Reflections on MongoDB’s IPO

MongoDB_Gray_Logo_small

A month ago our portfolio company MongoDB went public. The stock priced at $24.00 per share and closed the first day of trading at $32.07 per share. While an IPO is merely a financing event in the trajectory of a successful company and, in the words of the company’s super talented CEO, Dev Ittycheria, “NOT an end but rather a new beginning for MongoDB”, it’s still an important milestone and one worth celebrating and reflecting upon.

My association with MongoDB has been an absolute pleasure, having served on the board since Flybridge led a $3.4M financing in the company at a $12M post-money valuation ($0.66 per share) in October of 2009. In that month, MongoDB had 2,563 downloads for its nascent product. Today, it has had over 30 million. When we announced the investment, I wrote about what led to our decision to support the company: a phenomenal team, a large market with trends in the company’s favor, and a great product that customers loved. What strikes me upon re-reading that post 8 years later, is how simple, but true, that analysis was.

Since the beginning, under the leadership of co-founders Eliot Horowitz and Dwight Merriman, MongoDB has had one of the most talented, creative and driven technical teams I have had the pleasure of working with. Further, throughout the company-building process, the company benefited tremendously from the advice and guidance of Kevin Ryan, the company’s third co-founder and Chairman. Our market thesis was that the database market was large, growing (at the time, $30B in annual revenue; in 2016, $44.6B) and trending towards more special purpose solutions rather than the legacy, one-size fits all relational database model. This market insight has played out broadly. In addition to MongoDB, alternative datastores like Hadoop and its derivatives in the analytics market have thrived in the market. Finally, on the product front, MongoDB has continued to be loved by developers for it’s simplicity, flexibility, scalability and the fact it can run in any environment from the company’s database as a service offering, Atlas, to the cloud, on-premise or in hybrid environments.

What we did not write about publicly, but discussed in our internal analysis, were three additional observations:

  • MongoDB is a classic disruption story. When we were conducting diligence on the company, many of our friends and experts with deep expertise in the relational database market were quick to point out all the product’s shortcomings and the features it lacked. These objections failed to recognize that user’s desires to (1) develop software in a more agile, iterative manner; (2) deploy databases in horizontally scalable cloud architectures; and (3) utilize a product that was easy to access and allowed for immediate productivity gains all created benefits that more than compensated for the product’s supposed shortcomings at the time. Today, this “nice toy” of a database, as one of these experts called it, sees 30% of it’s new paying customers come from applications migrating off of relational databases (the other 70% comes from net new applications).
  • Developers are the new King of IT. When we first invested, it becoming apparent that the proliferation of software applications across all enterprises coupled with the rise of of the cloud, and more distributed architectures, was making the developer the new “King of IT”. This allowed, and continues to allow, MongoDB to go-to-market with a very developer-centric approach and then leverage this grassroots adoption into paying customers over time. I have written much about this developer adoption strategy in general, and as it applied to subsequent investments we made in companies such as Firebase, Stackdriver and Crashlytics (all successful investments and interestingly, all now owned by Google), but the approach of building a passionate user base prior to selling into a large enterprise has proven to be a successful one.
  • Land and Expand is a powerful business model. The flip side of a grassroots adoption first model is that when you do land a paying customer, you often land them for relatively small dollars. But, with a recurring revenue model and a product that delivers on its promises, over time these small customers renew and expand and this can build a large and growing recurring revenue base as shown in the chart below. In the case of MongoDB, this led to annual revenues that grew from $40.8M in FY 2015 (Jan) to $101.4M in FY 2017; in almost 300 customers that now spend in excess of $100K per year, up from 110 in early 2015; net ARR expansion rate of over 120% for each of the last ten quarters; and, annual cohorts that show, in the case of 2013 for example, 4.1x expansion over 4 years (i.e $5.3 million in FY13 grew to $22.1 million in FY17).

Of course getting the investment thesis right only matters if the company is able to execute. And the team at MongoDB has executed exceptionally well. Along the way, the founders were joined by Dev Ittycheria, who to no one’s surprise given his track record of success, has proven to be a remarkable, strategic, focused and results oriented, leader. He is also an exceptional recruiter and under his guidance the company has added well over 400 employees, including Michael Gordon, an extremely adept CFO (who after the IPO process is in need of a good night’s sleep), Carlos Delatorre, CRO who has built a world-class sales team, and Megan Eisenberg, CMO who has the unique talent in a marketing executive of being to drive both high level corporate marketing and a demand generation machine. Under Eliot’s leadership as CTO the company has also built a world-class, deeply technical, enterprise software team in New York City (which many thought was not possible, but it turns out to be a distinct advantage), including Cailin Nelson, SVP Cloud Engineering, Dan Passette, SVP Core Engineering, and Richard Kreuter, SVP Field Engineering. A hat tip to all of these executives, plus the 800+ other employees at MongoDB, on what they have built together.

