personality I guess. But yeah, the ideal way that we're always striving toward is basically, the engineer gives us as accurate and conservative of an estimate as possible. And then in terms of how we present it to the client, if we feel we need to make an economic adjustment in order to get a sale, for example, then we will do that on our end. We don't want it baked into the estimate. JAMON: And Todd actually ran an experiment with our own engineers at one point. He took a screen, I think it was a login screen of a project we'd actually already done- TODD: Yes. JAMON: -and sent it to several engineers and asked what their estimate was. Do you wanna talk about that, Todd? TODD: Yeah, I've done a few of these to try to kind of understand this problem. In that case, it wasn't clear what kind of project it was, whether it was a mobile app, an iPad app, a website. I did that on purpose. I also didn't give them any requirements other than I gave them a screenshot. Which is not untypical to get from a client if we didn't do the design, to just get the screenshots. So I wanted to see A) how they approached the estimation process, and B) what their estimates were. I'll skip to the spoiler part. The lowest one was like three hours? This is back when we did hours, we weren't doing points. The highest one was like 46 hours. So the range is three hours to 46 hours. Some people, their estimate wasn't accurate for obvious reasons, they got back to me within five minutes and didn't ask any questions. And that was more on the junior side, and that's perfectly fine. Estimating is probably one of the most difficult things that we do, and so it's understandable when people with less experience do it less well. But the interesting part is that a lot of people didn't even ask what platform it was on. The person who did 46 hours, the highest one, had a huge write-up of all the reasons why it was 46. And when you look at it, you're like, "Yeah." Because it seemed very simple. Like, it's a login screen. It's two text inputs and a button that says "Login." But there's actually a huge amount of stuff. A lot of people assumed they were just doing the screen as opposed to actually making it work, like, making you log in to the backend, and Facebook integration and all this stuff. But the fascinating part is how different it was and their different approaches. KEN: It should be mentioned, though, just for the record, that the way this exercise was set up was intentionally, on Todd's part, very vague. Right? It wasn't like, "Hey, I need you to do this for a client so that we can get a good estimate." It was a very off-hand... But the range of responses to that very vague setup was illuminating. Because some people are constitutionally incapable of not treating that seriously. (laughter) And some people are like, "Whatever Todd, I've got work to do." Right? So there's gonna be a very broad range there, and the range of real estimates is probably not gonna be quite as wide. But still. TODD: Ken has a particular personality, and so does a few other people on our team, where he really didn't like the "gotcha" part of that question, the vagueness of it. And he felt like I was looking for a real answer and he was set up to fail on the real answer because I didn't give him any information. That wasn't the point of it. I actually didn't care what their answer was as much as the process by which they went around the answer. And I didn't say that, on purpose, too. And so he was a little bit like, "You're setting me up to fail, I don't like this, go to hell." Which was kind of funny. But it's funny from my perspective, but it's also illuminating. For people with that type of personality, that's the reaction they have to that, and that's a very real thing. KEN: Well, it's also, like, if you just ask me a very vague off-hand question, I'm gonna devote a vague off-hand amount of attention to it. Right? And I think a lot of other people are gonna be that way too. It's kind of like, "Oh, okay, without any further information, why am I gonna spend an hour breaking down this problem for you?" Or however long it takes. JAMON: I will point out that mine was both quick and accurate. TODD: Yeah, I hate giving Jamon a compliment, but I thought Jamon's was one of the more accurate, and he did it very fast, and it was very thorough. KEN: We brought Jamon on because he's lucky. TODD: That's right. I have a rule: Every quarter, I randomly fire one of our team. And the reason I do this is very simple. I don't want anyone unlucky working at our company. That's a joke, in case anyone thought it wasn't. We don't horribly fire people because they're unlucky. But yeah, so that's a very interesting thing on that. There's other interesting things too. Another experiment I did was, I had people estimate something simple again. Then they gave me the estimate, whatever it was– the numbers don't matter, but let's say they said 10 hours, and this is once again, back when we did hours. If they said 10 hours, then I would say, "Okay, what's the likelihood– are you 100 percent confident that you can do it in 10 hours or under? Are you 90 percent confident? 80 percent confident?" And then I would ask them, "Okay, how about eleven hours? How about twelve hours, how about thirteen hours?" And what I found is that the first estimate they gave me, almost no one was confident they could do it in that time. Which was fascinating- JAMON: Yeah, it'd be something like 60 percent or something, and then you'd have to go quite a ways up before they were 90, 95 percent confident. TODD: Correct. So I'm not sure exactly what to make of that, except for, that's a phenomenon. JAMON: I did ask some of our employees that were doing an estimate to include a confidence factor. And that estimation is not done yet. It should be in the next week or two, and it'll be interesting to go through that and see where they landed. KEN: Yeah, that would be interesting. JAMON: There are some other reasons why you might not be confident. Maybe there are a bunch of unknowns that we will have to dig into before we'll know for sure, and there's no amount of hours that would satisfy that necessarily. But I think that that's something... You should give a number... Again, we're not doing hours, but doing the point system you should have your estimate units, of course, for each task, but then also include a confidence factor. And that might be a percentage or something that you're confident. I think that's an aspect that maybe will be helpful going forward. TODD: To be clear, that's a hypothesis. Jamon has at this point, we haven't tested that. So take that as an idea. JAMON: That's exactly right, yeah. TODD: Another thing I asked them was, it's very fascinating, the same kind of line of questioning on giving them a very simple thing to estimate. And then I asked them, "Does that include tests? Does that include QA? Does that include bug fixes? Does that include any production issues when it goes out to the real world?" All over the map, whether or not they included, very few people said it included all of that. So when you asked them, "How long will this take?" They didn't take that question as, "How much time will you spend to have this completely done and you never touch it again?" Very few people took it that way. They more took it as, "I could get it done and in the app and then later we would debug it or test it or make changes or whatever, but that's not included in my estimate." So that was a fascinating result, also. Now, I don't have any recommendations for any of this, other than it's very interesting to see how people's minds work, and how different people's minds work differently when they're given a task to estimate how long something will take. JAMON: There's a couple of ways that we can mitigate that. Ken mentioned earlier, checklists. I think those are probably under-utilized. That's something that we should use more. So when you're looking at a screen, you'd have a checklist of things. And maybe some of them don't apply and you just mark them off. But some of them are definitely... KEN: Yeah, there's something else that we're trying, which I've never really heard of anyone else doing, I've never encountered it before. We're trying to keep a database of past features so that instead of sitting and de novo every time, sort of like thinking through step-by-step every feature, you say, "Does this feature feel more like this one or that one?" Right? And then you just take the number that we actually empirically determined previously. JAMON: So it gives you kind of an anchor point, and then you can determine if it's maybe more or less than that. KEN: The jury's out on whether this could work as a system or not, but. JAMON: Exactly. TODD: What does "de novo" mean, Ken? KEN: From the beginning, from new. TODD: So, you replaced "from new," which is two syllables, with a three syllable word, "de novo." Okay, just making sure I understand. (laughter) KEN: It has further implications, but whatever, Todd. Feel free to make fun of my vocabulary as much as you like. TODD: I would make fun of your vocabulary, but the word "vocabulary" isn't in my vocabulary, so... KEN: Obviously. TODD: It's a vicious circle. JAMON: So I think it's good maybe for us to go back a couple years, maybe. When we merged, we had... We try to be a little bit unconventional in our thinking. We try not to bring a lot of preconceived notions into what we're doing here, and think things through de novo, you know, start from the beginning, start from– you like how I did that?– start from first principles and kind of look at it in a way that... "Okay, can we innovate on this? Can we look at it and come up with something new?" And we did, actually. And I don't actually remember whose idea this was, maybe one of you does, but we had the idea, "We're gonna bill hourly," was what our initial thought was. "We're gonna bill hourly, and then let's have a base salary for all of our developers and designers, but then pay them per hour billed that they personally billed." And it was an interesting experiment. I think we ran it for probably a year, maybe it was two years? Something like that, with varying success. And we learned a ton of things that you wouldn't when you just start out as salary employees. I will point out that we are now on salary. But we should talk a little bit about that experiment and what we learned there. TODD: Yeah, that was... We had specific goals, and we had tons of good intentions for those goals. And like all good intentions, we fell on our face. But that would be a very interesting podcast in itself, the lessons... What we did, what we went through, what we changed to, and the lessons we learned during the process. JAMON: I think to just kind of give it a really quick little thing, since we've teased it here, one of the things that we found is that people are generally not that motivated by money. Because they can certainly bill more hours and make more money, that was one of the benefits of the system, if you were very productive– KEN: A couple people did. JAMON: Yeah, some people did. KEN: Some people took advantage of that. JAMON: Yeah, for sure, but it was not anywhere near even a quarter of those people. So that was good to know. Other people, they were just motivated by different things. They were motivated, it's not that they're not motivated, but it just wasn't purely by money. Another thing was that there were some situations that ended up not really being very fair. So, some people would be in projects where bill hours were very easy to come by. And others where we really either had to supplement their bill hours or something along those lines. It also didn't really encourage collaboration between people, so there's some silos. The benefit to the company, obviously, is that if we're having sort of a down month because, you know, it's cyclical, then your costs go down. And the benefit to the employee is if you're having a really busy month, then you're getting paid more. But ultimately, that whole system, we went away from, and went to the system that we're using today. TODD: Yeah, I can, in my opinion, it was a complete failure. That being said, it was, I'm pretty sure, originally my idea. And like I said, great intentions, but I think that was one of our biggest failures, to be honest. JAMON: We learned a lot. I think that was the big thing. And those lessons will stick with us. TODD: We learned a lot, and we changed, and, you know... But I think it was more painful than it should've been. KEN: I forget where I sort of read/heard this advice, but basically, when you're starting a new company, you're trying to do something innovative, you should limit what you try to do that's innovative. Focus your innovation where it really counts, and then don't try to innovate too much in the rest of your business practices. I think that that's part of what we learned there. Even setting aside all these sort of incentive things, there's a bunch of things that just work better when people are on salary. Right? Their benefits work better, insurance works better– TODD: Vacation time. KEN: -vacation time works better, there's a bunch of things where there's a whole ecosystem of support for how to run a business. And if you try to innovate in how you do that, you cut yourself out of all those things, and make yourself less competitive on the labor market. You make yourself... You know, you spend more time on things you shouldn't be spending time on. And so, you know, I think we've become in some ways a more conventional company in certain aspects, so that we can stretch out into places that we still want to stretch out. TODD: It's so interesting you said that, Ken, because I literally give people that advice when they're starting out producing an app or a website or whatever it is. For the things that don't matter to your particular customers, or don't matter to your particular business, stick with tried and true. That's well-known, you don't have to worry about that stuff. Put all your innovation and your avant-garde ideas into the things that really differentiate your company from other companies. So it's so funny that you said that in respect to our company, because although we didn't apply it ourselves, it's advice we give. KEN: Well, I had heard that advice before we did all of this. And the truth is, when you're there, you don't always know which one is the most important, right? So that's gonna happen. But it's worth bearing that in mind, to always be asking yourself the question, like, "What really makes us different as a company?" And if it's not this thing that we're doing and spending a lot of time on, maybe rethink that. TODD: I'll personally admit to hubris. KEN: What?! Never. TODD: "We can do anything, and we'll just apply our big brains to it, and we'll figure it out." KEN: Big brains are not the commodity that's in short supply. It's time, right? It's time and attention. JAMON: I think I'll actually disagree a little bit, here. We've actually gotten the feedback that we all agree a little too much here. So I'll play the part of the devil's advocate here. I think it was well worth trying, and I think it was actually based on some things that we... I think in certain cases, actually, it could work, I think it could be actually be something that a particular company could actually make work. It's just that we didn't like some of the side effects of it. Sort of like, taking a certain experimental medication. Maybe it works, but the side effects are not worth it. And I think that that's actually where we ended up with that. I wouldn't, like Todd said, I wouldn't necessarily classify it all as a complete failure. I think there were parts of it that were a failure. And I'm happy with the system we have now, but I'm also very much happy that we tried that. TODD: It was 90 percent a failure. KEN: It got us to the point we are now. TODD: Well, sure. JAMON: What's your confidence level on that, Todd? TODD: I am 90 percent confident that it was a 90 percent failure. CHRIS: Do you guys wanna touch on psychology and perception in the role of pricing? KEN: Oh, man. **CHRIS: That's something I was kind of thinking about as you were talking.## JAMON: Yeah, actually, I do have some thoughts on that. So, one of the questions that comes up is, "When you are selling fixed-bid or hourly, what do clients think? Is it hard to do?" And I've found that neither fixed-bid nor hourly are particularly hard to sell. Both are well-understood. Our current system takes a little more explanation, and so I think that's something we need to continue to work on, our messaging on. But most people understand them. Some people have a problem with it. They'll say, "You know what, we're not willing to do hourly. That puts too much risk on us." And that's totally cool. It's not something that... maybe they're not a good fit for us. KEN: Well, yeah, the thing is, whenever you're asking a vendor to assume risk for you... You're paying for it somewhere, right? You know, if they want you to be the insurance, then you're paying them to provide insurance. Either that, or they're mismanaged and they're gonna go out of business and then you don't have support. You know, when we switched to weekly, I was concerned that we'd have trouble selling it. It doesn't seem like it's been too big of a deal. For the most part, people still mostly care about the total number, correct? And how you get there? TODD: Correct. KEN: They're not as, they're not usually as concerned with... We've had a few cases where... We had something recently where the upstream source of funds was a grant that had rules about how it's charged, so there's things that come up around that. So sometimes we'll make exceptions. And we have at least one enterprise client that we still use hourly. But for the most part, this has been pretty popular. We feel like it has the best of both worlds in some respects, that it has more predictability than hourly, but it still has built-in flexibility that a fixed-bid doesn't. TODD: Our team definitely thinks the weekly is a success. It wasn't that difficult to convert clients from hourly to weekly, and for new clients, they don't seem to mind whatsoever. It's interesting from our team's perspective. Sometimes they could be working more than they used to, because they have to fix these bugs or whatever, but because they don't have the stress or the guilt, a lot of times of the hourly, they still like it better. It's kind of counter-intuitive, in that way. JAMON: Yeah, I think there's three vectors, or three metrics that you would go off of, you know. "How satisfied is the client?" "How stress-free is it for the employees?" And then, "How much do we as owners like it as a business model?" And from those metrics, I feel like all three have been a success. TODD: Yeah, it's definitely been a success. I think we could definitely do with hourly, but I think the weekly billing has been a huge success. I'm 90 percent sure that it was 90 percent a success. (laughter) As far as the psychology from the client standpoint? We understand... One of the things we do, we hire a people who have a lot of experience, either they ran their own small businesses, they ran teams, that kind of stuff. We have a lot of people who have real-world kind of business experience. We're definitely not business consultants, per se, but we do work with a lot of start-ups who need some basic, not basic, but need some of our business consulting. And one of the things that we do is we understand the risk involved. And there's a lot of companies like us don't talk about this at all. For example, from a client's perspective, it's a big purchase. If you're spending 100,000, 200,000, 500,000 dollars? That's a large purchase. If you're a start-up, that's a risky thing. So we try to really think about their risk. Now, we have our own risks, too. We could put five people on a project for a few weeks, incur a huge amount of money, and they could just never pay us, go out of business, whatever reason. So we have risk as well. So we're not here just to alleviate all their risk and put it on our shoulders, being the insurance risk, insurance Ken just mentioned. But we do try to figure out a way to have a nice balance between us helping them with their risk, and them helping us with our risk, and just being up-front. Like, "This is risky, you don't know us. You've had a recommendation, maybe you liked us during a sales call so you're choosing us, but you really don't know us." And we're a huge believer in gaining trust over time. So at the beginning, or whatever that word is Ken had, I forgot now, already, at the beginning, the risks are much higher. So we do put a lot of thought into that. Some clients, to be honest, aren't a good fit for our system. We're very happy to help them find someone who would better fit the system than us. So we do lose some clients, for sure. JAMON: One way that some clients have asked us to share an undue amount of risk is when they ask us for hourly with a cap. That is sort of the worst of both worlds for us. If we finish early, we make less money, but we also take all of the risk of when it goes over. So we really do refuse, essentially, to do that. Now, there have been some situations where we've put such a cap on ourselves because of particular circumstances, but we don't work for clients that demand that sort of thing. TODD: Yeah, we have a general rule where we strive not to work for free. Which sounds funny, especially if you're in a different kind of business than ours, but it's actually super common for businesses