Transcript

Lead, lead again, w/Meta's Sheryl Sandberg

The very best founders I know are brilliant at building systems. They connect teams, they remove bottlenecks, and they eliminate single points of failure. And yet When it comes to their own wealth. Most are running a disconnected stack. A tax accountant here and a state attorney there, a wealth manager who doesn't talk to either one of them.

Creative planning was built to fix exactly that. One integrated team of tax professionals, state planners, investment specialists, all coordinated by a dedicated wealth manager who sees your full financial picture and keeps every piece working together. Proactive tax efficiency, state strategy, investments all under one roof. Creative planning where wealth works together. Learn more at creative planning dot com slash masters of scale.

Global hiring is such a headache when you're building fast, but companies like Eleven Labs are scaling effortlessly with deal. They quadrupled their workforce in twenty twenty five. Without hiring an HR team. Build your global team with deal. Visit deal.com slash MOS and start expanding your business today. That's D E L

dot com. Slash M O S. Hey, folks, Jeff Berman here. I am thrilled to share some of the new names who will be joining us at this year's Masters of Scale summit. This may be our biggest stage yet. Reed Hastings, Meredith Whitaker, Van Jones, Amjad Masad, and more.

Will be there with us October 20th through 22nd in San Francisco. If you're building something great, or you want to build something great, We want you there with us too. Join us at masters of scale dot com slash apply twenty six. That's mastersofscot com slash apply. Twenty six.

Hi listeners, it's Bob. I'm here to tell you about this special episode of Masters of Scale that we're re-releasing. It's called Lead Lead Again, and it features Cheryl Sandberg, who recently announced that she's stepping away from Meta and Facebook, where she's been COO for the past 14 years. We first released this episode in 2017. It explores how Cheryl helped Google and then Facebook unlock their potential and create a structure for growth. It also includes several special appearances, including from Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. And of course, you'll hear Reed deliver valuable insights on how great leaders never stop learning.

Facebook and Meta have had their share of controversy during Cheryl's tenure. When this episode was recorded, many of Facebook's toughest challenges were on the horizon. Still, the stories and choices that Cheryl sharp А as useful and relevant as ever. And now seems like the perfect moment to remember how Cheryl Sandberg became Cheryl Sandberg.

To her undeniable expertise in scaling organizations. Her conversation with Reed provides lessons even a skeptical business leader can learn from. I found it refreshing to re-listen to with open ears as well as a critical eye, and I came away feeling wiser. I hope you do too. And now

On to the show. When technologies become ubiquitous and essential, they also generate opposition. Take PowerPoint, a product I use almost every day. There's a whole cottage industry. of PowerPoint haters online.

They publish essays with headlines like PowerPoint makes us stupid. Or PowerPoint is evil. Stupid.

They dabble in politics. Like Switzerland. MP PowerPoint party. Google it if you don't believe me. You'll find out on their website a rousing slogan.

Finally. Do something. And if any party star wars are out there listening, I have news for you. Cheryl Sandberg. The chief operating officer of Facebook.

Finally did something. I don't love PowerPoint presentations and meetings for me because I want them to be more discussions. So I kept saying, Please don't bring PowerPoint, please don't bring PowerPoint at Facebook for years, but everyone kept bringing PowerPoint. So one day, probably more frustrated than I needed to be, I just had no more PowerPoint any of my meetings. Mm. There was just one problem.

Cheryl's words carry a lot of weight at Facebook. Sometimes more weight than she'd like. Before long, she found herself squaring off against the PowerPoint enthusiasts. They're not as vocal.

You might call them the silent majority. So then a few months later, I was getting ready to get on stage at the global sales conference. So all of our global people from around the world and I looked at someone who was standing there, uh my friend Kirsten who was N HR at the time, and I said, Well what are the things do you think they're gonna ask me about? And she said, Well, everyone wants to talk about the PowerPoint thing. I said, what PowerPoint thing? She said, You know, the no powerpoint thing. It's very hard to do client meetings without PowerPoint.