Mongo celebration

It has been my distinct pleasure to work with such a talented team for the last 8 years. But, again, the IPO is just a financing. The company feels like it’s just getting started in its quest to disrupt this massive database market. I look forward to remaining on the company’s Board and continuing the journey for many years to come, building an important, anchor public technology company in New York City.

A Fortnight of Female Founders

XFactor_Final_Logos_All-01

Last Wednesday marked the two-week point since the launch of XFactor Ventures.  We are grateful for, and a bit overwhelmed by, the support and feedback.  We thought there was an unmet market need for female founders investing in female founders, but you amazed us with the volume, quality, and breadth of opportunities that have come into XFactor.  

Over our first two weeks, we received 200 female-founded companies to review.  Obviously, there is a huge pool of talented and creative female founders!  Equally obviously, not all of these investment opportunities are going to fit with our expertise, passion or capacity, and we know that will mean we will end up missing out on some fabulous opportunities.  Given we can’t do it alone, we want to make sure amazing female founders have access to as many resources as possible.  As a result, we are developing an Allies list with whom we can make introductions.  If you’re an angel interested in backing seed stage founders or a fund that is committed to backing women and mixed gender teams, drop us a note to hello@xfactor.ventures letting us know what areas (however you define it) are most of interest to you!

In reviewing these opportunities we are struck by the fact that, apart from the high-quality level, there is no such thing as a normative female founded company.  While the stereotypical beauty/fashion company is a segment within our deal flow, it is nowhere near the most common. The companies we are seeing are diverse, broadly reflective of the venture industry, tech-driven and blow away the myth that female founders only start female-focused companies.  Specifically, 50% are deep tech companies (Software, AI, VR/AR, Networking, IoT, Robotics, Wearables, Other hardware), 20% are e-commerce (mostly B2C, some B2B, in the pet, clothing, beauty, food and home furnishings markets among others), 12% are Biotech (even though it’s not an area of focus or expertise for us at this time) and the remaining 18% are scattered across a variety of categories including fin-tech, ed-tech, marketplaces, content and tech-enabled services.

Nor do female founders always have a female co-founder.  Of the companies with co-founders, 68% have mixed gender founding teams.  This reinforces our belief that diverse founding teams will have a better perspective on market opportunities,  how to define and market products for the widest possible audience,  will make better decisions, and be more successful in attracting and retaining talent.  Interestingly, almost half of the companies have a solo-founder, and while this has always struck me as a harder path, some of the best female-founded companies (StitchFix, LearnVest and The Real Real are three examples that come immediately to mind) have followed this path, so it’s clearly not a determining factor one way or another.

On the XFactor front, since our launch we have closed 3 investments and committed to 2 others. We are extremely impressed with the quality of the first 5 female founders we are fortunate enough to support.  We will follow up with details in future posts, once these companies announce their financings and plans, but the companies are in the AI (2x), Data, Cloud Platforms and Content/Community fields and we look forward to working with these teams as they take on their respective billion dollar market opportunities.

Thank you all again for the support and introductions and for all the female founders we have met for your talent, perseverance, and grit.  As always, if you are interested in speaking with our team, please email us at hello@xfactor.ventures.

Announcing XFactor Ventures: Female Founders Investing in Female Founders

XFactor_Final_Logos_All-02 copy

Today, we are pleased to announce and launch XFactor Ventures, a pre-seed and seed stage venture fund that will invest in 30 new companies with female founders targeting billion dollar opportunities in the coming year or two.  

Are you a female founder with the XFactor looking for funding?  If so – we want to talk to you!  Please find us online at XFactor.ventures, follow us on Twitter or reach out via email to hello@xfactor.ventures

XFactor is led by a fantastic investment team of female founders –

  • Bay Area: Danielle Morrill of Mattermark, Erica Brescia of Bitnami, Jessica Mah of inDinero, and Ooshma Garg of Gobble
  • New York: Aubrie Pagano of Bow & Drape, Kathryn Minshew of The Muse, and Liz Whitman of Manicube
  • Boston: Anna Palmer of WonderMile, who while also working on launching her second start-up, was instrumental in co-founding XFactor with me and my amazing partner at Flybridge, Kate Castle.

