As I mentioned in the introduction, this book is full of observations, rules, and recommendations. Some you may think trivial, others more profound, and the rest will fall somewhere in between. I suggest that this chapter is one that bears especially careful reflection. This advice has three important components, which I will discuss individually:
•Always seek perspectives and advice from those who know best—in other words, those with expertise in the field you seek to understand.
•Be careful with how you receive and what you do with the advice you get. Some may be excellent and some mediocre or even bad.
•Regardless of the above, make sure the final judgment is yours and yours alone.
Seek Expertise
As we move through life, we often find ourselves facing questions and dilemmas we know little, if anything, about. It is true in all matters of life, and it is also true in all aspects of business and career progression. We should necessarily seek advice to enlighten us and help us reach decisions and resolve situations beyond our depth of understanding. This is hardly a profound observation, but the point is that most do not do this properly.
Throughout my experience, I noticed that the people we approach for advice tend to be people in our immediate circle of acquaintances, who we believe may possess knowledge or a perspective that is superior to ours. Such people, of course, are easily accessible to us. We may start with our parents, friends, teachers, neighbors, and so on. They, in turn, may refer us to others who they believe could be even more helpful to us. I’ll refer to these circles of acquaintances as networks. We have our own network, and others we communicate with have theirs. We may know people in common.
The quality of the advice we receive is therefore heavily dependent on the expertise available to the people within our immediate network or one step removed from it (the network of an acquaintance). These people may or may not be the best source for the best advice. Therefore, one runs a significant risk of getting mediocre, poor, or even bad advice, colloquially referred to as “the blind leading the blind.”
Notice that in the title of this chapter, I didn’t say to seek advice from people who know more than you; I said seek advice from the people who know best! And I mean the best, not those who may know a lot, or those who may have a great amount of experience. I literally mean those who know best.
Clearly, this advice places some burden on you and introduces three challenges: (i) identifying who the people are who know best; (ii) how to contact them; and (iii) how to get them to give you, possibly a stranger, some quality time from their busy schedule.
Now, these are not trivial challenges, but the process is actually very straightforward and achievable. First, you make an appeal to your network of acquaintances. Describe the knowledge you are seeking, and ask your acquaintances to identify the person whom they consider the best to help you out. Then, ask your acquaintance’s permission to use their name as the referring person when you contact their referrals. You then call, set up some in-person time, and get the advice you seek. (Of course, it would be better if your acquaintance is willing to call on your behalf.) Before you end your session, ask them the same question that led you to them: “Who do you believe may be someone I would benefit from for advice in this matter?” I assure you, the name of the person you will be given will possess as much knowledge, or even more, than the individual you have interviewed. Then ask for their permission to use their name when you contact the next group of referrals. Keep repeating this process. With each additional referral, you’ll get closer and closer to those who know best.
As I said, this is easily achievable. I don’t know many people who actually don’t like to give advice when asked, so long as it is for a good purpose and for a credible person. Evoking a friendly name, whom they know and respect, as a referral will automatically put you in that category. You shouldn’t have a problem getting face-to-face time, so long as you assure them you plan to keep it very short. So now, the only question that remains is: When should you stop this iterative process?
The answer to that question is actually simple. When you get to a point where the information you obtain from interviews becomes repetitive (that is, when you stop learning anything new), then you probably have received as much information as you will get and so you may stop the process.
It goes without saying that the more successful, accomplished, and knowledgeable people your own network of friends comprises, particularly those who fall into the 20 percent group, the quicker and better access to good advice you will have. Thus, it is of real value to spend as much energy as possible during your career to build and maintain relationships with people who could over time add such value to you.
There is another challenge you’ll face as you interview people, particularly when you seek advice (it is less consequential when you seek general information and observations not related to advice). The 80-20 Rule suggests that, of those you interview, 20 percent will give you valuable advice and 80 percent may provide mediocre or even bad advice. By extension, those who are part of the 20 percent group are much more likely to refer you to the “better” sources, while those in the 80 percent group are likely to refer you to “just as poor” sources. In reality, statistically, you are more likely to start the process with people who are part of the 80 percent group. At the same time, you have little knowledge of how to discern whether one falls in the 20 percent or the 80 percent. As a result, the advice you will receive will likely be all over the map. So, how do you put the advice to use?