And I said, What no PowerPoint thing for clients? And I realized that my instruction, no powerpoint, got translated through this large organization as Cheryl says no powerpoint in client meetings. So I got on the stage and I said One, I'm sorry. I didn't mean that. Two. It is on me.

That if you all thought that and that was a stupid idea, you need to speak up and tell me. Of course you can have PowerPoint with clients. Clients love PowerPoint. I don't. And it was just a really good lesson. Then I needed to be super careful.

that things didn't get taken too far, but also that I needed to make sure people could speak up. There are great uses of PowerPoint and there are bad uses of PowerPoint. I'd rather focus your attention on how Cheryl handled it. She doesn't just want to be heard, she wants to be challenged. She's not afraid to be wrong.

And she's not afraid to change course. And that's what makes her a great leader at scale. Great leaders of fast moving organizations don't just make plans, they break them. You gotta have incredible talent at every position. It's like this huge push. There are fires burning when you're going out. Can you believe it? Such an idiot. And then you go back to, this is totally gonna be amazing.

There are so many easy ways. I have no idea what to do. Sorry, we made a mistake. But you have to time it right. Oops. Ten years later and be like, well that's just how you do it. We haven't made it just how you do it. This is masters of scale. I'm Reed Hoffman, co founder of LinkedIn and partner at Graylock. On this episode of Masters of Scale.

I'm going to test one of my theories on leadership. The kind of leadership you need in organization that's changing fast. So fast that the office you leave at night is different from the one you walk into the next morning. I believe to lead an organization to scale. You have to be as skilled at breaking plans as you are at making them.

Every day there are new competitors, new threats, new opportunities. There's no simple, straightforward set of marching orders, it's more like a dogfight. You and your team will be flying upside down and at an angle sometimes. Now Cheryl is one of those gifted leaders who's made daring decisions at every level of scale. She can run a team of four.

Four hundred. Or forty thousand. I wanted to talk to her about leading a company as it scales. Because she is literally the archetype for this kind of leader. you'll frequently hear investors like me say to founders

We need to find you, your Cheryl Sandburn. It's funny, because if you had found Cheryl Sandberg at the beginning of her career, She probably would have turned you down. You know, the main thing I was raised with is don't go into business and good to be a doctor. My father's a doctor. I have two siblings, they're both doctors. One of them married a doctor. Being a doctor was good. It was giving back.

Working in non profits or the government was considered very good. Business was a little suspect. I started my career working at the World Bank. I worked on leprosy in India, AIDS in India. Blindness in India. But if you had asked me the day I graduated college if I would ever work in the private sector, I would have thought you were insulting me.

So Cheryl started out in the public sector. She spent seven years at the US Treasury Department as chief of staff to Secretary Larry Summers. And in that position she rubs shoulders with the aristocracy of American business. CEOs from every industry. In the late nineteen nineties, she started to notice a certain type of executive who challenged all of her preconceptions. You know, people came into treasury all the time, and most people wore suits.

But not Eric Schmidt. Eric Schmidt was CEO of Google from 2001 to 2011. He's now executive chairman of Alphabet Google's parent company. No, he he he looked, he felt different. Jerry Yang would come in. Cherry Yang was the founder of Yahoo. Those were the Yahoo days. They they looked, they felt different. And it really felt like they had this energy and passion around changing the world.

And I remember this one day I was with Larry Summers and we had a lunch in New York. And it was, you know, all the bankers and Everyone was wearing suits and it was very formal, and then we flew across the country. And Eric Schmidt picked us up in his car. Wearing jeans.

And took us to a local pizza place with Cherry Yang. And We sat there and they were talking and eating everyone's eating off each other's plates and the the stark contrast between those two meals, the formality and the What felt very traditional about the world I was living in, and the informality.

And the Big ideas that were discussed at that dinner. of what seemed like the new world. Convince me that For profit companies actually were mission based.

