Clay CEO Flips SaaS Rules to Build $1B Lead Software Platform

Clay CEO颠覆SaaS规则，打造10亿美元线索软件平台 Clay联合创始人Kareem Amin证明，打破传统软件规范——按使用量而非席位收费、面向技术型重度用户打造产品——能够比传统的创业法则更快推动企业增长。 Kareem Amin详细讲述了在历经五年“荒漠漫游”后为Clay找到产品市场匹配度（PMF）的非传统历程，强调了坚定践行单一愿景并忽略行业教条所需的勇气。他阐释了Clay如何通过注重产品强大能力而非单纯追求简便、推行按使用量计费，以及赋能真实的代理商生态体系，从而开辟并壮大了“GTM工程师”（Go-To-Market Engineer）这一全新类别。在整场探讨中，Kareem还梳理了他作为CEO的独特运营哲学，从扮演“动能侦探”、取消固定例会，到借助透明度、包容心与当下觉察力来带领一家高速增长的公司。 Clay 联合创始人兼 CEO Kareem Amin 强调以“圆满”（wholeness）而非“匮乏”（lack）的心态创业，摒弃创始人常见的“心怀芥蒂”（chip on the shoulder）以减少附带伤害，让决策立足于当下的客观现实。 (3:06) 经历为期七天的静修后，Kareem 意识到过度投射未来实际上是一种加速走向死亡的心态，这一顿悟进一步强化了他活在当下、沉稳应对业务决策的风格。 (6:42) Clay 在寻找 PMF 的过程中度过了约五年的“漫长摸索期”，Kareem 认为创业者往往在刚遇到阻力时便选择放弃或频繁掉头，因而错失真正解锁深层价值的转折点。 (14:40) Clay 明确选择以功能强大与灵活性替代开箱即用的极简设计，并颠覆传统 SaaS 模式，打造面向技术型用户的深度用量计费平台，而非针对非技术销售的简单按席位付费软件。 (25:13) Clay 提出并定义了“GTM Engineer”（Go-To-Market 工程师）品类，但并未强势独占该叙事，而是主动赋能代理商伙伴与社区用户，促使该角色与品类实现有机传播。 (27:35)

Clay co-founder and CEO Kareem Amin argues that sustainable enterprise software creation requires rejecting prevailing tech dogmas—replacing performative hustle with psychological wholeness, inverting standard SaaS product mechanics, and letting grassroots ecosystems anchor emergent categories. Operating from Wholeness Over Hustle Dogma (3:06) Amin challenges the conventional tech belief that founder ambition must stem from an insecurity or a need to prove oneself. Reflecting on his childhood following his parents' divorce, Amin initially believed outsized achievement was required to earn love. However, during Clay's development, he concluded that building out of a sense of lack creates collateral damage. After visualizing the emptiness of an imagined $100 million finish line following an early fundraising round, he transitioned to operating from "wholeness"—treating entrepreneurship as an engaging game grounded in reality rather than an existential struggle for external validation. This philosophy informs Amin's critique of performative startup culture, specifically forced "996" work schedules. In his view, extreme schedules often mask the absence of a genuine competitive moat while imposing severe burnout on teams. Drawing on an insight from day seven of a ten-day silent retreat—where he realized that constantly projecting into the future accelerates psychological time toward death—Amin advocates for stillness and consistency, arguing that presence enables calm, non-reactive executive decision-making. Inverting SaaS Playbooks to Find Traction (14:40) Clay navigated roughly five years in the product-market fit desert, characterized by two initial years of building, two years of pivoting amid paralyzing VC expectations, and a final hard commitment to rebuilding around a specific wedge. Amin observes that builders frequently abandon ideas after one or two years because they misinterpret initial friction or boredom as a signal to quit, walking away just before deep product value is unlocked. To break through, Clay intentionally inverted standard SaaS conventions, a method Amin compares to Ludwig Feuerbach's philosophical inversion of Hegel. While traditional vendors sold simplified, seat-licensed applications directly to non-technical salespeople, Clay built a powerful, usage-based platform designed for technical power users. This conviction led to the creation of waterfall enrichment: despite customer requests for a simple, single-source data button, Clay gave users full programmatic transparency to chain multiple data vendor APIs together, prioritizing flexibility and power over out-of-the-box simplicity. Grassroots Definition of the GTM Engineer (27:35) Rather than attempting to invent a corporate category out of thin air, Amin contends that true category creation requires identifying an operational shift already occurring in forward-thinking companies. Following advice from Index Ventures investor Mike Volpi to own an industry title, Amin formalized the phrase "Go-To-Market Engineer" to describe Clay's internal customer-facing technical operators who managed programmatic data enrichment. Clay opted not to police or aggressively brand the term like past enterprise playbooks. Instead, the company quietly seeded the title with agency partners, who quickly adopted "GTM Engineer" in their professional branding to win higher-value technical client engagements. Clay reinforced this grassroots momentum by cultivating community-run "Clay Clubs" across more than 80 cities and offering an early community funding round, ensuring practitioners were financially invested in the ecosystem's success. Managing Operational Velocity and Human Friction Amin defines the CEO role as a "momentum detective" who focuses on diagnosing friction in stalling initiatives rather than managing self-sufficient teams. For instance, when the engineering team struggled to adopt Clay's broad "Audiences" vision due to technical table constraints, Amin re-framed the effort around tracking real-time "Signals." Once sales reps began closing deals using signals, engineers organically recognized the necessity of building the larger underlying Audiences feature. Operationally, Clay rejects conventional management overhead by eliminating standing executive team meetings in favor of just-in-time issue resolution. Amin also pushes back against standard startup axioms like "hire slow, fire fast," viewing them as unexamined rules of thumb that ignore human context. When an employee made a major operational blunder, Amin diagnosed the root issue as underpayment and organizational friction; instead of firing the individual, he increased their compensation, and the employee eventually became one of the company's highest performers. Amin regularly uses executive apologies to defuse workplace defensiveness, arguing that organizational devotion produces far greater long-term velocity than fear or discipline. Amin's framework illustrates how challenging mainstream startup orthodoxy—ranging from product design and category adoption to internal meeting cadence—can yield significant enterprise traction. Nonetheless, Amin concedes that his forgiving leadership style carries the distinct operational vulnerability of tolerating mediocrity too long, while scaling past 100 to 150 employees introduces severe personnel responsibilities that test any founder's capacity to maintain present-moment focus.