like ours to work a lot for free, for nothing. And it's actually, in my opinion, a rampant problem in our industry. So we really strive not to do that. I think that would probably come to a shock for a lot of people. If you're selling hamburgers, the concept, "Well, you know, 30 percent of the people walk through today, you're just gonna give them the hamburger for free." That would be shocking to them. But that's kind of like what people like us do, too much so, in my opinion. Anything else on the psychology from the client standpoint that we could talk to, or talk about? KEN: I mean, pricing is a huge topic. TODD: Could you talk about pricing per week or per hour, the psychology? Because I know you've discussed this in the past, Ken, and I'd love for you to tell people. KEN: Yeah, so one of the things we... We've tried a bunch of different ways of pricing. So one of the things we did before, we would only bill for extreme, like the instant we step away from the keyboard, the timer goes off. When we first started, we tried to do this. So we would charge like a pretty high hourly rate. But then, the actual number of hours burnt would be low. Nobody liked that. Nobody understood that, it was much better to bill in the way that people kind of understood about that. When we would bill hourly, like an hourly rate, we're much more likely to get really kind of angry responses sometimes. To people who didn't really have a sense for what software costs. Because what people will do is, they'll look at the hourly rate, and they'll compare it to how much they make. Right? They'll go, "Wait a minute, that's what a lawyer makes!" Or something. It's not actually what a lawyer makes. But we would get this very visceral reaction to that. But by doing it weekly, where we've kind of smoothed all that out, then they can kind of approach it more like a product that they're buying. Kind of like, "Well, it comes in this many chunks, and okay, that makes sense." So that, I think, was always one of the benefits of fixed-bid for people. Fixed-bid in sales has always been nice, because you can just say, "Here it is, and that's your price." Although, it's 100,000 dollars, they were like, "Well, my budget's 150, so I could do that." Right? And with doing this weekly, although it's not quite there, it is a little bit like... The way we're doing it now is a little bit like fixed bid plus an extremely well-oiled change request process, basically. JAMON: Yeah, exactly. KEN: And that seems to solve both of those problems. Where it's like, they can look at that and instead of being some unknown number of hours, weeks seem like they're easier to kind of grapple with. And that's exactly what we want, right? I don't think we end up charging more, particularly. But it does come in these chunks that are easier to grapple with. They know what size the check are gonna be that they're writing next week because it's gonna be a certain cadence. It's not the surprise every time. It just seems to work better. Go ahead, Todd. TODD: People will pay extra money to remove the surprises happily. KEN: Yes, absolutely. TODD: I don't think our weekly is more money, but even if it were, they would be happier. It's so funny, what Ken said is they associate their salary with their hourly, or even if they take their salary and divide it by 40 and divide it by 52 or whatever, and they compare it to ours, and they think, "Wow, these people are getting paid a massive amount." Of course, they don't see all the other business stuff. There's actually no– KEN: They're not counting the overhead, they're not counting the things that they're not having to pay for. TODD: I'm not complaining at all, but it's just a fact of our business: we actually have fairly low margins for a business type. Our team is extremely expensive compared to other businesses, extremely. Not saying we overpay them, I'm not claiming that, it's just the nature of their jobs. JAMON: Yeah, and another aspect of this, and I realize we're going a little long here, but another aspect of this that we could talk about is that with the point system, it's not 100 points for each person, it's if we have three people working on it, the whole team needs to deliver 300 points. So they work together to divide up the work in such a way that maybe someone's doing 150, the other person's doing 50 but they're doing a lot of client communication. And allow them to divvy up the work in a way that makes the most sense to them. Where with the hourly bonus structure that we had before, that would actually hurt the person doing most of the communication with the client. And that was a problem. TODD: That's huge. And that was a decision we made. And because we chose that, meaning that we don't track individual contributions. I mean, technically we could probably figure it out based on Trello cards and that kind of stuff. But we don't track individual... It's team-oriented. So if it's three people, like Jamon said, it's 300 points. And we give them the flexibility to figure it out, how to be the best, most efficient to do those 300 points that they can. And I think that's worked out really well. It has some downsides. It is harder to keep metrics on individuals that way. JAMON: Yeah, a lot of what we do for that is to simply ask their teammates how it was to work with them, try to encourage them to be honest about their contributions and things. It's not a perfect system, but we are able to track individual contributions a little bit better, just through the perceptions of their teammates. TODD: I do it more efficiently, I get 'em all in one room and I say, "Out of all of you, who's the worst?" (laughter) And then I let 'em... It's kind of like that inspirational movie, Hunger Games? JAMON: The inspirational movie? TODD: Yeah, so, and it's quite efficient, and you get right to the meat of it, literally, sometimes, to the meat of it. JAMON: Literally. KEN: And what they say is, "You are, Dad, you are!" TODD: And I remind them once again, I'm not their father, that's Darth Vader. Fact. JAMON: There's a lot more we could talk about here on this topic, this is probably something we could revisit at a future... KEN: You may have noticed that we like to talk? Especially Todd. But, yeah... TODD: My words are all very small, so I need lots of them. KEN: We get very passionate about very dry things, sometimes. TODD: There's some things to be said, too, on the subject of billing... It's a touchy subject, because although you can say that clients can be difficult in certain ways in regarding to this, it's all... Assuming that the client isn't a jerk and they're just trying to squeeze a rock for as much blood as they can, and let's assume that's the case, and most times that is the case. From their perspective– KEN: Wait, you should be clear on what you're saying is the case. 'Cause otherwise, you mean... Most of the time, they are not trying to be jerks. That's what you're saying. TODD: Most of our clients– KEN: Okay, good. TODD: Most of our clients are really great, and they're showing up, and they're partnering with us, and we're both working towards the goal of making something awesome. So if they are being difficult in a certain way that we may complain about in the background, they always usually have a reason why. It's usually a miscommunication, it's just something that they're misunderstanding on their end. KEN: And like you said, presumably they're getting the software because they need it for some reason. Right? And it's a lot of money– TODD: It's scary! KEN: Yeah, it is scary! TODD: And the last thing they wanna hear is, I mean, if you're doing a bathroom, you don't want a contract to come over and say it's gonna be from 50 dollars to 50,000 dollars. Which may be a true statement, but you don't wanna hear that, that's horrible. JAMON: Well, one of the ways that we can mitigate that is if someone does have a fixed, like, hard-cap budget, which does happen and we understand when that is, then something else has to be flexible. And usually it's scope. We're not gonna compromise on quality. We wanna deliver really quality experience. But scope can be adjusted, and if a client is willing to work with us on scope, we can accommodate a tighter budget and still deliver a quality, but narrower scope, piece of software. TODD: That brings up something very interesting, Jamon. It is a trade-off between low-price and low-risk. So, if we crank up the risk, we can give a quote at a very, the lowest price possible, because it may change. "We think we could possibly do it at this price." The easier thing to do is have a much larger price that reduces risk, but they're almost guaranteed to pay a lot more. Some companies hate the first one. They'd much rather have a much bigger price that's reliable and low-risk. Other companies, especially if they're really lean, they would prefer the first one. And the problem from our perspective is, we don't know who's who. And it's hard to get them to tell us, or they may not even know. So when you choose to go down one of those paths, do we give them as lean as possible estimate but we know it's much more likely to change? Or do we give them a much larger estimate that reduced the risk? When you're doing that, you're kind of choosing your customer at that point, too. It's all very complicated.

In this episode of Building Infinite Red, we are talking about cultivating and nurturing community, specifically what goes into forming a healthy community, such as setting boundaries, avoiding neglect, and not taking your community for granted. Episode Transcript CHRIS MARTIN: One of the things that has impressed me with Infinite Red has been the value placed on cultivating and nurturing community. So to start, from your individual perspectives, why is community important to you? JAMON HOLMGREN: I think it's important because that's sort of how we met. We were all part of a Ruby Community, we were contributing to the open source within that community, and we were collaborating on some things. So from the very beginning, it was like, the community itself was kind of the fun part. I mean the technology was fun too, you know, don't get me wrong, but community was such a great part. It allowed for some opportunities including the ability for me to meet Ken and Todd and then of course, eventually get to know them. And so, we saw the value of community right from the very beginning, even before Infinite Red came to be. TODD WERTH: I would agree with everything that Jamon said. Obviously, it's how we met each other. Open source community, speaking at conferences, which is a community event. I met a lot of my, I would call friends through such communities. But more than that it's a way for us to be part of something that's bigger than ourselves, bigger than our little company here and associate ourselves with like-minded people. And I tend to choose communities and hopefully I'm building communities of people that I respect and feel good associating myself with. CHRIS: How would you define community? Because community is one of those words that, we all use the word but do we all mean the same thing when it comes to using the word? TODD: I don't know what the definition of community is. Ken will know exactly I'm sure but to me it's just people who've decided to group up together around a particular ideal, a particular subject, a particular interest. I guess I could sum it up for myself, when I need something or want to express something, this group of people is the first people I want to express that to or ask for help from. KEN MILLER: It's a tough thing to define right? It's one of those sort of squishy concepts, you kind of know when you see it. But trying to pin it down to what exactly is community, what isn't community is pretty hard. For us, community has largely been centered around open source. That is a very particular kind of community. But I'd say it's narrower than that too, right? It's not like we're talking to Linux developers, we're talking to people who have similar professional experiences to us. And that has always been the case. Like you kind of flock to people who can kind of understand your pain. And so, for us, contributing back to the community in the form of sharing insight, in the form of sharing code has always been about saying, "Hey, you know what? We feel your pain, let's make it better together." JAMON: And one of the unique things about the community that we have been a part of is, it's never been about location. There's a community here in Vancouver, Washington. There's a larger community in the Portland metro area. And we're certainly a part of that. I go to meet ups, I go to events here in Portland. And they're good. And you do get to meet people and you have a commonality of location and also to a great degree, interest or technology or whatever it is that you're centered around in a meet up. But our community hasn't been about that, with the Infinite Red origin story. Ken and Todd, did know each other because of location, but it had already become remote before that. I remember when I first started building some open source, one of the people that kind of quickly became a part of my little community there was a guy that actually still works for us here, Mark Rickert. He started contributing and he was over on the East Coast and I believe, South Carolina at that time. And he came in and contributed and we had a lot of great conversations and bonded on some things. There are a lot of interests that were similar at that time. And it was really great because the community could be centered around something other than just location, which I think is something maybe a little bit more new in the past. TODD: It was kind of interesting. So you asked that question, which is difficult to answer, but as we talk more, which is a great thing about conversation, new things are coming to my mind. Community can mean very different things and we all belong to many different communities. One is around physical things. Jamon meant some location, but it could be, you belong to a community of men over six foot four, and you have your own, I'm speaking about Jamon here (laughter), you have your own problems and when you discuss things, there's a camaraderie that comes from a shared experience of a real thing. JAMON: Hash tag, tall people problems. TODD: Yes, a lot of communities, they've grown from a seed of an idea or an ideal and that's probably more common in a lot of the communities we, well, most of the communities, from a professional standpoint, that we either contribute to or belong to or even, in some cases, create are around ideas and shared interest and that kind of stuff. CHRIS: In what ways have you intentionally grown community? You've talked a little bit about open source projects, but what are some of the other ways that you have done that? TODD: We use a product called Community Miracle Grow. JAMON: It works great. One of the things that occurred to me, I think it was, I don't know, a year and a half ago or something like that, was that we had this community. It had already kind of come to be, but there wasn't really a standard place for them to congregate. There were people who were kind of fans of our open source work, who understood what we were doing. They were interested in our conference. We created a Slack team. Slack of course, being the chat system that we use and we created a community version of the Infinite Red Slack. So people could sign up at community.infinite.red. They could go in there. There were different channels that kind of group people based on what they were interested in. Of course, there were some that were more popular, the Chain React channel, the Ignite channel, which is our open source React Native, boilerplate CLI system and also just React Native in general. We pushed the community just to see if there's interest. And there was a lot of interest and we are able to also do some things like, people had some questions about Ignite. In this Ignite CLI, it actually directs you to our Slack channel and we have gotten to know some of those people and also have been able to lean on some of our community members to answer questions and diagnose issues. And things like that. TODD: It's totally off topic. But I love how effortlessly Jamon inserts plugs first off into the podcast. It's inspiring. (laughter) JAMON: My Twitter handle is @jamonholmgren. (laughter) TODD: Well done. KEN: That was not quite as smooth, but I still like it. JAMON: Once you edit it, it will be smooth. CHRIS: One thing that is interesting is, how to you view Twitter in terms of community building as well? KEN: Double-edged sword. Well, actually like the handle is a double-edged sword to a double-edged sword. JAMON: Twitter is an interesting one. KEN: Yeah. Twitter is an interesting place. TODD: I, personally, don't have an answer to that. Back when I used to promote my own personal brand, I used Twitter a lot and that seemed straightforward to me. But I got to a point, this being my third and final company, hopefully, for my life, where I'm much more interested in promoting Infinite Red than myself, and I have not figure out how to do that. I think Jamon does it much better so he probably has lots more interesting to say. KEN: Jamon does it by being genuine, is the thing, right, he's just there, he's being genuine. He's not shy about promoting stuff that we're doing, but he's also not a spam feed. JAMON: Yeah. If I am spamming something like I have been this podcast, to be honest, I will kind of acknowledge that upfront. Like, "Hey, I was spamming this. It was just released. Give me a break." I'll back off after a bit. I enjoy Twitter. It's opened up a lot of opportunities for us. Twitter's been a platform for us and it's been good. I love showing off my team's work and I had a one of my team message me the other day and said, "I love how you're always promoting your team. Telling other people about what your team's doing." That was someone on our team. I feel like there's a lot of really great work being done and nobody wants to talk about it at Infinite Red. So I guess have to because I want people to know what we're doing. It's very cool. You know, this podcast in a way sort of came out of Twitter in some ways. It initially started with my friend, Kyle Shevlin. He and I were chatting a little bit and I was kind of lamenting that, "I don't do much code anymore, so I don't have a lot to talk about when it comes to answering questions on Twitter or kind of talking about various things." He was like, "Well, what about the business stuff that you're doing? That's interesting to people." He was just like, "You have a lot talk about." And so, I put out a tweet saying, "Hey, if you have a business question, if you have anything. You know, I've learned a lot in the amount of time that I've spent doing this." And I got a really good response. A lot of people asking questions. It was really cool. And then the best part about it was that I could bring it back to Todd and Ken and show them the tweet and they would monologue for a bit or dialogue for a bit. And we would go back and forth and at the end of that, we would have something really interesting to say. And I could put that out there. It had my name on it, but I try to be careful about always tagging Ken and Todd in the tweets and saying, "this is kind of a amalgam of all of our responses." And it worked really well and then once we kind of you had that experience then we said, "Well. you know what? We do have a lot to say. And so, since we have a lot to say, why don't we actually say it in a little different medium." I mean that's this podcast. So Twitter has been very influential in a lot of ways and some ways, responsible for this podcast. But definitely a shout out to my friend, Kyle Shevlin for sparking that idea. KEN: Jamon is like my Twitter agent. (laughter) Like I have more followers because Jamon has like quoted me than from anything I've ever actually tweeted myself. JAMON: Ken's a pretty private person and he has a lot of incredibly insightful things to say that will forever die in a Slack channel somewhere, if I don't go out there and say it. (laughter) So. Yeah. I can't help myself. KEN: Honestly, I feel very lucky to be co-founders with Jamon. TODD: Yeah. I agree with that. JAMON: Awww, thank you. KEN: Because you'll go out and do that kind of thing and it's just totally natural for him. It's not like we're pulling teeth to make him do it but it means that it gives us the kick in the behind that we need in order to get out there and talk to people. TODD: I agree. CHRIS: I think what's interesting though is as you're talking though, Jamon's one type of person that you would need in community. Ken, you're obviously the other type. And then there's Todd, who's the jokester that that brings the lightness and levity to the community so it's like, I guess community makes sense in this context with the different personalities. KEN: I was seriously hoping that you're going to say, "Well, nobody really needs Todd." CHRIS: Well, Todd has feelings. And so, we want to make sure that we acknowledge those. KEN: It's not true. We totally need Todd. But Todd...it would have been amusing. (laughter) JAMON: In that context. Leave the jokes to the professional. KEN: Leave the jokes to the jokester. JAMON: But one thing I want to say before Todd jumps in here, is Todd is the sort of you know, he keeps things light and stuff like that but he always has very strong convictions, very strong things that drive who he is and that comes out in our community very much so. That's a very core