Latest news with #HBRIdeaCast
Harvard Business Review
30-04-2025
- Business
- Harvard Business Review
Introducing a New Era of HBR IdeaCast
Skip to content April 30, 2025 A new sound is in store for the HBR IdeaCast . Every Tuesday, we'll keep giving you the insights, research, and advice you need to lead, featuring practical conversations with leading thinkers. But as Adi Ignatius, editor-at-large at Harvard Business Review, joins executive editor Alison Beard as cohost of the show, we're offering even more to better serve you. Look forward to more interviews with C-suite executives, more expert perspectives on the most pressing, up-to-date problems facing leaders, and some special surprises for HBR subscribers. The new and improved HBR IdeaCast kicks off next Tuesday, be sure to hit subscribe so you don't miss an episode. Tell us what topics you'd like us to cover: ideacast@ ALISON BEARD: Hey, guys. It's Alison Beard, executive editor at Harvard Business Review and for nearly seven years, host of this show, the HBR IdeaCast . ADI IGNATIUS: And I'm Adi Ignatius. For 16 years, I was the editor-in-chief of Harvard Business Review, and now I'm an editor-at-large and joining HBR IdeaCast as the new cohost. ALISON BEARD: With Adi joining us, you can look forward to all of the same HBR IdeaCast content you love, ideas, research, and hard evidence you need to lead. We'll continue our focused, practical conversations with world-renowned thought leaders. ADI IGNATIUS: But we also want to keep changing and evolving and making sure we're serving you, the best and brightest leaders and managers out there, with the information that you need. So that means bringing you even more interviews with C-suite leaders to share what they're really doing behind the scenes. ALISON BEARD: More expert advice around the most pressing problems you're facing in your organization today. From tariffs to AI to talent retention. ADI IGNATIUS: You'll see us pop up more often on your favorite video and social platforms like YouTube and Instagram. ALISON BEARD: Plus, there will be some special surprises in store for Harvard Business Review subscribers. ADI IGNATIUS: Check out the new and improved HBR IdeaCast , same time, same place every Tuesday. Hit subscribe and follow the show on your favorite podcast app and tell us what topics you'd like us to cover. Just email us a note at IdeaCast@ ALISON BEARD: HBR IdeaCast , where we offer insights and inspiration to make you a better leader. See you next week.
Harvard Business Review
29-04-2025
- Business
- Harvard Business Review
The Growth of the Private-Sector Space Industry
CURT NICKISCH: Welcome to the HBR IdeaCast from Harvard Business Review. I'm Curt Nickisch. I'm beginning with an announcement. This episode is my last episode as a regular host of the show. It has been a privilege and honestly, a blast. Over the years I've talked to hundreds of insightful people on this show. Creators, builders, researchers, deep thinkers, future thinkers, leaders you'd love to follow, managers you'd love to work for, coaches and mentors. All these people have cast too many valuable ideas to count, and I with a fantastic team, have been able to engage with these ideas, interrogate them, employ them, and present them in conversation to you, and I could not ask for a better audience to work for. Speaking of the show, IdeaCast, it's not going anywhere. It's in the best of hands, and I'll be listening and learning and getting inspired with you. Now for today's episode, we're going to look beyond the near horizon and explore the economic frontier of space. In the last decade or so, the space industry has evolved into a more privatized one. Government still plays a big role in financing contracts, but increasingly, its job is to foster a market where competition and innovation can flourish. This shift, generally in the U.S., from NASA doing everything to hiring everything out, is creating new opportunity for businesses and individuals in their careers. We're joined today by two guests who have studied the public and private sector aspects of the space industry. Matthew Weinzierl is a Senior Associate Dean and Professor at Harvard Business School. Brendan Rosseau is a strategy manager at Blue Origin. Together they wrote the book, Space to Grow: Unlocking the Final Economic Frontier. Matt, thanks for coming on the show. MATTHEW WEINZIERL: Thanks, Curt. I've been listening to your voice for many years, so it's a real pleasure to be talking with you. CURT NICKISCH: Brendan. Thank you, too. BRENDAN ROSSEAU: Yeah, great to be here. CURT NICKISCH: We've seen the rise of private sector space companies like SpaceX, like Blue Origin, where Brendan, you are. In your book you argue that this isn't privatization per se, but a decentralization. What do you mean by that? What are the implications of what's happening? MATTHEW WEINZIERL: I think it's a really fundamental distinction, partly because there's a misunderstanding that's easy to have out there in the world, which is, we hear so much as you said about SpaceX and Blue Origin and various other space companies, and it seems like the days of NASA and the Department of Defense and other international space agencies playing a big role in space might be over, and there's a sense in which that role has changed a lot, but the role is definitely not over. Why we call it decentralization, is that the way you think about the first 50 years of the Space Age is that it was really run from the center, whether it was NASA or the Department of Defense or other agencies, they set the agenda, they operated the vehicles. They really decided where we were headed in space, why and when. But what's happened over the last 20 years is that we've brought more decision makers into the fold. Private companies are being asked to develop vehicles and services that are valuable not just to public sector customers, but to private sector customers. And so, it's really becoming much more of a marketplace like our decentralized marketplaces are for most goods. The role of the government is still incredibly large in space, both as a customer for those services that those companies are providing, and for setting some of our key social priorities in getting them done, but now there's many other players. BRENDAN ROSSEAU: And actually, if you look at NASA's history, it's a really great case study in just those two things. What can the government be good at versus the private sector? The origins of NASA, of course, are the post-Sputnik space race, that culminated in astronauts landing on the moon. NASA was so good at doing that, it was such a remarkable achievement pulling off a goal that even a decade earlier to NASA insiders had seemed completely crazy. Why were they able to do that? And part of the reason is because they were rallying the country to provide national goods. Things like basic science, research, exploration, things that the market left to its own would grossly under-provide. What we call NASA's act one, The Apollo era, was a great example of what the strengths of that system can be. Fast forwarding to what we call act two, which was the space shuttle and International Space Station era, it's kind of '70s and beyond. The goals changed remarkably. Space flight was too expensive, and so the idea was to create reusable space planes and destinations in space that would be reusable. So the idea was, okay, iteration, get efficiency, bring down costs, and these are things that we don't typically associate with government programs. And in theory, that would create an opportunity for the private sector to come in and compete and bring all those gains of private sector involvement that we're familiar with elsewhere. But the model struggled to evolve. We kind of put all of our eggs into the space shuttle and ISS basket, and it was only the space shuttle was retired following the 2003 Columbia accident, that the private sector was given a real opportunity to try to be an agent in directing the U.S. space enterprise. And of course, that's worked out remarkably well and we're frankly just living in the ripple effects of that, where launch has now been largely commercialized with astounding effects even just in the past decade or so. CURT NICKISCH: Let's underscore this – launch being shorthand for just getting stuff up into space. How much have costs come down? MATTHEW WEINZIERL: It's difficult to compare perfectly across time, across different vehicles, but at the highest level, one way that we summarize it and that's commonly used in the industry is for the act two era that Brendan was just talking about with the space shuttle, you can think about the cost of getting a kilogram of mass to what's called low earth orbit where a lot of our internet and telecommunication satellites fly, as being on the order of $20,000 to $30,000 per kilogram to what's called LEO. With SpaceX and its Falcon 9 rocket, which is now the workhorse launch rocket in the world, those costs have come down essentially 90%. So we think about a range of somewhere more like $2,000 to $3,000 a kilogram. SpaceX's newest rocket, the Starship. The hope is that once that's flying routinely, it will bring costs down another order of magnitude, down to something in the hundreds of dollars per kilogram to LEO. So all told, that would be a decline of 99% in launch costs. And it's not just SpaceX, they've been the driving force, but there's a whole host of other launch companies and startups forming, trying to also bring costs down and in different ways provide access to space for satellites and other equipment at much lower cost. BRENDAN ROSSEAU: We focus on the cost because of course that's the most important thing. I mean, a 90% reduction in cost is hugely important, but what I think is sometimes harder to capture is just how much that change in costs and increasing access to space really transforms the community and the thinking and who does space. So for example, in the early two 2000s, we had maybe 50 launches, and if you look at who is actually launching on those, it was all national security satellites and commercial satellites from large conglomerate companies, and that shaped the ethos and the approach of everyone in the industry. It was extremely risk averse, planning took years, and it was meticulous and every little bit of risk really had to be burned down before the launch could happen. Part of that just came down to launches were so expensive, if you're going to pay the 100-plus million dollars to launch this thing, you better be sure that it's going to work. If you fast-forward, last year we had 263 orbital launch attempts from across the world. Not only are launch costs going down and launch availability going up, but because launches are so frequent and it's less of a huge hurdle that you have to cross to secure your launch spot and everything, it allows this whole cast of characters who really had no entry point into the space industry before to jump in and say, 'You know what? I've had this idea for how space and a constellation of satellites could be useful for us. Now's the time for me to jump in because I think my business plan can close and I think I can actually get a launch. So, let's try it out.' CURT NICKISCH: So what is the government's role in this market now? National security is still there. What's the mix of priorities that's now sort of at the forefront for the government's role in this market? BRENDAN ROSSEAU: Yeah, that is really the question ahead of us. There's so much excitement and opportunity, but also with a new model come new challenges. So the way that Matt and I have tried to break it down in the book is a three-pronged framework that we think are really the three critical steps that it will take to not only create a robust and growing space economy with huge benefits for everyone back here on earth, but also