Last week I had the pleasure of interviewing Julian Guthrie about her action packed career as a journalist, best selling author and founder of Alphy, an exciting new app designed to empower and inspire women. Julian is the epitome of an action mindset! Here’s her take on what to do when someone blocks your career path:
“’No’ is not something that you should feel is fixed. That ‘no’ in fact, simply means: find another way around. And if you fully believe in what you’re doing, find another way, keep working at it. If you’re earnest, if you’re authentic, if you are bringing a certain skill set and a vision, find another way.”Julian Guthrie, Alphy CEO and Founder
We explored why we get stuck and what we can do to get unstuck, and build momentum in our lives and careers. Julian’s story and the one she shares about XPrize’s Peter Diamandis demonstrates how sometimes, having audacious goals, and making audacious promises without having all the pieces in place, can help propel you into an action mindset and phenomenal success.
This week on Fresh Dialogues, I’m including highlights of our conversation. I hope it will inspire you to have an action mindset.
First of all, you might be wondering what do you mean by an action mindset? Here’s my definition: it’s the belief that you can take action to change your future; that your abilities are not fixed, but can be improved by a bias to action.
If you’re familiar with the term Growth Mindset, think of an action mindset as a growth mindset on steroids. Not only do you embrace new challenges as a learning opportunity, but you harness that attitude to propel you to take more and more action.
New research reveals that our mindsets are NOT binary as was previously thought. We don’t have either a growth or a fixed mindset. Instead we’re all capable of accessing a continuum of mindsets. By becoming aware of our mindset triggers, and using tools from psychology, we can nurture a proactive and potent ACTION MINDSET.
I asked Julian to share the story of one excruciating time she was stuck and found it hard to move forward. After she secured a book deal for her best seller, “The Billionaire and the Mechanic” she hit a wall. She could not convince Oracle founder Larry Ellison (the billionaire in question) to be interviewed for the project. Without his cooperation, her book was dead in the water.
Here’s what Julian told me (edited for length and clarity).
Julian Guthrie: So I get this book deal and there’s a lot of interest in it and my editor starts asking how are the interviews going? In the meantime I’m frantically reaching out to his people at Oracle in the marketing departments. I tried Larry himself, had his email and got no response from him. It went on for a couple of months, so needless to say it was getting more and more unnerving. And finally, one of his chief marketing people told me: you know, Larry answers his emails personally at between one and two am, so you might want to try then.
So I set my alarm.
There’s a fine line between reaching out to someone politely, but consistently, and bugging someone so much, you’re going to get a ‘no’ or they’re going to block you. So I would set my alarm and I’d get up and I’d send some very short email, at 1am or 2am. And I did that for a period of two or three weeks, and got no response. But I kept at it and finally, I sent him another email. “This is a great story…” Brevity is key in these emails I’ve learned. And it was probably at 2am, very late, and I got an immediate response. And it was from Larry and it was a three word response, and it was: “Happy to talk.”
And that was what began a year of very in-depth interviews.
So it put me on that journey. I went from: I was stuck and I was getting a little bit nervous then to: okay, I still believed that the story really needed to told, and I still believed that Larry would love the story that I had in mind, if only I can really get his attention.
Alison van Diggelen: As you can hear, Julian Guthrie is the epitome of an action mindset. I was curious about this major roadblock that could have derailed her whole career as an author. I asked her if the setback helped propel her in writing that book and others?
Julian Guthrie: Every book is like having a baby in a way. It’s a long journey. It has its ups and downs and it’s fraught and this one was full of major, major challenges. But it definitely showed me that “no” is not something that you should feel is fixed. That ‘no’ in fact, simply means: find another way around. And if you fully believe in what you’re doing, and find another way, keep working at it. If you’re earnest, if you’re authentic, if you are bringing a certain skill set and a vision, find another way. So I think it was an affirmation of that.