piece to our community that I appreciate about Todd. TODD: So I want to clarify a few things. A, Todd does not have feelings. (laughter) No, I'm just kidding. You know, it's interesting because I'm a very outgoing introvert, which is funny. And I have no shame whatsoever, but for some reason, I don't promote as much as I used to in the past. I don't know why. I'm glad we have Jamon to do that. This is inside baseball so maybe not very interesting to people but ... JAMON: Todd, you were pretty good about promoting Infinite Red before I joined. TODD: That's true. JAMON: Infinite Red from our perspective. Because we were kind of first to the RubyMotion scene. I think Todd and Ken came in a little later, but they quickly kind of grew like a plague all the way throughout. (laughter) Okay, that's the wrong analogy. KEN: No, keep that. JAMON: They grew very quickly throughout. And it was a very intentional thing now that I know Ken and Todd, I know it was intentional. It wasn't just a happenstance. TODD: I guess this podcast is lot about us. I always feel weird talking about just our perspectives and stuff but Jamon's comment about us, growing like a plague is true. And I think one of the things that I've learned being a ... So I started out pretty shy, introverted person, but one of the things I learned is don't wait for people to invite you to communities, invite yourself, wedge yourself in every ... And just keep on wedging and until a point where they're like, "Was Todd ever not here? I don't remember." Even though I was one of the last people to join, I feel like I was always there just because of shamelessly, endlessly, relentlessly wedging myself into every every situation. KEN: Well, we live in a world where, for a lot of things you don't really have to ask for permission. You want to make a library, make a library, publish it. You want to make a newsletter, make the newsletter, start publishing it and invite people to join it. I think for a large stretch of my career, I would kind of sit around thinking, "Well, I'm not sure if I'm the right one to do this." There's this sort of, I guess it's kind of an imposter syndrome. It's kind of just the shyness, just the laziness to a certain degree. And what we found was like, if you just show up, and you start you know sharing what you have, sooner or later you're going to find people who are interested and that's what's happened. JAMON: And I think there are a lot of people on our team that are more like Ken than Todd and I. You know, Todd and I don't have imposter syndrome in that same way. (laughter) We tend to be maybe a little over confident in some ways. But our team is probably a little more, at least many on our team are more like Ken. But it's great because they add so much value and we can kind of bring them in to the community through their association with Infinite Red and the things that were doing. That is a way of building a community, is to bring people along with you and kind of promote and show them that ... Show other people that they do belong. TODD: I agree that Ken represents a lot of people in our community, in the development community. Not necessarily the designer community. We talk a lot about developers but we also have designers and stuff. You know, I'm 46 years old I've been doing everything in this industry for now, 20 some years and I have evolved a lot over time. The truth is I'm never going to be invited to the country club. Never gonna happen. Just reality. My attitude always been, "Fine, I'll just buy it someday." (laughter) You know that's obviously just kind of a metaphor, but the point is: invitation is overrated. That's all I'm saying. KEN: I was always a very shy kid. I have a six-year-old daughter and there was something that I have observed about her because she's actually kind of different from me. It's a bit of social skills that seems to come naturally to her that I am a little envious of, but it represents what we're talking about here. So I remember there is an occasion where we are at a playground and they had one of those tires swings, where the tire is horizontal and it's got like three chains that support it so you could kind of go in every direction. And there was some kids there, who were playing on it and they were, I don't know three, four years older than her. There were calling over to their parents to come and push them, the parents were like talking and ignoring them. And so Luna just comes up and starts pushing them. Doesn't ask. She just starts pushing them and the kids are like, "Oh, okay." And they invited her to come up on the swing with her after that because she didn't ... She just did it. But she did it in a way that was like, "Hey, I'm gonna help them." Or she didn't ask to help them, she just helped them and maybe that doesn't work in every circumstance but it seems like it's going to work in a lot of circumstances, where if that's how you introduce yourself to people, they're going to trust you in a way that they wouldn't otherwise. TODD: So that brings up a great point. One of the things for instance at our conference, Chain React. One of my kind of high GAFOs or one of the things I cared about a lot, was to actively try to include everyone in the conference in the conference. A lot of conferences I see is just a small group of cool kids and the rest of people sitting in the corner and inspecting potted plants, myself included. So since I was part of creating a conference how do we minimize the cool kids and maximize the majority. And so when we're building community, the people like Ken‘s daughter, don't need our help. They'll just naturally join and be part of it and that's wonderful. But I gave a lot of thought on how to get the rest of the people because you could go to a conference and you could have the worst presentations, the worst content in the world, but if you are actually included in a way that you naturally aren't, you're going to go away loving that experience. And so, that's actually one of my personal goals in life is how to bring that experience that the cool kids get naturally to the majority of people. KEN: Well, and I think the most advance version of that is to enlist the cool kids as social instigators. Take their natural social skills because that's usually what that is, right? And have them come and bring everybody else along on the fun and games. JAMON: I read an article a little while ago, where a grade school student was kind of bullied and sort of kind of ostracized at her school. And she ended up moving to a new school and someone said, "Hey, come sit with me." at the cafeteria. And it was one of the cool kids. And she ended up making an organization that promotes come sit with me and basically go out and find these kids that seem ostracized, that nobody likes, whatever and just invite them to come sit with you at the cafeteria because it can change lives. And I actually sent that over to my son just saying, "Hey, you know ... " Because kind of ... He's looked up to at his school and he's a very kindhearted person. And he really liked the article too. And I think that that was something that he can do at his school. That's definitely something that we still, as adults, there's still that dynamic of come into the group. So we really cared about that with Chain React and that definitely came across I think. TODD: And our Slack community and some other communities. The great thing about out community is whether it's a developer community, the designer community, we belong to the open source community. We tend to be, I think more than the average human being, we tend to be a nicer group of people. I don't know if that's true, but it just seems that way. When recruiting a team, I invite people over to the table. That's how, this is going to sound horrible if our team's listening and they're not all that way. But I always look for people who are underappreciated in all aspects of life. And it makes for such a fantastic team because those type of people tend to be more appreciative, they think more about others. I love our band of misfits that we call Infinite Red. And we've got a variety of different misfits and I highly recommend finding people who don't naturally walk up to the tire swing. CHRIS: I'm interested too, with that philosophy of the band of misfits: How does building this greater Infinite Red Community impact the internal culture of the team? JAMON: I think internally people didn't totally get why we were doing it because it did seem like a lot of time that we had to spend doing it. We had to be out there answering questions and fielding requests for help and things like that. And we're still kind of figuring out what our role is with that; I think we've gotten a little better at that. Also the community is starting to become more self-sustaining, where there are people who are answering questions who are not Infinite Red people. But we've also made some really good friends there. And I think that the Infinite Red team has benefited from the community in that way. We don't get full participation from everybody. We get some people, you know, Kevin, Steve and some others who are a lot more active in the Infinite Red community Slack especially. And that's okay. We're not expecting everybody to be kind of the social butterflies, but we do get a lot of value from that. I think people see that. And they also see, I think Chain React probably had a bigger impact than the Slack community in a lot of ways. Almost everybody was there and they got a chance to see how we are regarded in the community and how they're sort of looked up to as Infinite Red employees. They're a great team so I think they should be. CHRIS: What do people or even companies get wrong with building communities? JAMON: I know that one thing that definitely comes in is neglect. Communities will die if you don't continually spend time making sure that you're paying attention to them, making sure that you're keeping the core principles alive. Things like that. So neglect is a really big one and you are sort of signing up for an obligation at that point. You need to make sure that you adequately pay attention to what's going on. Now, I have other communities that I've started and still maintain outside of Infinite Red for personal interests and things like that. One has 4,000 members. It's kind of an interesting one. And that community, we started it, grew very quickly and then it sort of became more self-sustaining in a way, which lends itself to maybe taking it for granted that it will continue to just kind of keep rolling right along. But luckily I was able to get together a really great group of core moderators that all have very similar goals, although very very different backgrounds. And that was really great way to handle that because they all, at different times, have time to make sure that the community is going strong. So neglect is very much a big one. Make sure that you don't neglect the community. TODD: I haven't done as much as Jamon, for sure, but it seems a very challenging endeavor. So if I'm a listener and I want to create a community. I'm going to run into lots of problems, I imagine. What are similar kinds of problems you've run into Jamon? Were you able to solve them? Are they still problems? That sort of thing. JAMON: In some communities, and actually in many communities, there's like dynamic that happens where people will try to find the edges. They will try to find what the moderators will allow and what they won't. Often what they do is not explicitly against the rules. Like if it is, it's easy. You just delete the comment, you let him know, whatever. Often what they're doing can be kind of sort of defended as being within the rules, but is still a toxic behavior, when it comes down to it. It will turn into something that's much worse. And usually moderators are under moderating. That's usually the way that people deal with it. They under moderate. You know you don't want to stifle people, you don't want to get calls of censorship and things like that, but really you should probably moderate more than you are and it's a really key aspect of maintaining a community. I've found that that's definitely the case. Early on in this other community, there was someone who was sort of misbehaving and I posted a very strong response to them and told them if they did it again that they were going to be banned. And it was helpful because it kind of set the boundary. This is what we're not going to, we're not going to allow this. It has been good because from that point on the group sort of started self-policing in a way. They kind of understood where the boundaries were. KEN: This topic of boundaries is super important. Another place that shows up particularly with anything open source or any other kind of content that you're maintaining, is an incredible sense of entitlement that you'll run into. And the burnout that can create in your team or the people who are working on that software with you. People will be like, you know, "This sucks." Like, "Why haven't you fixed my bug?" Like, "I submitted it months ago. You people are amateurs." Kind of like, "This is free. You paid us nothing for this." Keeping a healthy boundary about that and figuring out how to be responsive to the community without being a pushover is really important, if you're going to have a long-term software project or any other kind of thing that falls in that category of kind of collaborative content. JAMON: Yes. I agree with that a hundred percent. CHRIS: What are some other characteristics of a thriving community? So you've talked a little bit about moderation. You've talked about boundaries and policing, entitlement. And so, what else is there? KEN: One thing that isn't probably obvious if you've never done it, is how much promotion it actually requires. And you want to do it in a way that's consistent with the rest of your values but you have to put the word out and it's not going to happen on its own. That was definitely a sort of a stumbling block I had around open source, in particular or blogs or any of these things. Like, you have to tell people. It can feel really uncomfortable to a lot of kind of maker types. It feels weird that you have to convince people to let you give them stuff for free. But you totally do. You absolutely do. It's really important and finding the right, "Here it comes. Here comes." You got to find the right balance. (laughter) Finding the right balance is really hard. I think we're getting pretty good at it, but it's a non-optional part of this kind of work. JAMON: Well, because it's not really free, right? Because you only have so much room in your Slack sidebar for another Slack team. You only have so much mind share available for various things. And also people have been bitten in the past, where they've join communities that have either died, have been toxic or are just so noisy that you can't keep up. It just sucks all your time. KEN: Yeah, well, any of these things. Whether it's you're trying a new library. It requires some time and effort on your part. And you have to know that you're not going to get sucked into it. I mean there's probably this question in the back of a lot of people's minds kind of like, "Why on Earth do you do all of this? If it has all of these challenges and nobody pays you for it, like, why is it worthwhile?" Todd, you want to answer that? TODD: No, I want to say a bad joke. KEN: Okay. Go ahead and say a bad joke. TODD: I don't know if you're aware of this, but the Hoover Corporation is actually working on a vacuum cleaner that sucked time, never mind, I did that wrong. (laughter) KEN: You're right. That is a bad joke. TODD: I gave the punchline in the joke. KEN: You're right. That's a terrible joke. TODD: The project team was ... Eventually, they gave up on the project because it was too much of a time suck. I just messed that up. (laughter) KEN: I think we have to keep that in. TODD: Let me do it again. I don't know if you guys know this, but the Hoover Corporation was working on a temporal vacuum cleaner, but they eventually gave up on the project because it was too much of a time suck. CHRIS: I think I liked the failed joke attempt better. KEN: I like the failed joke better. Yeah. TODD: Well, yeah. Because that makes me the joke. KEN: I mean okay, so let's address the elephant in the room. Is there promotional value for us in terms of the rest of our services? Absolutely. Almost any attention especially if you know, basically positive attention is going to be good for us. It's a really expensive way of getting that attention. JAMON: It is. KEN: Let me be clear about that. If that's the only reason you're going to do it, go buy Google ads. Seriously. Like, don't do it. If it didn't have any promotional value, I don't think as a business person, you know, me, as the person who looks at the finances that I could justify the amount that we spend on it. If that was our only goal with that. JAMON: Yeah. KEN: So we have to do it partly because it's just who we are. JAMON: Absolutely. It gives us an audience and it gives us the ability to ... Like I did when I promoted this podcast there. If you join the community, by the way, I'm going to insert one of these seamless advertisements. If you join the community at community.infinite.red, your get access to things before the public does. We actually will go in there and and announce things and say, "Hey, you know, come check this out." And we get early feedback and stuff that way. It's really cool, but it also gives us an audience. So we had you know 2,000 people that I could "@channel." (laughter) And yes, I did it and we put enough money and time into the community that I didn't feel bad about doing it once in awhile, once in a blue moon. And I said, "@channel you know, we have a new podcast and go check it out." So that's definitely the promotional value, the built-in audience that we have that we've already built a rapport with because we have put in the time to actually show them who we are and they buy into that already. There's a lot of value there. KEN: It's a great source of folks that we already know or are sort of somewhat aligned with our values to go and find freelancers and that sort of thing. So we'll frequently get people just emailing us saying, "Hey, can we work with you?" And we usually don't have openings. So it was like, "Hey, you know, we don't have openings right now, but if you go hang out here that's usually where we go first." JAMON: Yes. KEN: We've gotten a lot of great contributors that way. JAMON: We have. KEN: Hopefully that's win-win for everybody. CHRIS: I'm still a little curious about this idea of, should every company build a community around their products, employees, and way of thinking? KEN: Not necessarily. JAMON: Wouldn't you say that one would kind of arise naturally though? KEN: Maybe. There's probably something to be said that, if you don't intentionally create the community, you're going to get a community whether you like it or not and it may or may not be aligned with what you're trying to do. But there's so many different kinds of companies out there that some of them are going to make more sense that way, some of them are going to get less sense that way. For us, given how collaborative what we do is, it makes perfect sense but there is plenty of companies that are just like us that don't cultivate that. So it's kind of up to you but this how we did it. This is how it works for us. And I think there's going to be people who resonate with it. CHRIS: Putting on your future facing hat, in what ways would you like to see the Infinite Red Community grow and mature? TODD: Upwards. (laughter) Oh, you didn't say direction, you said ways. Sorry. JAMON: I think from my standpoint, I'd like to see a little more deeper interaction beyond the more active channels. Something that's a little more beyond that. We have some ideas. We're not ready to announce anything yet but if you go to the community, you'll get first access. (laughter) I'm just relentless, aren't I? (laughter) But the deeper interactions, the more value, the better connection between everybody. I think that there's going to be more of that coming. We are going to continue to invest in the community in a way that is very meaningful. Keep an eye out for that. It's already pretty awesome, but we have some ways to make the directions deeper. I'm not looking for numbers. Like we have 2,000, I think almost 2,100 people in there right now. I'm not necessarily just looking for 100,000 people. What I want is for those connections to be more meaningful. TODD: It's not just our Slack community. I would consider our React Native Newsletter, which we have about 10,000 subscribers to be part of our community, the people who interact with us on open source. We have a variety of open source projects to be part of our community and of course, the listeners to this podcast is also part of our growing community. Community is a big umbrella, I think. JAMON: There are some things that we still need to work on with the community, for sure, but I think we do this probably better than a lot of people, a lot of companies. TODD: Ken's absolutely right. If you're doing community for promotion, good on you. Probably not the highest ROI. It's like general branding. You can't put a number on it but I think clearly from a business standpoint, it has its values and ways that we can't quantify or articulate. It's not for everyone. I think every company should find things that they can do to help the world and their business, but for us, it dovetails well with our culture.