This team has delivered hundreds of investor pitches, raised well over $100M in venture capital across multiple rounds, hired thousands of employees and generated significant value as they have built and grown the almost dozen companies they have founded.  

XFactor’s goal is threefold:

  1. Supporting and enabling the next generation of female-led businesses.  We invest in companies with at least one female founder – the “X Factor” – who have the insight and drive to build the next billion dollar company. Our investment team are all talented and successful female founder operators that have ridden the company-building roller coaster themselves and will provide connections and “in the trenches” advice and mentorship to our portfolio companies.  Regardless of gender, a team of successful founder and leaders investing in the next-generation of founders is unique and their collective insights will be valuable to the companies in which we invest.
  2. Providing our investment team a platform and mentorship to become successful investors. We hope that, over time, this effort will increase the ranks of female investors in the venture and angel investing community.
  3. Finally, and most importantly, XFactor is focused on generating attractive investment returns by identifying massive market opportunities and backing the most talented ambitious founders (who happen to be female) based on our conviction that diverse teams will outperform in the market.  Said another way, XFactoris not an affirmative action fund with all the negative connotations that implies.  There are few things worse for a female founder than being referred to a female-focused fund with the insinuation that you are not ready for the big leagues of male dominated funds. That’s not us. We are big league entrepreneurs and investors that will hold founders to high standards and support them in building game-changing companies.

I have been a venture capitalist for almost my entire professional career, first as a General Partner at Greylock and more recently as a co-founder of Flybridge.  On a personal level, I have always been surrounded by strong women and recognize the unique value women can bring to the table.  Over the years, when I realized that my male-dominated deal flow and investment activity did not reflect those values, I told myself that it simply reflected the demographics of the B2B tech space in which I invest.  Further, when I heard stories about VCs who would ask female founders what they would do if they got pregnant, or comment inappropriately on their appearance, or get their wife on the phone to help assess an idea that was being pitched to them or, as has become so apparent in the last weeks, inappropriately turn pitch meetings into a dating opportunity, or even more deplorable, an opportunity to leverage their power to sexually harass female founders, I comforted myself by saying that was not me or my partners. Those jerks are the minority of venture investors and not the ones I work with.

But last Fall, it became apparent that being a bystander was no longer acceptable.  I was appalled that the public discourse in the country suddenly turned openly misogynistic.  And when I received a specific comment from my oldest daughter, a tech-focused junior in college, I realized I had to do something to change the venture industry. “Dad,” she groaned, “I am so tired of looking at websites of startups and seeing only men on the management team” Thus, teaming with Kate, the inspirational XFactor investment team, and all of my partners at Flybridge, we set about forming XFactor Ventures.

The venture industry needs to dramatically change.  80% of the companies that receive venture funding have male only founding teams, and only 7% of partners in leading venture firms are women.  The two are related.  Female partners are more likely to back female founders and yet venture firms pull new venture partners from the ranks of successful founders, so the cycle perpetuates.  While the funding statistics are objectively not right, they are, equally importantly, not smart.  Diverse founding teams will have a better perspective on market opportunities, how to define and market products for the widest possible audience. They will make better decisions and be more successful in attracting and retaining talent.  All of which will lead to superior investment returns.

Finally, as no post from me would be complete without a chart, I have been astounded by the change in the gender composition of my “sourcing meetings” since I started working on XFactor, and this is in the last six months while we were quietly working on this initiative.  As shown below, it turns out to find female founders; you just need to look for them.

dealflow

The entire team at Flybridge is thrilled to support XFactor and, on a personal level, I am looking forward to working with our phenomenal and unique investment team as we back and support 30 companies started by fantastic female founders with the XFactor!  

Are you a female founder with the XFactor?  Find us online at XFactor.ventures, follow us on Twitter or reach out via email to hello@xfactor.ventures.  

Fired Up By a Flybridge Family Reunion

crashfirebase-photo

Last week there was an interesting piece of news in the tech world when Firebase/Google acquired the Fabric product line and team from Twitter. Over 20+ years in the venture industry and hundreds of companies, this was a first for me: two companies we had invested in merged post their respective acquisitions by larger players. While it was unusual, nothing could make me happier than to see Crashlytics, which was acquired by Twitter in 2013, and Firebase, which was acquired by Google in 2014, join forces and continue the missions they held from their founding, and our original seed investments, of improving the lives and effectiveness of mobile developers. Huge congrats to Andrew, James, Jeff and Wayne and many thanks to both Twitter and Google for their support of both companies and allowing them to deliver on their common goals.