Alison van Diggelen: And this is where it gets interesting. Julian’s action of promising a book before she had the main character’s buy-in is certainly audacious, but it’s not that unusual in the world of entrepreneurs. Think about how Elon Musk operates for example. He’s always promising the world before he’s in a position to deliver. Julian, Elon and Peter Diamandis all share this action mindset.
Julian Guthrie: And later in my career, I saw other entrepreneurs doing something similar to what I’d done. I wrote about Peter Diamandis who launched the XPrize and he announces this $10 million prize for the first team that could privately fly a manned rocket to the start of space, twice. And he announces this to tons of fanfare, globally, front cover publicity and one minor detail: He didn’t have the 10 million! But he believed that he’d be able to get the money, the easy part would be getting the money and the hard part would be getting teams.
So, it’s something to consider and I think especially for women where we feel that we have to check every box in order to apply for something, or in order to take that next step, or go for that promotion. We don’t!
“A lot of people say to me, I’m going to write a book but I don’t know what the book is. I don’t have the outline written. But I’m like, well, what’s the first page? Start. Just go! Just start writing!” Julian Guthrie
Of course, you want to be prepared. You want to be good and skilled and definitely it was beyond my reach, which I love. I love being in over my head, intellectually and experience wise. I find that to be a great thing in life… we shouldn’t be halted or stalled just because we haven’t done something.
A lot of people say to me, I’m going to write a book but I don’t know what the book is. I don’t have the outline written. But I’m like, well, what’s the first page? Start. Just go! Just start writing!
Alison: Note that Julian said she “loved being in over her head, intellectually and experience wise. That we shouldn’t be stuck, just because we haven’t done something, yet. So next time you feel stuck, think of Julian and take that first step, write that first page. Just start taking action.
During the Alphy podcast, we also covered: Why are our brains like velcro for negative experiences and teflon for positive ones? What is toxic optimism and what are the three requisites to build grounded hope? How can temptation bundling and identifying your triggers help us stop languishing?
I plan to dive into these questions in future Fresh Dialogues podcasts. On Alphy you can listen to our whole discussion and get inspired by the stories of other female trailblazers like Julian Guthrie. Meantime, if you’d like to sign up for the Alphy app, click on the Alphy invitation here and follow the prompts.
This is a timely story about addiction, suffering, and how one tenacious woman found her purpose in life. Everyone I’ve talked to about this story has been fascinated, full of questions. That got me more and more excited about sharing it.
Sometimes I just pinch myself that I became an accidental journalist. This week more than ever. Interviewing people like Elon Musk, Richard Branson and Meryl Streep is thrilling. Being in the same space as the Dalai Lama, or witnessing the first solar-powered plane take off from a Silicon Valley runway is inspiring, but this month’s assignment for the BBC outshines all of that. Raising awareness about a relatively unknown, and potentially lethal syndrome, and helping to save lives, gives my work a more profound purpose. My research shows the syndrome is growing in prevalence and severity around the world.
Katie Nava, a nurse in California, almost died from this syndrome, but she’s now helping people recover. I’m so thankful to her for sharing her vulnerability and her inspiring story so candidly.
“I gave up weed and went to my Facebook page. I’ve found my calling. It was an unfortunate way to find it. I owe my life to the page. We’re spreading awareness.” Nurse, Katie Nava.
We’re all aware that the impacts of the Covid pandemic on our mental health has been brutal. The data is only now coming to light and experts say it’s just the tip of the iceberg. So, if one of your coping mechanisms has been to start using, or use pot a wee bit more than you did previously, please read on and share this with friends who might be over-indulging their love for cannabis. And tell your friends in the medical field how to identify this syndrome.
Keith Humphreys is a professor at Stanford, an expert in addiction, and one of my favorite academic experts to interview. He sums up the problem like this:
“Everyone in public health needs to be engaged and not fall for the line that cannabis is unlike any other drug in history. Every drug can have a bad effect. That’s the reality of our experience, the reality of chemistry.” Keith Humphreys
Here’s a longer version of the transcript: Alison van Diggelen: When Katie Nava had her first experience of Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome, CHS, she felt like she was going to die…
Katie Nava: It’s the most painful thing. You want to commit suicide in the middle of an episode.
