How founders "compare notes"

Founders talk about how they're treated by investors, both VC's and angels. I "compare notes" with startup founders and I know that many more people do the same thing. More importantly, founders act on what they hear. I've noticed several things, but want to focus here on how founders block deal flow and founders sway deals.

On the blocking point, one of the meetings I had with a startup founder led to a discussion about investors who exhibit poor behavior. The person I was talking to brought up the fact that they have blocked at least a few deals for a VC who lied to them about a conflict of interest. I've seen this happen a few times and with particularly interesting companies. What is not captured here is how often this happens and what sort of tangible impact it has on investor deal flow in the future - and I'm not sure there's currently a way to measure that, though AngelList reviews are one attempt that could begin to tie this all together.

In terms of founders swaying deals, I can personally attest to this one, in the positive sense. An incredible investor of ours asked for help talking to a founder to explain why the founder should take our investor's money versus someone else. I was very honest with the entrepreneur and told them everything about this investor, and of course there was way more good here and the founder took that investor's capital. Well, I've seen the opposite happen as well - founders can sway other founders to not take capital.

It's interesting to see the above play out multiple times, rather than as one-off things. I know that a few initiatives over at AngelList could bring transparency to this offline trend and we'll see if they can figure out an elegant, enduring way to quantify both blocking and tipping of deals at scale. But until then, founders will always be talking with one another behind the scenes and I'm hoping high quality founders can help one another out even more. The positive byproducts of this will be increased investor accountability as well as the sharing and blending of "institutional" knowledge between startup founders. Both are very good things.

Addition by subtraction

We believe it's all about winning as a team - in terms of results and being a great place to work.

Expanding on these team thoughts, the wrong behavior and mentality from a superstar can subtract value from the team, removing all of their traditionally measured contributions. Take for example this article on Barry Bonds. Here's a quote on toxic superstars:

"Normally in any clubhouse you have at least that one selfish bad apple on each team,'' Ross said. "And everyone knows who it is. It's not like that on this team."

On addition by subtraction:

"When Bonds and his toxic presence was finally removed by the hazmat people after the 2007 season, the Giants began to win more games. Not a lot at first, but enough to realize that Bonds' forced departure was like an emergency tracheotomy on the franchise's windpipe. The Giants could finally breathe again."

Superstars get a "longer rope" because they're so good, but at some point they can push the limits of tolerance within a team. No one misses a misbehaved superstar like Barry Bonds -- they simple do not endure. But what is fascinating and underreported is how often the team gets better once that misbehaved superstar is gone.