Rewind the clock to 2011. At the time my core investment focus was on developer-driven cloud platforms and an insight that companies that went to market with products that delighted developers could achieve significant adoption and break down many of the barriers seen by companies that focused on more traditional enterprise sales models. Within this broader theme (that also led to our investments in companies such as MongoDB, Stormpath and Apiary), it was clear at that time that the mobile developer was the new rock-star and thought leader and that most new application development spend was for mobile apps. But while mobile developers were leading the way, it was still too hard and technically challenging to quickly and easily get high quality apps into the market. Over the next year, this thesis led us to make seed investments behind two phenomenal teams. Both companies started out focused on very different markets – Crashlytics on crash reporting and Firebase on a platform to allow developers to easily build serverless back-end platforms. But both had a common goal of creating innovative technologies to help developers create amazing apps.

It’s always interesting to look back on your investment successes to see what if any common traits they shared. For Firebase and Crashlytics, there were many:

  • Founded by young, passionate entrepreneurs[i] who had strong technology backgrounds, startup experience and an innate understanding of their target customer who were
  • Creating platforms that addressed large and expanding markets with a
  • Special “developer first” approach to working with the developer community that led to rapid adoption of their platforms which led them to
  • Blow away their seed round metrics within less than a year and in turn raise Series A Rounds led by their initial investors and ultimately to being
  • Acquired by leading technology companies less than a year after Series A rounds and these
  • Acquirers provided significant incremental resources, let the teams run independently and continue to innovate under their own brands post the acquisitions

I could not be more proud of both of these teams. With millions of apps and hundreds of thousands of developers now using their technologies, what each has built is exceptional and I am 100% sure, will only get better as they join forces.

[i] It should also be noted in this time of anti-immigrant sentiment that in each company one of founders was born outside the US

Flybridge Seed Graduation Rate

Earlier this week, Mattermark (a Flybridge portfolio company) posted an interesting analysis of the Seed matriculation rate from the over 2000 US-based software companies that received funding in the period from 2009 to 2012. What they found, to save you from reading the post, was that 32% of the companies that received seed funding went on to raise a Series A, 17% a Series B and 7% a Series C.

This inspired me to take a look at the software companies Flybridge seed funded during the same period. As the graph below shows, our data is quite different, with over 90% of the companies raising a Series A, just over 65% a Series B and about 50% a Series C.

fcp-seed-grad-rate-2009-12

As to why our experience is so different than industry-wide data, especially at the Seed to A fall off, I am not sure. I suspect it is a combination of factors. First, on the margin we have favored slightly larger seed financings (in the $1-2M range) and those companies have had, as a result, more runway to accomplish their goals.   Second, we have favored strong, involved syndicate partners and it is often through us, and our co-investors, that the Series A investors learn about the company (virtually all the A rounds brought in a new investor). Third, we are active seed investors, but relatively selective, so we hope there is some level of quality at play. This also means our pool of companies is not huge, so I am sure serendipity is involved as well!

In their post, Mattermark noted that there are likely three reasons for the fall off: companies failing, companies being acquired, or companies becoming self-sustaining, but that they did not necessarily have all the data to determine the relative weight. We obviously do for our own companies, so here is our experience:

  •  Of the 10% of companies that did not go from Seed to Series A, the cause was generally a failure to find product market fit, resulting in an acquihire of some kind.
  •  Of the companies that did not move from Series A to Series B, three quarters were acquired, either in a highly positive way like Crashlytics (Twitter) or Firebase (Google), or less positively in one other case. The other companies that have not raised a Series B are still running on their Series A capital.
  •  Of the 25-30% of the companies that raised a Seed, an A and a B, but not a Series C, the vast majority (80%) are still executing on their Series B capital with the remainder having been acquired.

While it is hard to generalize from one firm’s experience, as a seed stage founder the most important lesson from this analysis is to make sure you raise enough capital to achieve critical milestones, including demonstrating product market fit, and that you align yourself with investors that have the network, relationships and credibility to help you raise subsequent rounds of capital. After that, it is all about performance with the hope that you don’t have to keep raising capital as revenue funds growth!

Failed Founders

Conventional wisdom in the venture industry (and the historic data supports this), says that as an investor your odds of success are best if you back repeat successful entrepreneurs followed by backing first time founders.  Backing repeat entrepreneurs who failed their first time around is considered to be the highest risk strategy.  For a certain category of repeat entrepreneurs whose first foray as a founder did not result in success, I believe this conventional wisdom  will be proven wrong in the coming several years . Let me explain further.  

