I think I was employee #58 at Google Cambridge, at a moment where I think overall Google was still under 10,000. Our site director (miss you, Steve!) pursued a strategy of staffing out many small, local projects that were spread throughout as many different Google business units as possible. It worked exceptionally well, in my memory. Not only was the site de-risked from company pivots, in many cases, we were able to get things done much more quickly than the home site in Mountain View, because even though we hailed from the furthest corners of the organization, we all knew each other by name.
At least once a week, someone in Mountain View would get on a VC with me and complain that they were having problems negotiating with some other business unit also headquartered in Mountain View. At the end of the call, I would just walk over to someone from that unit I'd played ping-pong with the previous day, ask how her kids were, and say if they'd heard of the problem. Often times, the best communication link between two people at headquarters was a 6,000 mile roundtrip to the East Coast.
So I think that diverse remote sites can be actually superpowers for the entire organization, if managed well.
I really liked your quote "The longer you are willing to wait for the big payoff, the bigger the payoff in the end. The proviso is that you can’t wait so long for a payoff that you get shut down".
So I ran it through ChatGPT as an experiment trying to think of people with different perspectives. Thought the results were worth sharing!
Professional POV:
Strategic patience leads to greater long-term rewards; however, it is essential to balance vision with momentum—waiting too long risks missing critical opportunities or project viability.
- maintains the essence of the message while making it sound more structured and aligned with corporate communication
Professional but friendly:
Big rewards come with patience, but timing is key—wait too long, and you risk losing the opportunity altogether.
How might Elon Musk say it?:
The longer you can hold out, the bigger the reward—but wait too long, and you’re dead.
- It’s direct, bold, and in line with Musk’s style of communication
How might Steve Jobs say it?:
Great things take time, but if you wait too long, the moment passes—and so does the opportunity.
- It captures his visionary yet pragmatic approach
How might Albert Einstein say it?:
Patience can lead to great rewards, but time is relative—wait too long, and the opportunity may cease to exist.
- This keeps his scientific perspective while maintaining the essence of the message
How might Simon Sinek say it?:
The best rewards come to those who play the long game. But if you wait too long without action, the game might end before you win.
- This aligns with his leadership and purpose-driven philosophy
And you should point out that the one, the single issue to overcome, is hiring new people. All elements of your growth are dependant on your ability to select people.
This approach is very similar to VC backed company: invest in multiple startups (the so-called portfolio) to get one in ten or even twenty to succeed. It requires to be able to kill the less promising ones, those with less than 100:1 or even 1000:1 ROI potential, very quickly. It's really a "cattle not pet" mode with project.
Although I tend to agree with that approach, my past experience in consulting was that most companies were closed by diversifying too much and not doing the proper grooming of bad initiatives. Very often, they often have no ideas why their projects are failing but keep them on respirator "just in case". It's a good case of "sink-cost fallacy", but people don't even know where the flooding came from and associated very often with some delusion that at some point, the sinking boat will transform itself in submarine.
So, if you adopt that strategy, please, keep an eye closely on your P&L, even if your investors have give you a ton of money, and don't get attach to any of your ideas and projects. You choose a very challenging endeavor that could be very enjoyable and rewarding but only if you're ready to drop the delusion of the "hero who cannot fail" narrative.
Replacing Spaceward Ho! With the game Civilisation and this resonated with me.
Obviously though, there's more area under the curve in the aggressive model and that means you need more funding.
Where as the less aggressive approach is better for self funded startups which are going for the cockroach play instead of the grow at all costs VC play.
So I guess the answer is that it depends on your approach and what resources you have and also when you'll likely have to face the competition.
If the competition is already big instead of all starting out with the same basic starting point then you'll probably need more of the disruptive innovation model.
I think I was employee #58 at Google Cambridge, at a moment where I think overall Google was still under 10,000. Our site director (miss you, Steve!) pursued a strategy of staffing out many small, local projects that were spread throughout as many different Google business units as possible. It worked exceptionally well, in my memory. Not only was the site de-risked from company pivots, in many cases, we were able to get things done much more quickly than the home site in Mountain View, because even though we hailed from the furthest corners of the organization, we all knew each other by name.
At least once a week, someone in Mountain View would get on a VC with me and complain that they were having problems negotiating with some other business unit also headquartered in Mountain View. At the end of the call, I would just walk over to someone from that unit I'd played ping-pong with the previous day, ask how her kids were, and say if they'd heard of the problem. Often times, the best communication link between two people at headquarters was a 6,000 mile roundtrip to the East Coast.
So I think that diverse remote sites can be actually superpowers for the entire organization, if managed well.
I really liked your quote "The longer you are willing to wait for the big payoff, the bigger the payoff in the end. The proviso is that you can’t wait so long for a payoff that you get shut down".
So I ran it through ChatGPT as an experiment trying to think of people with different perspectives. Thought the results were worth sharing!
Professional POV:
Strategic patience leads to greater long-term rewards; however, it is essential to balance vision with momentum—waiting too long risks missing critical opportunities or project viability.
- maintains the essence of the message while making it sound more structured and aligned with corporate communication
Professional but friendly:
Big rewards come with patience, but timing is key—wait too long, and you risk losing the opportunity altogether.
How might Elon Musk say it?:
The longer you can hold out, the bigger the reward—but wait too long, and you’re dead.
- It’s direct, bold, and in line with Musk’s style of communication
How might Steve Jobs say it?:
Great things take time, but if you wait too long, the moment passes—and so does the opportunity.
- It captures his visionary yet pragmatic approach
How might Albert Einstein say it?:
Patience can lead to great rewards, but time is relative—wait too long, and the opportunity may cease to exist.
- This keeps his scientific perspective while maintaining the essence of the message
How might Simon Sinek say it?:
The best rewards come to those who play the long game. But if you wait too long without action, the game might end before you win.
- This aligns with his leadership and purpose-driven philosophy
And you should point out that the one, the single issue to overcome, is hiring new people. All elements of your growth are dependant on your ability to select people.
This approach is very similar to VC backed company: invest in multiple startups (the so-called portfolio) to get one in ten or even twenty to succeed. It requires to be able to kill the less promising ones, those with less than 100:1 or even 1000:1 ROI potential, very quickly. It's really a "cattle not pet" mode with project.
Although I tend to agree with that approach, my past experience in consulting was that most companies were closed by diversifying too much and not doing the proper grooming of bad initiatives. Very often, they often have no ideas why their projects are failing but keep them on respirator "just in case". It's a good case of "sink-cost fallacy", but people don't even know where the flooding came from and associated very often with some delusion that at some point, the sinking boat will transform itself in submarine.
So, if you adopt that strategy, please, keep an eye closely on your P&L, even if your investors have give you a ton of money, and don't get attach to any of your ideas and projects. You choose a very challenging endeavor that could be very enjoyable and rewarding but only if you're ready to drop the delusion of the "hero who cannot fail" narrative.
Replacing Spaceward Ho! With the game Civilisation and this resonated with me.
Obviously though, there's more area under the curve in the aggressive model and that means you need more funding.
Where as the less aggressive approach is better for self funded startups which are going for the cockroach play instead of the grow at all costs VC play.
So I guess the answer is that it depends on your approach and what resources you have and also when you'll likely have to face the competition.
If the competition is already big instead of all starting out with the same basic starting point then you'll probably need more of the disruptive innovation model.
In Ho! the imperative is to be as big and advanced as possible when you finally meet other civilizations. There’s no “stay under the radar” strategy.