I know that all success is dependent upon other successes. I just
thought that I could choose which successes to build upon to go
forward. Ashton and I were accepted to The Founder Institute on Thursday. For
those who are uninitiated, this is a program that leads entrepreneurs
through a few months of mentorship and concrete assignments in order
to raise capital and see the company through to the next phase in its
development. Today I was notified that because Ashton was not able to commit to the
entire time period (he will be in Argentina for part of the time),
that both of us will not be excluded from the program. This single conditional statement I find to be ludicrous. It is
applying the same logic as to restaurant seating. Your whole party may
not be seated until your whole party is present. That is not the way that the world of collaboration and creation
works. If some people aren’t available for a meeting, we record the
notes, archive the audio and generally create a space for everyone to
come together on what was discussed. Being absent is not only an
option, it should be encouraged. When people can work and collaborate
on their own time, they are more likely to give everything that they
have rather than sitting through an interminable event when other
things are on the line (like a trip to Argentina, maybe). It is perhaps a factor that The Founder Institute was not going to get
another 600 dollars of our money that spurred this decision, but I
would like to think that it is just a lack of foresight on their part.
I would like to think that it was merely a rigid commital to old
business practices that really sealed our fate. I would like to think that we are moving beyond this, but I think that
the world has a few more conditional statements in it.
thought that I could choose which successes to build upon to go
forward. Ashton and I were accepted to The Founder Institute on Thursday. For
those who are uninitiated, this is a program that leads entrepreneurs
through a few months of mentorship and concrete assignments in order
to raise capital and see the company through to the next phase in its
development. Today I was notified that because Ashton was not able to commit to the
entire time period (he will be in Argentina for part of the time),
that both of us will not be excluded from the program. This single conditional statement I find to be ludicrous. It is
applying the same logic as to restaurant seating. Your whole party may
not be seated until your whole party is present. That is not the way that the world of collaboration and creation
works. If some people aren’t available for a meeting, we record the
notes, archive the audio and generally create a space for everyone to
come together on what was discussed. Being absent is not only an
option, it should be encouraged. When people can work and collaborate
on their own time, they are more likely to give everything that they
have rather than sitting through an interminable event when other
things are on the line (like a trip to Argentina, maybe). It is perhaps a factor that The Founder Institute was not going to get
another 600 dollars of our money that spurred this decision, but I
would like to think that it is just a lack of foresight on their part.
I would like to think that it was merely a rigid commital to old
business practices that really sealed our fate. I would like to think that we are moving beyond this, but I think that
the world has a few more conditional statements in it.
