> The Cadence is an operating philosophy that I first learned as COO of PayPal (during the so-called “PayPal Mafia” founding era) and then adapted for SaaS as founder/CEO of Yammer
And then what happened with Zenefits? Seems like the system isn't foolproof, even when being implemented by an expert veteran.
It's interesting how almost everyone that succeeds, looks back afterwards and comes up with some rational explanation of their success. However very few people aknowledge the outsized influence of just pure luck, being in the right place at the right time and knowing the right people to make it happen.
If the reasons that people come up as explanations for their success were true, then they would be able to repeat the same thing over and over at virtually zero risk, because they now have the formula for success. But it just doesn't happen (or just very very rarely).
David Sacks' cadence system looks cool, and by all means adopt it if it helps you run your company better, but don't dream about magically becoming a unicorn just because of it.
From a random article discussing Zenefits' rise and fall:
> This institutionalized cheating finally caught up with the San Francisco-based Zenefits last week, when Parker Conrad, the 35-year-old co-founder and CEO, was forced to resign over what the company described as widespread failures of regulatory compliance. The shakeup, announced in a blistering memo from David Sacks, the executive who took over as CEO, stunned the tech establishment, which had supported Zenefits' rise.
It seems that Sacks inherited Zenefit's problems, not created them. I think citing Zenefits is not a valid argument, either a straw man or just low on the hierarchy of disagreement.
It is fair to point out that he states it is the main cause of why Yammer became a billion dollar company, and by implication, this will also help you become a unicorn, in very self-help novel writing fashion.
> It seems that Sacks inherited Zenefit's problems, not created them. I think citing Zenefits is not a valid argument, either a straw man or just low on the hierarchy of disagreement.
Uh, no. Sacks doesn't get to slide out of this.
Zenefits didn't just have a single instance of this due to one person. It was widespread up and down the entire chain and was the typical "move fast and break things" of Silicon Valley.
Not sure what your point is. Zenefits was a company with major management deficiencies, so the CEO was fired and David Sacks was hired, in essence, to apply proper management practices like his "Cadence" (and more importantly, to behave like an adult CEO).
A more generic “cadence system” that IMHO is worth taking a good look at is the One Page Strategic Plan methodology of Verne Harnish. There is plenty of luck involved in a tech company’s success; however, having a coherent strategy expressed in a simple way cannot possibly harm your chances of success. At worst, you’ll do better at executing an unlucky hand.
And then what happened with Zenefits? Seems like the system isn't foolproof, even when being implemented by an expert veteran.
It's interesting how almost everyone that succeeds, looks back afterwards and comes up with some rational explanation of their success. However very few people aknowledge the outsized influence of just pure luck, being in the right place at the right time and knowing the right people to make it happen.
If the reasons that people come up as explanations for their success were true, then they would be able to repeat the same thing over and over at virtually zero risk, because they now have the formula for success. But it just doesn't happen (or just very very rarely).
David Sacks' cadence system looks cool, and by all means adopt it if it helps you run your company better, but don't dream about magically becoming a unicorn just because of it.