And that's how I got to Google. Cheryl took the job at Google in two thousand one and moved to Silicon Valley. Her title was Business unit general manager. Which sounds important.

Incidentally Google didn't have any business units to manage. I remember my first week, Eric was busy. And they were working on a big reorg. For

The engineering department. But at the end of the week, I figured out what the reorg was. The reorg was every single engineer would report directly to Wayne Rosing, who was the VP of Engineering. So about 200 engineers, that was the reorg. They were gonna all report directly to him. It was a crazy thing. Saying 200-ish people should support directly to one person was saying we don't want management. And it was exactly what they were saying, and so it was unorthodox.

And cool. And had the property that we really trusted our employees to do the right thing. I learned it was different from the Treasury Department right away. Right away. Probably minute three. Minute three. It's fundamentally not a good idea to have two hundred engineers report to one manager. Among other things, you want your engineers to feel like someone's paying attention to them.

I'm sure Cheryl could name all of the reasons not to do this. But to her credit, she doesn't. She adjusts to the strangely amorphous team. By her third minute on the job, and that's the reaction time she'll need. Because Cheryl's about to learn what every leader of a fast growing startup knows.

Every plan is made to be broken. My team was four people. And they were very worried we were gonna grow. So my first day I said, Don't worry. We're all can interview everyone.

Well, two weeks later the team was twelve people. And it was completely unreasonable to have a person interview with twelve people plus You only had twelve people to do any work. So if everyone interviewed everyone, that didn't work at all. So this promise I had made to make them feel good about scaling, I took away in a week. The path to scale always, unfortunately, includes some broken promises. As Cheryl would soon find out.

Everything from interviews to office space changes as you grow. And even a small take back. Can matter to a team. I'll give you another silly example that I don't think is silly for today's. We celebrated everyone's birthday that day.

Then it became that week. Eventually we had a huge sheet cake with quarterly birthdays. My team was four thousand when I left, and everyone's names on it. Now, it sounds like that wouldn't matter, but it did, because if you started out and we celebrated everyone's birthday And we took that away. That was a problem. Now I'm not saying Be mean and don't celebrate birthdays. I'm saying figure out what your systems are gonna look like later.

And do it now. I want to note a crucial distinction here. When it came to hiring new employees, Cheryl failed to anticipate how quickly her plan would unravel. But in the case of birthday parties She did, and she worked out a solution.

Cheat cakes. Okay. That's the key to leading through scale. You can't stop the onslaught of challenges.

but you can identify the moment. or they force you to pivot. And start buying bigger cakes. As the team doubles And triples in size.

A skilled manager keeps a vigilant watch. For systems that are failing. But the best managers They don't spot the changes on their own. Their team surfaces problems for them.

The trick is getting them to speak up. When our team was growing, I interviewed everyone who joined globally. And when we were about at a hundred people. I noticed that the cue for my interview was kind of holding up our hiring process. So I said in a meeting with my direct reports, you know, I think maybe I should stop interviewing. Fully expecting that they would jump right in and say, Absolutely not. You're a great interviewer. We need your personal recommendation on anyone on your team.

You know what they did? They applauded. And I thought to myself, I've become a bottleneck. And you didn't tell me and that's on me. Notice what Cheryl focuses on here.

She isn't bothered by the team applauding her decision to step aside. She's disturbed by the fact that no one told her the truth. She knows she needs everyone's honest input to make the frequent fast decisions. Google's business demands. And that kind of openness doesn't happen on its own. Leaders have to embrace truth telling.

Especially when they learn that they're the problem. I thought my interview was that important. No one else did. I was their boss, I was their manager, if they didn't tell me that was on me and I realized I have to make it safe for y'all to speak up when I'm messing up.

One thing you should know about Cheryl. is that she basically built Google's engine for growth. Her team powered Adwards. They ran the business that displays ads next to search results. It may not sound like a thrilling breakthrough.

In fact, it became the lifeblood. The capital that funds nearly all of Google's innovations. In essence, Cheryl and her team were building the infrastructure for global online advertising. The pressure to scale was immense. As her team swelled from dozens to hundreds, she learned to lead in a fast changing environment.