Weigh the Advice You Get
There are many reasons for the discrepancy and variance in the advice experts give. However, in my experience, most fall into one of four categories. The actual categorization is not as relevant to this section, since my recommendation of how to deal with it doesn’t require understanding the underlying reasons. However, in keeping with my promise, I plan to give you sufficient illuminating and detailed information and analyses so that you fully understand the logic involved, which in turn I hope will convince you of my observations, conclusions, and recommendations. This one, in particular, serves two more purposes. The first will become more relevant elsewhere in the book, but since it was brought up here, I might as well discuss it here. The second is that I hope it will serve as another example that demonstrates the process of insightful thinking, which also includes one’s ability to think deeper, frame, categorize, and simplify things, thereby allowing one to see the forest for the trees while also seeing the trees in the forest, and drawing conclusions that otherwise might not be apparent.
The four categories of reasons for the variation in advice given to us include:
Articulation: As we have discussed, some people are more capable than others of articulating their knowledge and transferring such knowledge to the listener. Take the example of two high school physics teachers. They both know the subject matter equally well. However, one can frame the subject matter and teach it to a class in a way that is cogent and clear. The other teacher does not have this gift, and comprehension is made difficult. We call the former a great teacher and the latter a terrible one.
Discernment and Perspectives: Different experts with the same degree of knowledge may have different perspectives, particularly in what I defined earlier as “cognitive ability”: understanding, wisdom, insightfulness, perceptiveness, judgment, foresight, discernment, acuteness, astuteness, ingenuity, and so on. In other words, all things related to “brainpower” and how insightfully it is used.
Superficial vs. Analytical Thinking: Some people are just very shallow thinkers, who grasp at the first logical thing that appears reasonable to them and seems to address the problem from an immediate and singular point of view. The analytical thinker is a deeper, more rigorous thinker.
The superficial thinker tends to see problems in their most narrow definition and rarely sees nuances, exceptions, and interrelationships, and the impact their narrow solution may have on other variables or situations. The analytical thinker defines a problem with all its complexities, sees exceptions, nuances, and interrelationships to other issues, and incorporates those into their analyses and solutions. As a result, the solution of the more analytical thinker, as opposed to the more superficial thinker, tends to be more comprehensive and less error prone.
By way of an extreme example, science, philosophy, and psychology studies require more of an analytical mind. Politicians, on the other hand, whether they themselves are superficial thinkers or not, are generally prone to more superficial thinking, or just use it to convey positions so as to affect acceptance. Oftentimes, in their view, a problem is caused by a single variable and thus a solution can be had by fixing that one variable. This leads to dismissing the interrelationships to other things that might get affected in the process.
Top-of-the-Wave Advice Givers: This category doesn’t reflect on how one thinks through or analyzes situations. Rather, it reflects on how one thinks when giving advice. When giving advice, they tend to focus on the most important variables and issues and will only bring those up. This way, the advice is generally short and appears to be very simple to accept and follow. Oftentimes, although for different reasons, their advice would be similar to the advice from a superficial thinker. This occurs because they don’t think it is necessary to complicate matters when asked for what appears to be simple advice. Sometimes they may be too disinterested to engage in a deeper discussion when not called for.
How to Weigh Variations in Advice
The most interesting thing to take away from the above is not that advice will vary significantly from one expert to the next. Rather, notice the one thing common to practically all of them, regardless of the category. The difference in the advice comes from how their brain works, and how they communicate it to the advice seeker. It does not at all reflect on how much knowledge they actually possess. It may appear like a nuanced observation, but it is not. It is the key to how to deal with it. It basically says that whereas most experts may not be able to originate and articulate “quality” thoughts themselves, they remain capable of grasping the implications and agreeing or disagreeing with someone else’s observations. Therefore, there are two ways to deal with it effectively and maximize for yourself the value of the advice you finally accept:
1.Always ask the reasons for their observations and rationale. The more you know the reasoning behind what they say, the more likely you are to put yourself in a position to intelligently accept or reject it. Don’t forget to ask all the probing follow-up questions to make sure you truly understand their thinking and reasoning.