We are discussing all of the considerations that go into hiring and maximizing your team: from culture fit and making sure that people are enjoying their work, to what it means to be a leader and why the best leaders bring out the best in each person, not for the sake of the company, but for the betterment of their lives. Episode Transcript CHRIS MARTIN: Where do you start this process of hiring and maximizing your team? TODD WERTH: Hello, Chris. This is Todd, CEO and founder of Infinite Red, for those who don't recognize my voice. It's a super important question. We run the company as a Council of Elders. The three founders all have equal power and equal responsibilities, but we all choose various parts of the company that we focus on. And one of my main focuses is the team, so this topic's very interesting to me. I would start out defining our opinions on what different roles of management, leadership, coaching are, so people have kind of a frame reference. There is management, but that's a purely logistical thing. For example, we're a consulting company, and we have a lot of projects, usually six to eight projects going on at once. And we have to schedule those. So, that means putting blocks into holes on the schedule, figuring out resources, that kind of stuff. That is management. There's no real leadership going on there. There's certainly no coaching. I mean, there's some, of course; it's not a perfect science. But those kind of tasks are management, in my opinion. We manage what's necessary, but we don't manage what's not necessary to manage or what would be better served by being a coach, to use a sports analogy, or being a leader. That's kind of the primary thing. We can talk about later what bad leaders do. One of the things they do—just to highlight what I just said—is they only manage; they never lead, and they never coach. And then we have leadership and coaching. Could be the same thing, but I'm gonna break those up just a little bit. A coach's job is to find the best teammates that they can at the time with the resources that they have, and put people in the jobs that they're best at and maximize those people. Coaches don't say things like, "All players suck. I'm losing because you can't find good players," because it's literally their job to find those players and to maximize them and to put them in the best spot possible. That's what I consider coaching. Leadership is everything else. Leadership is you're leading, and you're guiding people to where they'll be most effective. You're guiding people through problems. You're the first one on the battlefield, in my opinion, and you're the last one on the battlefield. You lead by example. It's everything else that goes in, all the soft skills of helping a group of people accomplish tasks and goals. JAMON HOLMGREN: Yeah, thanks, Todd. This is Jamon, founder and COO of Infinite Red. I think one of the key aspects of maximizing your team comes down to trusting them and providing the right level of support. So, a lot of companies will put in place restrictive policies that are more along the lines of trying to kind of shoehorn their employees into behavior that they want to see. And we take a very different approach here. We're very resistant to putting in place policies. We may give some guidelines that are more along the lines of ideas of how you might approach something, but we rely more on trusting them to make the right call, and if they don't make the right call, to respond the right way. And we can provide support for them if they need help, if they need encouragement, if they need course correction, whatever, we can do that in a supportive way and not so much in a management way. And that's what Todd's talking about when he's talking about the leadership. But, yeah, it's about trusting your team. And it's about putting them in places where they can succeed and not putting them in places where they're not well suited, finding the right path for them. You can put someone in place as, let's say, a programmer. And if they're struggling, you can just sort of like flog them. You know, not literally, but just sort of put a bunch of pressure on them to get their job done faster. And that's how a lot of bad leaders approach maximizing their team. From our standpoint, it's a very different approach. It's more of an open approach. It's about trying to find what they're really good at, and then letting them go, letting them do their thing. There are many examples within Infinite Red, which we can talk about, where people have taken the initiative and done things that are outside of their normal job description, but which they're interested in and which they're good at. And that is more where we see the maximization of the talent that we have. CHRIS: How do you hire for culture fit within Infinite Red? KEN MILLER: Ken Miller, CTO and founder. I would say the easiest way is always a referral. Always, right? I bet everybody's gonna tell you that. The hardest, almost impossible way, is just an interview of somebody off the street. One thing we've kind of done that's sort of in between is we've hired freelancers. So, from time to time, we have more work than our core team can handle, and we'll bring on a freelancer or two. And on a couple of different occasions, we've liked them so much we're like, "Hey, do you want a job?" And that's worked pretty well. TODD: It's actually pretty difficult to hire for anything, much less culture fit. I am still dubious that getting a bunch of resumes, doing interviews, and choosing one of those people is any better than randomly picking someone. I'm sure people have done studies, and it's probably better, but sometimes it doesn't feel like it's better. What we are particularly good at is we have a strong culture, and we have a strong idea of what our culture is. And we have a strong idea on what attributes that our people to have. We let a lot of our team interview. For instance, Chris here, when he was interviewed ... I don't know how many interviews he had, but it's probably like 10. We let anyone on our team -- and we're a team of 26 people -- interview everyone if they want to. We try to get a lot of people to interview them. Different people are looking for different things. For example, I am solely looking for culture fit. I assume that the people that came before me, like Jamon or Ken, if it's a technical position, already interviewed them for technical stuff. I assume by the time it gets to me that they're qualified for the job. So, I really just chitchat with them and try to see if they're a cultural fit. JAMON: Yeah, and one of the dangers with trying to hire specifically only for culture fit is that you can end up with a monoculture, and that can be a problem. And so that's something that we watch for. When Todd's talking about cultural fit, it's very much more about specific values that are kindness and helpfulness and things like that that are more about humanity and the type of person that they are, more so than maybe a specific culture, and I think that term probably needs to be defined a little better as we go through here. KEN: No rock stars. JAMON: That's right. TODD: Or ninjas or unicorns. KEN: No, yeah. No rock stars or ninjas. CHRIS: What about gurus? TODD: No gurus. KEN: Well, we'd have to see about a guru. I don't know, we'll see. TODD: Yeah, so just real quick, our main cultural fits, the soft stuff, is supportive, kindness. I would say even creative would be one of mine now. JAMON: Absolutely. It doesn't matter whether they're a technical person or not, creative is absolutely one of our values ... Todd, you've talked about ... What was that that you sometimes say about creativity? TODD: I do believe very strongly that the company and day-to-day work life should be fun, and as little stress as possible. And the reason I say that is the most creative and the best work comes out when you're having fun. Like, I like to joke around a lot. People sometimes say, "This is more of a serious matter, don't joke." I don't agree. If someone's doing brain surgery on me, the doctor, I want him to be having a great day, feeling good, making bad, inappropriate jokes about my tiny brain, that kind of stuff. Because you know what, when you're in that mood and you're having fun and you're in that mode, you do your best work. I can think of almost no place where that's not true. I don't know if that's what you're talking about, Jamon, but when you're having fun, you're being creative. When you're being creative, you're solving problems with more than just pure nose against the grindstone. JAMON: Yeah. And some of the other attributes that we evaluate on are productivity, leadership, being pleasant, being a good communicator; those are all soft skills. And it's kind of interesting because I sometimes get questions on Twitter, "What do you look for in a developer?" And my answers are usually probably more soft skill than people would expect. I'm not necessarily looking for hard technical skills. That's not what we value as much. KEN: It's always been very important to me that we make the work fun, that we find people that enjoy what they do, find as many as ways as possible to make them juggle. It's not always possible. Different clients are going to be different ways. Different projects are gonna be different ways, but as much as possible make the actual work fun as opposed to, what a lot of startups I've seen do, which is a lot of booze and free food to numb the pain of the work that you're doing. That's a very, very, very strongly held view for me. TODD: It only takes about a week to build culture at a company because that's how long it takes to get the ping pong table delivered. (laughter) KEN: And we have to deliver a ping pong table to every single employee's wing and we have this elaborate system for simulating the trajectory of the ping pong so you like hit the ping pong ball and you kind of measure where it went- JAMON: That's what we spend our time on. KEN: You have somebody send you the ... That's a lot of work. TODD: That's a typical startup. JAMON: We put together a presentation for a change in some of our strategy and showed it to the team when we're all together in one location last fall. And one of the things we had was this sort of like seven points that we were looking for, and I actually pulled it up on my computer so I can remember what they were. It's creativity, productivity, quality of work, communication skills, being a pleasure to work with, consistency, and leadership. Now not everybody is great at all those things obviously. Some people are more strong in the communication side of things. Some are more productive. Some are really, really great at quality. It's a mixture of those things that makes Infinite Red. But that's what Todd's really talking about when he's saying that he optimizes for the culture fit, what he looks for, the things that they do well. And all the technical stuff, I mean, it's important but people can learn the technical side of things. KEN: The reason that we don't focus as much on raw technical skills ... I wouldn't agree at all that we don't focus on it. We definitely want people who can do hard things. It's just that the world of software development began its life in a world where humans had to contort themselves into the world of the machine very heavily. You had to really, really intimately know how the machine worked, and that was a pretty rare skill; people who could kind of form the mental model that they needed to in order to work on these old machines. Steadily, over the decades, the slider between the machine and the human has gotten closer and closer and closer to the human side where your job is not as much to mind meld with the machine, it's to really to intimately understand the human's problem and translate it into the high level languages that we use now for the kind of software that we do, application-level software. Like, we're not writing operating systems or databases. We're not writing Google-scale, massive data-crunching applications, that kind of thing. For things where the human factors even all the way down to the technical level are the most important. So like manageability, that's a human factor even though it's highly technical. Having people with the soft and social skills who can also think in the abstract where you need to to be a programmer or in the way that you need to be a designer as well in this sort of breaking problems down in your mind. We've seen many more project go awry because of soft skills than because of hard skills. JAMON: Yeah, I agree with that. There's a line at which, of course, all of our people have to be competent in their jobs, whether technically on the engineering side or on the designer side. TODD: Yeah, I think it's a lot easier to test if someone who you are looking at to be on your team, whether they have technical skills, it's a lot easier to look at someone's portfolio and see that they're a great artist on the design side. These kind of real, tangible things. The reason we're not talking about it as much is not because it's not important or that we don't have these great skilled people, because we do, it's just a lot easier to determine that part. And by time, it gets to us determining if they're in our culture, we've already assessed that they have these skills. I feel like that doesn't give us a competitive advantage to figure out the easy things that everyone can figure out. So I don't want to give the impression that we just don't care about them, we totally do. The soft skills or the cultural fit is where I think you can have a competitive advantage and where you can as a coach part of your job, select the best players for your particular team. It's a sports analogy. I don't know why I'm using all these sports analogies. I'm not even a sports person. (laughter) JAMON: The truth is that as far as hiring is concerned, I wouldn't say that we're necessarily great at it. And that's not to say that we've hired a bunch of people that aren't good, they're really great. I think in some ways maybe that reflects more of our ability to intuit what will work well and what doesn't. But I think that you get good at something by doing it a lot. And we haven't actually hired a ton. We've purposely have kept the team small. KEN: I don't know if there's a sweet spot some place. I feel like being very small it's harder to do hiring because as Jamon says you don't get a lot of practice. Being large, I think it's also hard to do hiring because you have to have so many layers of filters that you get lots of false negatives and false positives just by virtue of the scale. But like, I wanna believe that there's this place in the middle, but I don't even know if I believe that. Hiring is just hard. There's no silver bullet. JAMON: There's also the turnover is a factor in this too. And we really don't have turnover. Pretty much everybody that we started from 2015 has stuck around until today and that's something that we're very proud of. That may change at one point, but we're very proud of that fact. It does mean that we don't hire to replace, like we haven't. And we only hire to grow and we're growing very slowly. CHRIS: Jamon, that brings up a really interesting point in which, when Infinite Red merged from two separate companies into what it is today, there were two different cultures where, as a team, you had to learn new personalities and learn how to work with new people so how did that change this dynamic? JAMON: Yeah, from my perspective, it was ... It actually kinda floors me how well it went considering what we had to deal with. At ClearSight, we were a ... That was my previous company that I started in 2005. We had a long history, so some people had worked with me for a very long time. I mean, I hired everybody as a brand new junior. I mean, I didn't hire hardly anybody who had experience. We were not remote as we discussed in our previous episode. We were not remote at the time. And we had a different business model the way that we worked at ClearSight versus Infinite Red, LLC, which was Todd and Ken's company at the time, they were very senior-heavy. They had all seniors. In fact, I think almost everybody at Infinite Red, LLC was older than me, and I was the oldest person at ClearSight. So that was an interesting aspect. TODD: There was a lot of Metamucil at Infinite Red. (laughter) CHRIS: This episode of Building Infinite Red is brought to you by Metamucil. Get your fiber in today. (laughter) KEN: You have to keep that in. JAMON: Yes. So that was an interesting aspect because it was very different. We were in Vancouver, Washington area most of us and they were down in the bay area, a little different style there. It was just different vibe in the two companies, but it went really well, and that's something I think we should talk about. TODD: I'll not paint as a rosy picture as Jamon did. It did end up very well through a whole lot of effort and going forward. I do want to interject real quick on the last thing. One of the qualities we look for, and it also plays into Jamon's comment about monoculture, I consider us a little band of misfits, and that's on purpose. And we're misfits in a variety of different ways all over the spectrum. I won't go into different ones, but we have a wide variety of misfits, and I think that's a very important part of our culture, which I enjoy very much. KEN: We're the island of misfit toys. TODD: Correct, except for we're not toys and we're not ... KEN: Yeah, there's no island and we're not toys, but otherwise, we're a totally the island of misfit toys. TODD: Exactly. CHRIS: This episode brought to you by competing metaphors. Metaphors; the things that we compete against. (laughter) TODD: Yeah, the culture was quite a bit different. We put a lot of effort and this is a team effort as well as a leadership effort for sure, and it took a while, but the end results I do agree with Jamon, it came out really well. Obviously, we didn't have anyone quit, which is fantastic, which is a major accomplishment. And, of course, the two cultures changed each other, and we came out as a third culture. JAMON: Yeah, totally. TODD: Which was very hard, but very exciting. KEN: One of the things that happened when we merged was Vancouver, Washington is for the Pacific Northwest anyway, a relatively kind of conservative area. And obviously, we were here in the Bay Area, which is not a conservative area, and we were a little worried about that. Like we were a little concerned like, "How's that gonna play out?" JAMON: Especially during the time that it was, 2015, all of the stuff that was happening back then. KEN: Yeah, and I think that we managed it pretty well in the sense that I think we set standards for how you interact with your colleagues. We created special Slack rooms. People wanted to argue about politics, they can go and argue about politics in certain places and it was pretty much banned anywhere else, saying like, "You know, if you want to talk about these hot button topics, that's fine. Here's the ground rules, right? Like, you're always respectful, and you do it over there where people who don't want to have to interact with that don't." And that's worked pretty well. I don't go to those channels, and I don't really see it come up very much. And people generally ... Like, we will see people who we know have completely different viewpoints working together great and having a great working relationship and having mutual respect, and that is sort of the core value that we brought to that. And I think that's also the core anecdote to any of the monoculture concerns if you set the grounds rules that like, "Hey, you can disagree, but like this is how you can disagree. When you're at work, this is the way you that can disagree." Part of the reason we wanna grow slowly is so that as people come in with their different perspectives, which we really value and we want people to be able to share their perspectives, they abide by these rules about how we get along and make something together. CHRIS: Is this an instance where policy is actually a good thing where you're setting-* KEN: Yes. CHRIS: -maybe rules of engagement for how people should interact in certain arenas? KEN: I mean, it's the exception that proves the rule a little bit. It's not that we don't have policies; it's that we don't want to manage by policy all over the place, right? It's sort of like, "Here's a few ... Here's the constitution, right? Here's a few rules about you interact with each other," but then the rest is like common decency. **CHRIS: Todd, you mentioned something in the Slack channel in preparation for this episode about the question, "what do engineers and designers care about?" And you included some fun things, but the question I have is what do engineers and designers care about and are they similar things or are they different things? TODD: The short answer in my opinion is, no, I find engineers and designers to be very similar. A lot of people think of engineering as math. I think of engineering, and I'm an engineer myself, as much more creativity, at least the kind of engineering we do, than more like mathematics and that kind of stuff. To answer that question, what do they care about? I would love to actually hear Ken talk about what engineers really care about as opposed to maybe some other professions, what they care about. And I'm referring to stuff like money- KEN: You mean, like what would motivate them? Is that what you're asking? TODD: Correct, yeah. KEN: So I always said that like you have basically three levers to pull when you're hiring. One is money, which is not as important to engineers as you might think. I think it's important that they feel that it's fair, but I've seen very few engineers ever be motivated by more money than the fair baseline. I mean, everyone wants more money, right? Don't get me wrong, right? Everyone would like as much as they can get, pretty much. All else being equal. But all else isn't equal. And so lever number two is interesting work. That's a really big one for some engineers. Not as big for some other people, but for some people that's a huge lever, and you could like throw money at them, but if you have to work on a finance system or something that they just don't happen to find interesting, they're gonna be like, "I'll pass." I was always that way. I think most engineers frankly are that way or they'd be working at hedge funds. And the third lever is lifestyle. How close are they to work, like do you have the ping pong table if that's what you care about, do they give you free food if that's something you care about, and for us obviously, the remote work piece is the big giant pillar of our working environment. JAMON: You know, it's gonna be hard for us to compete with Google or Microsoft