One essential skill, as we've seen, is to spot unsustainable systems. But there's a second skill that Cheryl would learn. How to hire people for roles that never existed before. She learned about this when she interviewed for a role like that. When I was interviewing for jobs, I had a really nice experience with Meg Whitman. I was interviewing at eBay. Meg Whitman is CEO of Hewlett Packard and the former CEO of eBay.

When I got to see her and I just said I don't have any relevant experience. And she said. No one has any experience. Because no one's ever done this before. I really took that lesson to heart. I did not go look for people with online ad sales experience. And that's a good thing because there was no one with online ad sales experience.

So Cheryl had to hire people for roles at Google that had never existed anywhere before. She also had to hire them without knowing. What she'd need in just a few weeks or months. Changing organizations have changing needs. It can be hard to predict.

Just how long you'll need. A given skill set. And that's one of the hardest challenges of managing through scale. I asked Bill Gates.

How he wishes he had handled hiring in the early days. He shared some wistful advice. If you were to call your younger self and tell yourself like okay Here are some principles by which you should hire differently.

What would that phone call to your younger self be? Well I When I was young I a I always hired Thing in our organization would grow a lot, but The notion that

These intelligences were as specialized as they are. I was so wrong. I thought Partly. Uh

because of myself or misperceptions of myself that hey I can learn Sales what is that? Yeah. Profit and loss. You take, you know, the sales, you subtract the costs. You know, do you need to go to business school? I don't think so.

I didn't have enough respect for different Deep knowledge. I didn't have enough respect for good management. What really good management is. Bright Young Founders. Listen carefully.

You have to start swapping out what I call dженist. Those jacks all trades with specialists. Experienced executives who know how to lead massive teams. I've seen companies swap upwards of a third of their manager in eighteen months. Let me tell you

Those are not easy conversations to have with the people who fought alongside you. In the trenches. It's one thing to make and break company plans. It's another thing to make and break commitments to human beings. It takes practice diplomacy to navigate those decisions. My friend Selina Tobakwala has that kind of diplomacy.

She's a serial entrepreneur who co-founded Evite.com, an early online invitation service, and is now co-founder of a startup called Gixo. I asked her how she thinks about hiring people who can scale with the company. I think though one of the biggest learnings I had is how much are you hiring the right person for that time? And then how much are you hiring the person who's going to be the right person in 18 months or 24 months as you're growing? And I'm not sure I always made those right decisions. But those were decisions you had to keep revisiting because you had somebody who was crushing it at that moment. And then two years, three years down the road, they're like a manager of managers is super unhappy or isn't capable. But then at the same time, there were certain situations where we sort of hired somebody who couldn't get their hands dirty. And then it was a very frustrating 18 or 24 months if they made it that long. So I think there's this question of which I feel like I don't necessarily have the answer to, but it is balancing hiring the people who can get the job done now versus hiring the people who will also be successful later.

This balancing act between who you need now and who you'll need later is no small feat. In the early start up stage, you need all rounders who love to get their hands dirty. Later on you need polish managers who know how to delegate. Not everyone makes it through every company turn. And not everyone is destined to be a manager.

Some people are best as individual contributors. As an engineer. Not as a VP of engineering. The key to keeping a happy team as you scale is to give your employees a frame to understand what's going on. You need to give each employee multiple ways to tell their own story of hero dum.

So they can say to themselves. I'm a major contributor. I matter here. I may not be an executive. Баки прогрес і моря.

Because the reflexive story that people tell themselves is Well I'm the first product manager. So I'm gonna be the head of product from a time where five people in a garage Until we become a ten thousand person company.

And that's actually pretty unlikely. Cheryl's team at Google was about to grow from four to four thousand. She had to hire for uncertainty. being ready to make and break plans. And she had to hire fast.