to make sure that it's taking us to a place that we want to go. The first step is to continue to establish and reinforce this market approach to space activities, recognizing the strengths of what the private sector can do, and increasingly allow more and more private activity, encourage more and more private activity through different government programs and smart investing. We've seen already the launch sector become more and more commercialized, and that's been a real success. More and more we are seeing the satellite sector, satellites that provide connectivity and internet and data and all sorts of things. We're seeing a huge amount of experimentation and value creation in the satellite sector now, so that's an area where there's strong market presence and market growth. CURT NICKISCH: I think most consumers have known that TV programs and everything come over satellite, but now it's like you can't go a day without- BRENDAN ROSSEAU: Oh, yeah. CURT NICKISCH: … seeing in your inbox that an airline is partnering with Starlink or a mobile phone company is using it to get better access in remote areas. I mean, it's brought the technology to just a lot more companies. BRENDAN ROSSEAU: It's remarkable. And for me, I think it's reinforcing the idea that at its core, space is just a place. It's a place that we can do certain things and use certain technologies to create value back here on earth. I think that's a different way of thinking about it than we did say, during the Apollo era when space was, we celebrated that it was kind of foreign and dramatic and everything, which it still has that frontier allure. But I think the real crux of what's happening now and why we're so excited about it, why two folks who like us who think from an economics perspective are excited about it is because we think with the market coming in and more and more companies seeing space as a place of opportunity and value creation, those companies need customers. And for 99% of them, the customers aren't going to be other space companies, it's people on the ground, it's people like you and me. So when you have an army of entrepreneurs and engineers and brilliant space technologists who are all laser focused on using space to create value for you and me and everyone else on earth, that for me has got to be a recipe for success. So the first step, as I mentioned, was to realize the potential of the private sector and continue to expand the role of markets in space. So that's step one, what we call establish the market. The next step is to recognize that markets are not perfect by any means. They're often very far from perfect, as we all know in our daily lives. So the next step, and this is a real key place of government intervention, is to refine the market by addressing market failures. So that's through policies that address market failures, like let's say orbital debris or other externalities that aren't priced into company's decisions, address those as they come up. And also, capture the opportunities that the private sector can't do on its own. The government still can play a really powerful role as an organizer or a coordinator of activity across different companies. And then step three recognizes that the role of markets is really just to create efficiency, but there are things that we care about in society beyond just efficiency. So step three is what we call temper the market, which is aligning it with society's moral and ethical judgments. And for us, this means answering really hard and fundamental questions about what should happen in space and why. Who has property rights and over what? Who sets the rules and who enforces them? That gets back to the national security question. As we celebrate that space as becoming more and more prosperous side of value creation, but who should benefit from the riches that we reap in space? And what is an equitable distribution of those benefits look like? These are huge questions that for a long time felt kind of sci-fi-y, but more and more by the day they are feeling pressing. CURT NICKISCH: Is there an example from history – I'm thinking here, I mean, you often hear people mention the railroads, right? Building railroads across the North American continent. The internet. There's also, to stay with trains, there's also, there are places where supply and demand curbs maybe never meet, and that's where government can step in and create public transportation that people otherwise just can't afford. So, what do you liken this to or what do you like to liken this to? MATTHEW WEINZIERL: Well, you've already named a couple of the areas that we often do talk about Curt, and then semiconductors, because that's another example that we sometimes make reference to. I think there's no perfect analogy, as you would guess. There's been some interesting work done by some NASA historians, in fact, to explore some analogies to space. The railroads is an interesting one maybe just to spend a moment on. There are a lot of really important similarities. The railroads pushed out into frontiers, they built infrastructure that allowed businesses to flourish, businesses we could never predict would flourish. A lot of the common examples from the railroad age are surprising success stories, and that's part of the beauty of market forces, and yet there are some major differences. So railroads were generally connecting to existing sites of economic activity, and therefore creating the surplus and the synergies between them. Whereas here, we're reaching out into places where at least there is not yet very much economic activity and trying to create it at the end of the line, so to speak. So we always want to be careful about reasoning from analogy. CURT NICKISCH: Right. BRENDAN ROSSEAU: The uncomfortable reality is, we don't know and we can't know. That's one of the double-edged swords of market forces coming in, is we're used to, especially in the space enterprise, five-year plans, ten-year plans, major programs where we can point at a calendar and say, 'At this date the space shuttle will be flying or we'll be doing XYZ, or the next space telescope will be coming up.' I think increasingly, if we look at the commercial activity in the space realm, it's going to be more and more unpredictable, and that makes it challenging, but also that's where the beauty of markets comes from. The killer app that no one thought of can pop out of the blue and take over very quickly. I think even though this commercial space revolution that we've talked about is young, we've already seen a few of those kind of incredible unexpected ideas pop out of it, especially reusable launch vehicles. They now dominate the world's launch pads, and 15, 20 years ago, that would've been pretty much unthinkable. So I would say we're cautiously optimistic about where this future space economy is heading. I think there's strong tailwinds across the board, but we should also recognize that it's still young, it's still very fragile, particularly it takes individuals making decisions to continue the momentum of what we see today. So I think the worst thing we could do is just kind of slap ourselves on the back and say, 'Okay, mission accomplished. We've got a commercial space enterprise.' And also, it could be skewed at point. We could have setbacks the role of different public priorities because the public sector still plays such an important role in shaping the space economy. Different public priorities could really skew the direction of space activities. So we don't really know where it's going to go, but I think we're hopeful that it will be a real source of value and one that we look back on and say, 'We're really glad that this happened.' CURT NICKISCH: It's funny, I mean, when I was growing up as a kid, I feel like the thing you would always hear is that, 'Oh, someday there are going to be space stations where drug companies are going to be developing drugs in zero-gravity environments,' and I don't think that's happened, but all sorts of other things that people did not imagine did happen. MATTHEW WEINZIERL: Well, and Curt, I don't want you to lose your childhood dreams. I mean, the idea that we might actually do some really important pharmaceutical or other R&D up in space or even manufacturing, that may be also having its own renaissance. You're right, those ideas have been around for decades, but very much as in where we saw launch costs come down over the past couple of decades, there's now at least potentially on the horizon, an era of commercial space stations, which we hope will engender a similar decline in costs and increasing capabilities to make possible some of the things that people have been dreaming about for decades and to also make possible things we never would've really thought about 30, 40 years ago. For instance, data centers in space – there are startups trying to figure out how to make that happen. CURT NICKISCH: That's fascinating. And now they can afford to try it. MATTHEW WEINZIERL: Right, exactly. CURT NICHISCH: You now have a situation where SpaceX has been so successful. It's almost like, is SpaceX a monopoly? MATTHEW WEINZIERL: That's certainly a question a lot of people are asking. I think with antitrust concerns, it's always a tension because often you acquire that lead by doing really remarkable things that generate a lot of value for customers. CURT NICKISCH: Right, to wit, costs coming down 99%. MATTHEW WEINZIERL: Right, exactly. And SpaceX is yet another example of a company that went much faster, farther than I think really anyone could have expected or even hoped, in terms of opening up the space sector. The tension is between celebrating the companies that do really well and gain dominance because of that, but then making sure that they don't turn into value capturers, rather than value creators. And our recommendation in the book is that we all, whether we're government contractors or government agencies or people trying to build our own businesses, we try to keep people nipping at the heels of SpaceX and posing real challenges to keep competition. One of those key market forces, healthy. And so I think keeping that at the core of contracting is a key idea. BRENDAN ROSSEAU: The concern becomes in those programs where they're specifically trying to create competition and bring in new entrants and kind of let the new guys come in and bring in more competition, when even those contracts are going to SpaceX, as we've seen happen, then I think it starts to get a little bit concerning but right now, I think we're still in a good point. And I think that the government has been forward thinking about this, about being intentional about bringing in competition. CURT NICKISCH: It's interesting, you talked about space as just another place, but you've also described yourselves as optimists. And in this arena there is, I don't know, it seems like story and drama and the frontier of possibilities is a big part of what motivates people to work in the industry and what motivates people to fund it. And I'm just curious what you think of story and drama as part of the branding space enterprises, how helpful it is or is this an issue for you in the space industry that you yourselves kind of come to terms with? BRENDAN ROSSEAU: I think a good place to start for me would be just kind of how I ended up here. So I actually, I've always loved space. I thought I was going to be an astronomer or astrophysicist. I just have always loved the space story. I mean, if you look at the relationship of humanity outer space, every culture across the globe, even before they were in contact with one another, seems to have had their own relationship with outer space. And of course, it's if I can be patriotic for a minute, I mean, it's a particularly beautiful aspect of the American space story. The quest and sacrifices to push out beyond the frontier