One of the biggest changes I have seen over the last 5 or 10 years is that, as the barriers to starting a company decreased so significantly, more and more founders started their first company very early in their career. Early as in in their 20s age wise and early as in the first “real job” these founders held is as the CEO of a company they founded.  And while over the last 10 years there are so many more resources to support and educate these first time founders on the art of company building, most of these first-time young founders will fail as the challenge of starting is nothing compared to the challenge of building and growing a sustainable business.  And, unfortunately, no amount of reading, learning, coaching, advising, accelerating and incubating can make up for the real world experience of doing, and many founders will and have found that their company did not survive their learning curve and on the job training.  I have talked to many of these founders and have posted a companion piece to this post on some of their key insights in the hope it will be helpful to other future first time young founders.

But back to my contrarian investment thesis.  I believe the next time around these still young, but now experienced, first-time failed founders are the lowest risk founders to back in a new company.  There are a few reasons for this:

  • Character: Almost by definition if you start a company that young you are intellectually curious, seeing problems as opportunities to build unique solutions; super motivated and willing to push through barriers; passionate and with a desire to change the world; and willing to take risk and pursue a path that is not easy as your peers join Google or Facebook or become bankers, consultants, lawyers or any other career path that shows up at university recruiting fairs.  These characteristics are what define a great founder and even though the first time did not work out, they remain core to what makes these founders special.
  • Experience: While the first time around these young founders may not have known how to hire, fire, train and develop talent, what a P&L looks like, how to spell KPI or OKR, how to pivot into a larger and better market opportunity, or how to work with a board, there is nothing like the day to day struggle of building a company from scratch to develop these talents in the most rapid of possible ways.  One founder described their failed company as an expensive MBA, but having an MBA myself I can tell you this gives an MBA way too much credit by a 100 times over.
  • Motivation.  If you are a hard charging founder with reams of self confidence out to change the world and you fail, and in most cases it will be the first time you have ever failed in any way, you likely have a chip on your shoulder and a burning desire to prove the world wrong and, in our experience, founders with chips on their shoulder tend to perform exceptionally well.

While in general I believe this cohort of second time around, first-time failed founders will out perform other founders, at an individual level the specifics matter.  So what are we looking for as we make a decision to back an individual founder whose first company did not work out as planned?  We find the following questions to be important in identifying the true winners from this broader group:

  • Did their first company achieve some level of scale and longevity?  There is a huge difference in the experience gained from a company that lasted for a few years with a reasonable number of employees and customers versus the failure that lasted only for a short time, had very small employee base and no customers to speak of.  It is the experience gained from running at some scale that will make a founder exceptional the second time around.
  • What did they learn?  When you ask the best failed founders I have met what they learned from their experience, they don’t give a short, couple of bullet point answer, but rather breakout a long analysis they did that examines all the critical decisions they made, what they learned from them, and how they could have done things differently. Founders who demonstrate that they are this kind of learning machine will be be exceptional the second time around.
  • Do they take personal responsibility?  The best founders I have met accept and own the responsibility for their first company not working out while the one’s who are less likely to succeed the second time around lay blame elsewhere or on things that were “outside of their control”.  
  • Do they incorporate their learnings into the plan for the new company?  It is one thing to have experience, learn from failure and accept responsibility, but it is the final step of incorporating all of this into the market selection, business model definition, strategy and operating philosophy of the new company that is the critical final step to take the lessons of failure and to operationalize them into success for the new company.

So if you are a now slightly less young founder who failed the first time around and you want to talk, I am all ears!

Lessons from Failed First-Time Founders

In my conversations with founders who failed the first time around when CEO was their first “real job,” I often ask about the key insights they took away from their experience.  Many founders don’t talk publicly about this, as they don’t want to denigrate their prior company and its employees, customers, and/or investors. But their insights are quite valuable to future young first-time founders and are worth summarizing and sharing.  I will focus more on operational decisions and learnings, as these tend to be most transferable, but obviously market selection matters a lot, as being in a market that is growing rapidly covers up a lot of operational sins that any founder will make.  Below are 5 takeaways that come up again and again in these discussions:

  1. Team Matters

An obvious point, but maybe not in the way you think. Who you hire is critical, but this first principle of building a company is often interpreted by young first time founders to mean that they need to hire “adult supervision” and people with the right resume.  This sounds great in concept, but in practice most founders end up hiring these “seasoned” veterans either too early, or not carefully enough, and end up with executives on their team who may have sounded great in terms of skills and experience, but have no idea how to operate in an early stage, rapidly evolving company.  