Clay 联合创始人兼 CEO Kareem Amin 认为，创始人不必依赖“心存芥蒂”（chip on the shoulder）或恐慌焦虑来驱动增长，而应立足于内心的充盈感与对当下现实的敬畏；通过反转传统 SaaS 规则、坚持“强大优先于易用”，并赋能第三方生态，企业可以在经历漫长探索后构建稳固的品类护城河。 创业驱动：从匮乏证明到内心充盈 (3:06) Kareem 回顾其童年在父母离异后辗转多国的经历，早期他深信“只有做成大事才能获得爱”，但这种试图证明自我的匮乏感往往会给团队带来次生伤害。在完成 Clay 的首轮主要融资后，他意识到即便未来坐拥数亿美元和庞大商业帝国，终点线后也不会有奇迹般的圆满感。因此，他主动将创业心态转变为“内心充盈”（building from wholeness），将创业视为一场享受当下的游戏，而非弥补心理缺失的挣扎。 这种心态塑造了他反共识的领导风格。在经历一次为期十天的禅修后，Kareem 领悟到过度投射未来实际上是在心理上加速死亡，创始人必须具备忍受平静甚至无聊的能力。他明确反对硅谷强制推行的“996”等表演式加班文化，认为过度劳碌往往只是掩盖了企业缺乏真正壁垒的缺陷；真正的战略清晰需要一致性与长久耐力，而非以恐慌为动力的应激式反应。 逆向创新：在漫长探索中坚持高维能力 (14:40) Clay 经历了长达五年的产品与市场契合度（PMF）探索期，常被称为“历时七年的突击成功”。Kareem 指出，多数团队在摸索一至两年遭遇阻力或枯燥时便会过早放弃，恰好错过了突破点。早期他和联合创始人 Nikolai 也曾因追逐宏大叙事而陷入频繁转型的陷阱，最终他们摒弃外界噪音，将平台底层能力收敛至出海与销售获客的数据富化切口。 在产品哲学上，Kareem 借鉴费尔巴哈颠覆黑格尔哲学的思路，主张通过全面反转行业既定教条来实现真正创新。传统 SaaS 通常向非技术销售人员销售开箱即用、按席位付费的简化工具；Clay 则坚持“强大与灵活性优先于易用性”，面向技术极客构建按算力与使用量计费的底层平台。其标志性的“瀑布流数据富化”（waterfall enrichment）直接打破了行业对单一“魔法按钮”的迷信，通过透明编排多个数据源 API，满足了用户对数据覆盖率和精细控制的硬核需求。 品类塑造：定义GTM工程师与生态共生 (27:35) Kareem 强调品类无法凭空捏造，而必须提炼自先锋企业中已经发生的范式转变。随着销售流程日趋程序化与技术化，受投资人“确立一个职位名称”的启发，Clay 创造了“GTM 工程师”（Go-To-Market Engineer）这一称谓，将市场策略（Go-To-Market）与技术工程（Engineer）概念合二为一。与传统厂商斥巨资造势的打法不同，Clay 采取了去中心化的渗透策略，首先在内部推行，随后将其引入代运营服务商（Agency）。 代运营伙伴迅速将这一头衔用于领英主页以提升专业溢价，进而围绕 Clay 构建起高收入的业务体系。配合在全球 80 多个城市展开的本地化社群“Clay Clubs”以及面向早期建设者的股权融资，该品类自然演进为行业共识。Kareem 指出，渠道网络不能依赖功利性套路建立；早年团队甚至深夜前往客户家中现场排障。唯有让第三方从业者依托平台赚取真金白银并感受到真正的同理心，生态共荣的品类定义才能真正扎根。 动能侦探：准时化决策与消除组织内耗 在日常管理中，Kareem 将 CEO 的核心杠杆界定为“动能侦探”（momentum detective），即放弃对运转良好部门的微观介入，专注于排查并疏通陷入停滞的业务环节。例如在推行无行列限制的数据对象“Audiences”遭遇阻力时，他通过先行确立“信号追踪”（Signals）这一中间里程碑，引导团队自行探索并完成了核心功能架构。在日常管理中，Clay 倡导“准时化决策”，取消了固定的高管周会，以避免团队因等待例会而推迟解决即时问题。 Kareem 极其重视消除组织内部隐秘的情绪内耗，反对“慢招快解”等未经深思的刻板法则。面对团队受挫或摩擦，他提倡管理层主动真诚道歉，因为许多看似结构性的瓶颈实则是员工感到未被尊重；他甚至曾通过为犯错员工加薪解决了因薪资偏低导致的内耗，使对方成长为核心骨干。在面对定价体系拆分引发的舆论风波时，Clay 拒绝公关辞令，直接公开未经删减的高管讨论逻辑，通过对数据信用点与算力成本拆分的彻底透明，成功化解争议并保持了核心业务指标的增长。 Kareem Amin 的实践展现了一种将哲学思辨与实用主义深度结合的企业家样本：通过将工作动机从单纯的规训与恐惧转向长期的“奉献”（devotion），并拒绝将商业成功建立在转嫁外部成本的零和博弈之上。然而，随着组织规模持续扩张，如何平衡对平庸的宽容与执行标准、以及在面对 AI 原生组织重组浪潮时如何辨析叙事包装与运营实效，仍是其长期探索中需要持续检验的命题。

## Background 本期视频由红杉资本（Sequoia Capital）于 2026 年 8 月 18 日发布在 YouTube 频道。视频简介指出，主持人早先曾误判 Clay 联合创始人兼 CEO 卡里姆·阿明（Kareem Amin），认为他过于随和且缺乏好胜心，如今 Clay 的爆发式增长证明了其非凡能力；访谈深入探讨了 Kareem 从“圆满”而非“匮乏”出发的哲学式创业视角、长达五年的摸索破局、重新定义“GTM 工程师”品类的策略以及他作为“动量侦探”的独特管理实践。 ## TL;DR 在长达五年的创业平台期后，Clay 凭借放弃宏大叙事、专注核心用例实现爆发，并开创了“GTM 工程师”这一全新行业品类。Kareem Amin 颠覆了传统 SaaS 的常规假设，选择坚持按用量计费、面向技术型用户并追求极高的产品灵活度与深度。在组织管理上，他主张从内心“圆满”而非“自证匮乏”出发去创造，倡导活在当下、透明沟通、取消形式主义高管例会及定期一对一，并以“动量侦探”的身份精准疏通团队卡点。整场对谈揭示了创业没有千篇一律的模板，言行一致的感召力与对现实的诚实体察才是带领企业破局的关键。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场对话在深刻的哲学思辨与极为落地的商业实操之间自如切换，基调既从容沉静又充满机智的幽默感。红杉主持人以亲历者的视角主动坦承当年的看走眼，与 Kareem 展开了亦庄亦谐的平等过招，气氛如同两位老友在壁炉边的深度复盘。听众能真切感受到一种罕见的临场沉浸感与情绪张力——从童年创伤与克服自证心理的真诚剖白，到打破教条化“996”与硅谷黑话的清醒锐利，不仅毫无说教感，反而呈现出一种禅宗式的松弛与坚毅。 ## Bulletin - [16:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=1000s) Clay 联合创始人 Kareem Amin 在经历了长达五年的漫长徘徊后，摒弃了追求宏大叙事的风投惯性，收拢产品范围至垂直场景，从而迎来了爆发式增长。 - [29:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=1796s) Clay 颠覆了传统 SaaS 的常规模式，选择面向技术型“GTM 工程师”、优先保证产品强大与灵活性而非表面简单，并采取按用量计费与聚合数据市场的路线。 - [32:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=1978s) 在品类缔造上，Clay 采取让 Agency 机构站在聚光灯下、自愿隐身幕后的同心圆扩散策略，让第三方生态伙伴以此盈利，确立“品类必须比企业自身更宏大”。 - [43:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=2595s) Kareem 将 CEO 角色定义为“动量侦探”，推行取消固定的高管例会与常规 1-on-1 会议，倡导即时沟通决策，并视真诚道歉为化解团队阻滞的关键工具。 ## Key takeaways - [03:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=186s) 创业动力可以从“圆满感”而非“匮乏感”出发，放下必须自证或打败敌人的执念，把创业看作一场享受当下的游戏。 - [04:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=279s) 推演商业成功的终点往往会发现其本质的虚无，生活本身即是全天候的即时反馈，过分执念于未来等同于加速奔向生命的消亡。 - [09:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=589s) 盲目鼓吹“996”和极限工时多数是一种表演性质的自我感动，往往掩盖了商业护城河的匮乏，创业更依赖长期稳定的持续产出。 - [12:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=753s) 以多邻国为例，企业必须时刻警惕认知偏差，将自身自以为在做的事、期望做的事与客户实际感知并付费的核心价值紧密对齐。 - [14:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=880s) 在探索平台期，各种将阻碍归咎于外部环境的借口往往是逃避核心难题的心理防御，突破往往发生在认准方向并做出不可撤销承诺的时刻。 - [19:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=1147s) 创业最难的不是加班，而是鼓起勇气去死磕一个看似微小的想法并屏蔽外部杂音，甚至在早期阶段需暂时停止听取不成熟客户的琐碎反馈。 - [28:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=1687s) 品类无法凭空生造，而是对正在发生的浪潮进行命名；Clay 敏锐捕捉趋势，将内部支持岗位命名为“GTM 工程师”并最终推向全行业。 - [29:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=1796s) 最有效的创新方式之一是将行业现有公认假设彻底倒置，Clay 全盘颠覆了传统 GTM 工具面向非技术销售、追求傻瓜式操作与席位收费的模式。 - [36:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=2216s) 品类必须超越企业自身，通过赋能代理商（Agency）在生态中赚取真金白银并自发传播，才能建立稳固的渠道护城河与全球社区。 - [40:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=2419s) 面对定价模式改动引发的争议，彻底公开所有内部推导公式与决策逻辑的极端透明做法，是化解抵触并重建用户信任的最强武器。 - [43:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=2595s) CEO 应成为“动量侦探”，专门搜寻组织中动量受阻的薄弱环节，善用精准的叙事铺垫和迂回概念打破僵局并重启推进力。 - [46:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=2763s) 管理中的很多阻滞根源在于被忽视的情绪诉求，CEO 主动真诚认错道歉能迅速消除对抗情绪，让团队回归解决核心业务事实。 - [47:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=2861s) 取消常规的高管团队例会与每周固定 1-on-1，转向“即时决策”与按需通话，能够防止决策惰性并把高杠杆精力留给核心关键节点。 - [52:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=3152s) 员工表现不佳往往是组织机制放错了位置，Clay 倾向于假设员工具备最佳动机，通过理顺环境甚至反直觉加薪来激活王牌潜力。 - [58:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=3495s) 警惕硅谷流行的“慢招快炒”等教条式沙发智慧，管理需要深入具体情境，避免因机械盲从而割裂与业务技术实际的联系。 - [01:00:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=3613s) 优秀的组织应超越“恐惧与贪婪”的二元驱动，坚决反对将企业内部成本和痛苦转嫁给外部供应商的零和博弈模式。 - [01:03:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=3829s) 所谓“房间里的大象”往往只存在于员工的焦虑脑海与职场包袱中，领导者通过全员答疑主动挑明痛点，即可戳破臆想出的心理壁垒。 - [01:06:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=4001s) 世上没有唯一的正确管理剧本，卓越企业依赖创始人以身作则的愿景感召与文化践行，激发员工发自内心的“全然奉献”而非规章约束。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=0s) 早期客户至上：Varun 的家访轶事与开场 Kareem Amin 回顾了 Clay 早期那种极其纯粹且不顾一切的客户支持态度。当时他的想法十分朴素：自己只是在做觉得有趣的事，并希望这能推动 Clay 取得成功，但他真正的核心动力是“让这些早期用户获得成功”。用户能够真切感受到这种真诚。Kareem 分享了一个令人捧腹的真实案例：Clay 的 Go-To-Market（GTM）负责人 Varun Anand 当时正在 WhatsApp 上帮一位遇到产品故障的用户排查问题，聊着聊着 Varun 突然对对方说：“我现在就去你家找你帮忙修。”那位用户在电话另一头连忙推辞说“别来，千万别来”，但 Varun 坚持回复“不，我现在就过去”。正是这种甚至带点“疯狂”的执着，让他们和客户建立了极深厚的革命友谊，一路同行。 节目随后正式拉开帷幕，红杉资本的主持人向听众隆重介绍了 Kareem Amin。如今 Clay 的增长势头迅猛（“Clay is ripping”），但 Kareem 本人却是一位非常反传统、极具个性的创始人——他被形容为一位“哲学家式、僧侣般的 CEO”，行事风格完全打破常规。主持人坦言，为了这次对谈自己做了大量准备，但最精彩的情报其实来自他和 Varun 的私下交流：Varun 爆料两人经常一起打板网球（Padel），并宣称自己在球场上“彻底碾压了 Kareem”，同时形容 Kareem 在球场上“坚韧不拔、无比乐观，没有任何人比他更拼命”。 ### [01:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=95s) 板网球比赛的胜负欲：从落败中汲取能量 面对 Varun 的吹嘘，Kareem 立刻笑着在节目中“拨乱反正”，直呼要揭穿 Varun 的假话。Kareem 透露，自己手机里其实还存着一段视频：Varun 当时整个人痛苦地躺在球场地板上，脚踝差点骨折，起因完全是 Varun 误判了球的弹跳轨迹而被当场晃倒，心态彻底崩溃。主持人接着打趣说，Varun 提到两人打球时赌注会不断加码，而 Kareem 总是那个输了之后高喊“再来一局！再来一局！”的人。 Kareem 坦承，自己在面对竞技体育时有一种独特的心理机制：当被别人击败时，他不仅不会灰心丧气（“charged down”），反而会瞬间被激发、充满斗志（“charged up”）。他特别提到一个有趣的对比：有时他和 Varun 搭档组队对抗其他对手，一旦输掉比赛，Varun 往往觉得不好玩了，立刻提出“我们换个队伍重新组队吧”；但这种退缩反应让 Kareem 感到非常不可思议。在 Kareem 看来，尤其是在那些仅以一两分之差惜败的胶着比赛中，胜利的路径其实近在咫尺，他能清晰地看到两者的差距以及下一次如何翻盘。这种对逆境的兴奋感，正是他极强竞争内驱力的真实写照。 ### [03:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=186s) 从“匮乏”到“圆满”：童年创伤与创业驱动力的蜕变 当主持人追问这种近乎执拗的野心和竞争动力究竟从何而来，是否源自常见的“移民优势”（Immigrant edge）时，Kareem 敞开心扉，分享了自己深层的成长心路。他坦言自己有一个相当不同寻常的童年：父母虽然都很优秀，但经历了一场闹得满城风雨的离婚，童年时期他辗转漂泊于不同的国家之间，生活环境充斥着喧闹与变动。经过长期的自我审视，他意识到自己最初的野心其实源于一个非常质朴甚至幼稚的心理假设——“如果你能做成一件极其伟大的事情，你就会被爱”。 