or something just purely on amenities and dollars and things like that, but when our engineers maybe look around, they have lots of choices. They're great engineers and they have a lot of options, but they look around and they say, "Well, they're not remote work. They don't have this particular culture. They don't put a high emphasis on it." Maybe some of them do have remote work programs, but they're not a core part and piece. And so that's something that we lean very heavily on and the lifestyle part of it where families are part of what we do. If I have my 4-year-old daughter bust in and wave at the sales lead on the video call, that's fine. That's just a part of how we work. KEN: And a huge part of our mission, I think, is that returning people to their families and communities so that they don't have to live in San Francisco Bay area or New York or wherever. They don't have to come in to commute. They can live in the town where they grew up. They can live rurally. We have a number of people that live rurally. They can live nomadically. We have one guy who lives nomadically. That's the closest thing I think we have to like a real mission, like a guiding star for like what we want to see in the world. And it's been central to our belief in remote work, that people's living situation should be based on their personal life and not on their professional life. TODD: It's not just our remote work. We respect people as humans, more importantly as adult humans. I personally have an aversion to people controlling my time. KEN: Well, controlling for no reason, right? Controlling just to control. TODD: We don't own people's time. We don't own people's location. In my opinion, that stops being acceptable after childhood. Now, of course, if you have a responsibility and you've agreed to those responsibilities and you have a responsibility to show up at a meeting at a particular time, that's different. But we don't control people's time or place and I think time is actually a very important part to lifestyle which I agree with Ken, our team especially finds very important. JAMON: So the title of this episode is I think Maximizing Your Team or something along those lines, and when I look at the word "maximizing", we even thought about changing the title when we were first starting this, but because it feels a little bit off in some ways to our core values. It just occurred to me why. We do believe that we should maximize our team, but not in a way that is purely Infinite Red serving. It's more about maximizing them personally, their particular lives. So we give up some productivity in order to maximize their flexibility. We give up some high bandwidth situations so that they can live remotely in other cities. We give up some things that maybe if we were strictly optimizing for maximum productivity would be better in certain cases. And although, even some of those are arguable. I think we'll probably talk about those in future episodes, but maximizing them is more about maximizing them as people and not just as employees. TODD: I'm really glad you brought that up because, yeah, the title's a little weird to me as well. But our job is to lead people towards their best version of their work self. Obviously, everything we're talking about is an ideal and nothing's perfect. But I used to ice skate, for example, and some coaches would just tell me everything's great all the time. Those coaches didn't care. Their job literally is to help me improve. So if I'm doing everything wonderful, then that's not helping me improve. I take the same approach with people and my job is to, in a supportive and kind way, as often as I can given my time help people improve. Well, a couple things for that. One is you want to find the right places for people. Getting angry at a dog because it doesn't climb a tree as well as you wish it would is stupid. You can take a dog and push it towards the best version of a dog, but you can't make a dog a cat. I know, I've tried. (laughter) I'm just kidding. And that's super important. I think a lot of leaders ... Let's call these people managers just to be derogatory. (laughter) A lot of managers will try to make dogs into cats and they complain to all their manager buddies over their cheap beer that employees all suck. And I've said this in a previous podcast, I'll say it again, employees don't suck, you suck. You're a bad manager. Just stop trying to make dogs into cats and try to optimize, make it the best dog that is possible given the time and the particular point of the path that that particular person is on. I don't know why I'm calling the team dogs, I'm sorry about that. I love you, team. KEN: I was gonna say, this is probably the reason we don't have any ambitions to become a very large company because, frankly, once you're at a certain scale, it becomes impossible to do what we're talking about. Like the company needs people to fill particular sized round holes, and they will expect people to shave off their corners in order to fit into the round holes. That's just reality. I don't even think that there's anything wrong with that exactly and some people thrive in that sort of environment, but we try to look at, yeah, what's the best version of this person and like how can they fit into our team rather than doing it the other way around? JAMON: And because of that we tend to hire a little more generalists than maybe a large company would where you can afford to hire a bunch of specialists that only do one thing. Even though we hire generalists, we're still looking for their particular set of properties, what they're good at. TODD: Also, from a leadership standpoint, a leader enjoys working with people who have issues to work on. A manager, which once again I'm using as a derogatory term here, only wants the good people that they can be lazy about and just works. But think about that for a fact. Like I want to be a painter where all the canvas I get already have the paint on them. I want to be a house builder where when I show up to the work site, the house is built. Your job is to literally to help people improve in their work and to help them be the most efficient and the most creative and the most fulfilled that they can be. Why would you complain about team members who have problems? That's literally your job. Team members who are awesome, they don't need me. We have them and that's great, and I still try to help them move forward, but, of course, the further along one's path to their ideal craftsperson or whatever, the less they need you. And, in that case, its more just morale and that kind of support. But what makes me excited as a leader is the people who have quite a few issues to deal with and how to creatively come up with a way to help them deal with that. CHRIS: You're kind of hinting at it, Todd. And I think there's this underlying thread that in order to maximize your team, it's really about being a leader not a manager. So what are some of the ways that people can approach building a team? What does it look like to be a leader? TODD: One, care. Two, work hard. Three, who knows? Four, profit. KEN: That's basically it. I wish there was like a nice summary, a nice silver bullet going, "Hey. Be a leader trying to this one weird trick." The CEO at a startup that I was at for many years where I built a team, he was like, "You know, I don't know what your magic is." I'm like, "There's no magic. I just care." And it can be exhausting at an intense startup. It can be emotionally, physically, super draining to do that really well. I had to rest like to the point like I went and took just a regular engineer job for a couple of years because it took a lot out of me, and so the hard part is not how do you be a great leader. That is, you care and you pay attention. The hard part is how do you be a great leader sustainably over time without it destroying you. And I think having co-founders really helps with that. This is what I've definitely discovered. JAMON: I agree. Some of my most draining weeks have been working on team issues, working on developing people and kind of working through all of that. It's something that you're not really trained at as a software engineer. You end up being, in some ways, kind of a psychologist or something along those lines where you're having to think about a lot of issues and melding personalities and competing priorities and all of those things. I actually talked to my brother-in-law last night and one of the things he mentioned about his job is he went from doing some kind of individual contributor type work to managing a team. And he actually built the team. It was a design team. And he said that it took years off his life doing that because it's not something that came natural to him. And he is the type that absolutely cares. Like he is a very kindhearted, very nice person, and he really cares. And because of that, it was absolutely draining. So I think it's across industries, across disciplines that sort of leadership is ... It's hard. It's not easy to do, so that would definitely up on my list of things that tire me out in a given week. TODD: One thing I want to interject real quick before I go on to my next point, never confuse kindness with weakness. That's a pet peeve of mine. It's sometimes the kindest thing to do is grab their hand and yank them forcefully out of the traffic of oncoming cars. Secondly, I don't ... I guess this is why one of my focuses is team, it doesn't drain me that much to be honest. I really enjoy it. Any day where I'm only interacting with our team as opposed to worrying about business problems or maybe interacting with outside people is a good day for me to be honest. I feel good about that. As far as what does it mean to care and what does it mean to work hard? Well, one, get to know your team. If you can't say your team member's spouse's name whether it's a wife or their husband or whatnot, that's a problem. One of my goals is for us to all to be in a meeting with someone from the outside, and I can go around the table and introduce every single person, know about them, talk a little bit about them. That's huge; just simply knowing people. Also, the other thing that's super, super important ... And, gosh, we could make three podcasts out of this to be honest in my perspective. But one of the things that's super important is when someone does have a problem or they make a mistake or something like that, they feel comfortable coming to you. I had some person recently come to me and say, "Look, I overslept. I missed my alarm and I missed a meeting." It was a client meeting, and that's one of the things that is kind of no-no here at Infinite Red. But they came to me and said, "I just wanted to let you know so you heard it from me first." That's awesome. Well, in this case, I didn't actually say much to be honest because they already knew what they did. They brought it to my attention. Like the end result was done by them. My real job was making them feel comfortable to come and tell me that. If you can have people tell you when they did something wrong instead of hiding it, that's a gold star day for you as a leader in my opinion. That's hard to do, but you have to make people feel comfortable. When they make a mistake, you almost celebrate the mistake because mistakes are what we learn, and you don't beat them up for it but you are firm, fair and kind in response to it. KEN: And on the subject of mistakes, we make tons of them. What we're expressing is our goals and our practice. Just like engineering or design or any of the tasks that our team does, this is our ideals. Sometimes we fall down, and we try to sort of notice and correct. I'd much rather have a system that's built on that feedback loop than on one that is built on never making a mistake. That's part of our kind of our ethos of resiliency that we hope that we are instilling in our employees by embracing ourselves. TODD: Yeah, we make lots of mistakes. One of the things I tell clients is, "Look, we're human. We make mistakes. I would ask you not to judge us on the mistakes that we make. I would ask you to judge us on the speed and the effort we make in correcting those mistakes because that is something we can control. We can't control this being perfect. We're not." And I think the same applies to our team, and hopefully if the team feels it applies to us because I would imagine we make more mistakes than most.

Episode Transcript CHRIS MARTIN: To kick off this episode, let's start with introductions and the hardest project you've ever worked on. JAMON HOLMGREN: Hi, my name is Jamon Holmgren and I'm one of the co-founders of Infinite Red, Chief Operating Officer. Chris asked what's a difficult project that I've worked on in the past and I think early on when I was first sort of getting outside of just building marketing websites, I took on a project for a social media platform. Of course, this was probably 2009, Facebook was sort of coming into its own and they wanted to build a social media. It was a guy that really didn't understand what social media was. He was on no social media platforms himself. He was an older dude who was annoyed that his daughter-in-law kept inviting him to the Facebook and he did not want to deal with that. So he decided instead that he was going to build his own, so he wouldn't have to join Facebook. It was ... it sounds kind of ridiculous and made up, but I swear this was an actual project that we did. KEN MILLER: Well, that is my kind of lazy. (laughter) Really, I mean I'm serious. Where you will recreate the site, from scratch, in order to not have one annoying experience. Ken Miller, CTO/CFO, founder of Infinite Red. I'm trying to think about a hard project. For me, the hardest projects are the ones where you have to keep at for years. A massive, blast through it, kind of hard project is much easier. I've always been a little ADD and I think that some people thrive on that emergency situation, but a long haul where you have to keep at something for a long time is harder. In terms of work technical things, a couple companies ago, we had a very email dependent company and so we had to get a huge number of emails sent in a very narrow window every day. That was a very long back and forth process because you have to keep up with the amount that you are sending out physically, you have to manage the deliverability, you have to monitor your changes and make sure a small change in your rendering doesn't completely blow up your delivery window. And so the process of managing that over time definitely taught me a lot about how you set something up so you can do it over time. TODD WERTH: How many emails did you send out Ken, just curious. KEN: I think we were at 3 million. This was pre-Mailgun, pre-AWS. This was, we had to actually size the hardware- TODD: Is that per week? KEN: Appropriately. Every night. And it had to be finished in about a two hour window. TODD: So you're responsible for most of the spam in the early 2000s. KEN: Yeah, that was me. I'm sorry. (laughter) My bad. Delivering legitimate email is actually pretty tricky because of all the anti-spam measures that are a necessity of modern communications. So that was probably, in terms of the technical project, that has been the most challenging. That, organizationally, was the most for me. TODD: Hi, I am Todd Werth. I'm the CEO and the founder of Infinite Red; long time listener, first time caller. So Chris asked us to talk about a hard problem we've had in the past. So I think most hard problems I've dealt with in the past haven't necessarily been technical, because even though they're difficult, they're fairly straight forward to go through. Some just take a little longer. KEN: That's true. TODD: Most of the problems have been human related. One that comes to mind, and I'm sure there are better examples but, circa 1998, 1999 or something, I did a project for the San Francisco 49ers. The scouts would go out preseason and they would scout out new people and they would go all over the country and they would take notes. Traditionally this was done on paper and then when they finally made it back to the home office they would go over their notes with whomever and what not. So we were developing a system where we gave these peoples laptops for them to take out and then when they got back to their hotel room they would hook up to the phone line and use a modem and upload the data to the database; which was hugely advantageous to the San Francisco 49er corporate office. The problem is, none of these gentlemen have every used a computer before. Didn't know how to use a mouse, didn't know how to use a laptop, so the challenging part there ...actually, a colleague of mine, his name was Milton Hare, he did the training and taught them the very basics of using a computer. That was actually quite challenging. The user interface that we designed had to be geared towards that. It had to be, not just simple, but absurdly simple. It was very fascinating. The bad part of that project was that I got to see a lot of data on professional football players, including things like their criminal records and I will not go into it, but it's not a pretty picture. CHRIS: What we're going to do in this episode is we're gonna look at the art of doing difficult work in three main areas: extreme personal support, collaboration, and transparency. But before we get there, what is difficult work? We've had a couple of different responses. We've had technical, we've had human, but what is difficult work? TODD: I would say...that's a hard question. KEN: Difficult work is work that is not easy. (laughter) TODD: Yes, Ken. That's why we have you here. It's tough to say. As far as from our culture and our perspective, difficult work is what's difficult for individual people. So for example, I'm an engineer and designer, not a sales person. Jamon is also an engineer, not a sales person, but Jamon and I for a long time did sales together. That is difficult work for us, we didn't come natural to it, we didn't have any experience with it. So one of the things we decided early on is, we have a couple of rules. One, you don't have to do something the way other people in the world do it. We're engineers, we're doing sales, we approached it from an engineering standpoint and we engineer our sales process. Later we can talk about that. Two, is anything that is difficult for individuals, they shouldn't be doing alone. They should never be alone on an island. If someone, whatever it is, talking to a tough client, dealing with a tough technical problem, doing something that's outside of your comfort zone such as sales or maybe giving a presentation or whatever it is, we do at least in pairs or more. It's one of the things I really, I beat the drum beat with our team is, if there is something you're dreading, use the buddy system and get people to be there with you because that helps a lot. For example, in our sales calls, Jamon and I would do this thing where if I'm talking and I'm starting to fumble, he would interrupt me and take over, or if I felt like I had nothing to say and I was having a particularly anxious moment or something, Jamon would take over and we would support each other that way. Eventually we became pretty decent sales people. KEN: If I were to take a crack at defining difficult, I would say, something like work where you don't already know how you're supposed to do it. As distinct from hard work, for the purposes of discussion, I would define as more you know how to do it there's just a lot of it and you need to do it quickly or intensively for some reason. One of things that we actually like to do around here is turn hard work into difficult work. Find a way to automate in terms of process or literally automate in terms of code, things that would otherwise be hard work. It's not always possible, but we try to when we can. JAMON: I have a personal example of this, wasn't done within Infinite Red per se, but on Christmas Eve I suffered a house fire and it obviously was quite traumatic but one of the things we have to deal with as sort of a fall out of this house fire is submitting personal items to insurance for reimbursement, to kind of restore what we had. It's a very labor intensive process, to go to the insurance company's website and individually type in items because most people with a normal sized home would have thousands of items. The restoration company had done a spreadsheet for us and they had done a lot of the work, where they had gone through, and I would characterize that as very hard work, where they had to go through a bunch of soot-stained things and inventory them, take pictures of them, describe them in a spreadsheet. They did a really good job with that and they put it into a spreadsheet, but to put those items in was still a manual process of transferring from a spreadsheet over to the State Farm website. I decided that, maybe what I'll do is I'll figure out some way to automate that and that took me like an hour. I could've gotten a lot of things done during that time, I could've entered quite a few items in that amount of time. It took a lot of frustration, of like going down the wrong road, and kind of reverse engineering the web app. But once I had it done, I got it to work and I ran this cURL script for like 45 minutes and at the end of 45 minutes we had 3,000 items entered into the website. So this was a situation where we could've just buckled down and done the hard work, but instead of doing that I did more difficult work of thinking of a way to automate it and that was a net positive. KEN: And if the FBI or State Farm are listening, we had no knowledge of this. (laughter) TODD: State Farm is definitely not listening. KEN: For the record. TODD: Jamon, two questions. One, do you think State Farm intentionally makes it super hard to enter items that they're going to reimburse you for? Two, how long do you think that would take you if you hadn't automated that? JAMON: You know, we've been asked that before. I don't actually think that's the case necessarily, because I've been involved in enough software projects where you're not intentionally making something difficult for users, but when you don't use it, when you are not the end user, when you are not the person sitting there whose been through a fire who has to go through it and do it. It's not as easy as it seems when you're testing it with 14 items, 14 test items. I think actually this speaks more to a lot of what we do where yes, entering 8 dummy items in the course of testing it on localhost, it's actually a pretty good experience. They've actually done a pretty good job of making that pretty decent, but the overall user experience of a real person in a real position of needing to do this- KEN: For a large loss, not just like hey someone stole