is something that I think is also uniquely American and I've always thought of it as kind of like our space story is this gilded thread in the American tapestry. Like other things, it can be a double-edged sword. If we start doing space things from a commercial perspective or even from a public perspective, just because we want to be doing space things, I think that can be a distraction. And we have seen plenty of space companies start out with a lot of excitement and momentum only to later realize and have their investors later realize, oh, wait a minute, you guys kind of just wanted to do space stuff, and that's not really a business plan. I think the businesses and ideas that Matt and I are most excited about are ones where if you presented them to someone who really did not care about space, and you just said, 'Hey, there's this value that can be created in space, and it just so happens that space happens to be the best way to do this.' Whether it's transmitting satellite internet around the world to billions of people at a low cost, or providing data that can really only be captured from space or a million other things. There's a lot of things that space is truly uniquely good for. Ones that check that box are great, but also businesses that have that kernel of inspiration behind them, companies that even though they're pursuing real business models are doing something hard, they're pushing the frontier. They're not just any other company. There's many of those today, and that's why we're so excited. We see how motivated the founders and the workforces are, and that although they're pursuing commercial business cases, they're also pushing the needle forward. The hope is that yes, we can expand what space means to us to also be commercially viable and like a sea of true commerce, while also not losing that wonder and excitement and exploration. And today, the space economy has all of that. We've got people who want to settle Mars while also being dead set on very profitable businesses. So, I think you can do both. MATTHEW WEINZIERL: We teach a course at Harvard Business School that has almost 100 students enrolled, we've been teaching it now for a few years. And one of the really neat stories that keeps coming out for many of our students is that they found their way to space from a different technological or tech-heavy sector. So whether it's from various internet companies or other tough tech sectors, they find that space offers this combination of inspiration that Brendan was talking about, and really delivering practical value to people on earth through various different capabilities that just really excites them. And so it's great to see some of that technical talent and business people interested in technical sectors finding their way to space. CURT NICKISCH: There's a new administration in the White House. It has a close relationship with a very space-friendly person, right? Elon Musk. This is the same president who created the Space Force. There's also a climate of just, government shouldn't be spending people's money on things. If you could give advice to government leaders right now, what would it be? And alternatively, what about private sector CEOs? MATTHEW WEINZIERL: Maybe I'll actually start with the second one. One of the reasons we wrote this book, we wrote it partly for people in the sector already to try to give them a framework for thinking about what's happening in space that's informed by some of the basic ideas in economics. But one of the key reasons we wrote the book is to widen the circle of business leaders who are thinking about how they might create value in space. We often like to say, if every Fortune 500 or pick your group of companies had someone in the C-suite whose job it was, at least in part, to think about how space might change what they do and deliver value to their customers. The ideas that we would have for activity in space would just blossom tremendously, because that's where all the real knowledge is, is at the individual local level. And so we really hope that this book brings a large group of people in to just start thinking about what space might make possible for them through data, through manufacturing, through resources, and through so much else. BRENDAN ROSSEAU: The key thing that I would love to, if I could just get everyone in a room, all the public sector decision-makers in a room, the key thing I'd love to get across is, if we can all arrive at an understanding of what the public sector can be good at, what its strengths are, what we need the public sector to be doing. Things like basic research, organizing, activity, exploration, science, R&D, these things that are in a lot of ways the engine of the commercial space activity that we see today. If you pull the rug of all that out, I think you would really hamstring what's possible in space. So to the public sector community, I would say we need you, we need you to be forward-thinking, we need you to be organizing your programs and projects in such a way that you are encouraging competition and ensuring that this tide that is rising, this space tide is one that will lift all boats. I think that's really important, and especially now, because it appears that we may be at a fairly significant inflection point in the history of, well, I mean, our country and the government, but especially NASA and the Department of Defense and the relationship with space in particular. There were fairly significant cuts proposed to NASA. There are many significant changes that are happening with the Department of Defense's approach to space. I think some of that can be positive. I think that this change can be good as long as it is based in a solid understanding of, what should the government's role be here and why are we doing it? So I'm hopeful that as we make potentially dramatic changes to NASA and the Department of Defense, that they're smart, that they're enduring, that they're forward-thinking, they're ones that allow the commercial sector to kind of have a platform and foundation and then build on that to thrive. CURT NICKISCH: Matt and Brendan, this has been really, really fascinating and it's been a pleasure to have you on. Thanks for coming on the show. MATTHEW WEINZIERL: Well, thanks so much, Curt. What a pleasure to be with you. BRENDAN ROSSEAU: Thanks, Curt. CURT NICKISCH: That's Matthew Weinzierl and Brendan Rosseau, the authors of Space to Grow: Unlocking the Final Economic Frontier. And if you have space to grow in your career, we can help. There are more than 1,000 episodes of IdeaCast , and HBR has more podcasts to help you manage your team, your organization, and your career. Find them all at or search HBR in Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. Thanks to our team, senior producer Mary Dooe, Associate Producer Hannah Bates, Audio Product manager Ian Fox, and Senior Production Specialist Rob Eckhardt. Thank you for listening to the HBR IdeaCast . I'm Curt Nickisch.
Harvard Business Review
23-04-2025
- Business
- Harvard Business Review
When Over-Collaboration Leads to Indecision
HANNAH BATES: Welcome to HBR On Leadership , case studies and conversations with the world's top business and management experts—hand-selected to help you unlock the best in those around you. Collaboration is a good thing—until it gets in the way of action. Too much collaboration can stall decision-making and hold you back. In this HBR IdeaCast episode from 2018, host Sarah Green Carmichael speaks with leadership coach Rebecca Shambaugh about how to curb over-collaboration in yourself and on your team. They discuss how perfectionism, workplace culture, and even well-intended leadership messages can lead employees to over-consult and under-decide. Their conversation starts with how to spot the behavior. SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: What does the classic over-collaborator's life look like, and feel like? REBECCA SHAMBAUGH: (laughs) Well, I was probably on one of those spectrums, you know, and I think one of the things that you – as a manager, if I have a direct report or a team member who's over-collaborative, they tend to not have a lot of self-confidence within themselves. So that's why they continue to reach out and get other people's inputs. They want to please everyone, right? And it's impossible these days to please everyone. They may not be able to prioritize very much. So, there may be key areas where you have to prioritize or collaborate and get key influencers – your managers, if you will – input or ideas and perspective. But there are other things that, you know what? You should just really make that decision, or you should really delegate that. So they're doing a lot of activities that aren't really producing a lot of progress – i.e., getting to a decision. And they come to you and they say: 'I just don't have time for the high value projects, because they're eating their time and continuing for months and weeks to collaborate with people and not really come to agreements, or decisions.' SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: One question I have about that is how much can we emphasize the individual's responsibility for that situation, versus the company culture or the managers' mixed messages? In some cases, it's easy to see that, you know, people might not have a bias for action because they'd been kind of told to wait for permission to act. How can you diagnose whether it's you or your company that's causing the problem? REBECCA SHAMBAUGH: Well, it could be a combination of both or sometimes it's just the direct relationship with your manager, more than anything. I always say, you know, look in. And I invite people to first examine their own belief system, their own narrative, that's causing them to show up and seek out everyone else's opinion or you know, doing things that are more task-related. Or, perhaps you tend to be more in the perfectionism zone, where everything has to be 100 percent right before it goes out the door. Hence you over-collaborate, right? You try to get to consensus with everybody because you tend to be a pleaser. I think also when we coach individuals, we sort of put in front of them an activity-based tool where they look at their whole day or their whole week, and [we] invite them to do a personal audit. And say: 'Okay, what are the priority areas that you know, you really feel like you are responsible for – your key objectives?' And when I'm personally coaching women in particular – and sometimes men – they'll give me 10 or 15 key priorities. And that's the first thing – you can only have three to five, and do three to five very well. So you've got to somehow re-prioritize or delegate or take something off of that to-do list. You could be spending 60 percent of your time in low-priority areas. So, [the] first thing is to do that critical self-assessment of ourselves. The other thing is, what good managers do, they help you to provide context. So sitting down or meeting with your manager and saying: 'Look, here are all the activities I'm doing. Help me to really prioritize what you see as the top areas.' And the first response managers will give you, after they see your personal audit, they'll say, 'I had no idea you were doing all this, and I didn't know you were making all of these phone calls to get an agreement on something that probably one or two people could really help you to make that decision.' SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So often, the advice that we tell ourselves or that we give to other people is about learning to say 'No.' So while aas a manager we might say, 'This person really just needs to learn to say no.' You might even tell that person this is what you need to do. We often blame ourselves if we're feeling overstretched, like 'God, I should just be better at saying no.' Is that realistic? I