在创办和带领 Clay 的过程中，Kareem 逐渐看清并平息了这种心理渴望。他常对团队强调一个核心洞见：许多创业者都是从“匮乏感”（a place of lack）出发去打拼的，他们心头压着一块亟待证明自己的筹码（chip on shoulder），总觉得必须打败某个敌人或向世界证明什么。依靠这种匮乏感固然能做出伟大的成就，但在沿途往往会造成巨大的心理撕裂与附带伤害。因此，Kareem 选择转向从“圆满感”（a place of wholeness）出发去创造： - **无须自证**：接纳自我，内心坚信自己已经拥有爱，不需要依靠外界成就来证明自身价值。 - **游戏心态**：将创业视作一场探索性的游戏，全身心享受过程本身，因为这正是你正在度过的人生。 - **避免精神内耗**：摆脱在脑海中永无休止地追逐认可的“噩梦剧场”。 ### [04:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=279s) 勘破终局的虚无：直面现实与“生活即反馈” 主持人好奇 Kareem 是如何摆脱那种渴望证明自我的执念的，甚至半开玩笑地问他是否参加过知名的霍夫曼心理工作坊（Hoffman Institute）。Kareem 表示这并非源于特定课程，而是源于持续不断的反思与心理推演。他回忆起 Clay 第一次完成大额融资时的情景：当时他开始推演未来——假定公司最终大获成功，自己坐拥数亿美元财富，那时候的感觉究竟会怎样？他在推演中清晰地体验到了一种“空虚感”。那一刻他顿悟了：成功的终点彼岸其实什么都没有，那里根本没有他在追寻的终极答案。 人生的真相其实只有“此时此刻”（right now）。如果沿途的每一步你都无法享受其中，那么即便抵达了终点，你也只是虚度了一场毫无乐趣的过程。为此，Kareem 做出了一个大胆的决定：从当下开始享受过程本身，哪怕这意味着自己可能会因此丧失部分世俗的野心、甚至无法实现原本的目标，他也愿意承担这一风险，因为“这对我而言更加诚实”。 Kareem 指出，他人生最顶层的承诺是对“现实”（reality）的臣服与敏锐，这对于创业者而言至关重要： - **生活本身就是反馈**：针对许多员工经常抱怨“我没有得到足够的反馈”，Kareem 的回应是：“生活本身就是无时无刻不在涌入的海量反馈。我的角色只是帮你微调认知、理解信号；如果团队完全依赖创始人单向灌输反馈，那公司根本无法运转。” ### [06:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=402s) 活在当下：禅修静修中的“向死而生”顿悟 主持人和 Kareem 探讨了人类心理的时间维度：人们往往生活在过去、当下或未来，而大多数创业者都极度生活在对未来的焦虑之中。Kareem 坦承自己虽然也有焦虑，但那更多是一种“存在主义层面的思考”，而非对具体未来的惶恐。他分享了自己参加一次为期十天的禅修静修（Silent Retreat）时的深刻洞见： 在静修的第七天左右，Kareem 的脑海里突然涌现出一个强烈的念头：“我等不及要回家把这些天悟出的所有道理分享给大家了！”他在脑海中不断描绘那个场景，却完全抽离了当下身处的环境。随即他猛然惊醒：**每一次当你沉溺于幻想未来、生活在未来时，你本质上只是在加速消耗自己有限的有生之年，加速奔向死亡。** 这种状态极度类似于弗洛伊德笔下的“死亡本能”（Death Drive）——人们在脑海里执着于一个尚未到来的假想未来，从而彻底错过了眼前的真实生命。 这一体悟让他产生了极大的触动与平静。他开始对静修中的“无聊”充满感激：“天啊，我太感激这种无聊了，因为这意味着我真真切切地活在此处。”这种对当下的锚定感，让他在日常管理中能够做出更加从容、深思熟虑且不被虚妄目标裹挟的清晰商业决策。 ### [09:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=571s) 告别执念工具：红杉初见时的误判 当被问及目前是否还保持着每天冥想的习惯时，Kareem 坦言自己现在并没有固定的日常练习。过去在公司处境极其艰难时，他确实每天坚持打坐；但如今他认为修行的终极目标是将这种觉知彻底融入柴米油盐的日常生活。对他而言，真正的修行是在危机来临、理应感到焦虑的当下，立刻唤醒这种沉静的临在感。正如许多古老东方哲学所揭示的终极智慧：掌握各种冥想工具之后，最终必须“放下工具”（Drop the tools），生活本身没有固定教条，唯有真正置身于生活之中去体验。 听到这里，红杉资本的主持人忍不住坦白了自己早年对 Kareem 的严重“看走眼”。在红杉资本早期的项目接触中，主持人对 Kareem 的印象其实相当负面。当时的 Kareem 看起来太放松、太随和（“too laid-back”），既没有那种苦大仇深的自证心态，也不符合传统风投眼中那种充满饥饿感、野心勃勃的典型赢家模板。主持人笑着承认，红杉合伙人 Alfred Lin 直到现在都还在拿这次严重的误判来打趣他。 ### [09:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=589s) 反叛传统叙事：拒绝对“996”与表演性苦难的盲从 主持人指出，卡里姆·阿明（Kareem Amin）的行事作风与世俗眼光中“成功的科技公司创始人”完全背道而驰。卡里姆坦然承认，他在某种程度上确实是有意为之。他骨子里带着一种反骨特质，自认属于“小众独立派（Indie）”而非“流行大众派（Pop）”，只要看到所有人都在蜂拥做同一件事，这件事对他而言就会立刻失去吸引力。他曾一度怀疑自己是否只是为了博取关注而刻意标新立异，但后来发现，即使在某些场合自己的观点与大众完全契合，他也能平静接受，这证明他的反叛并非单纯在“立人设”。当然，他也笑着承认这里面确实带有一点表演和自娱自乐的成分，不过一旦察觉自己过于沉溺其中，他就会立刻收敛。 在卡里姆看来，当今科技圈围绕“如何创业”的主流叙事不仅缺乏吸引力，更在无形中造成了巨大的负面伤害。最典型的例子就是将“996”奉为唯一正途的狂热崇拜。初入行业的新人由于缺乏判断力，往往盲目效仿大佬的言论，误以为这就是通往成功的唯一公式。卡里姆强调，创业固然需要极其艰苦的付出——他自己也长期处于极高强度的持续工作之中——但他更看重的是长期的一致性与稳定性。 卡里姆尖锐地指出，有些团队之所以必须依赖“996”，本质上是因为公司缺乏护城河，或者试图强行完成某种超越能力范畴的非凡壮举，从而不得不将这种无谓的牺牲强加给创始人自己以及身边的所有员工。但在现实中，绝大多数极端的加班文化纯粹只是一种“表演性质（Performative）”的自我感动。这种风气不仅严重摧残当下从业者的身心，更会演变成一种有毒的范式，被错误地传递给下一代创业者。 - 创始人的行事风格选择：卡里姆自称天生具有反主流倾向，偏好“独立音乐”式的独特路径，厌恶随波逐流的流行范式。 - 对“996”与加班文化的深刻反思：认为盲目鼓吹极限工时往往掩盖了商业模式上护城河的匮乏，其本质多数是表演性的，会给行业新人带来误导和结构性伤害。 - 长期主义的真正抓手：相比于短期的极限透支，创业更需要长期稳定的持续产出（Consistency）与对现状的诚实认知。 --- ### [12:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=753s) 哈佛商学院静思：多邻国的隐喻与厘清核心价值 主持人谈到卡里姆此时身在波士顿，专门抽出两天时间参加麦肯锡在哈佛商学院举办的高管深度研讨项目，并打趣道：“看来你平时工作挺闲的，毕竟瓦伦（Varun Shenoy）把所有活儿都干完了，不如直接让他当 CEO 吧。”卡里姆笑着顺水推舟夸赞瓦伦确实极为出色，并解释了自己抽身参会的深层动机：几年前他曾与瓦伦在斯坦福大学参加过类似的培训，起初他们抱有极大的怀疑态度，但实际体验下来却发现获益匪浅。这种价值并不单纯取决于课程内容本身，而在于能够为自己赢得一段完全脱离日常琐事干扰、独处封闭空间的时间，从而高效地激荡灵感、理清思路。 卡里姆认为，对当下的 Clay 而言，最重要的事情就是清醒地审视自身的核心价值主张：公司真正在做的事情究竟是什么？他以知名语言学习软件多邻国（Duolingo）为例展开了透彻的商业剖析：多邻国标榜自己是在“教授语言”，但在现实中，几乎没有人能仅仅依靠多邻国真正掌握一门外语。那么，多邻国到底是什么？它可能是一款寓教于乐的益智游戏，也可能是一种提醒用户“保持学习愿望”的激励机制，甚至在很多用户手中，它仅仅是一个用来缓解日常焦虑、平复情绪的心理抚慰工具。 卡里姆强调，认清这一区别对企业战略至关重要。如果多邻国的管理层笃定自己是一家“语言教学机构”，那么他们在产品架构、课程研发和资源分配上所做的决策，将与把自身定位为“基础入门激趣工具”或“解压小游戏”时截然不同。创业团队必须时刻警惕认知偏差，将以下三者严密对齐：公司“主观以为在做的事”、公司“希望自己做的事”，以及“客户实际获得的核心价值”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 企业定位与用户真实价值的对齐模型 accDescr: 展示了多邻国案例中企业预设目标、实际产品属性与用户真实获得的价值之间的对比，最终推导到企业必须实现三者一致的结论。 subgraph MindsetGap["企业认知偏差（以多邻国为例）"] A["官方宣称定位<br/>严肃的语言教学系统"] -.-> B{"用户真实行为"} B --> C["益智娱乐游戏<br/>Edutainment"] B --> D["心理抚慰工具<br/>缓解焦虑与自我心理暗示"] B --> E["入门唤醒机制<br/>维持对语言学习的基础兴趣"] end subgraph CoreAlignment["战略决策的核心法则"] F["公司自以为在做的事"] G["公司期望达成的目标"] H["客户实际感知并付费的价值"] F === Alignment["强制校准并重合"] === G G === Alignment === H end MindsetGap --> CoreAlignment ``` --- ### [14:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=880s) 穿越五年的“创业沙漠”：魔鬼善变的面具与坚持的临界点 主持人将卡里姆形容为一位“CEO 僧侣”，并将 Clay 的崛起描述为一个历时七年、在业内广为流传的“一夜成名”神话。在 Clay 迎来真正的爆发式增长之前，卡里姆在迷茫的“创业沙漠”中苦苦跋涉了整整五年。当被问及为何能在长达五年的漫长低谷中坚持不放弃时，卡里姆打趣道自己天生缺乏放弃的能力。他曾在此前出售过初创公司，但在他看来那更像是一次初出茅庐的试错，甚至是一个他不愿再次重蹈覆辙的战略失误。 卡里姆深入分析了创业者和团队成员在面对平台期时的心理机制。很多人在某个方向上深耕一到两年后，往往会产生倦怠感，误以为自己已经彻底参透了该领域的全部学问，或者萌生出跳槽去其他公司带领新业务的冲动。然而事实往往是，人们在即将迎来质变突破的最关键节点上选择了退缩。卡里姆坦言，究竟是“即将迎来突破”还是“真的走进了死胡同”，两者的界限极难分辨，但绝大多数人往往在最难熬的关头败下阵来。 借用僧侣式的哲学隐喻，卡里姆提出了一个深刻的观点：“魔鬼是个善变的变形者（The devil is a shape-shifter）。”在遭遇瓶颈时，内心总会响起各种合理的借口——比如归咎于董事会干涉、认为当前业务方向与个人利益不符，或者不断被更新鲜的外部概念所吸引。卡里姆指出，所有这些冠冕堂皇的借口，本质上都是用来逃避真正困难的“拖延症”。如果不能给自己足够长的时间沉下心去深挖，创业者就永远无法看清事情的真相。 - 退出机制的反思：卡里姆认为早期出售公司的经历是一个教训，让他意识到轻易套现离场往往会错失建立伟大业务的机会。 - 临界点的迷惑性：很多人在深耕 1-2 年产生厌倦时，恰恰处于从量变到质变的关键临界点，由于无法耐受枯燥而前功尽弃。 - “魔鬼的低语”：各种将阻碍归咎于外部环境（董事会、市场、方向不合）的想法，本质上都是为了逃避核心技术与业务难关的心理防御机制。 --- ### [16:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=993s) 告别“宏大叙事陷阱”：两年的迷茫与彻底承诺的破局 卡里姆将这五年的漂泊概括为一场充满试炼的“精神之旅（Spiritual journey）”。回顾这段岁月，最大的症结在于他和联合创始人尼古拉（Nicolae Rusan）始终无法对某一个具体的方向做出不可撤销的“全情承诺（Commitment）”。在早期，他们脑海中涌现过大量极具前瞻性的优秀构想，并对每个方向都做了一些尝试。讽刺的是，他们当年涉足的许多构思后来都被其他创业者做成了独立公司，甚至连这些公司在发展过程中会因为什么瓶颈停滞不前，卡里姆当年的预判也完全准确。 导致他们不断摇摆的核心诱因，是风险投资体系中对“宏大叙事”的极致崇拜。每当卡里姆与尼古拉面对一个机会时，VC 的惯性思维总会逼问：“这能否成为我能做的规模最大的事情？其影响力是否足够惊人？”这种巨大的野心反而演变成了吞噬专注力的深渊陷阱：每当市场发生微小变化或新技术浪潮涌现时，他们就会忍不住对产品方向修修补补，幻想着转向另一个更庞大的市场。这种循环往复的追逐，导致团队在前四年中陷入了“两年盲目研发、两年极度困惑”的停滞泥潭。 最终打破僵局的，是一次思维范式的彻底觉醒。卡里姆对自己说：“这根本无所谓了，我不再去执念于做什么‘规模最大的事情’，我只想专注于眼前切实存在、触手可及的问题，无论结果通向何方，我都誓死做出彻底的承诺（Commit regardless of where that goes）。”拆解这五年的历程，实际上是前两年在试探构建，中间两年在方向迷茫中打转，直到他们决心推倒重构、彻底认准一个方向全力投入，Clay 的业务便几乎在瞬间获得了爆发性的反馈。尽管外界认为他们是一夜爆发，但他们此前在循环内耗中承受了无尽的自我怀疑——即便身边的所有朋友都认为他们是圈内最聪明的顶尖精英，那种“本该能够成功却迟迟无法破局”的痛苦依然极其沉重。 - 宏大叙事的副作用：在风投语境下盲目追求“最大化赛道”与“最强影响力”，往往会导致创业者陷入不断推翻重来的战略漂移。 - 真实的五年时间线拆解： - 前 2 年：探索尝试多种构想，频繁切换原型； - 中间 2 年：在多重机会与新技术诱惑下陷入深层战略迷茫； - 破局点：放弃追逐最宏大的概念，彻底对眼前的核心产品作出不可动摇的承诺； - 破局后：重构系统并全量投入，商业化结果几乎呈现即刻爆发态势。 - 智力与成效的悖论：高智商与优秀的技术洞察并不必然导向成功，在缺乏坚定承诺的情况下，过度思考反而会成为战略推进的最大绊脚石。 ### [19:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=1147s) 创业的真正难处：笃定承诺与屏蔽外部杂音 在创业初期的探索中，Clay 曾面临一个看似自相矛盾的困境：团队顺利融到了钱，和潜在客户交谈时对方也赞不绝口，但产品在市场上就是无法真正转动起来。Kareem Amin 经过深刻内省后意识到，很多人总把“创业很难”挂在嘴边，却从未说清难点究竟在何处。对于被外界普遍视为“聪明人”的创始人而言，最艰难的不是加班熬夜，而是鼓起勇气去死磕一个看似微小甚至可笑的想法——不在乎外人的冷嘲热讽，不在乎公开失败带来的羞耻感，更不在乎旁人的指指点点。 为了打破僵局，Kareem 做出了一个彻底的决定：停止听取所有人的意见，甚至包括早期客户的反馈。他指出，早期客户往往根本不知道自己真正需要什么；当一个构想还处于萌芽期时，若过早听信错误的受众，无异于直接将其扼杀。