my bike, but yeah ... JAMON: Exactly, it falls on it's face. So I actually don't think at all that this was intentional. I think that it's entirely within the realm of possibility that this is simply they haven't user tested. It's a fairly new system, hopefully they'll add bulk import at some point. As far as the second question which is how long do you think it would've taken to enter those items. I think I'd gotten through maybe a couple hundred in the previous hour. It was taking me probably between 15 seconds to 30 seconds to enter each item. It would've taken a long time and been very tiring. TODD: We'll give State Farm the benefit of the doubt. KEN: I think this impulse, this is exactly the kind of impulse that leads some people to computers, to programming. This allergic reaction to tedium and repetition and when you find computer programming for the first time, if you're that kind of person who hates that sort of tedium, you're like 'this is the best thing that I've ever seen in my life,' right? I only have to think in enough clarity about what's happening to describe it to the computer, and then it'll do it for me. That's a really powerful feeling and as you get into it of course you discover that you've just traded one problem for another problem, but we're the kind of people who find that to be a higher class, more interesting, better, more rewarding problem. CHRIS: There was an intriguing phrase used the other day: We make difficult things doable through extreme personal support of each other. So can you paint a picture of what extreme personal support means to you at maybe the founders level and then maybe at the Infinite Red team level? TODD: Who said that Chris? CHRIS: That was the brilliance of a guy named Todd Werth. TODD: I do not recall saying that. I wouldn't phrase it that way, even though I literally phrased it that way. (laughter) I don't remember saying that, but it makes sense. It's not only do we give people support when they're doing work that's difficult for them including all of us, and including the three people here as well. Let me tell you a little story. When I was a young man I worked in a warehouse, I drove a forklift around at a job. One thing I noticed in that job, it didn't suit me very well because I like to talk and I like to think about stuff and it was just very tedious. What I noticed a lot of the people in the warehouse, all different ages, young person like myself all the way up to older people, is a lot of people in the warehouse were not in the right job. This one gentleman would constantly get in trouble and the bosses did not like him because he loved to chat and he was really good at it and he was really personable and I have no idea why he was in the warehouse, it made no sense at all. Later on he went to become a successful real estate agent, which is completely appropriate. Now this company I worked for, it was a big company, it was one of the largest companies in the state, so it's not like they didn't have a place for this gentleman to work well, so he ended up leaving. The reason I tell that story is because you have to know everyone individually and what's hard work for one person is not hard work for another. If it's not hard work for another person, one way they can support people rather than just direct interaction is for them taking on jobs that other people find hard. So that's kind of support and of course there's just day to day, I will show up with you on the battlefield, type of support and that kind of stuff. JAMON: I think one of the ways that this manifests itself is how we deal with failure and the inability to get something done here. We're not quick to reach for blame the individual who's there. Sometimes that's the case where someone just falls down and they kind of do their own thing and that needs to be corrected and move forward. TODD: We so don't look to blame. JAMON: We don't look to blame. No it's really, let's look at this from a collaborative approach. How can we, as a group, do this better in the future? How can we adjust our systems? One of the things I don't like is to identify a gap in our system, for example, and then say that the answer is that the people involved need to just try harder. I really don't like that answer. Unfortunately that's something that a lot of lazy leadership will do. They'll just be like, 'you need to get your act together,' and that's the answer. The reality is that's often not the answer. The answer is usually to work with the system until it's at a point where doing the right thing is the easy path, where doing the right thing is the natural and intuitive path. That takes thinking, that takes understanding the problem, it's harder for leadership to accomplish that. KEN: It is occasionally the right answer though. TODD: It sometimes, sure. KEN: But not very often. It's rarely that simple, but I think one of the hard things that I've found in leadership was actually saying to somebody, 'Look, you need to step up. You have what you need right in front of you, the next part is up to you.' Actually saying that is part of it. I think what Jamon is referring to is that if the support is not there, then saying that is meaningless. JAMON: Yes. TODD: Well, I mean, it's like someone is pushing a rock up a hill and you're just saying you need to push harder, push harder. When the person's telling you and you're not listening, why don't I just walk over the hill and get the rock that's already over there? You know what I mean? So- KEN: Yeah, I completely agree with that. TODD: I do agree that asking somebody to step up in a real way, not just a nose against the grindstone type of way. KEN: When you get to the point where you've got all of the easy rocks on one side and what we actually need to do as a team is get this one huge freaking rock on the other side of the hill, and some people are not pushing with you, that has to be addressed. JAMON: Right KEN: But it's much smaller part of the pie than I think some management philosophies would tell you. TODD: I personally convince everyone that pushing rocks is one of the neatest things in the world, it's a rarity, and for a low price they can push my rocks for me. (laughter) JAMON: I think one of the things Ken has said in the past is what we want to be is a high support, high expectations company. Low support, high expectations is just toxic. KEN: That's a sweat shop. JAMON: Yeah, it's a sweat shop. High support, low expectations is a nursery and low expectations, low support that's- KEN: I don't even know what that is. CHRIS: How does this picture of extreme personal support enter your relationship as the three founders? JAMON: I can kind of personally attest to this. There are certain tasks that I'm well suited to, my personality, that I enjoy doing. There are other ones that it's like pulling teeth to get me to do and that's just been exacerbated since I had the house fire and am kind of displaced from my normal routine and I really just want to focus on the things that I really enjoy doing. What we did, actually earlier this year, up until this point we've made a lot of decisions together, we've done a lot of things together and that's was appropriate for the first couple years of Infinite Red. But we've gotten to a point where we kind of understand each other, we kind of have a lot of aligned shared goals and we've actually started to specialize. This was a way for Todd and Ken to support me, in that Todd could focus on a lot of team-oriented things and Ken's been doing a lot of things with the financial and bookkeeping side of the business, which I am not good at. I can focus more on business development and that's actually the part of the business that I find really interesting, so rather than just telling me, 'work harder at managing your projects, work harder at being an account manager, work harder at doing these other things,' which yeah, I could work harder and do a better job. Instead of doing that we've found a solution that wasn't centered around just working harder it was centered around doing things that we felt effective at. TODD: As we are three founders and we govern as a quorum of elders as it were, as opposed to a hierarchical company, supporting ourselves, each other, the three founders, is just as important as supporting the team in my opinion. When there is a financial problem, thankfully we haven't had too many of those, we all have to step up and so we tend to understand each other's personal finances, each other's personal stuff. It's almost like a pseudo-marriage in a way, although there are three of us so it'd be a polyamorous marriage in this case. It's a requirement to be more, I don't want to use to word intimate, but intimate in each other's lives and I think we're really good... What's cool about three as opposed to two or one, for example, because Jamon's done one and I've done one, I've been in another company ...but what's cool about three is, typically it's one person having a communications problem or arguing or having difficulties with another person and the third person mediates. It's either Jamon and I are having an argument and Ken mediates or Ken and I are having an argument and Jamon mediates. Hey wait- KEN: Wait, when do you mediate, Todd? (laughter) TODD: I don't think I've ever mediated, that's funny. KEN: I don't think you have actually. I'm noticing a pattern here, yeah. JAMON: That's not true. TODD: But it is totally true. But it's okay. I tend to draw lightning as well away from people and because I deserve it. I don't know if that answered your question, but I think it's uber important, sorry, it's Lyft important that we do that. (laughter) You know, it starts and then we can all support the team if we are supported ourselves. JAMON: It sets the tone, all the way down and we have to. We have no other way of working. We have to support each other and it's not just when we're having interpersonal problems with each other, but also when someone's just literally having a tough time. What I think we've done really well as a founder team is go into our shared channel and post, 'I'm having a tough time.' It can be for any reason, it can literally be like, I didn't sleep very well last night; I just am so bored with this task, I cannot get started with it. All those things are valid and the answer is never just suck it up, or if it is, it's one of those things where it's an empathetic suck it up. If that makes sense. It's like, I totally get it, I understand where you're at, we really just need to get this done. And sometimes that's what you need, you need a little boot in the rear and that's something that you can take from the other side too. It's been great, really, the last two and a half years having that. TODD: Obviously we're talking about supporting each other as founders, but it's the same with the team. One key thing is if someone is vulnerable, they say they've made a mistake, they say they're having a problem, even if you personally think 'is that really a problem?' Or whatever, it doesn't matter. Whatever your personal feelings are is irrelevant. If you stomp on that person, if you make fun of that person, if you tell them to suck it up buttercup, everyone, not just them, the entire team will contract. They will put up a little more walling around them and they won't do that in the future. They'll do it, they just won't do it around you. It is hard because we're all emotional beings and sometimes you have an emotional reaction to something. But you have to be super careful to not ...when that flame is just starting you need to be very gentle with it and not blow it out. KEN: It's more than just avoiding stomping on people, not that Todd was saying that's all it was, but you have to go out of your way to solicit, to get people to talk about what's going on with them, to check in with them, to reiterate that you're available for that. You can't say it once and assume that everyone will remember that, they won't. Right? People's own internal dialogue about how worthy they are, all that stuff will keep coming back if you don't actively do it. Also, we will make mistakes sometimes, right? So you have to keep doing the active things as well to keep the ship steered in the right direction. TODD: When we make mistakes it's important that we apologize to the team. Not fakely like 'oh, I'm so sorry.' Everyone can smell fake, but if you're genuinely made a mistake because you had an emotional moment and you didn't act appropriately, you have to apologize to them as well. CHRIS: So the interesting thing as you're talking, I get a sense that this isn't something that you just read in a book and you're like, 'I'm an expert at this.' I sense that there are some really real stories behind learning what it means to be not only supporting others but to feel supported. TODD: Yes, for sure. Ken actually is super good at advice in this kind of thing, having been a leader in the past. Typically, leader of only senior people in the last two jobs. Actually, the last one I had some more junior. Infinite Red, when we first started, we had quite a few junior people, so that was a little new to me. One of the things you have to learn ...leadership is hard by the way, I just want to interject that. Leadership is very difficult, it's hard work and that's why we get the support of each other. We not only get the support of the three founders, but the entire leadership team here at Infinite Red and there's a variety of people: Gant Laborde, Shawni Danner, Jed Bartausky, Justin Huskey. It's difficult and not only are we supporting each other, we're coaching them, especially the more junior leaders on how to do it and one of the things Ken said and it's just one of the great gems of wisdom that he gives, is he goes "you have to remember you have very wide arms, when you swing them you hurt people." So you don't have the luxury to be how you were when you were as an employee. I could say things as an employee, I enjoy making people laugh, it's one of my things. I can do a lot of things as an employee that I simply can't do as a leader because when I say something it's taken much more seriously, whether I meant it or not. When I hear other managers, let's call them, say something like employees suck, it's like, 'no they don't, you suck.' Employees don't suck. That's crazy, that's like the coach of the San Francisco 49ers saying my players suck. Well, you chose the players, you're coaching the players, so they don't suck. KEN: One of the things that we do when we're working on a difficult project as a team is make sure there's an owner. One of the things that will kill any difficult project is diffuse responsibility. Partly what we're striving for is that everyone can take responsibility for something. Everyone can be like, 'I'm going to execute my part of this as skillfully as I can,' but if there's not one person who owns the whole vision, it's going to fail. Almost guaranteed. Creating an environment where it's okay for that owner to say, 'hey I need your help to get this done.' Where the culture is like, somebody needs something from you and they specifically ask you, that you try to do it. And that makes ownership less scary. One of the things that I've seen go wrong, if someone is given responsibility but no power, no ability to actually follow through on that responsibility- TODD: That happens all the time. KEN: That is the most demoralizing position, possible. TODD: That's toxic. KEN: Yeah, so that's how you kill your budding leaders by saying 'hey get this done and by the way, all these people over here have their own priorities and they're not going to help you.' That is the worst. So, assign ownership and then back them up. That's been one of the keys to getting certain things done. Chain React is a good example of that. Chain React is our conference for React Native in Portland this July 11-13. So we did it first last year and now we're doing it again this year. Shawni, who basically runs it, had ever run a conference before, had never been to a conference before, but is good at just marshaling resources and taking charge and that's a great example where she could pull on whoever she needed for help. When it came to actually knowing specifically what to do for other peoples' expertise, like we flew somebody up who was a serious foodie, to go and test the caterers, for example. JAMON: That was our team member Derek Greenberg and Derek is such a foodie and it was just a joy to watch him work on that. KEN: He had the most comprehensive report for that kind of selection process that I have ever heard. It was amazing, anyway. None of these things that we're saying are we perfect at. We're not, we don't hit this every single time and I hope that we're not saying that's the standard. What we're saying is here's our guiding star, here's what we try to do, here's how we evaluate whether we're doing the right thing or not. So this is how we nurture leadership within the team, is to say 'here's what we need you to do, and by the way, the team is your oyster.' You can go and pull in what you need in order to make this happen. **CHRIS: This is really bringing up a really interesting point now, we've got this extreme personal support but then when you add the component of leadership and helping each other out, it introduces the layer of collaboration. So how is collaboration different from extreme personal support? TODD: You can have a group of people who hate each other and they can collaborate if they're given the proper motivations. This happens all the time in corporations every day. Sadly, many people work at those corporations. So I don't think those are necessarily required for each other. I do want to digress just for one second. So Ken was saying how we try to give people in leadership positions or in a leadership role in a particular project, whatever it is. We try to do empowering stuff, but we're not perfect at all. One of the coolest things about having Ken and Jamon around is when I do something boneheaded, typically Monday-Friday, they let me know and they help me get through it and they identify it and on the flip side for whatever reason the team is pretty comfortable talking to me. It's just my personality, I talk to people a lot. And so if they have a problem with say Ken or Jamon, they'll let me know, and then I go talk to that person or we talk and try to do it in the most supportive way possible with the goal of improving that person's, how they're performing as a leader and that's awesome because we're all human so having the support. For the team it's the same way. A lot of programming, I wouldn't say design because design's a little different, we do design and development. A lot of development shops are kind of little dog eat dog, kind of situation. People can be arrogant, they can make fun of other people's work, and that kind of stuff. We really hire and try to promote a, you can be critical and explain problems, but do it in a supportive way and that can't be in a mission statement, it can't be something you announce in a meeting. They have to live it every day and especially new people, it takes them awhile to get deinstitutionalized and understand that you can make mistakes, you can put your head above the fray and it will not get chopped off. Every once in a while someone does and I have a private conversation with them and let them know how they were really not being supportive and our team's awesome, they all want to be. It's almost never malice, it's always just they miscommunicated and they didn't understand what they were doing. KEN: Well people are messy, right? That's just the nature of the beast. JAMON: This highlights one of the aspects of almost everything within Infinite Red and that's where we try to design things for iteration over perfection. So even things like support, supporting our people we are iterating on how to do that. We're trying to have a feedback loop, there has to be some level of learning from our mistakes and then continually getting better. There are some things where someone will take on a task as a group that we decide, were going to do this thing and it's actually a very difficult technical thing or it's a very difficult societal thing, where we're going to build a new AR system or something and the tools are not there and we have to build all that. So there are hard technical things that are... KEN: There are, but- JAMON: But I think you're right Ken, in the interpersonal stuff kind of always comes back to that, as far as the things that end up feeling very difficult and very hard. KEN: So just to take that, so let's take like, the Manhattan project. TODD: Why not, take it... JAMON: And of course that was the project in World War 2 where they were developing the nuclear bomb. KEN: Right, so definitely some complicated ethical angles on that one, but how do you do that? Well, you attract the world's greatest scientists and put them in one place in New Mexico, and then you give them the tools that they need to work with and you give them a goal that you can align on. In this case, win the war. TODD: Kind of like Breaking Bad. KEN: Boy, our examples ar going really dark here. (laughter) TODD: Well they brought world class scientists to New Mexico- KEN: Let's pick a better one because it still works, right? If you're not just one person sitting in a room, working on something hard. Not to take anything away from that because a lot of amazing things have come out of one person sitting down with a problem. I think that's a different question than what we work with ever, right? I think we could probably have a whole podcast on how do you recognize a good engineer for example and I think that's an interesting question but it's a little different from the question of how do we as a company work on that. Because that really is about: how do you set up an environment where people can do their best work? And how do you hold people accountable? But also make sure that they are not held back by lack of resources. And those resources can be physical, tangible but in many cases they are emotional resources or organizational resources. Especially in a software business, I think that it's exaggerated in a software business and that dynamic also is worth a whole podcast because of the dynamics of software and how they're different. Because there's nothing to buy, right? Once you have the computer, you're done. What that leaves is all these other kind of softer, squishier resources that people need to do their best work. JAMON: One example of this is an internal tool that we've been working on that is intended to increase the efficiency of certain types of tasks. It's not something that's open source at this time, so I'm not going to go into a lot of detail, but I asked the team that was behind it why we weren't