We needed to hire really quickly. So we started that temp to hire program. We just hired people as temps. And then we would evaluate them over the course of the first month, two months, and then we would convert the most successful of them to full time. It was a great way to scale in those very early days when we needed a lot of work done very quickly. It also got us to hire people we probably would have otherwise not hired. People who didn't necessarily interview well, people who didn't necessarily have the right the background that Google was always looking for, but they came in and did great work.

Hiring temps is a great hack when you need to hire quickly. But not every company can rely on hiring temps. And there's also a tension in every growing company between hiring fast and hiring well. Found have different philosophies on which to emphasize and when. My friend Mike Cassidy has some rules around this.

Which I asked him to share. He's now launching his fifth technology startup. Apollo Fusion. I want to tell you the secret sauce of his new company, but I can't. He's in stealth mode.

And he's hiring quickly. But not hastily. There's a limit, he says, to how fast you should go. I mean if you count the hours in the day that you're looking at at resumes and doing interviews And then onboarding people.

I mean it's hard if you've got six people in the company You can probably only hire another six people in three months and then another twelve people three months after that. That really is challenging. And what are some of your rules in the early hiring? I think one of them is a bad hire in the first fifteen is fatal to the company. So really watch out for those bad eggs. I mean I have a A whole set of interview questions and techniques that I really a big believer in, you know, trying to determine if someone is a team player versus a

I got my stuff done. The other person's gotta get their stuff done. When you build substantial wealth through your business, it's often tied up in a single equity position. The upside is real, but so is the risk, and knowing when to act isn't always obvious. Creative planning works with business owners to build a strategy around concentrated equity.

When to diversify, how to manage tax risk, and how to protect what you've spent years. Building. Creative planning where wealth works together. Learn more at creativeplaning dot com slash masters of scale. The Wired Newsroom is known for award-winning reporting on how technology shapes our world.

On Wire's Uncanny Valley, we take that curiosity even further. Each week, journalists from Wired break down the biggest stories in tech while speaking directly with the people building, challenging, and reshaping the future. Is the AI boom sustainable? How do you protect your privacy in an age of constant surveillance? Uncanny Valley tackles the questions driving today's tech debates and lighting up your group chats.

Listen to new episodes every Thursday. Wherever you get your podcasts. Hey listeners, Bob here. If you listen to Rapid Response on Masters of Scale, you may be missing half the show because every Friday we release a second Rapid Response exclusively in the Rapid Response feed. The guests and topics are just as compelling and timely from Ford CEO to NASA's administrator to the lessons from The Devil Wears Prada. It takes about 10 seconds to find, just search rapid response wherever you listen to podcasts and hit follow to make sure you never miss an episode. I hope to see you there.

Mike Cassidy isn't the only founder who puts a premium on each early hire. Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook. Tells me he believes in setting the highest possible standard for each role. So the single most important thing Is to get the best people you can around you.

And When I look at my friends who are running other good companies The single biggest difference that I see in whether the companies end up becoming really great and reaching their potential or just pretty good. is whether they're comfortable and really self confident enough to have people who are stronger than them around them. And I've adopted this hiring rule, which is that you should never hire someone to work for you unless you would work for them. In an alternate universe. Which doesn't mean that you should give them your job, but just if if the tables were turned and you were looking for a job, would you be comfortable working for this person? And I I basically think that if the answer to that is no, then you're doing something expedient by hiring them, but you're not doing as well as you

can on that. You know, there are all these things that Cheryl, for example, is just much stronger than me at and that makes me better and makes Facebook better. I am not afraid or threatened by that. I value that. And that's what makes Facebook good. So there are times to hire fast and there are times to hire slow. And in two thousand eight. Mark began a very slow professional courtship of Cheryl Sandberg. By this time, Cheryl had scaled Google's online sales team to more than four thousand employees.

Collectively. This fact wasn't lost on Mark when he first met Cheryl at a friend's Christmas party. And Mark also made

A fast impression. I met Mark. And I was just inspired. I had been using Facebook. I saw its potential to make us who we were, putting yourself and your picture and your real friends and your real connection and your real birthday online was such a big leap. But it was one that really resonated for me because it enabled us to have personal connections.