The intensity made me nauseous. I’d spend the rest of day on the floor throwing up in this excruciating knotted up, doubled over pain. Like someone took a knife and twisted it in your stomach. You can’t stop it. We’ve coined the term scromiting: screaming while you vomit. My pain was always in the exact same place: It’s right where your stomach and esophagus meet. It’s just on fire. My throat would always be on fire, I had post nasal drip all the time…
Alison van Diggelen: For four years, Katie Nava, a licensed nurse in Southern California, was in and out of the Emergency Room, and had countless appointments with gastro, ENT and other specialist doctors. She had CAT Scans, colonoscopies, and doctors even suggested surgery to remove her gall bladder. Despite a digital trail of medical evidence from her Kaiser doctors, no one could identify what ailed her.
Katie Nava: I started thinking I was crazy. They would say nothing is wrong with me. I was getting labeled as a drug seeker. It hurt so much.
Alison van Diggelen: Finally, a nurse at another hospital recognized the symptoms and asked Katie Nava if she used marijuana. She was diagnosed with Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome, also known as CHS.
The first mention of CHS in the medical literature was not that long ago. In 2004 Australian doctors noticed a link between 19 cases of cyclic vomiting in people who used marijuana. Since then cases have been recorded in the UK, France, Australia, the Netherlands, Canada, Spain, New Zealand, as well as here in the US.
The bouts of vomiting, nausea, and severe abdominal pain tend to impact long term, heavy users of marijuana, though some younger people who smoke concentrates only a few times a week have had it too.
Kevin Hill: The precise mechanism is unclear at this point. It’s thought to involve the dysregulation of the body’s naturally occurring endocannabinoid system. There are receptors located throughout the body, primarily in the brain, sometimes in the GI tract.
Extensive use may lead to changes in function of the receptors. Ultimately those receptors in the GI tract, in the gut, appear to be affected in an adverse way, that’s when abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting can result. …
Alison van Diggelen: Nurse Katie Nava describes it more vividly:
Katie Nava: Your endocannabinoid system is like a fuse box and someone ripped it out. It’s like spaghetti wires misfiring everywhere. It’s why our bodies can’t thermo-regulate, it’s why our brains can’t talk to our stomachs properly. It doesn’t help that we’re so dehydrated, and why it’s the number one thing that kills CHS patients: kidney failure.
Alison van Diggelen: As well as the non-stop vomiting, patients also often experience dramatic weight loss, a rapid heart rate and dangerously low potassium levels. One piece of the puzzle that might help doctors to diagnose it is: if patients tell them that hot showers or baths help to alleviate these symptoms.
So does Dr Hill think it might be possible to identify those most at risk?
Kevin Hill: It’s very likely there’s a genetic component to it. Most people who use cannabis don’t have this problem, so it’s something particular to a subset who use it. What we do know is, if you use cannabis, this is a possibility and if they present with symptoms they need to stop using. If not appropriately diagnosed, you can have very serious consequences.
Alison van Diggelen: It’s been reported that two people have died from CHS. And the dehydration caused by vomiting can have long term impacts on the heart and liver. Once relatively rare, CHS is becoming more common around the world, especially where marijuana has been legalized. Dr. Hill estimates about three million people have suffered CHS in the United States and his hospital has treated thousands of patients.
Kevin Hill: I’m at Beth Israel Deaconess Harvard teaching hospital. I routinely work with folks in our emergency department… They’re seeing these cases more and more.
Alison van Diggelen: Some ER doctors in SF are seeing it on every shift. Other nurses in Denver see it about once a week, but it’s on the rise.
Keith Humphreys is a professor of behavioral sciences and a leading addiction scholar at Stanford University.
Keith Humphreys: The majority of Americans have access to recreational cannabis. At least 80-90% have access to medicinal cannabis… There’s always been a wink and a nod as to what medical cannabis is in the United States.