mean is just declining to take on more work a realistic solution? REBECCA SHAMBAUGH: Yeah, I mean the whole piece around is it important to say no and, how do I do that, I guess is perhaps more of the question there too… I think before you say no, I think you need to understand the bigger picture and the rationale of their thinking and why they want to give you this project. For example, sponsorship. Notably, women have a lot of mentors, but they're under sponsored. And the sponsors are the ones that give you the lift; they give you the visibility; they give you those projects that aren't in your sight that could really give you greater opportunities to be more engaged in the business and so on and so forth. So if a woman is totally stretched on a rack and doing her best job, but she says, 'How can I just take on one more project?' I invite women to really step back and put on the pause button and say, 'Help me to better understand what's your vision for this project? How do you see this mapping out to my growth goals – areas that I can really benefit from, from a career growth perspective, from a visibility perspective and just from a pure advancement and promotion perspective?' And they may know something that you don't know. And then to me it's all about negotiations: 'Okay, well if I am going to be doing this extra project – which sounds something like I've always wanted to do but didn't really have the access to it – something else has to give. And so I'd like to propose that I re-source a couple of these other activities out, so I can be putting all my best discretionary effort into this project.' And so build the business case around that – be solution based. Sometimes you don't have to say no, but also looking at other alternatives to really redesign your day-to-day activities [and] responsibilities so that you can do this. SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL:And why do you tend to focus on women when you're talking about this topic? REBECCA SHAMBAUGH: I think women tend to, by virtue of their socialization early on – and I don't want to generalize and put women just in a box, and this doesn't mean that men aren't in this position as well. But women tend to want to please their, they tend to be more facilitative in nature, hence more collaborative. They tend to like a little bit more harmony, you know – less competitive. And so, sometimes we default to some of these styles that disempower us. It doesn't mean that women don't have it within them to be more strategic in terms of how they're spending their time. But I think they need to, number one, give themselves permission to do that. And they need sometimes the feedback and the coaching and the tools and the skills to shift – number one, their narrative and their belief system about themselves. And be able to believe that they, that they can do this role, that they can speak up, they can make an ask, versus the concern they're gonna rock the boat. So in the first book I wrote, 'The Sticky Floors,' a lot of times women – their own beliefs – will sabotage their best interest, right? And self-limit their ability to grow and advance and to really evolve beyond. So we have a tendency to disempower ourselves and you know, be more critical on ourselves than sometimes men do. SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: It's interesting because I recently read some research that we published in that suggests that in single sex groups, women will share sort of unglamorous tasks equally. Whereas groups of men, it tends to be like the same two guys doing those tasks over and over again. And so I wonder if that's a case where womens' collaborativeness helps – like if you happened to work in a group of all women, you're kind of rotating those chores. Whereas you know, men, it seems like that the two same guys are kind of out of luck over and over again. So even though I agree with you that there's a lot of research on over collaboration and women, I do think there are guys out there who really struggle with this too, and I think the evidence bears that out. REBECCA SHAMBAUGH: Well, there's no question about that. And again, you know, we need balanced leadership and I think a strength of women we need to embrace and tap into more is the spirit of collaboration, and how do you do that? Collaboration is all about building trust, and trust is down in most companies. So it's important to be able to connect the dots and be cross-supportive to achieve a unified goal together. I think men tend to just go and do it, right? They just go and do it. They tend to be more transactional, to some degree. So I think it's important to have both. But this is an area where we coach men on quite a bit, is to be inclusive, is to be more collaborative and to open up your aperture to a variety of different relationships beyond just you, to go to, to ask their perspective or view on a problem or issue or just their advice is to broaden and diversify your network so it is diverse, and you're not always going to the same people who look and think like you. SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So if you're managing someone who is genuinely roo collaborative, male or female, one of the pieces of advice you've given to managers is to help them get over this by giving feedback that's goal-oriented. Can you give me an example of kind of what non-goal-oriented feedback would sound like but then fix it so that it's goal-oriented and proper feedback? REBECCA SHAMBAUGH: I think if you're a manager, this is not always an easy conversation, but I always start off in coaching men or women to say, 'Tell me about how you're spending your time, what do you see as the key priorities?' And really have them map that out for you – what their assumptions are around that. Because all they know is what they know and they could be operating in a vacuum that they don't know some of the top priorities. Or perhaps they may not understand that, you know, honestly, we don't need to get to consensus on this. You really need to step back, and let me give you a better sense from a feedback perspective of the organizational dynamics. And in this case, on this particular project, you know, while you share with me [that] you reached out and got consensus with 10 people. The key people that will be advocating and sponsoring this, and moving this through for us, and who politically we need to really connect the dots with and help them to be aware and get their input are these three people. And helping them to understand why it's those three people as opposed to those 10 or 12. Sometimes our team members just don't have that bigger-picture thinking or understand the organizational dynamics [or] what are some of the changes happening around the corner. So I think that that's really important. And helping them to go through self-discovery, versus telling them 'You're spending too much time here. You need to get over and be more collaborative or be more directive.' We hear this all the time, but women, or people, just don't know what to do with that. You might be efficient, you're checking off all the boxes, but at the end of the day, It's holding you back from really tapping into the right relationships to really get the project moving versus stalling. And then helping them to see that – you know, gosh, you feel like you need to get agreement from everyone. Well, you know what? Empowering them and letting them know that you are the one who knows more than anybody else on this project. I remember I got this feedback many, many years ago when I was still working in corporate America and I was a perfectionist. I felt like I needed to get everyone to agreement. And then my manager came by and gave me this helpful piece of feedback. He said, 'You know, I appreciate all the hard work you've done here, but the end of the day I hired you because you know more than anybody else around this particular project and area of expertise. And I'm really relying upon you at the end of the day to make this decision.' So empowering them and giving them the confidence to know that not only do they have the authority to do that, but you believe in their strengths and their experience and background to make those decisions. SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: A common employee response to being told to spend time on higher value activities is to say, 'I don't have time to do those higher value activities because I've got too many of these low value tasks on my plate.' So if they've done the time audit, and they're spending most of their time on stuff that's really not a priority, they might come back and say 'That's the organization's fault or that's my manager's fault and this is just what I have to do. And this is the amount of time it takes.' How can you as a manager help them see that they do have control over this? How do you help them problem solve, so that they can free up time to do the stuff that really will get them promoted? REBECCA SHAMBAUGH: Yeah. A lot of times, again, it gets back to our own belief system: We need to do all these things. And they in sometimes they need to be done way that I think they need to be done because no one can do them better, right? Or I, I love all these projects and because I get a lot of fulfillment, satisfaction out of it, but you know what? It's getting me nowhere. So it's an incumbent upon a manager to help them to move further into the traditional Covey quadrant, the third quadrant there on the top right – to be more thoughtful, mindful about your time and how it's being spent. So I think it's really - and this is generally, not just necessarily women but men too is – is to really go over…you know, it's rare that a manager will sit down these days and say, 'Where would you like to grow? What's your future career lifeline look like?' And really together examine what they're doing and how those activities are growing new skillsets, are expanding their relationships, giving them more visible projects versus the mundane projects that really aren't seeding their growth and their confidence. Right? So it's really helping them to recalibrate those activities, and then really creating a plan of action to make that happen. And I think that it's incumbent upon that just waiting for the manager to come in and observe that, but it's important for us to come and say, 'Look, you know, here are some ideas. Here are some things that I need to really talk to you about,' before things do go off the tracks, or you realize that you just can't do this job anymore. SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: The research does show that women are often expected to be more collaborative. We get asked to volunteer for more projects, especially having the low value ones. We're often expected to lead through consensus, and we do. So I'm wondering for male managers of women – because we have a lot of men who listen to the IdeaCast – what do you wish that they knew about this? REBECCA SHAMBAUGH: Well, I think this gets back to understanding the diverse spectrum of styles amongst your team and really opening up your lens to see where those different styles can bring value to the things that you're doing. That's really important. And, and I think sometimes, look, we all have bias, right? Which can turn into stereotypes about how we view a certain person. If I'm more collaborative, inclusive, you know, and the other person is more directive, right to the point, likes to make a decision and move on. You know, that's okay. But understand that people have different styles in terms of how they make decisions. So I think it's important to have a diverse spectrum on your team, of different ways of thinking about something, processing something; different communication styles. If not, you get the groupthink, you get the same people thinking the same way and