主持人 Brian Halligan（HubSpot 联合创始人）对此深有共鸣，直言 HubSpot 创办的前七年里自己就是核心用户，团队完全屏蔽了外部客户的要求，一心只造自己想要的东西；直到后来转型为 CRM 公司，才变得极度以客户为中心。 Kareem 用计算机科学中的“爬山算法”（Hill Climbing）来比喻这一过程：创业的第一步是挑对你要爬的那座山（全局方向），而倾听客户的反馈仅仅是登顶途中的微调（局部优化）。很多成熟企业之所以反复强调“以客户为中心”，是因为组织变大后容易滋生内部官僚与自嗨，需要拉回现实。但在 Clay 内部，Kareem 明确要求员工不要盲从他个人的指令：“我不希望你们因为‘Kareem 说了什么’就去执行，除非我极其明确地要求必须这样做。如果我认为的方向与 Clay 的成功相悖，你们必须坚持做正确的事。” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 创业认知与决策模式演进 accDescr: 展示从盲目听取客户到建立内核认知，再通过爬山算法实现产品调优的过程。 subgraph Phase1["陷阱期：杂音干扰"] A["表面利好<br/>(融资顺利 / 访谈夸赞)"] --> B["陷入停滞<br/>(产品无法自运转)"] B --> C["致命错误<br/>(过早向错误客户妥协)"] end subgraph Phase2["突破期：内核确立"] D["放下虚荣与羞耻感<br/>(专注单一微小切口)"] --> E["彻底屏蔽外部杂音<br/>(停止听取他人与客户)"] E --> F["选对山头<br/>(Hill Climbing 全局方向)"] end subgraph Phase3["成长期：理性微调"] G["倾听真实客户反馈<br/>(局部调优与打磨)"] H["对事不对人<br/>(Clay 利益高于创始人意图)"] end Phase1 --> Phase2 Phase2 --> Phase3 ``` --- ### [21:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=1297s) 组织对齐：伊隆·马斯克的“矢量对齐”与动态平衡 主持人谈及自己曾参加过伊隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）的一场内部演讲。马斯克在白板上画出长短不一、方向杂乱的箭头，并表示其管理企业的全部秘诀就在于“把这群该死的矢量对齐（Align the Vectors）”，让最强的力量朝同一个方向发力。 面对这一管理哲学，Kareem 认为大体逻辑没错，但不同公司有不同的建构路径。很多公司习惯于制定一套宏大的主计划（Master Plan），步步按部就班；然而在软件探索中，许多认知只能在实干中被逐步发现。Kareem 将团队的运作状态划分为两个周期： - **探索松弛期**：在尚未完全摸清前路时，前线距离问题最近的人往往更有感知力。此时组织需要“冗余（Slack）”，允许员工自主裁量与探索。Kareem 认为自己的核心优势之一在于：一旦有人说出了直击本质的“大写的真实”（Capital-T Truth），他能瞬间捕捉到并深信不疑。 - **全速对齐期**：当真理被确认后，Kareem 会不断向所有人强化这一声音，团队随即切换至极端清晰、全力以赴的单点突破状态，所有矢量瞬间归拢朝同一目标冲刺。 --- ### [23:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=1391s) 驾驭模糊与忍受认知失调 围绕对“灰色地带（模糊性）”的掌控力，主持人与 Kareem 展开了深入探讨。在 HubSpot 早期，灰色地带往往会导致团队效率骤降、陷入迷茫，员工会直接恳求创始人“拨开迷雾”，逼迫 Brian 拍板打破僵局。 Kareem 则对“灰度”给出了更微妙的解释：很多时候所谓的“模糊”，其实是大家心里清楚该怎么做，但由于缺乏魄力或害怕做出残酷的权衡取舍（Trade-offs），才选择用“信息不足”当借口逃避决策。 同时，Kareem 极度珍视员工驾驭混乱的能力。新业务从零到一的萌芽期必然是混沌肮脏的，而大企业的条理化运作虽然高效，却也抹杀了初创的生机。优秀的核心成员必须具备“在脑海中同时容纳两种相反观点却依然能正常运转”的能力。虽然这种认知失调会让人感到脑仁疼、极度痛苦，并伴随着大量艰难的内部对话，但能够承受这一折磨的团队，才真正具备定义新事物的天赋。 --- ### [25:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=1513s) 舍弃大平台幻想：押注“强大与灵活”而非“傻瓜式简单” 在经历了长达五年的漫长探索后，Clay 团队面临一次极为痛苦的战略收敛：从打造一个普适、宽泛的宏大开发平台，断然收缩至出海/外呼销售（Outbound Sales）这一垂直用例。 Kareem 坦承，这一决定最初由联合创始人 Nikolai 提出，两人在做出承诺时内心都经历过激烈挣扎——他们最初的宏愿是“将编程的能力赋予所有人”，骤然收窄到一个销售场景，感觉背离了初衷。但最终，这种初心转化为了产品的设计哲学： 1. **坚定选择强大与灵活性，摒弃表面简单**：SaaS 行业历来迷信“开箱即用、一键傻瓜”，而 Clay 反其道而行之，给予用户极高的可配置性与自由度，这也是他们后来将其定义为“GTM 工程师（Go-To-Market Engineering）”的根源。 2. **瀑布流数据丰富（Waterfall Enrichment）的真实逻辑**：几乎所有竞品后来都在抄袭 Clay 的瀑布流聚合数据模式。在立项初期，客户抱怨不断：“别让我选数据源，我就想挥一挥魔棒，一键拿到这家公司的员工规模。”Kareem 坚决顶住了这一压力，他认为在底层技术尚未达到神仙境界前，最透明、最有效的方法就是把所有优质数据源串联起来，赋予用户掌控力与透明度，帮他们加速筛选流程。正如 Kareem 所言：“你当然可以说你想一小时内从纽约飞到伦敦，但我造不出超音速客机，那么眼下最务实好用的替代方案是什么？” 这段通过单点极致力量打开市场的经历，让主持人联想到 HubSpot 早期靠一本电子书、一场大会强力缔造“集客营销（Inbound Marketing）”品类的过往。主持人向 Kareem 抛出关键问题：在大众普遍劝退“千万别自己造品类”的背景下，Clay 究竟是如何成功打造出“GTM 工程师”这一全新概念并将其引爆的？ ### [28:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=1687s) 品类不是被生造出来的，而是为正在发生的浪潮命名 在谈及品类创造（Category Creation）时，Kareem Amin 提出了一个与传统认知截然不同的观点：创业者其实无法凭空捏造一个品类，你能做的只是观察正在实际发生的趋势，并给它赋予一个名字。这就像是给一个正在涌现的趋势画上一个圈，保留一些“模糊的边界”（fuzzy boundaries），为这股浪潮赋予公信力与合法性。对于 Clay 而言，他们最早注意到最前沿、最具前瞻性且愿意采纳 Clay 的团队，已经开始使用 "GTM"（Go-to-Market）替代传统的 "Sales" 一词。 与此同时，Clay 团队在内部思考该如何称呼那些专门协助客户的技术支持人员。当时行业里普遍使用类似 Palantir 式的“前向部署工程师”（Forward Deployed Engineer）或“客户工程师”（Customer Engineer）。Kareem 与联合创始人 Varun Anand 讨论时认为，最好的品类往往是由两个简单的词拼在一起组合而成的，正如吸尘机器人出现前很难凭空命名 Roomba 一样，语言本身是演化而来的。早期投资人 Mike Rol 也曾建议 Kareem：“你们应该牢牢占据一个职位头衔（title）。”于是，Kareem 决定将自己的内部团队正式命名为“GTM 工程师”（Go-to-Market Engineers）——因为他们的核心职责就是用系统化、工程化的思维去构建与执行去市场策略。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: GTM工程品类的诞生演进 accDescr: 描绘从市场趋势观察到团队内部命名再到全行业品类建立的演进路径。 subgraph S1["市场敏锐观察"] A["先锋组织抛弃Sales<br/>改称GTM"] --> B["前沿客户寻找<br/>系统化工程解法"] end subgraph S2["内部头衔确立"] B --> C["摒弃部署/客户工程师旧称"] C --> D["正式命名内部团队为<br/>'GTM Engineer'"] end subgraph S3["品类自然扩散"] D --> E["赋能代运营机构Agency<br/>作为LinkedIn个人头衔"] E --> F["升华为行业通用品类<br/>GTM Engineering"] end ``` --- ### [29:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=1796s) 颠覆常识的哲学：黑格尔、费尔巴哈与 Clay 的核心决策 在确立 GTM 工程师这一身份后，Kareem 强调，品类命名必须与产品的底层底层假设紧密绑定。外界常以为他主张“生活在模糊性中”意味着决策犹豫不决，但他澄清，容忍模糊性的目的正是为了最终走向极致的清晰。回顾 Clay 的发展历程，其核心骨架建立在几个从不妥协的基本决策上：第一，明确面向技术型用户（Technical User）；第二，产品必须追求极致的强大与灵活，甚至在强大与简单发生冲突时，“宁要强大与灵活，不要简单”（Power and flexibility over simplicity）；第三，自身绝不做数据拥有者，而是打造聚合型的数据交易市场（Data Marketplace）；第四，彻底放弃传统 SaaS 按席位（Seat-based）收费的模式，转向按用量（Usage-based）计费；第五，坚持走产品驱动增长（PLG）路线。由于 Clay 极其强大且具工程属性，将高复杂度产品做成无需销售介入即可自助把玩的 PLG 模式，正是产品打磨历时五年的重要原因。 为了阐释这套底层逻辑，具有哲学思考习惯的 Kareem 联想到了黑格尔（Hegel）的历史哲学（正题、反题与合题）以及哲学家费尔巴哈（Ludwig Feuerbach）对黑格尔的彻底翻转——费尔巴哈认为人类并非向着绝对精神演进，而是将自身的局限与渴望投射成了上帝。面对主持人“这跟 GTM 有什么关系”的打趣追问，Kareem 笑称“欢迎来到我的大脑”，并解释其中的方法论精髓：创新最有效的方式之一，就是把行业现有的公认前提全盘颠倒（flip it on its head），并将其推演至极端。 - **传统 GTM SaaS 假设**：面向普通销售人员销售、界面必须傻瓜式简单、按软件席位数收费、依赖自建闭环数据库。 - **Clay 的反转假设**：面向具备代码或黑客精神的 GTM 工程师、追求极端灵活与深度定制、按实际消耗数据用量收费、聚合全球第三方数据源。 - **决策定力**：一旦通过逻辑反转确立了这套自洽的公理体系，后续产品层面的每一次功能取舍都顺理成章、极度轻松。 --- ### [32:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=1978s) 隐身于幕后：通过 Agency 生态与同心圆扩散 当被问及这一概念如何引爆时，主持人回顾了当年推广“集客营销”（Inbound Marketing）的打法——将“推播式营销”（Outbound）立为行业公敌，通过写书、高频撰写博客文章、举办大型年度行业峰会来高调抢占定义权。与这种高举高打截然相反，Clay 选择了一种极度克制、甚至刻意隐身于幕后的同心圆扩散策略。Kareem 直言，甚至很多使用该词汇的人根本不知道这个概念来自 Clay。 Clay 将突破口选在了代理服务商（Agencies）。因为 Agencies 的生存极度依赖获客和交付能力，他们迫切需要最前沿的武器来武装自己。Clay 团队向这些 Agency 展示了自家的“GTM 工程师”，Agency 发现这个头衔不仅听起来极酷，还能直接印在员工的 LinkedIn 个人主页上以抬高身价，于是迅速跟进采纳。Clay 则在背后充当“弹药库”，毫无保留地向其提供技术支撑、最佳实践与知识资产，帮助代运营团队赚取商业利益。更关键的是，Clay 刻意克制自己去抢功劳（Take credit），甚至不强行给“GTM 工程师”下封闭的硬性定义，而是保持概念的开放性：哪怕一个销售运营人员在使用 Claude 编写提示词和脚本来自动化线索挖掘，他也是一名 GTM 工程师。 - **为什么不先找大企业而找 Agency？** 企业客户往往把自身的核心获客秘诀视作商业机密严加看守，绝不愿对外宣讲；相反，Agency 必须对外炫耀战绩招揽生意，因而天然是最佳的自传播喇叭。 - **Clay 的内部定位标语**：“打造去市场基础设施，以竞手无法复制的方式增长”（Go-to-market infrastructure to grow in ways your competitors can't）。 - **抢占心智的时机掌控**：先作为个人“头衔”（Title）让一线的实践者自发拥抱，等社区聚集了足够多的利益共同体与布道者后，才顺理成章地将其作为正式“品类”（Category）推向行业。过早吹响品类号角只会引来质疑与抗拒，真正的品类必须建立在已被广泛验证的土壤之上。 ### [36:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=2216s) 品类必须超越自身：Clay 的全球俱乐部与生态共赢 真正的品类构建远不仅是企业自说自话的宣传，更在于让生态伙伴在其中切实赚到钱并获得实际帮助。Clay 在全球超过 80 个地方建立了由用户自发组织的“Clay Clubs”。对主持人和 Kareem 而言，品类建设最关键的逻辑在于：“这个品类必须比你自己更宏大（the category is bigger than you）”。如果一个概念仅局限于某家特定公司的单一产品，它就无法演变成一场真正的行业变革。只有当客户、机构和第三方从业者能够借助这个品类发展业务、获取丰厚回报时，这个品类才拥有了源源不断的生命力。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Category Expansion Dynamic accDescr: Demonstrates how genuine user success leads to a category growing larger than the company itself. subgraph Foundation["底层驱动"] A["真诚助力客户与生态"] --> B["社区自发裂变<br/>(全球 80+ Clay Clubs)"] end subgraph Ecosystem["生态反哺"] B --> C["机构与用户在生态中赚到钱"] C --> D["定义超越 Clay 本身的品类"] end ``` ### [37:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=2247s) 意外崛起的 Agency 渠道与 HubSpot 往事的共鸣 主持人回顾了 HubSpot 发展早期的类似轨迹：当年 HubSpot 也是纯直销起步，主持人亲自担任第一位销售；直到一位名叫 Pete Caputa 的销售代表在周末（利用类似 Google 20% 自选项目的自由时间）开始给代理机构（Agencies）打电话。