THC is the principal intoxicant in the plant. In the 1980s, 1990s, a typical plant might have 5-7% THC. Studies of the current legal market show they have 20%. Some products have 50-80%: DABS and wax extract. It’s dramatically stronger.
Speaking as a scientist, I don’t really know much what they do: there are fundamentally novel products I wouldn’t want to generalize, any more than I’d say: You can understand what it’s like to drink a pint of vodka, if you’ve had a pint of beer.
Great Increases in the dose of the drug can have effects you can’t infer from the low dose.
There’s been a great increase in the number of people who use cannabis every day… Perhaps tied to potency: More people are addicted. More users look like cigarette smokers; all day long they have cannabis going. That was uncommon in the days of lower potency.
Alison van Diggelen: One study from the Netherlands found that the concentration of THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) – the compound that makes you feel “high” – in cannabis sold in retail outlets had roughly doubled between 2000 and 2015. (from link above)
Humphreys says the number of people using cannabis in the United States is growing about 3-5% a year, but the volume of cannabis sold is going up much faster. Kevin Hill: The purity and potency of any cannabinoid you use, including whole plant cannabis, is critical to know because it does appear the adverse effects of cannabis are often dose dependent….When I talk to patients, about what they’re using, I want to know specifically and ask them to bring in labels.
You have to know what you’re putting in your body, to know the potential outcome can be, either good or bad.
Alison van Diggelen: So – what’s more dangerous? Vaping, smoking or edibles?
.
Kevin Hill: In terms of health effects, smoking is the worst possible thing you can do. Vaping is slightly better than combustible cannabis, but oral cannabis products are better in that way. We want people to be thoughtful…
There are always risks involved. You wanna get products from a reputable source. In general oral consumption is the least harmful, depending on the dose involved. If you get to the point where your use is creeping up… Sometimes intervention is necessary. Talk to a healthcare provider.
Alison van Diggelen: Professor Humphreys believes that alongside people learning more about what they’re using, healthcare professionals need to be aware of CHS – to catch it early.
Keith Humphreys: People who work in hospitals need to be aware of it and generally are not. We need more public health messaging to counter the industry message which is: it cures everything and has no downside!
We don’t tolerate that for other substances like tobacco, alcohol because we know it can harm people. We need it not just for CHS, but for memory problems, concentration problems. People do worse in school if they’re heavy users.
Public health is in a defensive crouch about cannabis, compared to tobacco and alcohol, in part because they have a powerful industry on the other side of the table. It’s also more cultural: no one wants to be a finger-wagging, blue rinse activist saying: bad bad cannabis! Once it’s legal, that argument is over. Now it’s just like any other thing.
This is really in the hands of our political leadership and regulators. Will we learn the lesson of alcohol and tobacco? If we don’t regulate we get a lot of public health damage. Are we going to treat this as a cash cow and let industry sell as much as it wants? Or will we say: wait a minute, if we take all the controls off, you get a lot of suffering. Everyone in public health needs to be engaged and not fall for the line that cannabis is unlike any other drug in history. Every drug can have a bad effect. That’s the reality of our experience, the reality of chemistry.
Alison van Diggelen: Katie Nava has learned the hard way about the risks associated with cannabis use….
Katie Nava: We’ve created a super plant – don’t abuse it! If someone had told me: don’t smoke 20 joints a day, I woulda listened. Now it’s too late. I’ve completely ruined my body, my endocannabinoid system’s wrecked.
Alison van Diggelen: Giving anti-nausea drugs and replacing the minerals lost during vomiting with electrolytes are central to treating CHS. Antipsychotic drugs like Ativan and haloperidol can also help. But the only proven way to cure CHS is to stop cannabis use entirely.
Katie Nava: It’s literally a game of Russian Roulette…it’s a ticking time bomb.
Alison van Diggelen: Nava stopped two years ago, and she even avoids foods like black pepper, truffle oils, and broccoli that contain cannabinoids. Helping run a Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Recovery support group on Facebook keeps her busy. Founded three years ago, the support group now has over 12,000 members from around the world. Membership is growing about 10% a month. (8500 of the members are in the U.S., 1400 in Canada, 400 in UK).
