I have found the flow of a good conversation is about activly listerning as well as talking and the point your raise "what would you do in my shoes" is a great example of that. Also removing overhead such as uneeded compliments are is another great one as anybody who is impressed by irelevant flattery is somebody who is not realy adding any value.
Like most of the points they can also pertain to job interviews and the parralels are huge. Remember it is a two way process and whilst your after a VC for financial backing you are also after one that can offer ontop of that with advice and contacts etc. So questions like "if it gets down to chosing from yourself and another person" what would you feel would make you stand out for us as a startup. Though you need to carefuly ask these type of questions as you can come across as too aragant and alianate yourself; Though that will also help find those who are not the best fit for your startup.
Good read, good advice and as I said it is alot like a job interview, your looking at the longterm and in that it is not always about the money, but the prospects down the line. It is a relationship and in that works both ways and if your just after the money there are plenty of banks who offer just that if your startup has promise. That is what a VC is in many respects, though they can and do offer more and in that you need to establish what your looking for and not rush into the first wave of money in your face.
That was about 40% "literal truth about how I feel", about 30% "true but somewhat metaphorical" and about 30% "totally tongue in cheek." IOW, don't take it literally. My real point was that for some people - like me - criticism is something we use as fuel, and is actually valued in a sense.
[1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4108061
All of that said, I definitely appreciate this post on "how to get valid feedback." This is good stuff, and will definitely be filed away for use when the need arises.
But plugging your ears and going to your happy place (your supermodel having, Maserati driving future) when someone experienced is trying to give you feedback is, well... childish. If your co-founder or designer rolled their eyes and departed on a mental journey whenever you had tough feedback for them, you would be aggrvated to say the least, right? I hope you have higher standards for the people you work with.
That's all Josh is saying as well: he has standards for the people he wants to work with and one of them is to be permeable, not walled off. Anyone can ignore criticism or draw motivation from the need to be proven right. It's harder to suspend your own ideas for a moment and hear that someone experienced thinks you're missing something.
I would make a distinction between "criticism" and "feedback," although I'll allow that it's a subtle (and subjective) thing. But my point isn't to react this way to all (feedback|criticism), but rather to the kind that amounts to nothing more than "you're not good enough."
A fair amount of context has gotten lost since I posted that quote originally, and I probably didn't make that point clearly enough to begin with... but I'm not promoting the idea of reacting with "indignation and determination" to constructive, actionable feedback.
So, if hypothetical VC Joe says "We aren't funding you because you guys aren't good enough" then yes, my POV is (earlier disclaimer in mind) very much the whole "fuck you, I'll show you, blah, blah" thing. But if Joe VC says "We aren't funding you because your team is too tech heavy, and we feel like you need a good sales/marketing person before you're fundable" then that's a whole different thing. That's positive, actionable, useful feedback.
It's harder to suspend your own ideas for a moment and hear that someone experienced thinks you're missing something.
Right, and I never meant to suggest otherwise.
Cool, glad you found it useful. The reactions were fairly mixed, and I think a lot of people in the original post took it a bit too literally. It's all good though.