2.Confirm, and reconfirm, what you hear with other experts. Consult other experts to see how they react to what you have already been told. This will give you a great way to gauge the validity of what previous experts have told you. You will also hear different rationales and perspectives about the same observations, and thus be better able to decide, at the end of the process, which are the more correct and complete observations and recommendations for your situation.
The last element of the overall advice in this section is for you to “own” the final judgment.
Always “Own” the Final Judgment
Since you can expect variance in the quality of the advice you’ll get, don’t rely on any unless you are convinced as to its merits. In other words, the burden is always on you to reach the final observations, conclusions, and recommendations that make the most sense to you. Should you ever find yourself in a situation where you absolutely have to rely on information that you were given but unable to verify, then ask yourself a simple question: “Where would I place the expert giving me the advice—in the 20 percent group or the 80 percent group?” If the expert falls into the 20 percent group, you may feel a bit more confident. Otherwise, exercise caution.
Be Sure to Properly Match Your Questions with the Expertise of Those You Interview
This point is best explained through an example. My daughter, Beth, had just graduated from college and started work as an analyst at a premier investment banking firm on Wall Street. By this time, I had already started my own venture capital fund, JK&B Capital, and just finished raising a $500 million fund. The venture industry, as a whole, was garnering a strong reputation and was in the beginning of an accelerated growth phase. A large number of initial public offerings (IPOs) of hi-tech start-ups was propelling the awareness about the venture industry. Venture capital became associated with “making lots of money.”
As a result, out of nowhere, the venture capital industry had suddenly become an exceptionally sought-after career opportunity. However, it was a small, close-knit group of professionals, comprised of about two hundred venture capitalists in total—a very small industry indeed. Not many outsiders fully understood the exact nature of the work involved, the competencies needed to do this work, and exactly how the economics of the industry worked.
I had a lunch scheduled with Beth. We used to schedule lunches and dinners far in advance so that she could give notice to her managers and avoid last-minute assignments. We were to lunch in a week’s time, and so I called her to confirm that she would still be able to make it. She said that things still looked good and that her manager promised not to surprise her with an urgent assignment on that day. She then asked whether I would mind if she invited a coworker to join us. She said that she had befriended a coworker who was thinking about leaving investment banking and finding a job with a venture capital firm. He knew through Beth that I was a chairman of a large venture fund and asked her if she would do him a favor and arrange an hour with me, so that he could get some insights. She thought that our upcoming lunch could be a great opportunity for that.
The following week, we met at a restaurant close to her place of work. She introduced her coworker to me and explained why he had asked to meet with me. I acknowledged that I would be happy to help him with advice and insights. He thanked me profusely for allowing him to come to lunch and meet with me. He was visibly nervous, but I gave him a reassuring smile and asked, “Okay, how can I be of help?” From that point on, for the duration of lunch, the conversation centered on answering whatever questions he raised.
He started by telling me that, other than having heard the terms “venture capital” and “venture capitalist,” he knew nothing about what it really meant. His first question was, “Can you explain to me what venture capital is?” I proceeded to do just that.
He then asked a series of questions regarding the difference between a regular technology company and a hi-tech start-up. Then he launched into a bunch of questions regarding the difference between a regular company’s IPO, which his department specialized in, and a hi-tech start-up’s IPO. He then wanted to understand why the venture capital industry offered the opportunity to make so much money and how come it was not the same with other, regular companies that invented new technologies. I was very patient and responded to all his questions as informatively as I could, without going into a level of detail that would confuse rather than help his understanding. An hour later, he departed, thanking me for my time and acknowledging that he wanted to allow Beth and me to have some family time over dessert.
Beth thanked me again for allowing her to bring him along. She confirmed that he had become a very good friend of hers at work. I asked her how she viewed the “interview” and whether she thought he got most of what he was hoping to get out of it. She said, “Of course. He was very happy and learned a lot about the industry. I think he now understands what venture capital really means.”
I looked at her and said, “Beth, let’s use this as another teaching moment [a common phrase I used every time I wanted to teach her something]. I thought the interview was terrible, practically on all fronts, and from both his perspective and mine.”