And so I believed in the mission, and then I just really believed in Mark. He had energy and passion and Big vision. He said everything's gonna be social. Sounds obvious now. Nothing was social then.

But how do you bring in a senior executive of Cheryl's caliber? Patiently. Mark knew he couldn't reverse the engine on this higher. He had to get it right the first time. To say I had multiple conversations with Mark is kinda the understatements. He was a late night guy. He didn't come into the office particularly early. So he would come over for dinner at like eight and I would literally have to kick him out at like eleven or twelve. And m we had dinners

Once or twice a week for months. I think way earlier than he decided he wanted to work with me, I decided I wanted to work with him, and that was the only way I was gonna have. You know, six hours a week. I might in half of endless conversation. But I think he was right, because by the time we work together.

We had really talked about Kind of who we were, what we believed in, what we thought the potential was of Facebook to scale, how we would scale. We also got the world's best advice from my husband, Dave. Mark and I didn't agree on a lot of substantive things at that point. And Dave told me he's like don't work any of those out. You never will. He said, What you want from Mark is process agreement on how you will work things out. Because even if you work all the questions you have out now. They're gonna change.

I'd like to take a moment to reflect on Cheryl's awesome husband, David Goldberg, whose death in May twenty fifteen came as such a shock. He was the CEO of Survey Monkey and a generous mentor. This piece of advice is just one of the ways that he lives on. So we agreed we would sit together?

We agreed we would. always do the first meeting of the week on Monday and the last meeting of the week on Friday. I asked him for feedback. He made it mutual. We would always give each other feedback every week. And it will be nine years next month. Notice how Cheryl and Mark take disagreements as a constant feature of their working relationship.

If Mark and Cheryl had made promises to each other around specific solutions to specific challenges facing Facebook at the time, they would have inevitably broken those commitments. By promising they would always be frank and work through disagreements. That was a promise that they have kept. It's a promise that sustains their relationship to this day and underpins their company culture. You have to be intentional if you're going to encourage debate.

And there's no one better to talk about this dynamic. than Margaret Heffernan, former CEO of five companies. She gave a TED talk called Dare to Disagree. And she offers a simple advice to leaders. Show.

Don't tell. I think constructive conflict. Із ісенчу. It's how organizations think. you know, one of the huge problems of running any kind of organization

Is how can you create an environment where people feel it's really safe to do that? uh where they're allowed to do it and where people have if you like the robustness or maturity not to take it or make it personal. Cheryl Two believes this focus on respectful disagreement and fast feedback is what makes Facebook resilient as a company. So we all need resilience. We need resilience as individuals and the way you build a resilient organization.

Is you learn from failure. You don't hide it, you embrace it. So what does that mean? You have to get real feedback. for yourself, for each other. You have to be open to feedback. You have to ask for feedback. You have to build in

A culture where When I think you need to do something better or you think I need to do something better, we tell each other and tell each other directly and work it out. You have to embrace organizational failure. You have to sit down and debrief when things go wrong, why did they go wrong, what can we learn and what can we do better. It's organizations that hide things under the rug. that don't create the resilience because they don't learn. This willingness to acknowledge failure is

And embrace disagreement is a critical advantage in a fast moving industry because it allows you to see mistakes earlier, so you can know what to tear down and what to build up. Thoughtful scale leaders thrive on disagreement because it gives them the information they need to test their ideas before they make and break plans. Indeed, they seek out colleagues who won't share their point of view. You know, and the lesson everyone talks about, but I really mean is you really do want to hire people who are better than you are and who are different than you are. This is where we talk about diversity, right?

I don't just mean racial, national, age, gender. All of that diversity is super important. I mean in addition to that. cognitive diversity, which you get from all those backgrounds, but also just personality diversity. You know, if you are a white male who likes to code and sci-fi movies. probably don't want your whole team to be that.