Further, bringing in a senior team too early – especially in product and customer facing positions – works to remove the founder from the front lines and slows the learning cycle.  This does not mean you should hire all your friends, as while that makes for a fun environment, it often does not put the right people in the right jobs and it’s really hard to tell your college roommate they just aren’t cutting it any more.  Instead, look for up and coming talent with skills and experience that are relevant to a portion of their new job, a history with start-ups, and prioritize above all else the cultural fit and passion for your mission. (David Cancel wrote a great post on this topic here that covers all of these points with much more expertise than I have). Remember, when you find this talent it does not mean you can check the box and move on to the next critical open position.  How you onboard your talent to make sure they are aligned with the vision, trained on key aspects of the business and integrated into the rest of the team will be critical to their effectiveness.  Finally, if you make a mistake, fix it quickly. In a small team it only takes one or two misaligned, cynical, negative assholes to screw up your company.

  1. Find your balance

A hard part for first time founders who have never worked in a company of any size is finding the right balance between being nimble, informal and on top of every detail on one hand, and putting in place rigorous formal processes and discipline on the other.  Too much process and structure too early and you slow down and are too removed from the front lines–stay informal and involved in every detail too long and you become a bottleneck and a micro-manager with a team that is not empowered.  Far easier said than done, but a few suggestions to help you find your balance:

  • Always ask yourself if you are slowing down critical decisions.
  • Decide what areas are most important to you personally, where you want to be the slowest to cede control, and be explicit about this with your team so they know your hot buttons.
  • Start with lightweight team meetings every week and then every quarter asking yourself and your key lieutenants if the cadence and process is working, or if there are ways to improve.
  • Seek out either a coach or other founders who are one step ahead of your company in terms of maturity and get their advice on how they changed their style at important junctures in the company’s life (important breakpoints are around a dozen employees, around 30 or 40 employees, and around 80-100 employees).
  1. Be on top of the metrics

Regardless of finding your balance point, one thing you can’t delegate as a founder is knowing the key metrics of your business inside and out and how they interrelate with each other.  While these change from company to company, in early stage businesses they can all be boiled down to cash, adoption, and customer success/engagement.  Know when you are running out of money to the day, and know how this changes if you grow more quickly (which often brings in the date much to the surprise of many first time founders), or more slowly.  Know how many customers/users you are adding every day/week/month and how this compares to the growth you need to achieve lift off.  Know whether you are delivering on your value to these customers/users and where you are falling short.  In addition to understanding the key metrics, set goals for how they are going to change and grow over time.  On this front, a common mistake of first time founders is setting unrealistic goals under the assumption that if you ask people for the stars you at least get the moon, but the best CEOs I know set goals that are a stretch, but most likely achievable, as this allows them to develop a culture of winning and a sense that they are on top of their business.

  1. Your Investor(s) & Board Matters

One of the issues I see over and over again with first time founders is that they got sideways with their board, and investors more generally.  This problem often starts when raising capital and the desire to take any money that’s on offer, rather than the right money.  It’s your company; so treat any investor you take on as you would any employee you take on, make sure there is alignment with your companys mission, thesis, and goals, and you should reference check them, again just as you would with a prospective employee.  Once they are involved you must maintain a healthy relationship, which starts with communicating regularly, having bad news travel as fast as good news, and not sweeping potential disagreements on direction or strategy under the rug, but rather addressing those issues head on.  A fear of many first time young founders is that the Board is looking to replace them as CEO as quickly as possible. With some investors this is indeed their pattern, so understand their biases (from talking with prior companies they have been involved with) and call out the issue explicitly as the lingering fear strains relationships and leads to less frequent communication, which only exacerbates the issue. It also helps in navigating your first set of board relationships to find a mentor or outside board member (that don’t have a significant stake in the company) to provide coaching and help resolve intercompany issues, and act as independent mediator if necessary.

  1. CUSTOMERS MATTER MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE

And finally, another first principles comment, but remember to stay CUSTOMER FOCUSED above all else. It is way too easy to get distracted by hiring, leading, raising capital, and dealing with a Board, not to mention obsessing over competitors or what is going on in the broader market, and when you lose this focus on customer success, your company will lose its mission, and consequently, its chance to succeed.