She looked at me completely surprised and said, “How so? It looked to me to have had a lot of value, at least from his perspective.” I proceeded to tell her why I disagreed. At the end she exclaimed, “Wow, I never looked at this like you just explained.” I assured her that it was not unusual for someone of her experience not to see all those things. I continued to tell her that these kinds of observations and wisdom are developed over time, and all I’m doing is just trying to help her get on the learning curve faster. (Helping expedite your growth in experience and wisdom is why I wrote this book.)
I enumerated all the things that in my view went wrong in the interview. She asked, “Would everybody else observe the same things you did, or is it a David Kronfeld special skill?”
I responded, “Absolutely everybody would have! They may observe the same or different things. They may draw the same conclusions, or others. They may be more insightful with their observations, or less. But all will indeed make these kinds of observations. Also, the more senior the people, the more they are likely to observe and be more correct with their observations and conclusions.” Here is what I told Beth at the time:
The most important thing to have noticed is that her coworker didn’t get a single thing from the interview that accomplished his intended goal or objective for the interview. He specifically told Beth, and also stated to me, that he was considering changing his career from investment banking to venture capital. Yet he didn’t ask a single question that reflected on it. All his questions aimed at getting me to teach him the basics about the industry. By the time he covered the basics, time had run out and he had no opportunity to ask the most important questions to help him draw intelligent conclusions about the wisdom and opportunity to change careers. In other words, he had a reasonably rare opportunity to meet with a senior person who could give him valuable information, and instead wasted it on some basic tutoring. He could have, and should have, read an article or two about the industry. He also could have called an associate in his firm who was part of the team that specialized in the IPOs of hi-tech start-ups, offered the associate a free lunch, and learned the same basic stuff he got from me.
Had he done his homework, he could have asked me questions about whether it was wise for him to look at a career change and the difference between the two careers. He could have asked questions about what it took to be a successful professional venture capitalist, to better understand whether it made sense for him to contemplate a career change. He could have asked about what venture fund managers looked for when hiring professionals, and see whether he could get some insight into how he may enhance the likelihood that he could find a way into the industry. Instead, he did none of that. He wasted the time to learn basic simple information, which he could have easily gotten from more junior sources.
Additionally, everybody looking for a job and getting face time with a senior person always hopes that they are able to leave a strong impression on the senior person, so that it perhaps might lead to a job offer. Her coworker accomplished the exact opposite. I was left completely unimpressed. The fact that he didn’t come prepared to his meeting with me showed a lack of initiative and purposeful planning, or worse yet, intellectual laziness. The fact that he didn’t understand and didn’t get valuable information from me showed that he was not exceptionally strong at conceptualizing important things he needed to accomplish and distinguishing them from the less important. The fact that he allowed the full hour to be wasted on the basics showed that he was not a person who knew how to manage interactions and information exchange in an efficient and productive way. The worst was the fact that he didn’t understand that asking a senior person to teach you the basics is an absolute no-no. It meant to me that he lacked common sense and street smarts.
I wasn’t only left unimpressed with him for the above reasons. I didn’t only feel that he wasted a valuable opportunity given to him. Worse, I left feeling that he got trivial information, thereby wasting my time, too! As a result, I would not give him any leads to other people who could have been of further help. I wouldn’t want to have other people have disappointing interactions with anybody I would recommend they meet and help.
Now, to be fair, he was young and inexperienced. He might have not known any better. Most people probably would have not known either. As I mentioned to Beth, this wisdom comes with time and experience. So naturally, a question comes to mind: Why did I “penalize” him so harshly for something I would have expected most people to do? Simple, and here is my takeaway for you as you think about your own career: Senior managers don’t care much for what 80 percent of the people will do in any given circumstance. They seek to find the extraordinary people who fall into the top 20 percent, those who have unique talents and abilities above and beyond most people. So, if you want to impress a senior person, you must leave an impression that you are one of the top 20 percent with extraordinary understanding, brainpower, initiative, focus, and all else that may be appropriate under the circumstances, which are well ahead of your peers. Being one of the 80 percent will not buy very much in terms of career opportunities and career progressions. You must become one of the 20 percent.
So, specifically to the reason why I wrote this chapter: Always understand what your objectives are from an interview, and always match the level of your questions to the level of the people you will be seeking advice from.