communicating the same way. And that's just not going to work in today's environment. I don't think it's a negative necessarily for men to come up and say, 'Why does she talk that way so much? Why she overly collaborative? She could have made that decision?' It's just our lens and our norm of what we have been used to. So it's inviting men to – this is the same thing about diversity and inclusion, right? Companies have a lot of diversity, but we're not tapping into and leveraging the best styles, the best strengths and experiences of everyone. If we did, we would probably in most cases have better outcomes; greater levels of problem solving and decision making. So I encourage them to be open to those different styles and look at ways where you can utilize those styles for the benefit of everyone. SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Because I could see if you were trying to get better at saying 'no' to tasks that don't add value, or acting more decisively while still being somewhat inclusive. I could really see it coming off kind of the wrong way – you know, 'No, I won't do that. And here's the decision I'm making!' And you know, it does seem that it's the kind of thing that does take a little bit of practice before it feels natural and before it comes across as natural to other people. REBECCA SHAMBAUGH: Yeah. And I just want to say say layered in that is, what's really important in that is having the emotional and social intelligence, right? There's a time and a place to say 'no.' There could be layoffs and reorganization. Your manager comes up and says, 'Look, this is a tough time for the next six to eight months. I need you to jump in and help out with this.' Right? You want to be a team player, you want to be understanding the needs and concerns of others and their schedules and their priorities. So I think when you are saying 'yes' or saying 'no,' it's just not a straight yes or straight no, it's really taking into consideration your colleagues, right? The bigger picture. And your rationale for the yes or no should really think and link to the needs in the context of others, that decision isn't just more of a self-serving, self-oriented decision. I think when people on the other end know that you've taken their best interest in mind and it still may be a 'no,' right, that you've thought through this – maybe not this, but I could do this in the context of what you're trying to do. That would be something I can best align with and support you. That's being inclusive in your decision-making in your ask, and how you say yes and how you say no. SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Becky, you have mentioned that you earlier in your career struggled with some of these issues and I'm wondering for you, what really made the difference? How did you change your own mindset around some of this so that you can be free of this problem? REBECCA SHAMBAUGH: Well, you do have to look inside, and sometimes what got you here is not going to get you there. I think I was a perfectionist. I mean, I would rework PowerPoint decks. I would over-collaborate, you know, because I doubted my own worth and knowledge. I did a lot of the same things I coach people on. I went out and I talked about expectations and what's good enough and you know, how I needed to really better align my activities with the things that perhaps were more higher value. But I realized that all this is giving yourself permission, right? If I'm an over-collaborator, a perfectionist, one of the things that I realized in my journey of getting feedback and talking to other people around some of these similar challenges they have, but how did you navigate through this, right? How did you come out of this as a great leader? And a lot of it is just knowing and believing in yourself. And as a perfectionist, I said, 'You know, 88 percent of the people I spoke to are not perfectionist. Why am I being more difficult on myself? Why don't I just join the world of imperfection, and realize that everything doesn't have to be perfect?' So I think a lot of this starts within, in our own belief system and narrative and understanding how that can self-limiting for us, to a certain degree. Right? And I was lucky to have a manager who helped to empower me to believe in myself. And then after several experiences, after speaking up, after being more decisive, people sort of, the room shifted. People began to see me as a leader, right? Partly because I started to believe in myself and I started to get that confidence. And I was intentional then, eventually, about that. So it's not an overnight process, but I think those are just some of the things that I give advice and guidance to when making those shifts, you know, early on, or during these situations where you feel stuck. SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Well, Becky, thank you. This has been really helpful and I appreciate your time. REBECCA SHAMBAUGH: You're welcome. Sarah. Always enjoy it. HANNAH BATES: That was leadership coach Rebecca Shambaugh in conversation with Sarah Green Carmichael on HBR IdeaCast. We'll be back next Wednesday with another hand-picked conversation about leadership from Harvard Business Review. If you found this episode helpful, share it with your friends and colleagues, and follow our show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. While you're there, be sure to leave us a review. When you're ready for more podcasts, articles, case studies, books, and videos with the world's top business and management experts, find it all at This episode was produced Mary Dooe and me, Hannah Bates. Curt Nickisch is our editor. Music by Coma Media. Special thanks to Ian Fox, Maureen Hoch, Amanda Kersey, Rob Eckhardt, Erica Truxler, Ramsey Khabbaz, Nicole Smith, Anne Bartholomew, and you – our listener. See you next week.
Harvard Business Review
23-04-2025
- Business
- Harvard Business Review
How to Turn Your Customer Base into a Community
HANNAH BATES: Welcome to HBR On Strategy —case studies and conversations with the world's top business and management experts, hand-selected to help you unlock new ways of doing business. 'Community' is a buzzword that gets thrown around a lot in the business world. But what does it really mean to build one—and what does it take to make it last? More importantly, how can businesses create communities that drive long-term success? Matt Mullenweg, founder and CEO of Automattic—the company behind WordPress—joins HBR IdeaCast host Sarah Green Carmichael to answer those questions. He shares insights on fostering community within a firm—like hiring the right people through auditions instead of resumes—and within a customer base, by encouraging engagement and feedback. Here's Mullenweg explaining why what's good for his customers and contributors is good for his company. MATT MULLENWEG: For me, it all starts with community. That's really the beginning– the alpha and the omega. Everything that has been successful for WordPress in the past– and everything for Automattic– has really been part of thinking about what's the best long-term answer for the wider– I don't want to say community 10 times– but for the wider audience, people that are part of the ecosystem that makes up WordPress users and developers and the creators and all those sorts of folks. I do truly believe that working in their best interest is in the best commercial interest of the company long term. Maybe in the short term you make less money, and that might frustrate some of our investors or something. But in the long term, I think you're much healthier and better off. SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: That's interesting. So there's obviously the community of people who use WordPress, which has grown really, really fast and is huge. And then there's the core community of people, I think, within WordPress– what you might call employees– which has maybe grown a little bit more. I saw an interview with you last year where you were saying you were taking the brakes off and hiring more people. MATT MULLENWEG: I'm trying to grow the user base as fast as possible. And I'm trying to grow the employee base as fast as possible, but while still maintaining our culture. SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So how do you do that? MATT MULLENWEG: I think it's just a rate. If you look around the room, how many people have been there more than a year, and how many people have been there less than a year? It's also, what example are the people who have been there longer setting? Because essentially what you're saying– especially if someone's been there five or 10 years– this person is good. They haven't been fired. So they are demonstrating what it means to be a part of this organization. So if you're at a company dinner and they go and they order the most expensive thing on the menu and an expensive bottle of wine and then they expense it, that's going to tell you something about the values of the company and what's the behavior that's OK. So I don't think culture has anything to do with ping-pong tables or any of that stuff, especially since we don't have them here. Those people are not in our office. It's really the culmination of 1,000 little decisions and actions that people see and then they emulate. And that starts from the very, very top. If you're the CEO or a founder and you walk by a piece of trash on the floor and you don't pick it up, you know what, everyone else is going to too. SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Well, and I'm glad that you mentioned your– what we at HBR would maybe a bit formally call a distributed workforce. You are famous at Automattic for having people scattered all over the world and not for putting a premium on– oh, we all have to be in the same city working together. Tell me a little bit about how that informs your decisions around building the company culture and that kind of thing. I mean, your example [INAUDIBLE] walking through the office, maybe picking up a piece of trash– what's the digital, distributed, virtual world equivalent of that? MATT MULLENWEG: It's funny because our designers actually do something– they call it trash pick-up day. They literally go around all of our products and look for things that are just out of alignment or where the colors aren't right or the typography isn't well. And they just do little fixes. Generally it takes less than half an hour or 20 minutes. But, yeah, they call it trash pick-up. SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: That's interesting. So just to sort of finish this interesting company culture jag that we've been on– I know one of the things that you have talked about is hiring by auditions rather than resumes. And I'm just wondering, is that something you've been able to keep doing as you've hired more people? And if so, do you use that to not only see how their work product turns out, but also to see how will this person contribute to the culture that we've built? MATT MULLENWEG: Absolutely. In fact, I still to this day refer people to the HBR article. SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Yay! MATT MULLENWEG: It's actually still totally accurate. The only thing that's changed is the numbers. We're now 390 people. In the article I feel like we were sub 200. So it's working. It's scaling. And in fact, the more trials we do, the more times we run the process, I feel like the more people learn about it and the better they get. SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: That's great. That's wonderful to hear. I wanted to pivot now back to talking about the kind of user community of the people who are actually using your products. One of the things, I think, that some of the big companies who read HBR have struggled with is creating communities around their products. I mean, this is something that people