"You can literally feel it when you walk into a great start-up culture. The room has energy. There’s a buzz. Doors are open. Whiteboards are filled with hieroglyphics. People are getting stuff done. Meetings are short and to the point. You might trip over a dog."

This is quite possibly the best possible description of a good startup.

Right, yes, good, ... a DOG?

Running a startup should be like going into a war about survival -- do you bring your pet dog to the war?

Yours, Insensitive Clod

It's not unheard of ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogs_in_warfare ), after all, people routinely take their best friend into war.. so taking "man's best friend" makes plenty of sense.

That said, my office is in a no-pets building, and I'm happy for it. It makes it a non-issue.

Dogs are fun. War is not. I'll take the dog.

Your war analogy reminds me of a comment a startup CEO once made to me: "A startup is a war. I am at war, and if one of my men can't keep up I will shoot him."

I'll take the dog.

No its like you are so busy at war that you don't have time for your dog, may be you live in office (except for bathing).

So the dog has to follow you to office for its survival and moreover most dogs are super spiritful creatures and all dogs are great morale boosters.

I had great success generating extra interest in an open position for a senior software / CTO position by advertising that we had a "dog friendly" workplace, and that I, the CEO, would be delighted to walk the dog during the day.

"What did I miss?"

You just have to do it.

You came close with #2 (It's Not a Job, It's a Mission).

The best analogy is could think of is the question, "How hard will you try to teach your baby to walk before you give up?"

The only answer I've ever heard to this was, "Huh?" The idea of giving up before your child walks (with obvious exceptions) is alien to parents.

The same thing is true in great startup culture. "Not succeeding" is never an acceptable alternative.

This web page reliably crashes my web browser (complicated situation - don't ask) so I've pulled out the plain text of the item for my own consumption. Posting the whole thing here amounts to outright plagarism, so I won't do that.

Here, however, are the highlights:

Greg Gottesman: ... the three most important factors in determining the success of a start-up are (1) team, (2) product or service, and (3) market (timing, size, etc.).

... added one factor to the must-have list: the right start-up culture.

  1. No politics
  2. It's not a job, it's a mission.
  3. Intolerance for mediocrity.
  4. Watching pennies.
  5. Equity-driven.
  6. Perfect alignment.
  7. Good Communication, Even in Bad Times.
  8. Strong leadership.
  9. Mutual respect.
 10. Customer-obsessed.
 11. High energy level.
 12. Fun.
 13. Integrity.

I'm question the value of "Equity-driven." Equity - possibly counterproductively - bundles the distribution of 3 very different things: profit, sale, and decisions.

Trying for both profit and sale creates conflict unless all workers and investors share views and desires. For example, an investor roadshow typically hurts profits for sale proceeds. Or more complicated, imagine one investor is a fund that's forced to liquidate due to losses as the market goes into a panic. Selling is likely to hurt everyone else. Of course, increasing sale value sometimes requires working for some profits, but there's no guarantee that's the best route for profits. At best, you usually end up compromised.

Decision rights (typically voting) are even more complicated. Many think it shouldn't have the same weights and rights as the other parts, so they try to rectify it with share classes and complicated operating agreements. That's crude, expensive, and each "fix" becomes exponentially harder. Tying voting to the other two only seems logical as a way to support sale value.

I'm all for massive (up to total) profit-sharing, but I'm less sure about the others, especially as entangled by equity. Venture/angel-backed start-ups logically will end up either in utter failure or conflict. It seems like it'd only make sense for someone long-term if they turn into a more typical public corporation big-shot post-sale.

> 1. No politics. In great start-up cultures, everybody is giving everybody else credit.

No. That is just cheapening credit. No politics means giving credit where it's due and when it's due. In a good start up, people don't care much about giving or getting credit except for cool, remarkable and worthy things.

Everyone giving everyone else credit... That is what actually leads to some really poor cultures.

Everyone giving everyone else credit for something is a good culture.

Everyone giving everyone else credit for any individual thing or for everything is not a good culture.

The first means that everyone at the company is being acknowledged as contributing, which usually means that they are in fact contributing.

If I'm the "tech guy" and I can't give credit to the business or marketing or finance guy because deep down I don't respect what they do or think that it's my contributions that are making the startup go, then we're in for a bumpy road.