Katie Nava: It was my AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) meeting. It helped me stay sober. It was my exchange. I gave up weed and went to my Facebook page. I’ve found my calling. It was an unfortunate way to find it. I owe my life to the page. We’re spreading awareness.
Alison van Diggelen: What else does Nurse Nava think should be done to raise awareness?
Katie Nava: If dispensaries would just put up signs saying: Hey this is what CHS is! Then, if someone comes down with it, they wouldn’t spend four years in misery like I did.
Hyperbole is overused these days, but when the Financial Times calls someone a superstar, I’m apt to repeat the title, especially if the person in question is so humble that he insists his impact is “a mystery.”
Adam Grant is a Wharton School Professor and influential author. Lately he’s become a “superstar management thinker” according to the FT’s Andrew Hill. I had the pleasure of interviewing Adam last month about his new book Think Again, and his wise words have resonated with me ever since.
Last week I was invited to be a guest on the BBC World Service program, Business Matters. The London producers asked me if I had interviewed anyone interesting lately, so how could I resist sharing some of Adam’s insights?
But even superstars can be upstaged. This week’s podcast also features a rare appearance from my dear old dog, Mookie. Working from home is one thing, but broadcasting from home when it’s time for your dog’s walk, is a little risky! When BBC presenter Fergus Nicoll asked me about the idea of adding Covid border controls between states in America, Mookie couldn’t help but share his perspective. You can hear clearly: he’s not a fan!
I look forward to sharing more of Adam’s observations and research in my next podcast: on why kindness builds resilience, what Malcolm Gladwell taught him about writing books, and the upsides of anger and frustration. And who hasn’t experienced some frustration over this challenging last year? He even suggests we think again about Elon Musk. According to Adam, despite his tough manager reputation, Musk scores off the charts on one far-reaching measure of kindness.
Here are highlights of our BBC discussion:
.
And here’s a transcript, edited for length and clarity:
Fergus Nicoll: On Business Matters, we talk to people who help us understand the way we should approach business, the way our workforce works most effectively, especially as we come out of the Coronavirus pandemic. Alison, you’ve been talking to someone who’s a bit of a management guru, who has a few pointers for us, in terms of management style?
Alison van Diggelen: I recently interviewed Wharton School Professor and “superstar management psychologist” Adam Grant. His latest book is called Think Again. He urges us to nurture more open minds. He has a clear recipe for how to identify our biases and blind spots, and become less dogmatic and more “scientific” in our decision making. He explains why he’s been called a “logic bully” and why we call need a Challenge Network.
Adam Grant: I think the first step is to catch yourself when you slip into preaching, prosecuting or politicking. So I think we’re all vulnerable to these mindsets. When you’re in preacher mode, you believe you’ve already found the truth and you’re just trying to proselytize it. When you’re in prosecutor mode, you’re trying to win an argument and prove your case. And if you stop there, you’re not going to do much rethinking because you’ve already decided that you’re right and everyone else is wrong.
And then in politician mode you’re trying to win the approval of an audience through campaigning and lobbying and you might tell them what they want to hear, but you’re probably not changing what you really think.
One of the things I find helpful is to ask myself: okay how much time did I spend in each of those modes today? And I catch myself regularly going into prosecutor mode when I think somebody is wrong. I just feel like it’s my moral responsibility as a social scientist to bring them sharper logic and stronger evidence. I’ve been called a logic bully. I start bombarding people with data and with reasons and they tend to either attack or withdraw, which doesn’t go well.
So shifting into science mode for me is about reminding myself to value of humility over pride, and curiosity over conviction. My goal is to not let my ideas become my identity. You don’t have to invest in a microscope or a telescope. You don’t have to walk around wearing a lab coat. Thinking like a scientist just means when you have an opinion or you have a piece of knowledge, recognize it’s just a hypothesis: it might be true (or) it might be false. And if you want to test it, that means you have to look for reasons why you might be wrong. Not just the reason why you must be right. You have to listen to ideas that make you think hard, not just the ones that make you feel good. And you have to surround yourself with people who challenge your thought process, not just ones who agree with your conclusions.