say– oh, we have to build a community around our products– but then when it comes time to do it, it seems there's hesitation that I think sometimes seems to come from a desire just to control everything. MATT MULLENWEG: Totally. SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So tell me about that. Is that something that you have wrestled with– how much control do we give away– or do you just have to trust people? Is it something that internet-native companies can do that established brands just can't? I would love your thoughts on that. MATT MULLENWEG: I feel like the equivalent of what companies sometimes do is they invite a bunch of people to their house for a party and they don't put out any appetizers or drinks or anything. And they're like, why aren't people having fun? Why aren't they having fun? Go have fun. You know, you've got to grease the wheels a little bit. If you were hosting a dinner or a party, you would put out the snacks and the hors d'oeuvres. And you would make sure the liquor's flowing freely and the wine and everything. You're giving something to people, and then they start to participate. And whatever it is, the constructive is of what you're trying to create. With WordPress, I mean, we give away extremely good software. It's multimillion dollar software that you can download for free. And so just from the start of it, people feel like they've gotten a lot of value. And for us, in particular– they get so much, again, for free, no expectations of anything– is a lot of people turn around and say, well, what can I do in return? What can I give back? Just like after a good dinner party, you might have a few of your guests helping out with the dishes. Because they're so appreciative of how good the food is, what a great host you were. So as with all things, it works best when there's no expectations. If on your dinner party invite you said, you may come to dinner, but you have to stay for 34 minutes afterwards and clean up, that doesn't sound like a very fun party, does it? SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: No. And it's an interesting analogy because I think it's– the other attitude I would say to continue that metaphor would be there's a feeling of maybe some people are worried that they'll have this party and then if people have too good of a time, the partygoers will get drunk and trash their house. And so it's like, OK, everyone, time to go home because, really, you've had enough. MATT MULLENWEG: Well, again, it's the example you set. The parties I've been to that got a little out of hand, it was usually because the person who was hosting the party was also getting out of hand. [LAUGHING] SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Fair enough. One other thing you've just sort of hinted at there that I wanted to ask you about was the freemium model, because that's obviously a model that relies on getting a significant number of people to use the product and then a smaller percentage to actually pay for it. This is something that I think a lot of different companies, legacy companies have looked at as maybe a way to make money in the internet era. Do you think that something like that would work for more companies? Do you think it's just something that works for your company? It's sort of a vague question, but I would love your thoughts on that as well. MATT MULLENWEG: It just depends on the product. WordPress is relatively inexpensive to run for people. And so it doesn't cost us a ton to have people use it for free. And so it's a smart business decision– essentially use free as a mechanism to get more people in the door and then a percentage of them convert. And the economics of that work out. We have another product called VaultPress. So VaultPress is a real-time backup system. So for the sites that you really care about, you can pay VaultPress $5 or $15 a month. And the instant that you make a change on your site, it's backed up to nine different places. So it's literally ultra ultra good backup. This is a premium-only product. There's no free version. And that's because, well, it's really expensive to run, because we're storing nine or 11 copies of all your changes in real-time as soon as you make them. So that's an example. I think it just depends on the economics of the product as well. Apple doesn't give away free phones, but they work with phone companies to make the economics more affordable for people in the US. So they could subsidize phones. So you just have to look at your particular business model. The internet does make premium very, very attractive. SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Yeah. I mean, and I guess the thing is the premium product then has to be worth the upgrade, because if it's just marginally better, then no one would pay for it. for it. They'd just keep using the free product, I suppose. MATT MULLENWEG: And that is the hardest part is deciding what to put in the free version and what to put behind the paid version, because the more stuff you put in the free, the more value it is, the more growth you have. But if you don't have anything that's super compelling behind the paywall, if you will, no one's going to bother upgrading. SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Well, and I guess so many internet companies now rely on advertising to support their business models. And I guess that's the other question I have is, how much of this can we keep supporting off of ads? MATT MULLENWEG: You know, advertising is definitely going through a rough spot right now. A lot of the oxygen in the room is being eaten up by the Googles and Facebooks of the world. So I wouldn't bet my business on advertising. I think if you can have a hybrid model where in good times advertising can support you and in other times you're providing enough value to your core audience– that they're paying you directly– I think that can be very sustainable. But it is possible that when you think of advertising is fundamentally trying to get us to make an action, usually a commercial one. They'll be able to close the loop on this a lot better. So advertising dollars will get smarter and smarter, where right now they just have a lot of work to do. They're a little bit lazy. They'll go to the big guys and folks who are holding people's attention. Let's say it's a great 8,000-word HBR article that takes 30 minutes to read, and 10,000 people read it. You have 300,000 minutes of attention there. You should be able to monetize that from an advertising point of view just as well as a Google or Facebook. An ineffecient market. One thing about the future as well is that you can imagine almost every device in your life becoming better when it's connected to the internet. We're seeing early versions of this with things like the Nest thermostat– you know, the ability to change the thermostat that's upstairs when you're downstairs or things like that, or turn it on when you leave or if you go on vacation. But also things like– I actually just got– just like an hour ago– something called an Electric Objects frame. And basically what it is is it's a screen, but it has no buttons, no controls, no notifications, no anything. All it does is a Mac screen that connects to the internet and displays art. And it looks beautiful– like a picture frame. SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: That's cool. MATT MULLENWEG: And so now I have this device in my– that looks just like the art it's sitting next to. And from my phone I can change what's on there at any given point. And I think things like this will have entirely new mediums spring up around them, that we have a lot more control of our environment and our environments become a lot more complimentary to us, just like how your home can transform when you put a Sonos speaker in every room and you can synchronize them. That sort of tailoring of our environment [INAUDIBLE] mediated by the net. It's going to be very exciting. SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Well, and as someone who spends too much time staring at a screen, I sort of am excited about the idea of spending less time with screens. And I think connected objects are a way to get there. MATT MULLENWEG: It's ambient technology, right? So it's a technology that fades into the background even though it's always there. SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Mm-hm. OK So in the past I have seen some interviews with you where you've talked about different personal productivity experiments you've run– changing your sleep schedule or limiting how often you check email. And I was wondering if you have any current ongoing personal productivity experiments that are currently underway– things you're trying to do differently just to be happier or get more done. MATT MULLENWEG: Yeah. Something I'm focused on right now is tiny habits. That's probably the easiest way to put it. Things like, I do two sun salutations when I wake up in the morning, which is very easy, right? But by making sure I'm going to do two no matter how early or late I am or how rushed I am, I often end up doing a lot more. And these daily stretches are a great way to start the day. I do that with some exercises. I try to read a chapter of a book every day– very minimum. One thing I've been more conscious of is productivity, we think of in terms of what you're outputting. But I think it's also really important to think of your state of mind that's creating this. A lot of this, if you break it all down to the million different things you can do. Breathing– a lot of it comes back to breathing. And a good exercise that anyone listening to this or you yourself could do right now is just to stand there and take a few deep breaths, but take them from your belly instead of from your chest. So your chest should stay completely still. As you breathe in, expand your belly. And as you breathe out, feel it contract. And this just puts your body into a more relaxed state. And I find that if I can detect when I'm having a conversation or chatting or writing a blog post or something like that, I'm in more of the fight or flight mode. My brain's probably more reactive and proactive. If you can just take a few deep breaths, it puts you into a great state to be able to really think through things and think through all sides of things and dispassionately examine both your feelings and what you're outputting in a way that often has much superior results. SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: That's cool. As you were talking about that, I just tried to do it. And I do feel immediately more calm. So thank you for that. MATT MULLENWEG: Instantly, right? SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Yeah. MATT MULLENWEG: It's the craziest thing because we all breathe all day. But you think about it for a few seconds, and it changes everything. SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Yeah. Matt, thank you again so much for talking with us today. It's really been a pleasure. MATT MULLENWEG: Likewise. HANNAH BATES: That was Automattic founder and CEO Matt Mullenweg in conversation with Sarah Green Carmichael on HBR IdeaCast . We'll be back next Wednesday with another hand-picked conversation about business strategy from the Harvard Business Review. If you found this episode helpful, share it with your friends and colleagues, and follow our show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. While you're there, be sure to leave us a review. And when you're ready for more podcasts, articles, case studies, books, and videos with the world's top business and management experts, find it all at This episode was produced by Mary Dooe, and me Hannah Bates. Curt Nickisch is our editor. Special thanks to Ian Fox, Maureen Hoch, Erica Truxler, Ramsey Khabbaz, Nicole Smith, Anne Bartholomew, and you – our listener. See you next week.