次月业绩直方图直接爆表，Pete 的收入达到常规水平的 4 倍，彻底证明了代理商分销的威力，HubSpot 随后专门为此搭建了一套完善的 Agency 渠道项目。谈及许多创始人苦于找不到第二条增长渠道时，Kareem 坦言 Clay 也经历过这个难题，而解法的核心在于“真诚”而非照搬所谓的套路。 联合创始人 Varun 与 Kareem 亲自泡在各种代理商老总的 WhatsApp 群组里。他们的核心动机不是为了利用这些机构给 Clay 带货，而是发自内心地思考“如何帮这些企业实现增长”。这种没有功利防备的真诚构筑了牢不可破的信任： - 甚至有一次，一位机构客户在 WhatsApp 上抱怨 Clay 的某个功能调试不通，Varun 当即表态：“我现在就开车去你家帮你修。”对方连忙拒绝说别来，Varun 依然直接找上门去，两人就此成了无话不谈的挚友。 - 许多人因为对这套产品的热爱与信任，甚至辞职专门创办了“Clay 代理咨询机构（Clay Agencies）”。 - Kareem 指出，外界和投资人都具备极敏锐的情绪嗅觉，伪装出来的自信或工于心计的渠道操盘迟早会被看穿；唯有内心坚信自己在为伙伴创造不可替代的价值，才能真正建立持久的渠道伙伴关系。 ### [40:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=2419s) 定价风波与全面透明：把计算逻辑赤裸裸公开给市场 近期 Clay 针对计费模式的调整在市场上引发了一定讨论，主持人形容这就像每位 CEO 都会经历的“被市场迎面狠狠揍了一拳”。但 Kareem 表示内部通过情感分析（Sentiment Analysis）发现，实际反馈中约 70% 属于中立，而跳出来公开炮轰的人群往往存在某种既得利益冲突（例如自身拥有的业务受到影响），且底层运营数据并没有出现实际下滑。他幽默地类比法拉利推出 SUV（法拉利坚决自称为 FUV）和纯电动车时同样遭遇了狂风骤雨般的口诛笔伐，但如今这些车型照样全部售罄。 面对定价阻力，Clay 能稳住阵脚的核心在于团队清晰的底层逻辑与坦率到极致的沟通： | 调整维度 | 调整前状态 | 调整后方案 | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **计费解耦** | 将数据成本与计算能力捆绑在统一点数（Credits）中 | 拆解为“计算（Compute）”与“数据（Data）”双轴独立计费 | | **价值主张** | 账单颗粒度模糊，高阶用户成本不可控 | 计费透明化，短期降本，长期按真实创造的价值共同增长 | | **披露策略** | 商业公司常见的公关包装与修饰 | 毫无保留地公开完整长文，一字不差地复现内部会议的原话与推导过程 | Kareem 强调，“透明直接等于信任（Transparency equals trust）”。尽管现代互联网推崇短平快的信息碎片，他们依然选择在一篇长文中把整个定价公式的所有推导步骤全盘托出。只要沟通渠道正确、面对的是具备辨别力的高阶用户，他们就会认真阅读并理解这种改动的诚意与长远价值。 ### [43:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=2595s) “动量侦探”CEO：捕捉转折点并用叙事重启推进力 谈到自己作为 CEO 的日常工作风格，Kareem 用了一个极其生动的自称——“动量侦探（Momentum Detective）”。动量一旦丢失便极难重新聚集，因此他穿梭于公司各个角落，不是去正在全速运转的热点部门凑热闹（因为那些地方并不需要他），而是专门搜寻那些“动量开始放缓甚至受阻”的薄弱环节，在关键时刻帮团队消除阻力。 作为 CEO 注入动量的重要手段之一，就是用精准的概念打破僵局并引爆传播： - **提出 GTM Alpha 概念**：在确立了 Go-to-Market Engineering 之后，Kareem 在与朋友交流时敏锐捕捉到了“GTM Alpha”这一术语。起初有人担心它听起来“太硬核、太偏金融范”，但 Kareem 坚信金融界的认知普及度足够高，大家一听就能领悟到这是在寻求某种高出均值的“非对称竞争优势”，该词随后迅速成为贯穿公司上下的一记响亮口号。 - **拆解 Audiences 功能的阻力**：团队曾计划在底层 CRM 支撑下开发类似“受众（Audiences）”的核心功能，用于沉淀公司和个人的实体数据以聚合各种行为信号。然而，由于内部受到传统数据表格（Table）行数限制、单元格大小上限等思维定势的束缚，这个项目推进极其缓慢。 - **迂回突破的叙事策略**：面对停滞，Kareem 没有硬推 Audiences，而是换了个叙事角度——先引导大家做“Signals（信号：即随时间发生变化的数据）”，以此打败那些只做离职跳槽单一信号的竞品。当团队成功拿下 Signals 之后，大家自然而然发现：“如果用户手头同时有 5 个动态信号，该围绕什么实体来汇总？”此时团队自发得出了结论——需要构建“Audiences”概念。Kareem 反思道，优秀的领导力往往体现于讲好叙事，耐心地铺垫路径，让团队从内心真正笃信方向并重燃向前的动量。 ### [46:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=2763s) 势头侦探与认错的艺术：化解团队阻滞 Kareem Amin 解释了 CEO 与团队在节奏上的本质差异：当团队自己发现问题并具备自发势头时，其爆发力远胜于 CEO 直接下达“你必须做这个功能”的指令。作为 CEO，常常会走在所有人前面，这并非因为自己更聪明，而是因为 CEO 拥有全公司最广阔的信息输入敞口（Purview），整天都在思考全局，加之多年摸爬滚打积累了大量犯错经验与业务直觉。主持人赞叹 Kareem 极具品牌命名天赋（如将客户称为 "Cliences"、提出“势头侦探”等），并指出他似乎具备两种鲜明的管理模式：一种是敏锐捕捉势头并顺势放大，另一种则是主动介入、帮团队打破停滞不前的僵局（Funk）。 谈到如何帮员工走出情绪低谷或工作困境时，Kareem 分享了一个极具个人特色的管理手段——真诚道歉。Clay 的人力资源负责人（Head of People）曾告诉他，他是自己合作过的唯一一个会主动认错道歉的 CEO。Kareem 认为，许多看似不可调和的业务问题，其表象之下往往掩盖着情绪诉求：“道歉并不意味着整个公司都做错了；它可能只是代表我们此前没有认真倾听你，或者没有以让你感到被尊重的方式对待你。”一旦情绪被看见、被安抚，原本剑拔弩张的争执就会降温，团队便能心平气和地回归到实际问题的解决上。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 化解团队阻滞的双层解决机制 accDescr: 展示管理者如何先通过倾听与道歉化解情绪阻滞，再处理业务核心问题 subgraph 情绪疏导 ["第一层：化解情绪僵局"] A["团队陷入阻滞或不满"] --> B["倾听并给予尊重"] B --> C["CEO 主动认错/道歉<br/>'承认此前未能充分倾听'"] end subgraph 业务解决 ["第二层：回归核心事实"] C --> D["情绪平复与信任重建"] D --> E["厘清并解决实际业务问题"] end ``` --- ### [47:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=2861s) 零高管例会与“即时决策”：在舞池与徒步中思考 谈及日常时间管理，Kareem 坦言自己的日程在两个极端之间周期性摆动。在业务高速狂奔的阶段，他的日历常常连续数周被切割成每 20 或 30 分钟一个的碎片，在招聘、产品决策、薪酬协调、团队答疑以及合作伙伴沟通之间进行剧烈的上下文切换（Context switching）。但只要这种状态持续太久，他就会选择按下暂停键，“把所有日程全部清空，留出大片空白”。他极力推崇“即时决策”（Just-in-time decision-making）：Clay 甚至打破常规，至今没有设立固定的高管团队例会（Exec team meeting）。外人常常对此感到匪夷所思，质疑他们如何保持步调一致，而 Kareem 的逻辑是：一旦有了定期例会，人们就会产生惰性，把所有决策拖到开会时才解决；相反，他倡导“有事随时打电话”，在问题冒头的瞬间即时化解。 对于深度思考和研发个人 AI Agent 的时间从何而来，Kareem 给出了出人意料的答案：他不依赖传统的闭门沉思，而是在动态运动中汲取灵感。他常常和朋友去舞厅跳舞，或者在山野间徒步，在身体的律动和闲聊中发酵思考。他提出一个反直觉的认知观察：有时候直视某件事物反而会让人目眩，你得“眯起眼睛看”（Squint at it）。面对日新月异的技术浪潮（例如海量的 LLM 实验与应用），单靠 CEO 亲力亲为的一手体验极其有限。凭借早期与联合创始人亲手写出产品底层架构的深刻记忆，Kareem 现在可以通过倾听别人的反馈在脑海中完成“沙盒模拟”，无需事事实操也能做出精准的产品决断。 - **即时沟通优于定期开会**：取消高管团队例会，推行“有事随时通电话”的即时协作，避免团队为等待开会而积压决策。 - **动态思考机制**：在跳舞、徒步等身体运动中与朋友交谈以激发灵感，善于通过倾听外部信息在脑海中对产品与 AI 架构进行逻辑模拟。 - **日程留白哲学**：经历连续高强度的碎裂日程后，主动清空日历以重获全局视野，避免因过度微观掌控导致决策信息无法分布式下沉。 --- ### [50:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=3039s) 取消定期一对一：扁平沟通与关键业务抓手 在团队管理层面，Kareem 目前保持着大约 7 位直接下属（Direct reports），但他在管理架构上长期扮演着“超级节点”的角色。在去年九月引入工程负责人之前，他一个人直接统领着多达 60 至 70 人的庞大工程团队。虽然中间有工程经理协助，但他始终坚持与几乎每一位一线工程师保持直接且紧密的连接，以此维系对产品技术底层的绝对敏锐。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 一对一会议机制重塑 accDescr: 对比传统例行一对一与 Kareem 当前聚焦核心优先级的按需一对一模式 subgraph 传统模式 ["传统形式（已淘汰）"] M1["每周固定 1-on-1"] --> F1["流于形式<br/>精力严重内耗"] end subgraph 聚焦模式 ["高杠杆策略（现状）"] P1["高优先级非直属节点<br/>(如销售负责人)"] --> F2["对齐企业文化<br/>快速排除增长障碍"] P2["常规直接下属"] --> F3["转为月度沟通<br/>或即时按需呼叫"] end ``` 然而，过去每周固定的“一对一”（1-on-1s）会议让他感到精疲力竭。主持人对此深表同感，称前五年的创业期也是饱受其苦。如今 Kareem 正在果断砍掉所有常规的每周 1-on-1，转为每月一次或者“有事即时找我”的模式。更反传统的是，他把稀缺的 1-on-1 时间重新分配给了非直接下属但处于公司战略核心地位的负责人。例如，鉴于当前销售团队规模呈爆炸式扩张，他每周与销售主管保持一对一沟通： > “我是那个负责传达公司文化的人，我必须确保我们保持绝对对齐，任何潜在问题都能在第一时间被提出并迅速解决。但我不需要跟所有人开固定的每周例会，那些我全删了。” --- ### [52:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=3152s) 信任、包容与反直觉管理：给犯错员工加薪的故事 针对管理中的“信任半径”话题，主持人谈到自己曾因只信任极少数核心成员而被下属抱怨圈子太小。Kareem 坦诚自己同样存在信任门槛，真正的深度信任只交付给极少数人。不过，身边的同事往往评价他“过于宽容”。Kareem 剖析了自己的管理弱点：他常常一味包容、忍让，直到忍无可忍时瞬间爆发。目前他正努力改变这一习惯，尝试在感到不悦的初期就及时表达负面反馈，而不是任由情绪暗中累积。 谈及是否在用人上“挽留太久”，Kareem 承认确实如此，但他强调这种坚持往往能带来逆转。与硅谷信奉的“人不行就赶紧换”不同，Clay 的文化底层选择无条件相信员工并假设其具备最佳动机（Assume best intentions）。他认为员工表现不佳往往不是能力问题，而是组织上下文（Context）放错了位置。为了说明这一点，Kareem 分享了一个堪称匪夷所思的真实案例： > “有位员工之前犯了严重错误，换作常规做法可能就处理了。但我反其道而行之，不仅没有惩罚，反而给他涨了薪水。” 面对主持人的震惊，Kareem 解释道，他在深入倾听后发现，该员工的失误根源在于遭遇了组织结构上的束缚，且长期的薪酬待遇明显低于其应得价值。在补齐薪酬短板、理顺工作机制后，这位员工如今已蜕变为全公司绩效最顶尖的王牌员工之一。对于“公司会无限放大创始人性格特质”的说法，Kareem 深表赞同。他欣慰地看到 Clay 完美继承了他性格中开放、善于找乐子的一面，整个团队在严肃工作的同时弥漫着一种充满幽默感、甚至带点“后现代主义荒诞画作”般的生机与趣味。 ### [055:50] 高标准与宽容心：职场是个人心理的微观缩影 Kareem Amin 探讨了耐心与其反面之间的平衡。尽管他在 Clay 早期长达五年的摸索期证明了他极具耐心，但他同样意识到，有时候人们会对明显不妥的事物表现出过度的容忍，误将长期的停滞或倒退视作暂时的起伏。他形容自己身上同时存在着两种特质：“极高的标准”与“极强的宽容心”。高标准更像是一种品味（taste），源自父母的言传身教；而宽容心同样来自父亲的处事态度，更深层的原因则是他对“我们为何聚在一起工作”这一本质问题的反思。 在 Kareem 看来，职场实际上是个人生活困境的微观缩影（microcosm）。一个人在私人生活中遇到的情绪困扰与沟通障碍，往往也会在职场上重演；唯一的区别在于，职场提供了一个更低风险、更容易给出正向反馈的试验场。如果在工作中连同事无意间说的一句话、偶发的冒犯或微小的竞争心态都无法宽恕，人们又如何在真实世界里理解和原谅他人？为此，Clay 主动为普通基层员工（IC）提供心理咨询与专业辅导（Coaching），而非仅仅局限于管理层。Kareem 观察到，很多时候正是基层员工会因为创始人或同事随口的一句无心评价陷入持续数周的情绪内耗。即使完全从冰冷的商业逻辑出发——以最大化股东价值、赚取利润为目标——放任员工沉溺于琐碎情绪所浪费的生产力成本，也是巨大的企业损耗。 - **心理与辅导覆盖**：Clay 不仅报销心理咨询费用，还为一线非管理岗员工（IC）提供 Coaching，帮助他们摆脱因沟通误解导致的内耗恶性循环。 - **宽容的哲学根基**：职场人际摩擦不仅是管理问题，更是一个人练习如何与外部世界达成和解的修道场。 --- ### [058:15] 破除“沙发智慧”：教条主义与被滥用的裁员决策 谈到初创企业的管理方法论，Kareem 对硅谷盛行的“沙发智慧”（couch wisdom）提出了尖锐质疑。很多初创企业在跨入高速成长期时，创始人往往小心翼翼地沿着前人的成功轨迹前行，生怕犯错，因而盲目套用那些未经验证的现成经验。比如业界奉为圭臬的“慢招人，快炒人”（hire slow, fire fast），在 Kareem 眼中就是一种容易让人陷入机械执行、停止深度思考的教条规则。每一种管理决策模式都有其特定的代价，一旦创始人盲从规则，就会切断对具体情境的真实体察。 更典型的反面案例是对 AI 生产力的粗暴应用。许多公司高管在参加行业会议或听闻别家动态后，便贸然拍脑袋决定“AI 能大幅提升效率，全员裁员 20%”。这种脱离业务实际与技术细节的决策，是导致一线工程师和业务人员认为高管愚蠢脱节的根源。