Alison van Diggelen: You frame it in terms of driver’s ed. We all have blind spots, and in our cars it’s fine: we can use our mirrors and sensors. So how do we recognize our cognitive blind spots and how do we rectify them?
Adam Grant: I think usually the best sensors and mirrors are other people. Most of us lean on our support network, the people who who cheer lead for us, who reassure us, who encourage us. But to see our blind spots, we need a challenge network, a group of thoughtful critics that we trust to tell us the things that we do not want to hear but we need to hear.
Listen to more of the BBC Program here: We get reaction to Adam’s ideas from Karen Lema, Bureau Chief for Reuters News Agency in Manilla, and discuss Artificial Intelligence, drones, as well as Biden’s inspiring action on Climate Change.
Check back soon at Fresh Dialogues to hear more from Adam Grant.
“Mother Nature is a very powerful educator” and her power has never been more apparent than during Covid-19.* But what have we learned from this unprecedented pandemic?
Firstly: That what was once impossible, is now possible. Who’d have predicted that governments facing a global crisis would put humanity ahead of the economy? Despite all odds, they did and for the most part, continue to do so.
Secondly: With many economies in the deep freeze, we have a rare opportunity to create a “new” new normal, one that’s less carbon intensive and more environmentally friendly.
This week’s podcast explores these important questions: Is the Earth sending us a message? And if so, can we rise to challenge, before it’s too late?
OK, here’s a sobering statistic: A recent IPSOS Mori poll revealed that over 70% of the global population consider that, in the long term, climate change is as important a crisis as the coronavirus. Think about that for a minute.
Climate activists –– like the team at Global Optimism –– have renewed confidence that this pandemic has produced the wakeup call we need to re-examine our priorities. Instead of returning to business-as-usual and locking in higher emissions, some leaders are using the slogan: “Build back better.” The BBC’s Roger Harrabin writes about the need for the UK to avoid “lurching from the coronavirus crisis into a deeper climate crisis.” Britain’s Climate Change Committee Chairman, John Gummer has called for rebuilding the economy with a focus on green jobs, and boosting low carbon industries like clean energy and electric cars.
The pandemic has taught us that, instead of denial and inaction, basic risk assessment and preparation could have avoided mass chaos and deaths around the world. I’m sure you’ll agree that witnessing over-stretched intensive care units and the Hunger-Games-like scramble for ventilators, face masks and personal protection equipment was excruciating. It didn’t have to happen. Over five years ago, Bill Gates warned us about the risk of pandemics. Why did no one listen?
Today, Bill McKibben, Greta Thunberg and others are warning us about the risks of climate change. Calling them all Cassandras -– prophets of doom and gloom -– is no longer an option. We’re all in this together and we are woke! Let’s harness this united mindset and act NOW to green our economy, before it’s too late.
Some people might scoff at my idea that the pandemic could mean the Earth is sending us a message: the FT’s Robin Harding couldn’t conceal his mirth, as you’ll hear soon! But Jamie Robertson supported my idea, recalling his high school “Fruit flies in a jam-jar” experiment. Thanks Jamie! So think about this: Is the jam-jar sending the flies a message? It’s clear that you don’t have to be a sentient-being to send a message.
Here are highlights of my conversation with the BBC’s Jamie Robinson and the FT’s Robin Harding, (edited for length and clarity). We start by hearing from Tom Rivett-Carnac about this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change direction, as governments use unprecedented levers to jumpstart their economies.
Tom Rivett-Carnac: If we now just subsidize fossil fuels, previous ways of doing things, we’re just going to end up with another boom and bust and very quickly be back to where we were in terms of pollution. An interesting correlation between climate and the pandemic: In both cases, relatively small amounts spent yield massive returns to benefit society.