Harvard Business Review
22-04-2025
- Business
- Harvard Business Review
How Immigrant Entrepreneurs Build Lasting Businesses
ALISON BEARD: Welcome to the HBR IdeaCast from Harvard Business Review. I'm Alison Beard. The story of the successful immigrant entrepreneur moving to a new country, seeing a need and working as hard as possible to build a business around it isn't a new one. In the U.S, it's a big part of what we call the American Dream. But the stats on this still might surprise you. While immigrants make up 14% of the U.S population, they own about a fifth of new businesses. 45% of Fortune 500 companies had immigrant founders. Four in five founders or top executives at billion dollar startups are first or second generation immigrants. And the research shows that immigrant founded companies grow faster and survive longer than those founded by natives, contributing trillions of dollars to the economies of their adopted countries. The most talked about immigrant founded U.S company might be Google, now Alphabet, but consider also Nordstrom, WhatsApp, Chobani, Calendly, Zoom, and thousands of other small to medium sized businesses across the country. Our guest today has talked to many of these entrepreneurs, studied their strategies and pinpointed the common principles that have propelled them to long-term success. She says that any leader can learn from their examples. And at a time when anti-immigrant sentiment is on the rise around the world, we wanted to ask her what impact related policy changes might have on entrepreneurial innovation. Neri Karra Sillaman is an entrepreneurship expert at Oxford University, a founder herself of the luxury leather goods company, Neri Karra, and the author of the book, Pioneers, Eight Principles of Business Longevity from Immigrant Entrepreneurs. Neri, welcome. NERI KARRA SILLAMAN: Thank you very much Alison. ALISON BEARD: So I'd love to start briefly with your own immigration story and how that led you to both study entrepreneurship and become an entrepreneur yourself. NERI KARRA SILLAMAN: I was born in Bulgaria to a Turkish ethnic minority, and in June of 1989, the communist dictator, Todor Zhivkov, asked us to leave Bulgaria. So in June of 1989, with only two suitcases to our name, we left Bulgaria. There were 360,000 Turkish Bulgarians who immigrated that summer. When we got to the border, I remember all the confusion, fear around me, and I will never forget my father screaming like a wounded animal as he ran towards the border and he threw himself on what he called motherland soil. Looking around me at that time, I had two realizations. One was my childhood just ended. The second one was I need to get a good education. I received financial aid at the age of 18 to go from Turkey to University of Miami, and I was once again an immigrant. I remember feeling very much like fish out of water because all my classmates around me felt very much at ease when talking to the professor, very much at ease, comfortable in their own skin. We had a computer class and it was the first time that I saw a computer in my life. ALISON BEARD: And as you started studying entrepreneurship, as you continued your educational journey, what gaps did you find in the research on immigrant success? NERI KARRA SILLAMAN: At the time, I was actually with my family, a few years later started to build a company ourselves. And the lessons that I was seeing in the literature, first of all as someone who wasn't just an academic, but also who was practicing entrepreneurship, some of the advice didn't fit what we were doing as a refugee family trying to build a business with zero capital and with very limited resources. What stood out to me was just how different it was, what you did on the ground versus what was written in the books and in the academic literature. For me, especially when it comes to immigrant entrepreneurship, for instance, there is a lot emphasis on necessity entrepreneurship. And it is the case for many of the immigrant entrepreneurs because they often don't have the resources, their education is not recognized in the country that they immigrate to, so they are often forced to become entrepreneurs. The entrepreneurship literature will often ask the question, why are immigrants more likely to become entrepreneurs? But they rarely ask a question, why are they more likely to start businesses that last? ALISON BEARD: So why is longevity the key measure to consider for you? NERI KARRA SILLAMAN: The majority of startups today fail, even the majority of businesses today last about an average of 18 years. As a refugee founder, immigrant entrepreneur, it was very important for me to create a business that will be prosperous, that will have longevity. I was fascinated to understand how iconic brands are made, for example. But as I start to delve deeper into the literature and into my research, I had to change the definition of longevity and reframe that because no company can last forever, is what I'm trying to say. So it's not so much about the fact that you are going to last for thousands of years but what impact are you making? ALISON BEARD: And a lot of the companies that you have studied are, in the grand scheme of things, relatively young. I'm thinking Calendly, Noom, WhatsApp, even Chobani. How do you classify them as long lasting companies at this stage? NERI KARRA SILLAMAN: For me, business longevity is a company that has made an impact that has lasted long enough to create an impact in the ecosystem that it finds itself in. ALISON BEARD: And all those companies I just cited certainly have done that in their respective industries. So you looked at eight key principles that drive immigrant and also second generation entrepreneur's long-term success. Briefly, that's bridging cultures, building from the past forward and the future back, forging authentic connections, generating profit the right way, building community, reframing rejection, frying in your own oil and daring to play your hand. I have to start by asking you to explain the most interesting one. What does frying in your own oil mean? NERI KARRA SILLAMAN: That's a wisdom from my grandfather. When we were growing up in Bulgaria, he was an orphan at the age of 15, had to look after his five brothers and sisters. He would always tell us it's very important to fry in your own oil, which means to be self-sufficient. So I work with a lot of start-ups, I advise businesses. What I was seeing especially was that they will try to immediately raise money and grow quite fast. That's almost like a trap that a lot of start-ups tend to fall into. And it can have devastating consequences. What advice can I give? It was that fry in your own oil; grow at a rate that also matches your profitability and you are self-sustaining as a company first because this will allow you to be a lot more creative. I think that's an important element when it comes to helping them building sustainable businesses of longevity. ALISON BEARD: And that seems linked to another principle, generating profit the right way. Why do you see this sort of dual pursuit of both purpose and financial success as something that immigrants might do better or more naturally than others? NERI KARRA SILLAMAN: Because of their backgrounds, they've usually come from countries with a lot of uncertainty. They've seen what lack of education, losing trust in institutions and having lack of resources, not having the right ecosystem can do not only to the people who live in that country, but even to the health of a business. I have a section in the book that says Milton Friedman's advice is no longer applicable because it's not about putting company profitability and company first, but recognizing that you are part of this ecosystem with suppliers, customers, the nature, you are all part this big ecosystem, and in order for you to be successful, all of these elements have to work together. ALISON BEARD: That links to yet another principle, this idea of clear vision. And you say that immigrants do that by moving from the past forward and the future back with three specific steps, identity, intention, and imagined future. So explain that process to me. NERI KARRA SILLAMAN: Founder of Moderna, Noubar Afeyan, he has a plaque on his desk that says trust your crazy idea. He claims one of his main elements is that he builds his businesses from the future back. But what does that mean? You have to have identity. Your past informs your future. One of the other entrepreneurs I interviewed, the founder of Numi Tea, she said, 'Entrepreneurs have to look within first, understand their past, where they come from, what bothers them and what they want to change and then look out there.' So I thought that was an interesting one and very much related to vision. So you have to first ask yourself what matters to you, what your values are. And intention has to do with the fact that what in the world doesn't align with your values? And then you have to have that crazy idea and trust in that crazy idea. And trust is the ability that allows you to keep going no matter what, and believing in that crazy idea. ALISON BEARD: And it's interesting because you think, okay, for an immigrant entrepreneur, they're looking back to their past, that involves migration, but any entrepreneur could look back to the past of things that they experienced in their childhood or a friend or family member who had a healthcare issue or even a consumer problem that they face on a daily basis and sort of use that past experience to inform their intention and imagined future. NERI KARRA SILLAMAN: One thing I want to really clarify, in the book I talk about immigrant entrepreneurs, but like you said in the beginning of our conversation, this is very much applicable, replicable. It can apply to anyone who is not an immigrant entrepreneur. ALISON BEARD: Right. Another of the principles, the ability to bridge cultures seems like an obvious asset that immigrants bring to the table. How, though, does it really help them build these kinds of businesses you're talking about, the ones that have longevity? NERI KARRA SILLAMAN: I put this principle first because it, in my opinion, underpins everything else. Immigrants see the world and look at the problem from a very different angle. They can look at a problem and ask a question that normally other people wouldn't ask. Another important element is the institutional distance because when they start building their companies, their cross-cultural ability allows them to reduce that institutional distance between doing business of two different countries. They can also start a business simply because they come from a different culture, as is in the case of Hamdi Ulukaya with Chobani. He comes from a Kurdish Shepherd family and he brought yogurt to U.S. ALISON BEARD: I eat it every day. NERI KARRA SILLAMAN: It's a great product. And one thing I want to add here, founder of Wondery, Hernan Lopez, he's an Argentinian immigrant and he says coming from two different cultures allows you to read tomorrow's newspaper today. And that's about recognizing inflection points because they happen so often, especially in today's fast-paced environment, you can spot changes and you are able to adapt a lot faster than other companies would. ALISON BEARD: So it's almost like your experience with change and cultural differences allows you to anticipate a big cultural shift. And he, with Wondery, anticipated the rise of podcasts. NERI KARRA SILLAMAN: Yes, that's right. ALISON BEARD: tConnections is an interesting one for immigrant entrepreneurs because they typically don't have them. There's no existing support networks of family and friends when you've moved to a different country. So what lessons can non-immigrants take away from how they overcame that obstacle to build social capital anyway? NERI KARRA SILLAMAN: It's very true. So when immigrants come to a new country, they often lose their family, their