I think about David Fisher. David Fisher and I have worked together at Treasury, at Google, and at Facebook. personality types were just very different. I'm much more up and down. I will get nervous something's not moving fast enough. I will be exuberant and I will be down. Not David.

David is absolutely calm. And over decades of working together, that balance has really been important because sometimes I'll look at David and say, This is an emergency and he'll say, No it's not, Cheryl, calm down. And sometimes I'll say, David, you're not moving fast enough and he'll say, You're right. I think Mark and I have that too. We are very different. Right. We are separated by obviously gender, fifteen years. He's my boss, he's fifteen years younger, completely different personalities, completely different working styles. And I think that served Facebook well.

You can't overestimate this kind of diversity. You have to have colleagues who offer calm to your chaos. Or put the occasional brakes on your speed. And it's fortunate that Cheryl and Mark balance each other out. Because they would soon face one of the trickiest transitions in Facebook's history, an existential threat requiring a rapid change of course. We have a word for these kinds of evasive maneuvers here in Silicon Valley.

We call it an ootaloop. That's a fighter pilot term. It stands for observe, orent, decide, act. The fighter pilot who has the fastest oodaloop wins. The other one dies.

If you ever watch the movie Top Gun, you'll have a basic understanding of how an Oodaloop works. Tom Cruise's character Maverick. has a few bad guys on his tail. In a split second, he orients himself to the enemy's formation. Then he decides to perform a crazy aerial maneuver.

Yaks. And it confounds everyone. Score one for the free world. Now I'm not suggesting that tech executives secretly want to blast each other out of the sky. What they do want is to perform slightly crazy, super fast maneuvers again and again.

You'll often hear founders asking What is the ootaloop of an organization or an individual? Because speed matters in combat. And also in fast moving industries. And in two thousand twelve, Facebook had to perform the mother of all oodloops.

Its users were migrating from desktop computers to mobile devices at a startling rate. Cheryl and Mark faced a tough decision. And we realized the mobile transition was happening. It was happening way faster than we thought. And it kept outstripping our predictions. And so Mark did this company all hands, which he still does when he wants to reset or make sure we're on the right path. And he stood up at the company all hands and said, We're gonna be a mobile first company and he did it incredibly well. But then you know what happened the next day?

Nothing. People still came in with their desktop screenshots because that's what they knew how to build. And so a couple of meetings in, Mark just said, You know what? No more meetings unless your mobile screenshots first. And just by making that shift. he made the shift in the company and we really had to force it. And the company really got on board, but it meant retraining a lot of engineers. So a shift on this scale tends to make your board members and shareholders a bit antsy.

Mark Zuckerberg shared their concerns. But the greater risk in his view was to take only a half hearted step towards a new market. So we made one really important strategy decision. Which was often when companies need to take two years or so to rewrite their whole app or software for a new platform. They believe that they can't slow down feature development.

So they do two things at the same time. They try to design a new product while rewriting the existing product. And I think that that ends up dragging everything out for longer and increases the chance that you fail and die. So we made what was a pretty hard decision at the time, which was basically no new features for two years. Which is kind of a crazy thing. Fortunately, for Mark, he retained a controlling interest in the company. He famously turned down a seventy five million dollar buyout offer in two thousand five. Followed by a one point five billion offer in two tausin six.

This afforded his team the latitude to perform some truly daring oodaloops. Mark's control enables us to have a long term view. We were a newly public company. We disappointed a lot of people in our near term revenue. That's because we only had so many engineers. And if we wanted to make money in the near term that quarter, we should put it on desktop ads.

And we did not. We were giving up a lot of current revenue for the promise of future revenue. Mark and I sat in a room one day and he looked at me and he said, We're gonna do this and I looked at him, I said, Well, you really can't be fired and you're the only person who can fire me. You're in. I'm in. And it was a joke we had, but it's an important joke. This ability for a leadership team to joke together, to think together, to take risks together.