necessarily realizing some of the gains that we had anticipated to start with and interestingly, a lot of the responses were, really had nothing to do with technical issues or anything like that. It was policy related things. Some things that we were doing that were sort of handcuffing them in some ways and there were reasons behind those, there were sort of organizations reasons, strategic reasons behind some of those policies, but it allowed us to look at the end result of this difficult problem that we were trying to solve, and make some decisions based on values and trade offs that were more strategic in nature that we didn't realize were holding them back as much as they were. So that's an example where we had a hard problem and, unbeknownst to us, we were making some decisions that were making it more difficult for them. CHRIS: When does extreme personal support diverge into collaboration? Todd mentioned that you can hate the people that you're with and still collaborate, but what does successful collaboration look like? TODD: I would say successful collaboration is a multi-faceted thing. One, is the stress level of the people doing the collaborating. Two, the most obvious, is a successful work output of that collaboration. Meaning you accomplish your goals, hopefully in a creative, high quality way. And then three, from a business standpoint, that it was the return on an investment of that collaboration was good. JAMON: I think those are good kind of high level metrics that you can use. Another way to do this from a more granular level is to watch how people interact. So some people, for example me, may come into a meeting and may want to kind of expose that this other person is not doing their job or something like that and that's not a very particularly constructive way to approach this. But if you watch the successful collaborations that happen, they go into the meeting with a question and they go into the meeting, we have a challenge in front of us. How can we solve this? They get the people involved that need to be involved and don't make the meeting too big, but they make it just big enough and that's a characteristic of a good collaboration when everyone can go into it with an understanding of a problem, be able to provide their perspective and then the group can come to a conclusion. It's part of this overarching concept of psychological safety that we talk about a lot at Infinite Red that leads to better and better work. CHRIS: We've got extreme personal support, we've got collaboration, what about transparency? How critical is transparency in difficult work and in doing remote work? JAMON: One of the things about transparency that's important, or why transparency is important is this idea of trust. Because trust underlies a lot of dynamics within a company and if people feel like you're being purposefully opaque, they may feel that you're hiding something, they may feel that you don't trust them with the information, you don't trust their opinion, you don't trust ...and then when you don't have a high level of trust than a lot of other things fall apart. You don't get that collaboration, you don't get a lot of other things that you really need. So transparency is a prerequisite to building that trust. When we're able to be open and honest with our team about struggles or how we approach things or issues, were not necessarily saying wide open, everything is just hanging out there, but at the same time we do want to have a high level of transparency and ultimately we have to actually trust our team in order to do that. It can't just be something artificial, it has to be something where we actually do trust our team. Again, it's like there's not this formula where you just say do a whole bunch of transparency and everybody will trust you. No, what you have to do is do the hard work to build that trust. The transparency is a part of that and then that is something that you continue to do. There was a situation where we implemented some new business policies, business way of doing work. Todd was intimately involved with that throughout and all of us were really and some feedback we got afterward was that they didn't feel that there was quite the transparency that they had expected. Felt like a bit of betrayal of trust, and we heard that, we heard that loud and clear. We told people we heard that loud and clear and we changed the way that we implemented larger company-wide changes in that way. It can be a little difficult, just being wide open sometimes will expose you to knee jerk reactions, or a lot of different things that can sometimes bite you, but it's worth it in the interest of establishing that sort of trust. TODD: In what ways are we transparent and what ways are we not transparent? JAMON: Well one obvious way is that for most of our engineers and designers, we actually have a transparent pay scale. People actually know what other people make salary-wise. We get this feedback sometimes, someone will say, 'I think this person is leveled too low, I think they need to level up, I think they've been doing good work.' Without that level of transparency we'd never get that feedback because people wouldn't know and you could easily have a situation where someone is underpaid and we're not getting the feedback that that's the case. KEN: Chronically underpaying someone can be extremely expensive. TODD: Ironically. KEN: Because you can lose your best people that way. So we try to be super involved and see everything. Of course, we try, but that stops being scalable after a while so we have to have mechanisms in place that encourage the right information to come forward. TODD: Jamon mentioned our transparent pay scales. If your company is telling you not to talk to your co-workers about how much you make; A, it's ridiculous because you're going to do that anyways, especially with people you're close with and B, it's a red flag because why? I know why they do it because it's easier. Having a pay scale, everyone can look at a spreadsheet to see where everyone is placed and that kind of thing. It's much more challenging from our perspective because you can't just, such and such you know we want to give them more money for whatever reason, maybe a political reason or whatever, it doesn't matter. You can't just give them that because that's not the level they're at, so it's very fair and the transparency is nice but, I'm not going to go into it right now but we've had many situations where that's been difficult for us. Would've been easier just to have a normal secret pay for everyone, but not all of our team enjoys that as much as some other people. Some people really enjoy that and it also gets rid of problems like inequity between say genders, or race or anything like that because everyone knows what everyone makes. So that kind of transparency is great. Some transparency, I don't think we are transparent, not because we don't want to be, we'd love to be, I personally am a very open book person. Literally if someone asks me a question I'll answer pretty much anything. I won't answer about someone else, like if someone's told me something in confidence, or I won't talk about my wife or whatever but anything about me I'm very open. But, I know not everyone is that way and there are various reasons why but as a company, we try to be as transparent unless it's actively going to hurt people and sometimes that happens. You have to weigh hurting people against transparency sometimes. Sometimes people really, it's not good if they see how sausage is made, just because they may not have the full information. Let me give you an example. So let's say, this is hypothetical, this isn't really what's happened, lets say we're going over financials once a month and we understand what's going on and we've had lots of conversations about financials and then one month we're going to be drastically under and us founders are going to have to put money into the company to keep it rolling. That's one of those things where, if you just announce that we're doing really poorly, we're going to put money in so we can pay payroll, it can make people very nervous. Not because they're not smart enough to understand, they just haven't been sitting in those meetings and they don't understand the big picture. You can say all you want that it's totally okay, it's fine don't worry about it, but when someone's doing a bank robbery with a gun, you don't pay attention to what their wearing, you're looking at the barrel of the gun. It's just situations like that where we choose specifically not to be transparent. We default to transparency, but there are time when we choose not to be. KEN: The first time I really extensively used what I would call social media at work was at Yammer, who semi-invented that. JAMON: Ken, what was Yammer? What was the product? KEN: Yammer was, I think it began life as basically Twitter for companies and it kind of turned into Facebook for companies. It's very similar to that, so it's, you have threaded conversations and notifications and likes, but it was aimed at organizations. It's still going. They were bought by Microsoft, it still exists. Slack pretty much came in and sucked all the air out of that market, but, nevertheless, they had some pretty good norms for how you use a tool like that in business. One of them was, they had private groups, but they would always ask the question: Why is this private? Why is this conversation happening in private chat and not in a channel? Not that you couldn't have things private, because there are certainly cases where you'd want that, but those cases had to argue for themselves, whereas, the prevailing mindset before had been private by default unless you needed to collaborate and so our default is: default to open, default to open channels and we do that in Slack too. The things that we keep private are: client channels are private so that they don't have to worry that random drive-bys are coming in and looking at their stuff. Few things like HR and finance are private and anybody on the team can make as many private groups as they want for themselves. In terms of the official channels, they're as open as we can make them and that's been part of that ethos is that it's not all transparent, it's transparent by default. JAMON: But that even extends outside the company. On my Twitter I'll answer questions and I'm often quite transparent about some of the challenges that we face. This podcast being another outlet for it, where we talk about what we do. It's even outside of the company itself and I think that helps, it's a part of who we are. Todd, Ken, and I initially started on some open source software and that's the height of transparency there. CHRIS: So kind of bringing this episode to a close; What advice would you give to other founders who are looking to build a culture of doing difficult work together as a team? TODD: I would say the number one tip is just try, and keep on trying. There's no magic bullet, I don't know of any particular books you can read, every organization's different and different type people and different type jobs have different needs, but if you just keep on trying and keep on making an effort towards it, if you stumble and you have an emotional moment and you swing your arms too strongly, get back up, apologize, and keep on trying. JAMON: How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. You start there and you start in a way that is, you don't have this master plan where you have to follow it exactly all the way through. You design something that has a feedback loop. Feedback loops are extremely important. You'll hear us talking about that more, very often. You start with the first thing, then you start with the next thing and you keep working at it. We've never done a podcast together, for example, so we start with the first episode and we iterate on it and we look at what we've done and we see what we like and what we don't like. We provide feedback and we provide feedback in a way that hopefully is constructive and is something that we can learn from. Todd mentioned another time when he and I collaborated on sales and how we would engineer the process. We did it that way. We started with the first sales lead and we evaluated how we did and we continue to chip away at it. Any company that is going to take on a hard problem like that, start with the first bite and see how you did, and have a feedback loop and have a way of iterating, getting better and by the end of that elephant, you're going to be pretty dang good at eating elephants. KEN: That's terrible. TODD: Yeah, we apologize to the elephants out there. KEN: Can we eat Republicans? (laughter) TODD: Can we eat people at Google? JAMON: I get the reference: elephants and GOP. TODD: I don't understand... KEN: See, this is why we had to bring Jamon on because Todd wasn't smart enough to get my jokes. (laughter) TODD: This is all going to be cut anyways so ... I know Chris. JAMON: I hope not. (laughter) TODD: We eat Republicans, really? KEN: Yeah, no you're right. They're probably tough. (laughter) TODD: It's all the wrinkles from too much makeup.

Show Links Management by Walking Around Herman Shooster, founder of Global Response, on "management by walking around" GAF-o-meter Episode Transcript CHRIS MARTIN: Gentlemen, welcome to the first episode of Building Infinite Red, welcome. Why don't each of you take a minute to share your background and what your role is at Infinite Red? TODD WERTH: Hey, there, I'm Todd Worth, I am CEO and co-founder of Infinite Red, along with Ken and Jamon here. This is my third business. This is a traditional business, meaning it's not investor backed. My first business was also similar to this, and my middle business was a venture capital backed business. So, I went through all that fun Silicon Valley interviews with the VCs that we get to see on HBO. I've been a developer and I did some design as well for the last 22 years. So, I spent most of my time in the Bay Area working at various startups, some enterprises and that kind of stuff. KEN MILLER: I'm Ken Miller, I'm the CTO and founder. I've mostly done startups in my career. A whole long string of venture-backed startups and that's what convinced me that I wanted to do something different this time. JAMON HOLMGREN: I'm Jamon Holmgren and I'm the Chief Operating Officer here, and the other co-founder here. I started my business in 2005 and some variation of that has persisted all the way to today, obviously with the merger that we'll probably talk about at some point in this podcast with Todd and Ken. But, I've been coding since I was 12 but really professionally since then, since 2005. So, 13 years now. CHRIS: How did the three of you meet? TODD: Actually, I met Ken when he did a phone interview for me about 10 years ago. Ken was my boss at one point. We worked together at a company called Mamapedia / Mamasource. So, I met him on the phone. He asked me a bunch of very tough technical questions. That was interesting, and then we had an interview, at which he sat behind me, over my shoulder and watched me program. That wasn't uncomfortable at all. KEN: Yeah, he's never let me forget that. JAMON: And I met Todd and subsequently Ken ... I think in person we met in 2014 at a conference down in San Francisco, Fort Mason. We were all three of us were speaking at conferences about iOS development. Todd and I had kind of heard of each other, maybe done a little bit of communication at some point. TODD: We had been chatting at that point because we both ... you did digs at me, and your speech, and my speech came a couple of people later, and I digged back at you and we wouldn't have done that if we hadn't already been chatting a lot. JAMON Some friendly banter. We had kind of hit it off right away, which was kind of cool. Then we ended up a little bit later collaborating on some open source work, which was really fun. TODD: Yeah, I do believe I won that banter war, during that 2014 conference. JAMON: The jury's still out. TODD: I got more laughs. CHRIS: So, you all get together and you all meet and you all have familiarity with each other. Why merge companies and form one company? TODD: That's a great question. That was a fairly long process. Jamon and I started knowing each other pretty well in the particular tech stack that we were all in. The three of us had very popular open source libraries. JAMON: That was called RubyMotion back in the day. It was an iOS framework and since we were all Ruby developers it kind of brought us in. TODD: Correct. We worked with each other in the industry in our local little culture. Not local physically, but meaning in the RubyMotion community. And then Jamon and I just talked a lot. We chatted a lot on Slack or whatever it was at that time, and we just got to know each other pretty well. Then what happened was in an industry where you're doing client work, it's very roller coaster-ish often, which means you're either slow or you're really busy. When that happens, after a while you start looking for partners who can help shave off the high and low points. We started doing with ClearSight Studio, which is Jamon's company, and they were helping us work on some projects when we were a little too busy. JAMON: Yeah, and then we ended up competing on one project, which was ... this industry is kind of interesting because most of the time you don't end up competing directly with people you know. There's enough work to go around that people tend not to shop around a ton. But, we ended up competing head-to-head on a project and both of us agreed that we didn't really like competing against each other. We would rather work together, which was kind of cool, and what was interesting was, Todd's the glue guy here. I mean, he's a guy that kind of brought everybody in. I didn't really know Ken. I'd met him at Inspect briefly, talked to him a little bit about ... TODD: Inspect was a 2014 conference we spoke at. JAMON: Yeah, that was the one in Fort Mason there. I got to know Ken a little bit later when Todd invited me down to San Francisco. KEN: It's a little funny because of that dynamic that those two knew each other, but I was a little apprehensive when we started talking about merging. Because Todd and I had a pretty good dynamic. I was a little worried that those two would outvote me, since they were both a little more front end than me. But, we find when we disagree, it's more often Jamon and I are the ones who are in agreement. JAMON: Knowing you now Ken, I don't know how you ever agreed to the merger. TODD: Yeah, we did work well together, which mainly consists of me telling bad jokes and Ken rolling his eyes. JAMON: This is true. KEN: It's still how we work together. JAMON: Yes. TODD: That is true, and Ken is absolutely right, most often it's Ken and Jamon voting against me. JAMON: Yeah. TODD: That's fine, though. KEN: And to be clear, we always have kind of a consensus process, so it's not like we have a vote and one person walks away unhappy. It's really more like we just keep at it until we can find the place that we all agree on. JAMON: Yeah, totally. TODD: Yeah, I'm technically the CEO of the company but we're actually all three have equal power and we run the company as basically a council of elders. It's not just us three, we have some other people on the team that also help us make decisions, plus the whole team also helps us makes a lot of decisions. This system is chaotic. It's like democracy, it's messy and chaotic but it's the best thing we have. It does sometimes require us to vigorously debate each other before we get consensus, but I think it works out really well. JAMON: One of the things that I think we're gonna be able to delve into in this podcast that will be interesting to the listeners, is some of the things that we've learned being more of a council of elders, like Todd said. So, this sounds very kind of self reflective, here we're kind of talking about how we met and how we started the company. But I think it's interesting background. It kind of sets the stage for why we operate the way that we do. What has worked, what hasn't worked. I think it'll be an interesting aspect of this podcast. TODD: Yeah, there's a lot more to the story of our merge, of course. It was over a long period of time. Maybe we can talk about that more in detail at some point. CHRIS: What are the benefits of having three founders? Because there's ... oftentimes I imagine that there's one, so you have that one person view of the world, but now you have three people and you have to come to consensus. JAMON: Well, I can speak to this probably because I did run my own company as a sole founder for 10 years. And certainly being by yourself has certain advantages because you can kind of pull the trigger and say, "Okay, we're gonna do this. We're gonna shift direction. We're gonna go this direction." And you can do it very quickly. I'm not very risk averse, I just kind of like dive right into things as Todd and Ken can attest. TODD: That's another way of saying, "There's a China shop, no need to open the door, let's go through it." JAMON: Let's go right through the door. That's me. It allowed for certain really great things in my company, like being able to go from, hey, we're a Ruby on Rails shop to we do iOS apps, never having done one, but yeah, sure, we do them, and jumping right into it. Had some downsides, too. Being on a wild ride like that is very stressful to most personalities, and I had 12 people with me. And it wasn't just me. Not to mention my family. So, I can tell you that the difference, the main difference, is that, it forces me to slow down a little bit. It allows me to kind of lean on the strengths of Ken and Todd, which I've learned over the past two and a half years, three years really, they're very strong in certain areas that I'm not. Honestly, I don't know at this point what I would do without that. It's really great to be able to say, "Okay, Todd, what do you think about this particular issue, because it has to do with team." Or something like that, something he's really good at. Or Ken, for strategy and kind of understanding the deeper implications of what we're looking at doing. So, it allows you to kind of add additional strengths to the leadership, to the ownership team without necessarily adding weaknesses because you can kind of identify what those weaknesses are, and say, "Okay, this is a weakness of Jamon. Let's avoid going down that path." Let's do the things that I am good at instead. TODD: Yeah, I agree with that. Jamon also is our engine. He keeps on going and pushing and going and pushing and going, pushing. So, that's one of his main strengths that he brought. KEN: And to be honest, that was a big factor in deciding to merge. Seeing how he just has this natural