friendships, the social network that sustained them, and they try to immediately rebuild in any way they can these new connections. And every single connection matters a lot to them. That's why I have many of the principles, for example, homophilic ties, which is birds of a feather that flock together principle, community principle. And in the case of immigrant entrepreneurs, what I've seen is they established these ties in a very strategic way. Nothing is by accident. They use a lot of storytelling, they are very dynamic and they evolve over time, and there is a continuous nurturing of these relationships. ALISON BEARD: And I think we often, when we think of immigrant entrepreneurs, think of connections within that cultural group, but you cite examples of people connecting over heritage, experience and values as well as geographic background. NERI KARRA SILLAMAN: Absolutely. So again, you don't have to be an immigrant, you don't have to be a refugee in order to create this, what I call, quasi-family or create connections with other people. You can bond over the fact that you believe in the same thing or you have the same vision for your company. When you are building a company, you can take these elements and implement them yourself. ALISON BEARD: So that does lead right into community building. How do the entrepreneurs you study do it differently? NERI KARRA SILLAMAN: They do it differently because the other person matters to them greatly. For instance, in the case of Hamdi Ulukaya, when he first started to build his company, he didn't have a lot of capital, but he had those other people who were part of the old craft factory. And he says, 'When I start to build my business, I ask those people, 'If you see me doing any mistakes, just tell me.'' So that's a very interesting one because there is not this cult of a leader, but rather a cult of a community. ALISON BEARD: So is this existing community of Americans that had worked in the craft factory and he was turning it into a yogurt factory, and he made that community his own? NERI KARRA SILLAMAN: That's right. To this day, he hires refugees in his business, and that's a very important part of how he does business. It's based on community. It's based on how can I create better life for other people? ALISON BEARD: So let's try to quickly touch on the last two principles. How do immigrant entrepreneurs reframe rejection in a way that we can all learn from? NERI KARRA SILLAMAN: That's one of my favorite principles. With immigrant entrepreneurs, they are expecting almost to be rejected. They expect failure and they are not afraid. Or to them it doesn't mean rejection. To them, the word no doesn't mean it's a rejection. Isaac Larian, the founder of MGA Entertainment, he constantly says no is the beginning of business. No is the beginning of negotiation. ALISON BEARD: Right. And I imagine that sort of the resilience that they've developed from moving countries, establishing entirely new lives, is a big part of that. Being able to recover. NERI KARRA SILLAMAN: Absolutely. ALISON BEARD: Yeah. Finally, dare to play your own hand really is about capitalizing on luck. So how did the entrepreneurs that you talked to explain how they did that? NERI KARRA SILLAMAN: When I was setting out to write the book, I thought I knew what I was going to say more or less, but my analysis led me to some very surprising principles and insights. So luck is one of them. Luck, again, it's quite strategic. It's linked to hard work. So it doesn't happen to you simply because you were there at the right time, met the right people. You may have these elements happen, but you need to know how to recognize it, and then you need to put in the hard work and utilize all the other principles I talk about such as cross-cultural bridging or homophilic ties or importance of community or reframing rejection. ALISON BEARD: Yeah, it's the ability to make your own luck in a way. NERI KARRA SILLAMAN: Absolutely. ALISON BEARD: Sort of create so many opportunities that there will be one you're able to seize on. NERI KARRA SILLAMAN: Yes. ALISON BEARD: So in reading the book, I did think of one very prominent counter example, particularly when it comes to achieving profitability the right way. One very famous business flame out recently was WeWork, which was founded in the U.S by an Israeli and had a spectacular rise and fall due to financial mismanagement. Is that just an anomaly or is there a danger that you're cherry picking the best immigrant entrepreneur case studies and ignoring those failures? NERI KARRA SILLAMAN: Of course. Every research, every study has its limitations and certainly mine does as well, but I want to emphasize what we can learn from immigrant entrepreneurs. Immigrant entrepreneurs are not monolith in any way. There are those who have failed, there are those who have done things that can be controversial as we are seeing today. So I'm talking Elon Musk here. But it doesn't take away from the fact that immigrant entrepreneurs are quite impressive, have built impressive companies, and as you cited in the beginning of our conversation, they make up 46% of the Fortune 500 companies and statistically, they build businesses that last longer. ALISON BEARD: And so we're talking now about lots of well-known companies. In general, the examples you cite are new companies, certainly, and some startups, but things we've heard of, Noom, Calendly, WhatsApp, etc. Do you see the same principles at work in all of the smaller immigrant-led businesses that we all see in our own communities? Are the same principles playing out? NERI KARRA SILLAMAN: Yes, they are. Also, when I was writing the book, I was comparing, contrasting these principles to my own lived experiences as an immigrant entrepreneur, and wanted to see how did this affect me? How did this play out in our business? But I went a step further than that as well because as I mentioned, for several years now, I've been working with startups, advising startups, and I wanted to see how do these principles work in their context? And I see it very much applies there as well. For instance, I can give you an example, fry in your own oil. A few years ago, which was a student of mine from Oxford became a financial advisor to a startup, so she would ask me very informally about that particular startup. So one thing I said to them, you are over-borrowing without being mindful of your sales. And unfortunately that company bankrupted, even though it was created with the right principles, they were clothing in Africa and contributing to the community in Africa, but if they were not careful with their finances… And it was a great idea, but over-borrowing without being mindful of your sales and your profitability, it's basically a death knell for the company. ALISON BEARD: So it's a good reminder that you can't just adhere to a couple of the principles, you need to work on adhering to all of them. What about intrapreneurs, the people creating new products or services within their organizations? Do you think that immigrants bring something special to the table there too as well? NERI KARRA SILLAMAN: I think they do. This can apply to even people who are not entrepreneurs, who are not building businesses. For example, it can apply for your career as well, for early career professionals when they have a vision for their career, how they want to build their career. You can even apply it in that context. ALISON BEARD: Yeah. The best example of an intrapreneur that I found in your book was that the founder of Duolingo actually created CAPTCHA also when he was at Google. NERI KARRA SILLAMAN: Yes, that's right. ALISON BEARD: You say a few times in the book that you're not trying to make a political statement on immigration, but as I said in the intro, for the past several years, there are countries around the world that have seen increased anti-immigrant sentiment and they're electing leaders who are trying to limit immigration. In the U.S. right now, we are deporting university students, for example. So if that trend continues, what do you think that the long-term result will be for those countries that are less friendly to newcomers? NERI KARRA SILLAMAN: It'll be devastating. You are right. I do say several times I'm not trying to make political statement in the book, and I don't want to even say I'm political because this is just simply being a human being. I want us to go beyond the divisive rhetoric when it comes to the world, immigrants and immigration, because statistics do not lie. Numbers do not lie. And if we continue with this, we are already seeing people don't want to come to U.S. There are travelers who are boycotting, students who are not likely to choose U.S. And entrepreneurship at the end of the day needs stability. They need ecosystems that are going to nurture these startups. When you have this constant disruption, while disruption is something that immigrant entrepreneurs are familiar with, you need the right soil in order for the flower to grow, let's say. The founder of Udemy, Eren Bali, he immigrated from Turkey to U.S specifically because he knew that he cannot grow Udemy in Turkey. He wanted the ecosystem of the Silicon Valley. ALISON BEARD: So which countries would you say are the best environments for would-be immigrant entrepreneurs right now? NERI KARRA SILLAMAN: A lot of them we are seeing them already. Europe, Singapore, Berlin, we have Paris. We are seeing actually the governments quite mindfully trying to offer the right conditions for entrepreneurs. ALISON BEARD: And how would you respond to the argument that immigrants, whether they're workers or entrepreneurs, are taking opportunities away from native-born citizens? NERI KARRA SILLAMAN: They do not. Again, they do not. And again, numbers, we have statistics and numbers of… They pay taxes. They are contributing to the country that they immigrate to. This is incredibly important for them. We see it in the businesses that they create, we see it in the everyday lives. And yes, you can take a few examples. If you want to create your political rhetoric and say, 'Oh, they've done this in an unlawful way,' but ultimately what statistics and what facts show us that immigrants build and make America great. ALISON BEARD: And other countries too. They're creating more jobs than they are taking. NERI KARRA SILLAMAN: Completely. ALISON BEARD: Certainly from the economy. Yeah. So in conclusion, you talk about kindness being a unifying theme for all of your principles that you derived from your research on immigrant entrepreneurs. Why is kindness something that you see more in those study subjects and why do you want more of that in business? NERI KARRA SILLAMAN: Because it's, for me, what unifies all the principles that I talked about. Without kindness, you cannot practice community. Without kindness, you cannot reframe rejection. You have to be kind to yourself too. Without kindness, you can't give back. And for me, it's the secret ingredient that allows for everything else to happen. ALISON BEARD: Well, you've offered us lots of lessons, and that final one is a good one to end on. Neri, thanks so much for being with me today. NERI KARRA SILLAMAN: It was my pleasure. Thanks for inviting me. ALISON BEARD: That's Neri Karra Sillaman, an entrepreneurship expert at Oxford University, entrepreneur and author of Pioneers, Eight Principles of Business Longevity from Immigrant Entrepreneurs. And we have more than a thousand IdeaCast episodes, plus many more HBR podcasts to help you manage your team, your organization, and your career. Find them at slash podcasts or search HBR on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. Thanks to our team, senior producer Mary Dooe, associate producer Hannah Bates, audio product manager Ian Fox and senior production specialist Rob Eckhardt. And thanks to you for listening to the HBR IdeaCast . We'll be back with a new episode on Tuesday. I'm Alison Beard.