Kareem 认为，现代管理中普遍存在着严峻的委托-代理问题（principal-agent problem）：高管层经常抱怨员工缺乏主人翁意识、思考方式不正确，却忽视了企业在激励机制与同理心上的严重错配。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 硅谷教条管理与深度情境管理的对比 accDescr: 对比沙发智慧教条（盲信规则与恐慌驱动）与深度情境管理（理性洞察与全方位激励）。 subgraph CouchWisdom["沙发智慧 (Couch Wisdom)"] A["盲从现成教条<br/>(例如：慢招快炒 / 盲目裁员)"] --> B["高管停止独立思考<br/>脱离业务实际"] B --> C["缺乏对员工的同理心<br/>信任破裂与效率损耗"] end subgraph DeepContext["深度情境管理 (Kareem 的理念)"] D["具体情境深度推演<br/>兼顾决策速度与代价"] --> E["对齐底层激励机制<br/>直面委托-代理矛盾"] E --> F["构建全谱系动力<br/>(奉献、纪律与心理安全)"] end ``` --- ### [01:00:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=3613s) 走出恐惧与贪婪的零和游戏：全谱系驱动力与供应链良知 在谈及员工激励机制时，主持人提到恐惧（fear）与贪婪（greed）是商业中最常用的两大杠杆。Kareem 并不否认这些工具的存在，但他坚决反对将企业运转简化为单一维度的恐吓或利益诱惑。他认为优秀的组织需要具备全谱系的工具箱（full spectrum of tools），例如用“奉献”（devotion）去替代单纯机械的“纪律”（discipline）。管理的核心不仅在于驱使团队赢下竞争，更在于塑造一个让人打心底愿意身处其中的环境。 Kareem 进一步反思了现代商业模式中普遍存在的“击鼓传花”与零和博弈倾向。许多表面上财务指标亮眼的企业，本质上只是把痛苦和成本转嫁给了外部供应商。正如某些科技巨头虽然拥有完美的利润表，但其高额利润却建立在对代工厂供应商的极致挤压之上——“就像把自家的垃圾随手丢到别处，假装它不存在一样”。Kareem 直言，这种“只要我赢、管你死活”的竞争逻辑让他无法心安理得地面对自己的良心。即便商业世界允许这种自私的跳脱与推诿，他也不愿将自己的公司建立在这种剥削模式之上。 - **超越恐惧与贪婪**：将工作体验扩展为包含创造挑战的“第二类乐趣”（Type 2 fun），通过共同的目标信念而非单纯的惩罚威胁来驱动团队。 - **抵制代价转移**：坚决摒弃将企业繁荣建立在转嫁负担（如无限度压榨供应链和外包生态）之上的商业模式。 --- ### [01:02:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=3724s) 评 Jack Dorsey：重塑组织架构与系统可读性 主持人将话题转向 Twitter 和 Block 联合创始人 Jack Dorsey 近期在管理上的激进重构——包括大规模裁减冗余人员、削减层级至极度扁平、将 AI 置于组织核心，并让员工致力于将全公司业务系统转化为机器可读的格式，从而逐步将决策权移交给被他称为“智能”（the intelligence）的 Agent。 Kareem 对此表现得非常审慎。他指出，上市公司的一大难点在于外界很难分辨公开叙事（narrative）与内部实际运作之间的鸿沟，员工往往会基于委托-代理视角去过度解读高管发出的每一个信号。但他赞同 Jack Dorsey 至少是在真实地直面问题并做出重构：随着环境变迁与规模扩张，组织往往不可避免地招揽了过多人手，此时确实需要对公司机制进行根本性的再造（retooling）。但面对由 AI 代理全面接管组织决策的前景，Kareem 坦诚表示自己尚未对此进行足够深入的思考，因此不予妄断。 --- ### [01:03:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=3829s) “房间里没有大象，大象在你的脑子里”：打破隐形沟通壁垒 访谈切入到 Kareem 广为人知的一句哲理名言：“房间里其实没有大象，大象存在于你的脑子里”（"There's no elephant in the room. The elephant is in your mind."）。Kareem 笑着解释这原本是一句随口说出的话，但却精准概括了他的沟通与领导哲学。 在日常管理中，许多团队对潜在的问题闭口不谈，任由疑虑在员工心中滋生为庞大的“大象”。为了破除这种信息黑洞，Kareem 在公司推行了极为透明的沟通机制： - **定期无死角 Q&A**：从原先的每周一次调整为每两周一次的自愿参与制全员答疑会，任何敏感话题皆可拿到台面上讨论。 - **全员会（All-Hands）主动挑破痛点**：Kareem 持续与各层级员工交流，敏锐捕捉组织内部出现的微小文化裂变或协作摩擦，并在全员大会上主动把大家心照不宣的担忧（如“团队之间是否开始踩彼此的脚趾面”、“业务边界是否重叠模糊”）直接摆在明面上拆解。 Kareem 强调，优秀的领导者应当默认所有员工都是极其聪明的个体，绝不需要拐弯抹角或刻意粉饰。当管理层率先在阳光下正视并剖析这些隐忧时，那些原本在员工脑海中被无限放大的猜忌与恐慌自然就会消散。 ### [01:05:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=3906s) 挑明房间里的大象与清空职场包袱 在团队沟通中，卡里姆·阿明（Kareem Amin）强调必须把“房间里的大象”（隐匿未言的重大顾虑）公开摊在桌面上讨论：探讨这种顾虑到底是如何体现的、大家真正想要的是什么行为。他指出，很多时候团队内部其实风平浪静，什么危机都没有发生，所谓的冲突完全是员工出于对未知问题的焦虑预期，或是从上一家公司带来了沉重的心理包袱（Baggage）。由于在上一份工作中遭遇过挫折或背叛，员工入职后会下意识地抱着“我还不能信任你们”的防备心态，在脑海中脑补出并不存在的假想敌和假想矛盾。 卡里姆的做法是鼓励所有人“把真正在发生的事讲出来”，彻底戳破这种虚幻的认知陷阱。只要将事情摆在明处，大家就能基于客观现实协作，而不是被困在自己臆想出来的虚假世界里自我消耗。 - **化解心理投射**：员工常常把以往受挫的职场阴影投射到当下环境，必须通过坦诚对话，防止团队“基于未经证实的感知现实去工作”。 --- ### [01:05:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=3948s) 未来的向往：生成式氛围音乐与声音探索 当主持人打趣地问卡里姆，等将来像自己一样“白发苍苍、垂垂老矣”时有什么打算时，卡里姆坦言去规划遥远的未来并非易事，但他对自己深层兴趣的落脚点十分清晰。卡里姆受过的本科专业训练是电气工程（Electrical Engineer），而他最近重新拾起了对音乐的热情，未来非常希望能深入探索“生成式氛围音乐”（Generative Ambient Music）与音景（Soundscapes）的创作。 卡里姆分享了他对音乐本质的独到思考：传统意义上的音乐体验，在很大程度上建立在“预测下一个音符或声响”的心理机制之上；但他如今深感兴趣的，恰恰是“虽然无法预测接下来的声音走向，但听起来依然无比美妙”。对他而言，这种探索不仅是一种艺术表达，更是在打破预期中不断拓展自己对声音词汇与感知边界的体验。 --- ### [01:06:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=4001s) 结语复盘：三位 CEO 的启示与主持人的三大心法 采访结束后，主持人对整场对话进行了深度复盘，并结合自己前两天与三位风格迥异的掌舵人——卡里姆·阿明、高盛（Goldman Sachs）董事长兼 CEO 戴维·所罗门（David Solomon）以及预测市场平台 Kalshi 的 CEO 塔里克·曼苏尔（Tarek Mansour / TK）共进晚餐的经历，提炼出三条给创业者和管理者的核心启示： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 主持人复盘的三大核心启示 accDescr: 展现主持人在访谈与 CEO 晚餐后总结的三点核心经营哲学与心法。 subgraph Mindsets["CEO 经营心法"] A["做你自己<br/>（Be Yourself）"] B["活在当下<br/>（Live in the Present）"] C["奉献胜过纪律<br/>（Devotion vs. Discipline）"] end A --> A1["承认领导风格的多样性，无需模仿他人"] B --> B1["摆脱未来焦虑，专注眼前行动与团队责任"] C --> C1["靠感召力激发追随，言行一致践行文化"] ``` #### 1. 做你自己：世上没有千篇一律的 CEO 剧本 在与三位企业领袖共进晚餐后，主持人深刻意识到人与人之间的特质差异如此之大，各自的领导战术手册（Playbook）也截然不同。这让他联想到了奥斯卡·王尔德（Oscar Wilde）的名言：“做你自己，因为其他人都有人做了（Be yourself. Everyone else is taken）。”成功从来没有固定模板，试图寻找所谓“唯一的正确管理方式”是徒劳的，商业世界允许并见证着截然不同的领导风格走向巅峰。 #### 2. 活在当下：治愈高速扩张期的未来焦虑 人们常说，“活在过去的人容易抑郁，活在未来的人容易焦虑，而活在今天的人更容易感到幸福”。主持人坦言自己就是一个习惯活在未来并饱受焦虑折磨的人。他回顾了自己最焦虑的时刻：并不是初创期的举步维艰，而是在公司规模达到 100 到 150 名员工、业务正迅速扩张且势头良好时。站在全员大会的讲台上，看着台下一张张面孔，他突然被沉重的责任感压得透不过气——所有人都依赖他的战略决策来支付房贷、抚养孩子以及赡养父母。卡里姆那种专注当下、从容自如的哲学心态，正是对抗这种未来焦虑症的一剂良药。 #### 3. 奉献胜过纪律：用言行一致赢得真正的追随 要想推动初创企业爆发式扩张，单纯依赖冰冷的规章纪律是行不通的，必须激发员工发自内心的“全然奉献”（Devotion）。创始人必须拥有极具感染力的愿景与叙事，具备让人愿意“踩着碎玻璃也要为你工作”的感召力（Followership）。更关键的是，墙上贴着的口号和文化守则（Culture Code）不能沦为空话，领导者必须真正做到身体力行、言行一致（Walk the walk），才能赢得团队不可动摇的信任。 ## Notable quotes > [03:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=186s) 如果你能做成一件极其伟大的事情，你就会被爱 — Kareem Amin > [04:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=279s) 生活本身就是无时无刻不在涌入的海量反馈。我的角色只是帮你微调认知、理解信号；如果团队完全依赖创始人单向灌输反馈，那公司根本无法运转。 — Kareem Amin > [06:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=402s) 每一次当你沉溺于幻想未来、生活在未来时，你本质上只是在加速消耗自己有限的有生之年，加速奔向死亡。 — Kareem Amin > [14:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=880s) 魔鬼是个善变的变形者（The devil is a shape-shifter）。 — Kareem Amin > [16:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=993s) 这根本无所谓了，我不再去执念于做什么‘规模最大的事情’，我只想专注于眼前切实存在、触手可及的问题，无论结果通向何方，我都誓死做出彻底的承诺 — Kareem Amin > [19:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=1147s) 我不希望你们因为‘Kareem 说了什么’就去执行，除非我极其明确地要求必须这样做。如果我认为的方向与 Clay 的成功相悖，你们必须坚持做正确的事。 — Kareem Amin > [21:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=1297s) 把这群该死的矢量对齐（Align the Vectors） — Elon Musk > [36:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=2216s) 这个品类必须比你自己更宏大（the category is bigger than you） — Kareem Amin > [40:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=2419s) 透明直接等于信任（Transparency equals trust） — Kareem Amin > [46:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=2763s) 道歉并不意味着整个公司都做错了；它可能只是代表我们此前没有认真倾听你，或者没有以让你感到被尊重的方式对待你。 — Kareem Amin > [50:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=3039s) 我是那个负责传达公司文化的人，我必须确保我们保持绝对对齐，任何潜在问题都能在第一时间被提出并迅速解决。但我不需要跟所有人开固定的每周例会，那些我全删了。 — Kareem Amin > [52:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=3152s) 有位员工之前犯了严重错误，换作常规做法可能就处理了。但我反其道而行之，不仅没有惩罚，反而给他涨了薪水。 — Kareem Amin > [01:03:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=3829s) 房间里其实没有大象，大象存在于你的脑子里（There's no elephant in the room. The elephant is in your mind.） — Kareem Amin > [01:06:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ&t=4001s) 做你自己，因为其他人都有人做了（Be yourself. Everyone else is taken） — Oscar Wilde ## Mentioned Kareem Amin, Varun Anand, Brian Halligan, Nicolae Rusan, Alfred Lin, Elon Musk, Mike Rol, Pete Caputa, David Solomon, Tarek Mansour, Jack Dorsey, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Ludwig Feuerbach, Sigmund Freud, Oscar Wilde, Clay, Sequoia Capital, HubSpot, Duolingo, McKinsey, Harvard Business School, Stanford University, Palantir, Claude, Ferrari, Twitter, Block, Goldman Sachs, Kalshi, Hoffman Institute, Clay Clubs, GTM Engineering, GTM Alpha ## Video description I had Kareem Amin all wrong. When Clay first crossed my radar, I thought he was too laid-back: no chip on his shoulder, not the hungry founder I expected to win. Clay has since exploded. Kareem builds from what he calls "a place of wholeness" rather than lack — nothing to prove, no enemy to beat. It makes him sound like a philosopher, but the operating instincts underneath are sharp. He spent roughly five years wandering before Clay clicked, and his takeaway is that the hard part of building isn't working hard — it's the courage to commit to one idea and stop listening to everyone else, customers included. He flipped every assumption in his market: sell to technical "go-to-market engineers," charge for usage instead of seats, pick power over simplicity. We both created categories, in opposite ways. I flogged "inbound marketing" with a book, a conference, and relentless content. Kareem coined "go-to-market engineering" and then refused to take credit, letting agencies own it because a category has to be bigger than you. We also get into his "momentum detective" theory of the CEO job, why he's deleting his standing one-on-ones, and why apologizing is one of his sharpest tools. There's no single way to run a company. Kareem is my proof. 00:00 Introduction 01:35 Competitive Fire and Drive 03:06 Building From Wholeness 06:42 Living in the Present 09:31 Contrarian Founder Style 14:40 Five Years in the Desert 27:35 Naming GTM Engineering 35:49 Winning Content Battles 36:10 Naming the Category 37:27 Building the Agency Channel 40:19 Pricing Backlash Playbook 43:15 Momentum Detective CEO 52:32 Trust and Tough Calls 01:03:49 Calling Out Elephants 01:06:41 Closing [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoE_pE26yDQ)

[3:06] Kareem Amin: 如果你能做成一件极其伟大的事情，你就会被爱 [4:39] Kareem Amin: 生活本身就是无时无刻不在涌入的海量反馈。我的角色只是帮你微调认知、理解信号；如果团队完全依赖创始人单向灌输反馈，那公司根本无法运转。 [6:42] Kareem Amin: 每一次当你沉溺于幻想未来、生活在未来时，你本质上只是在加速消耗自己有限的有生之年，加速奔向死亡。 [14:40] Kareem Amin: 魔鬼是个善变的变形者（The devil is a shape-shifter）。 [16:33] Kareem Amin: 这根本无所谓了，我不再去执念于做什么‘规模最大的事情’，我只想专注于眼前切实存在、触手可及的问题，无论结果通向何方，我都誓死做出彻底的承诺 [19:07] Kareem Amin: 我不希望你们因为‘Kareem 说了什么’就去执行，除非我极其明确地要求必须这样做。如果我认为的方向与 Clay 的成功相悖，你们必须坚持做正确的事。 [21:37] Elon Musk: 把这群该死的矢量对齐（Align the Vectors） [36:56] Kareem Amin: 这个品类必须比你自己更宏大（the category is bigger than you） [40:19] Kareem Amin: 透明直接等于信任（Transparency equals trust） [46:03] Kareem Amin: 道歉并不意味着整个公司都做错了；它可能只是代表我们此前没有认真倾听你，或者没有以让你感到被尊重的方式对待你。 [50:39] Kareem Amin: 我是那个负责传达公司文化的人，我必须确保我们保持绝对对齐，任何潜在问题都能在第一时间被提出并迅速解决。但我不需要跟所有人开固定的每周例会，那些我全删了。 [52:32] Kareem Amin: 有位员工之前犯了严重错误，换作常规做法可能就处理了。但我反其道而行之，不仅没有惩罚，反而给他涨了薪水。 [63:49] Kareem Amin: 房间里其实没有大象，大象存在于你的脑子里（There's no elephant in the room. The elephant is in your mind.） [66:41] Oscar Wilde: 做你自己，因为其他人都有人做了（Be yourself. Everyone else is taken）

[3:06] Kareem Amin: if you can do something really big, then you'll be loved. [3:06] Kareem Amin: Life is feedback. You're constantly getting an unbelievable amount of feedback. I can just help you tweak it, understand it, but if I'm the one who's giving you feedback all the time, it's not going to work. [9:31] Kareem Amin: A lot of the times it's just performative. And what does it do to the people that are in this situation, right? And what they force their employees to do and then what they pass on to the next generation of founders... [20:38] Kareem Amin: People can't use 'Kareem told me X' as an argument to do something unless there's only very few times where I will tell you 100% this is what I need you to do. [33:01] Kareem Amin: Go-to-market infrastructure to grow in ways your competitors can't. [37:27] Kareem Amin: People are very good people readers... they can read your intention. If you're going to go there and fake confidence, that's not going to work. You need to truly believe that you have the magic sauce. [63:49] Kareem Amin: There's no elephant in the room. The elephant is in your mind. [66:41] Oscar Wilde: Be yourself; everyone else is already taken

[0:00] I was like, I'm doing what I think is [0:02] interesting and I hope that is aligned [0:04] with what makes Clay successful. I'm [0:06] interested in that, but actually I want [0:08] to make these people successful. And [0:10] they felt that genuiness and we did [0:13] really crazy, you know, Verun, I think [0:15] he was talking to someone on WhatsApp [0:17] and the person was having trouble fixing [0:19] something on Clint. He was like, I'm [0:20] coming over to your house right now. And [0:22] the guy was like, don't come. He was [0:23] like, no, I'm coming. and he they became [0:25] really good friends and we were just [0:27] kind of on that journey with them. Uh [0:29] truly [0:48] everybody we have Kareem the founder CEO [0:51] of Clay on today. Clay is ripping. He's [0:54] doing a nice job there. He is a very [0:57] interesting cat. You're about to find [0:59] out. He's kind of a philosopher [1:02] monklike CEO and he's coloring way [1:06] outside the lines. I think you're going [1:07] to like it. I did a bunch of work to [1:10] prep, but the the best prep was I got a [1:13] little chance to engage with Verun, your [1:15] head of go to market, and he said he [1:19] talked about your Padell game that you [1:21] guys play a lot of Padell. and he says [1:23] he absolutely crushes you. [1:24] >> He loses quite a bit. [1:26] >> And he said, "You're relentless and [1:29] positive and no one tries harder." Where [1:33] does that come from? [1:35] >> Um I just want to correct the record [1:38] before we move on. [1:39] >> I'm going to call BS on his behalf. [1:41] >> Yeah. I I have a video of him lying on [1:44] the floor literally with his ankle uh [1:48] almost broken because he thought the [1:50] ball was going one way and it went the [1:52] other. and it just messed with his mind. [1:53] And [1:53] >> he said you guys wager and the wagers [1:55] increase and that you're like, "Let's go [1:57] again. Let's go again." [1:58] >> Well, I think Yeah, I think maybe what [1:59] he's talking about is that I like, you [2:02] know, especially in sports or things [2:03] like that, when someone beats me in [2:05] something, um, I automatically get [2:08] charged up rather than charged down. [2:10] Sometimes I'm playing actually with [2:12] Verun against someone else and if we [2:14] lose, he wants to change teams, which [2:17] really baffles me. Okay. [2:18] >> It actually that actually really gets to [2:20] me because when I lose I'm like here's [2:22] the here, you know, especially in a game [2:25] where you're losing by just one or two [2:27] points and you can almost see it