energy and productivity, that Todd and I are not as much that way. So we saw it as a pretty natural complementarity. TODD: To answer your specific question, having multiple people. Basically all three of us have two other people we can't tell exactly what to do. We have to convince them to do what they do, and I'm a big believer that the best leaders are reluctant leaders, and I would consider myself this. I think I'm a pretty decent leader. I certainly work hard at it, but I don't particularly ... it's not like something I seek or particularly like per se. The reason I think reluctant leaders are better is because they don't really enjoy the power like enthusiastic leaders do. So, because of that I'm perfectly happy to do things in consensus and that kind of stuff. All three of us can and have in the past led individually. CHRIS: So, what about the challenges? You've mentioned a lot of benefits but what kind of challenges present itself when you have to convince two other people? TODD: Sometimes there's yelling. Not too often but it's happened. Jamon came up with something ... I don't know, I'm sure you didn't come up with that but Jamon's company, they did something where they have a gafo, which is give a frick... JAMON: G-A-F-O. TODD: But basically this system works really well because a lot of times if you're discussing any subject and your job is to add your opinion to it, whether you're particularly interested in that subject or not, you do. And a lot of times people argue with each other over things that one of them doesn't really care about and they're arguing as if both of them have equal degrees of their opinion. So, what we'll often do is say, "What's your gafo on this?," which is one to 10, and if I'm arguing, not arguing, but if I'm expressing my opinion on a particular subject and Jamon says "What's your gafo in this?", I'd say a two, and his is a nine, then Jamon automatically gets that. JAMON: Yeah. And what you find is people don't really abuse it. Like, most of the time you find out that two people are arguing over something that they both have a two or a three, versus once in a while you'll get a situation where both are a nine or a 10. In that case you know that you're dealing with something really important and it actually, even just saying that, like we both really, really care about this, is still an aid in doing this. It actually came from an article, I don't remember who wrote it but we can put it in the show notes, Chris. I'll give it to you after the show and we can put the link to the article in the show notes. TODD: Just to give you an example, I brought up the other day that I deserve a much, much larger salary. Now, I had a high gafo on this, about a 10. And it turns out Ken and Jamon both had a one. So, I won. And now I have twice the salary. It's a good system. JAMON: I was not informed of this event. TODD: This may or may not have happened only in my mind. I rarely can tell. CHRIS: Has there ever been a moment where the gafo on all three of you was very high? JAMON: Yes. CHRIS: And, in that case what happens? TODD: We have a very large closet where we keep the dead horse, and since we can't agree on that and there's lots of vigorous debate we bring that dead horse out and beat it regularly. Which is fine. That doesn't happen too often, to be honest, but we do have some things where it keeps coming up over and over again. KEN: We have had some pretty heated conversations, sometimes, and I'm not gonna call it a disadvantage of having three people, because I actually don't think that it is. So, I'm personally fairly risk averse, and tend to sort of make decisions cautiously. So, for me, having three people, and we can hash this out, actually makes it easier for me to make decisions with more confidence, but sort of ironically. Right? Because, having sounding boards whose perspectives I know will be different and yet exist in the context of some shared values, from my point of view that's pretty much unalloyed positive. Even if it doesn't mean that there's a few uncomfortable conversations. CHRIS: So, Ken, how do you deal with uncomfortable conversations and disagreements that inevitably happen? KEN: Well, I think the emphasis there is on relationship building and after care, as it were. We treat the tripartite relationship as one of the most important things that we can work on. So, we make a point to meet in person more regularly than the whole team meets. We have founders' meetings on Zoom several times a week. Sometimes those meetings are just kind of chatting about the news of the world or something like that. I mean, often there's plenty of business but we also make some time to just shoot the shit, as it were. That creates the container in which that happens. So, even if, in the heat of the moment, as people do, you might forget that these people are on your side. There's that container to return to, so that when the fight is over and when the sort of tempers have died down we can come back and say, "Hey, you know what? I get where you're coming from." We're all on the same side here and we can kind of take that and look through the ashes for the refined bits of ore that we wanted to take out of that conversation. That's pretty much how it always happens. JAMON: One of the other things that we do is, we know that if things are starting to get heated in Slack, because we are a remote distributed company, and we use Slack a ton, if things are starting to get heated in Slack, we're supposed to increase the bandwidth, which means essentially go into Zoom, get face to face, look each other in the eye and talk. We don't always do that. There are situations where we look back and we say, "You know what? We violated our rule there where we were supposed to go to Zoom and we didn't do it." TODD: That actually causes quite a few ... not quite a few, but I would say a majority of our intense arguments came because we didn't switch out of Slack into Zoom, which is what we use for our video calls, which I highly, highly, highly recommend over the rest of the crap out there. One show note for the audience, if you're listening, if you feel like you have to look up many of the words Ken says, don't worry. I do that all the time. JAMON: Before I met Ken, Todd told me, "Don't worry if you feel dumb. He talks like he swallowed an encyclopedia." TODD: Which is great. We love Ken just the way he is, but ... JAMON: I don't know if people know this, but Ken went to Harvard. Todd and I did not go to Harvard. TODD: I liked how you phrased that. I will now say, I am Todd, I did not go to Harvard, which places me much higher than what I actually did. CHRIS: So, how do you think the relationship that you've strived to continually build as the trio affects the greater culture of Infinite Red? TODD: I think it's paramount. When you get to a certain size, well, even in smaller, but especially when you get to a certain size, the entire team has just as much power to set the culture as we three do. Ken said it really well that basically we're like a black hole, where we kind of set the culture and we pull the team in and they orbit around and if we put in a little extra effort we can pull them in tighter to our culture, but ultimately it's not a destination. We simply pull them in a direction. So, the way we interact with each other, the way we interact with everyone else, and the way we interact, really, in public, I think completely sets the tone for everyone else. KEN: I'd say we pay more attention to emotions than your typical tech company founders. In terms of like the whole health of the organization. We talk about feelings. It comes up in the work we do in design and that sort of thing, but we certainly value intellect and litigal ability very highly, but we also will check in with, like, "Well, how does this feel to you?" Like, "How does that land?" How does it ..." right? And we value the subjective and emotional as coequal with the intellectual. JAMON: Yes. KEN: And that probably doesn't make us unique but it is a little unusual. JAMON: I think to the degree we do it, it's fairly unique and that stems out of some decisions that we made early on in this partnership. One was obviously what we talked about before, that the biggest existential threat that we face is that us three, Todd, Ken, and I, is that we would have a falling out. And then coming out of that is we have to be talking about our feelings a lot. We have to be talking about how we're interacting, we have to be thinking about it. We have to really resolve differences because if we don't, we kill the golden goose. It's gone. Beyond that, then we've also made some decisions around what kind of company we wanna be. One of the big things is we wanna be the type of company that we would wanna work at. It's an easy thing to say. It's a much harder thing to do. TODD: I think a lot of people wanna be that, but they don't actually put any effort in. I want to have the body I did when I was 24, but the amount of effort I put in, I have the body I will have when I'm 84. The short of it is tech bros need not apply. We each have different skills. I'm definitely the heart of the company. Ken's more the brains and Jamon's the muscle of the company. I would say, I don't know if you guys agree with that, but, I talk about feelings more than some people, I'm sure, like. CHRIS: So, building on that heart, mind and muscle analogy, how do you inspire and empower one another throughout the day and throughout the weeks and the months and the years? JAMON: One thing that I think is important is that we understand that we're not always going to have a high level of energy, individually as well as a founder group. We'll have periods of high energy, where we're really pushing hard on something, and then we'll have periods of time where we're kind of coasting a little bit more, and that's okay. That comes out of our decision that we wanna have a company that we would wanna work at, that we can stick around for a long time, maybe that everybody can retire at. This isn't a company that's here for the short term. TODD: I'm super proud of the fact that since we merged and became Infinite Red we've had no one leave. No one's quit. A few people we let go for various specific reasons. But, I'm super proud of that. My specialty is dealing with the team and I do something called management by walking around, which I try to say good morning to everyone. KEN: From HP, right? TODD: I don't know ... I saw this elderly gentleman talking about how he did this to his company on YouTube, and that's where I got that term, but I'm sure other people used to... we're 26 people plus, some freelancers. I try to talk to everyone at least every couple of days, if it's nothing more than just saying hey and that kind of stuff. I take great pride in that. However, what I'm not sure I'm good at is things like strategy, and Ken, as you've all noticed, talks a lot less than Jamon and I. But, when he talks about strategy, and truthfully, when he talks about anything, it's pretty gold, and I really pay attention. I know I ran a company for nine years, and I'm not particularly good at the strategy at all. So, I really wouldn't want to do, any company, this company or any company, without Ken and Jamon, to be honest. JAMON: That's an interesting point. Todd's our CEO and he doesn't feel like he has to be the strategic mind. A lot of times you think, okay, CEO, has to be like setting the course, leading the way, at the helm. But, it goes to our priorities. Our priorities are our team, and Todd's really great at that. That's our important thing. Strategy, it's a supporting thing. It's not the main thing. KEN: One of our inspirations, I remember Todd talking to me about this, was Richard Branson. He at one point said that your shareholders don't come first. Your customer doesn't come first. Your employees come first. And the reason is, it's their job to take care of everybody else. That ethos kind of starts with us, which is that we take care of each other and make sure that we're supported, right? And we take care of our employees, make sure they're supported, because they're the ones, who, at the end of the day, are taking care of the customer or not. And if the customer's taken care of, then the financial health of the company is taken care of. In some ways that's a harder way to work. It's much quicker and easier to just sort of feel the customer, okay, yeah, well, we'll do whatever you want, and then take it out on your employees. And that is a very typical way that consultant companies end up. JAMON: I think we're gonna do some more talking about that in future episodes, for sure, because that- KEN: We can bookmark that and talk it as a whole topic unto itself. JAMON: I didn't mean to cut you off on that, Ken, I just kind of wanted to make a note that that's something that's really core to who we are and- TODD: It really is. JAMON: ... and we need to do more time than we have right now, but where there's a lot of discussion that needs to happen around that. KEN: It is, but in terms of like ... I said that shared values, that container of shared values is also partly what makes this work, and that's one of those values, that taking care of your employees is never bad for business, and it's never bad for your customers. TODD: I would pile on to something Ken said. It is much more difficult. I have a lot of problems. I had a lot of problems as an employee, of leadership, and I still have a lot of problems with leadership. Some people are just literally jerks and they're just sadists, they like to abuse their power and make people miserable. But disregarding those people, in quotation marks, just disregarding those, most leaders fail just because they're just lazy leadership. They take the easy route. The easy route is to make processes and jump on people, and be what we call seagull manager, which is you fly in and you crap all over everything and you fly away. We're not perfect, we're human, we make mistakes and stuff, and sometimes our team points out mistakes and we try to take it super seriously. But, it takes a constant weekly, if not daily, effort to put your team first. It's not easy but I love it. I love our team. I consider them family, to be honest. JAMON: Yeah. TODD: Sometimes talking about clients, they have a problem dealing with clients, that can be nerveracking and I don't look forward to that. I never dread talking, having any meeting or having any conversation with any of the team. JAMON: This is also why we haven't added a lot of additional people to Infinite Red. We're 26 right now. We could add a lot of people. We've had the opportunity. We have the work. We have people in some ways beating down the door to work with Infinite Red. We're a consultancy and people wanna work with us because of our reputation. We also have a lot of developers coming to us. Every week I'm getting multiple messages saying, "Hey, do you have any openings there at Infinite Red? I'd love to work with you. I love the ethos. I love what you do." And yet, we're only 26 people. TODD: Plus some freelancers. JAMON: Plus some freelancers, for sure. Freelancers is one way that you can kind of increase your capacity without necessarily bringing on a huge commitment. That's nice but they're also very hard to find, as far as reliable ones. TODD: And it's challenging. That's not an easy route. JAMON: Right. We've had a few misses on that and ... TODD: That's another show. JAMON: It is. KEN: Yeah, that's another whole topic. JAMON: But that's why we're not much larger, is because we wanna grow very purposely and we wanna make sure that we're making the right choices along the way. KEN: We don't wanna grow any faster than our culture can absorb. TODD: Yes. KEN: I've been at enough startups, and watched them grow from small tight-knit, great culture, and then there gets this point where there's pressure from investors, usually, to grow as fast as possible. And there's a rate at which that happens, that the culture gets overwhelmed and diluted and destroyed, and you can never get it back. So, we're very, very keen to stay out of that trap and grow only as fast as the culture can absorb and as we as leaders can adapt to the increase in scale. TODD: My arms aren't very large and whipping the team all day, it really gets sore. I couldn't handle many more. In all seriousness ... I don't think I've ever been all serious ... JAMON: Never. TODD: ... but I'll try. Ken and I, when we first ... one of the things, having worked at startups, having owned startups and that kind of stuff, there's nothing against VC, venture capital based startups and investor startups. It's a different type business and it's a very specific business that works very well for certain type businesses. Ken and I enjoyed doing that for a long time. We just got a little tired of it, and we don't have an exit strategy for our company. We always say that our exit strategy is death. We also want a company where people can retire in, whether designers, developers or people in leadership, that kind of stuff. JAMON: This is really unusual, by the way. If you talk to other tech companies. TODD: Yeah, and they don't have to switch to management, which isn't moving up. It's a different job. You should be able to be a designer, developer your entire career and become a master and retire. So, long way of saying we're not going anywhere for a very long time. As far as what direction we're going in, I'll let these two talk about that. JAMON: I think that kind of flavors the decisions we're making. I'm not a huge fan of making, like, very specific targets way out in the future, because just like building software, it doesn't work very well. You're making your decisions when you have the least amount of information. The further back you can delay decisions, the better, but you really need a framework to make those decisions in. That's the important thing. So, we work on the framework. We work on how do we make decisions when opportunities arise? How do we decide whether to do something, whether to not. I think it's Steve Jobs said that one of his greatest strengths was the ability to say no, and that's important for us, too. But, like Chain React, our React Native conference we had an opportunity to create that, to make that happen. It fit our framework and we went for it. It was a success, and we have the second one coming up here in July. That's the sort of thing that I think I really focus on, is the framework through which we make decisions. We obviously have some longer term plans, some of which the team knows about, some of which not, but the main thing is that they will look at the decisions we make, and know why we're making the decisions, because of that framework. TODD: Yeah, and if the team doesn't have buy-in or they don't agree, it won't happen, because Jamon, Ken and I aren't gonna do it. JAMON: Yeah, we don't do it. KEN: Questions like this are sort of like, on this long car voyage that you're planning to take, when do you plan to turn left? Right? When the road tells us that we should turn left is the answer, right? Jamon happens to be right that it's about setting a framework, it's about having a certain set of values, it's about being prepared for certain kinds of opportunities so that when luck comes our way we can take advantage of it. But we don't have a five-year plan. We don't have a master script for where we're going, and that is very much on purpose. TODD: Well said. CHRIS: Any closing thoughts? TODD: I would say that Ken's extremely good at making very eloquent remarks on why he didn't do his homework. KEN: It's worked well for me so far. TODD: It's true. JAMON: It's actually true. TODD: That's a fact. JAMON: I think that what Ken said about our company will also apply in some ways to this podcast. We're not necessarily going to have a very specific thing that we hammer every single time that we release an episode. There will be a little bit of kind of organic turning left and turning right as we go, but we have a framework around this podcast. So, I'm hoping that the listeners got a lot of value out of this. I think that this is gonna be a lot of fun for us, as a founder group, and hopefully they'll join us for the ride here. TODD: I would also like ... the reason this podcast came into existence was Jamon was reaching out to new founders or founders that have been around it for a while or entrepreneurs or business owners, and he just said, hey, if you have any questions about that, fire it off, and a lot of people did ask Jamon, and Jamon and Ken and I would discuss it and kind of come with an answer and we'd post it on Twitter. People really seemed to enjoy that. You think you don't have too much to share, but then when you share and people give you a good response, you're like, "Oh, I do have more to share." So, this is a direct result from that, and the reason I bring it up is, I think we're gonna continue doing that, so feel free to reach out on Twitter. JAMON: My Twitter handle is @jamonholmgren. Todd's is @twerth, and Ken's is @seriousken. We'll put those in the show notes as well. TODD: Yeah, and Jamon's a great person. He's a great person to reach out to, and the three of us.

As promised the next episode of our B4B TV: Japan series is available to download and stream, a few weeks on from episode 4. This latest episode features a familiar face, that of Ken One – close friend of Turntable Radio and one of our favourite scratch guys worldwide. It’s not just that he’s dope, [...]

We finish our Skratch Evolution 2 special with two mixes from the official CD that Ken One released ahead of the show. DJ Duct handles proceedings here on TTR while over on Rhythm Incursions it’s Ken One doing the honours. The SE2 special has been a month-long series of mixes and exclusive live audio from [...]

Week 3 of our joint Turntable Radio and Rhythm Incursions special featuring exclusive live audio from Ken One’s ‘Skratch Evolution 2′ event. If you missed the first two weeks you can catch up here for week 1, featuring Ken One live, and here for week 2, featuring a live set from Naoki. Full details of [...]

We continue our Turntable Radio and Rhythm Incursions Japan special with week 2 of exclusive audio from Ken One’s Skratch Evolution 2 event, held in Kichijoji, Tokyo in December 09. If you missed part 1 check it here. Up this week we have a live set from Naoki, while over on Rhythm Incursions we have [...]

As mentioned a few weeks back on Rhythm Incursions we’re starting a series of weekly podcasts, lasting a month, featuring exclusive live audio from Ken One‘s recent ‘Skratch Evolution 2‘ event. Held at Kichijoji’s Star Pines cafe, this musical evening featured a rather interesting mix of Tokyo’s underground music scenes with scratch DJs, producers and [...]