Recent analysis suggests that if world leaders had spent $3.4 Billion annually preparing for Covid 19, it could have prevented at least $4 Trillion in costs, not to mention the human costs of the pandemic. That’s also true of climate. Taking action to prevent further impact is the cheapest thing to do and we should learn from the experience of the virus and invest now to prevent the impacts of climate change, and reap the benefits of the transition to a green economy.
Jamie Robertson: Robin, how does that argument fit in Japan?
Robin Harding: I don’t think that argument plays very strongly in Japan. I disagree with it strongly. The virus has revealed how miserable we are if we can’t go on holiday, see people, go out to work. I think people will be keen to get back to normal. What it reveals about the climate and the environment is that shutting everything down, avoid traveling to improve the environment isn’t going to wash with people. Instead we need to think about ways to decarbonize… Japan tends to prioritize the economy over the environment and always has.
Jamie Robertson: Now I want to go to California and see if the feeling is any different there, Alison?
Alison van Diggelen: There is a change in mindset, the pandemic and climate change are connected: we’re united against a common enemy. And we are learning to work from home more and that’s having a positive impact on climate change and it’s going be a lasting legacy.
Today on Earth Day, it’s worth framing it like this: When Europeans came to The Americas, they brought smallpox and other diseases that decimated the Native American population because they didn’t have immunity. Now, the tables have turned: we humans are the invaders of the natural world. We’re now being exposed to wild animals’ pathogens; (from bats etc.) and we don’t have natural resistance. So it LOOKS like Mother Earth is fighting back. So I’m hoping, and I think many people are hoping, that this pandemic could stimulate a shift in mindset: we might become more inclined to protect rainforests, rethink farming and rethink our use of oil. If not, if we keep encroachment on wild areas, we could face more pandemics like this one.
Jamie Robertson: Robin, I imagine you’re not going along with that?
Robin Harding: I don’t feel this is the earth is sending us a message, that we’re doing something wrong (laughter)…
Jamie Robertson: There is the argument that if you put a large number of people in a small space: we have 8 billion people living on earth, you’re going to get more diseases. If you put fruit flies in a jam jar, they expend in number and then they die off…
Robin Harding: That’s belied by our actual experience. As we’ve become richer and more developed, we’ve succeeded in taming diseases. This disease came from a wild animal market that wasn’t properly regulated. So to me, the lesson is you need to regulate wild animal markets, not that you need to need to revert to nature.
Jamie Robertson: Alison, final word from you on this argument?
Alison van Diggelen: I appreciate your support here, Jamie. Arguably we’ve crossed a line here … and I don’t think regulation itself is going to help us.
*In 2019, during a must-read interview with the Washington Post, environmentalist and author, Bill McKibbon, famously said “Mother Nature is a very powerful educator.” Here at Fresh Dialogues, we couldn’t agree more.
Have you ever wondered how venture capitalists in Silicon Valley decide what startups to fund and what ones to skip? I had the opportunity to sit down with one of these “masters of the universe” and explore the secrets of venture capital. Scott Kupor is managing partner at Andreessen Horowitz (AH) – one of the most successful VC firms in the world – and we had a candid and lively discussion about the do’s and don’ts of pitching; lessons from Elon Musk’s entrepreneurial journey; diversity, bias and ethics; future trends; and when it’s OK to move fast and break things. Scott teaches at Stanford and Berkeley and has a new book out – Secrets of Sand Hill Road – that aims to demystify the VC mindset. The conversation took place in front of a live audience at the Commonwealth Club in Silicon Valley on June 10, 2019.
Listen to the Fresh Dialogues podcast:
Here are some highlights of our conversation (edited for length and clarity):
Re. Women in business, diversity and bias
Alison van Diggelen: Let’s talk about diversity: Julian Guthrie’s new book is just out – called Alpha Girls – it’s about four women who took on the Venture Capital “bad boys” and succeeded, despite the odds. There are some good lessons in there. It’s a very tough place to thrive as a woman. Less than 10% of decision makers in the venture capital world are women.