It's what holds an organization together. It allows them to work towards the same goal and orient thousands of people. In the same direction. The constant course correction and Oodaloops, the making and breaking of plans, feels less disorienting. In the hands of great scale leaders.

And to be clear, we're not going to achieve consensus on every decision. Employees may disagree passionately about a dramatic change of plans. What matters is How you have the debate. And what happens afterwards.

Margaret Hefernan has a great example of this. What I think is important Is that when the decision is made, everybody gets behind it. And I think the most sensational example of this I've ever come across, I spent a lot of time hanging out with and writing about ocean spray, the Cranberry Company.

And they're one of the biggest cooperatives in the United States. Extraordinary business. And at one point Pepsi tried very hard to buy them. And of course the company is owned by the Cranberry farmers. So this was a really passionate, passionate debate. You could never have resolved it by who cared most, because everybody cared totally. And it ended up the vote was forty nine point nine percent in favor of selling, fifty point one percent in favor of staying an independent cooperative. And what made the company what it is today, which is very successful global multi billion dollar business, is that after the vote everybody got behind it. There was no question that's the vote, that's the outcome. Now we all work together to make it successful. А на цей офектив лідер.

You invite Discord, you welcome a noisy Spicy debate. But you ensure everyone understands and works towards the same goal. And this is where we reach The counterpoint.

Leaders at scale have to be ready to make or break almost every plan. That's the general rule. But there's one plan you can't break. One variable that must stay constant. And that's the company's mission.

It's the North Star that everyone orients around. For LinkedIn. It's connecting people with opportunity. For Airbnb, it's belong anywhere. For Facebook.

It's connect the world. Thing about leadership is you need people to follow you enthusiastically. People will do what they're supposed to do if they work for you, but that's not what you want. You want to have an aligned mission. Rather than tell people to march four steps, you want to tell people we're heading there, get there as quickly as you can.

You have to repeat your mission and your purpose. And the values you care about? Over and over and over. And sometimes you're like, doesn't everyone know this? It doesn't matter. Starting out your meetings with this is the Facebook mission, this is the Instagram mission, this is why WhatsApps, is so powerful, even if everyone knows it by heart because it reminds you where you're headed. And why you're going there.

The repetition of mission is extremely important, and I've seen it in all good scale leaders. It's actually one of the things that I've had to learn myself. Because I had a tendency to think Hey. Everyone knows our mission.

We're all smart. Let's move on. And I used to be somewhat skeptical of putting your mission statement or values on posters on the wall. It seemed controlling and vaguely Orwellian. Like fascist marketing. But I had it backwards.

Those posters? You find them also in the most freewheeling companies. the companies that grant the greatest measure of autonomy to their employees. Now whenever I see mission statements plastered on every wall stating here's our goal or here's where we're going I recognize that there can be an unwritten footnote.

Get there however you'd like. I'm Reed Hoffman. Thank you for listening. Humans will never be more intelligent than AI. There's gonna be two types of companies.

Those who are great at AI and those that went out of business because they weren't. How do we build a future? That is human centered. I'm Rana El Chayubi. And on my podcast, Pioneers of AI, we answer that question and so many more. As an AI scientist, entrepreneur, and investor, I know what it takes to build AI that works for everyone.

Every week, I sit down with the pioneers shaping our future. And we take you behind the scenes of the AI that's transforming our lives. Find pioneers of AI wherever you tune in. Masters of Scale is a Wait What original. The show is recorded on site in California and produced at the studio inside SY Partners in New York. Our executive producers are June Cohen and Darren Triff.

Ar Chris McCloud Jenny Cataldo Dan kid me. And Ben Manilla. Our supervising producer is Jay Punjabi.

Original music. is by the Holiday Brothers. Mixing and mastering. By Brian Pew. Special thanks.

To Jessica Johnston. Say it's happy. Lisa Schreiber. Crish. David Sanford.

Stephanie Kent. and Rafina Amod. Is it? Masters of scale dat com to find the transkript For this episode.

And be sure to subscribe to our email newsletter.