Scott Kupor: The number is about 10 or 12 %, depending how you cut the numbers, and about 2% of the funding going to female founders. It’s a real problem.
There are two types of bias: explicit bias, which clearly the #MeToo Movement exposed in a very horrible way. We have to root that stuff out. We need to shine the light on what was underground for many years. The more challenging problem is implicit bias…Whether I like it or not, I’m implicitly biased by the networks I came from. When I want to hire for a job, it’s more likely I go to people I know from Stanford. What we have to do is reach out to (other) networks. So we proactively send out job recs to MLT a group that works with African Americans who’re trying to get into business and financials; and we also have a Cultural Leadership Fund (at AH).
It’s a network connectivity problem. It’s going to take time, it’s a deep rooted problem.
Alison van Diggelen: How many general partners at Andreessen Horowitz are women?
Scott Kupor: 20%. Three out of fifteen are women. That’s only in the last two years. For the first eight years we did not have any female partners…We changed our criteria and opened up the funnel to have a more diverse talent pool.
Re: Ethics and moving fast and breaking things
Alison van Diggelen: Let’s talk about ethics: lessons learned from Theranos (the blood testing company that imploded). And Facebook: they used to have a mantra: Move fast and break things. They have been cavalier about sharing our personal data. How do you train your entrepreneurs to have ethics front and center?
Scott Kupor: I think there’s a difference between outright fraud – we can’t have behavior like that in this industry – and there is this idea that sometimes you have to push faster than sometimes is comfortable and you do break things sometimes and ask for forgiveness second. I think there are elements of that that are fine in this business. There’s a difference between committing crimes and defrauding people and are you just trying to move the ball quickly? You recognize there’s going to be iteration of products and sometimes you’re going to put stuff out that may not be perfect.
The big difference is: as companies mature it’s a bit of the Elon Musk question (we talked about earlier) – I think different standards of behavior are appropriate depending upon the size and maturity of these companies. Running fast and breaking things – and putting out half baked products – is not as unacceptable in the pure startup world where the scope of the harm potentially is smaller because you’re still dealing with small amounts of customers, but when you get to the scale of a Facebook, you have a different responsibility. Our best bet on our companies is to use our persuasive techniques to make them value these things. Over time, your level of responsibility changes, based upon your success. At some point in time you have to act like the navy – not a pirate – once you conquer the ship.
Alison van Diggelen: Are you saying it’s OK to be a pirate in the early stages of a startup?
Scott Kupor: It depends on what pirate means (audience laughter).
Fraud and misleading people is clearly not right. But the idea that you might enter into a market where you’re not exactly sure what the product should look like, you might have a theory on what your regulatory structure is, but you’re not 100% sure.
I’ll give you a great example: we’re investors in Airbnb and Lyft. These companies probably couldn’t have been successful if they’d asked for permission every time they went into a new market. You could argue that was unethical: They should’ve got permission first. The reality is, they said: we’re going to go into a new market, we believe we have a defensible theory that why what we’re doing is appropriate from a regulatory perspective, but we also know we’re likely to get challenged on that. But over time, if a consumer utility is big enough, there is a way to deal with these issues. So that’s my definition of a pirate: I think that’s reasonable acceptable behavior. Fraud and misleading people is not acceptable behavior.
We explored why we get stuck and what we can do to get unstuck, and build momentum in our lives and careers. Julian’s story and the one she shares about XPrize’s Peter Diamandis demonstrates how sometimes, having audacious goals, and making audacious promises without having all the pieces in place, can help propel you into an action mindset and phenomenal success.
I asked Julian to share the story of one excruciating time she was stuck and found it hard to move forward. After she secured a book deal for her best seller, “The Billionaire and the Mechanic” she hit a wall. She could not convince Oracle founder Larry Ellison (the billionaire in question) to be interviewed for the project. Without his cooperation, her book was dead in the water. 
Scott Kupor: It depends on what pirate means (audience laughter).