going [2:29] your way. I can see that difference and [2:32] how close we were and how we can kind of [2:35] get there next time. Whereas he want he [2:37] thinks it's less it's less fun and like [2:39] we should switch teams. [2:40] >> Where does that come from little Kareem? [2:42] Where did where did you get so [2:45] competitive? Where does the drive come [2:47] from? [2:48] >> Wow, that's a deep cut. Yeah, let's go. [2:50] You really went there. [2:51] >> Yeah. [2:52] >> Um [2:53] >> I'm kind of studying CEOs and I kind of [2:55] want to see like what are the patterns? [2:57] >> Yeah, [2:57] >> a lot of CEOs are immigrants. Is it sort [2:59] of an immigrant edge? [3:01] >> I'll tell you kind of like where I've [3:03] gotten to after thinking about that or [3:05] analyzing it. Um it's it sounds a bit [3:09] benal, but I I think I had a um unusual [3:14] childhood. Let's just say just like [3:16] parents divorced both really great [3:18] parents just big divorce and you know [3:22] traveling across like different [3:23] countries very loud lots of things [3:25] happening and like my introspection is [3:28] that [3:29] >> the ambition comes from you know the if [3:34] you like a really simple thing right [3:35] like if you can do something really big [3:38] then you'll be loved right um and a big [3:41] part actually of while building the [3:43] company that I feel like I've um come to [3:48] understand but also resolve and calm [3:50] down is that um one thing that I I've [3:53] like actually told people at work is [3:55] that a lot of people think you should [3:56] build from a place of lack uh or like [3:59] you know you have a chip on your [4:00] shoulder you need to prove something and [4:02] you can definitely build great things [4:04] that way but I think you create a lot of [4:05] damage along the way um and to me I've [4:08] decided to create from a place of [4:09] wholeness so I'm like I don't need [4:11] anything I'm not trying to prove [4:12] anything I'm already loved [4:14] uh by myself and others and I don't need [4:17] to prove anything. So to me it's [4:19] actually more of a game. Um and that's [4:23] why I like often kind of talk about [4:25] having fun or just like how to enjoy the [4:28] process because it's actually your life. [4:30] Um and otherwise you're in this like you [4:32] know just nightmare scenario in your [4:34] head trying to prove something and doing [4:36] so many things in the world. [4:37] >> How did you get over that? [4:39] >> Um there are many insights. sound like [4:42] people I know who go to Hoffman. [4:44] >> Yeah. [4:45] >> Did you go to Hoffman? No. [4:46] >> Okay. You sound like a a Hoffman alum. [4:48] >> Yeah. Well, I I think it's just if you [4:50] investigate that over and over again and [4:52] you see Okay. You know, I remember [4:55] raising funding the first time like the [4:58] first large um round of funding that we [5:01] raised and I started to imagine kind of [5:04] what that would look like in the future. [5:05] Well, let's say now the company is [5:08] really successful, right? or I have, you [5:11] know, hundreds of millions of dollars. [5:12] How does it feel? And I think it felt [5:14] empty. So I kind of realized that at the [5:17] end there there's nothing at the end of [5:19] success. There's nothing on that other [5:20] side that um I'm chasing and that it [5:24] actually is just right now. Like how do [5:26] I feel right now? Why am I doing you [5:29] know every step of the way if I wasn't [5:31] enjoying it at the end you get to the [5:32] end and you didn't enjoy it right? And [5:34] so just playing that forward I realized [5:36] okay what if I decide to enjoy myself [5:38] right now and um and also I took the [5:43] risk of saying that may end up leading [5:46] to the ambition disappearing or you know [5:48] not doing whatever I wanted to but I was [5:50] willing to take that risk because it [5:52] felt more honest to me. Um I think my [5:54] top commitment is to reality which I [5:56] think is a helpful commitment if you're [5:58] an entrepreneur. You need to see what [6:00] life is actually like and what is [6:02] actually happening. Um, and I committed [6:04] to that and I was like, I'll go wherever [6:06] that path goes. Just a small note [6:08] actually on the reality thing because I [6:10] often talk to people and they're like, [6:12] "Hey, I'm not getting any feedback." And [6:14] I'm like, "Life is feedback. You're [6:16] constantly getting an unbelievable [6:17] amount of feedback. I can just help you [6:20] tweak it, understand it, but if I'm the [6:22] one who's giving you feedback all the [6:23] time, it's not going to work. You know, [6:25] you're you're this is the feedback. I [6:28] feel like humans either live in the [6:29] past, live in the present, live in the [6:31] future. Founders tend to live in the [6:34] future and they're anxious about it, [6:35] >> right? [6:36] >> I think most founders are probably [6:38] anxious anxious folks. [6:40] >> Very anxious right now. [6:41] >> Um, you're not. [6:44] >> Um, I'm not. No, I at least not in this [6:48] particular way. My anxiousness is more [6:51] existential. [6:52] >> Tell me about that. Um, but I'll give [6:54] you like an insight that I had about [6:56] living in the future. Um, I was on the [6:59] silent retreat and on like, you know, [7:02] crazy things happened and I had these [7:03] like big realizations and then on day [7:05] seven out of 10, I was like, "Oh, I [7:08] can't wait to go back home and tell [7:09] everybody about all these things that I [7:11] realized and I was just imagining it and [7:12] just completely letting go of the place [7:14] that I was at." And then I realized [7:16] every time you're picturing the future [7:18] or living in the future, you're just [7:19] accelerating [7:21] >> your own time that you've got here and [7:24] you're accelerating towards death. So to [7:26] me that kind of feels like the Freudian [7:28] death wish where you're just like [7:30] imagining something that is not here [7:32] that is going to happen in the future [7:33] and you're always there. [7:35] >> Um and then I instantly kind of had this [7:38] felt experience of [7:39] >> it's a very Buddhist thought living. It [7:41] >> is a very it is a very Buddhist thought. [7:43] be calm with yourself [7:44] >> and it it but I actually [7:45] >> I bet no CEOs are like that except for [7:47] you. [7:48] >> I actually think so. The funny thing [7:49] >> Jack Dorsey probably [7:50] >> yeah there's a lot of CEOs that have the [7:53] or like come to these thoughts at [7:55] different moments. It's I think it just [7:57] depends when do they come to it by the [7:59] way. Sometimes people come to it after [8:00] they sell their company or you know you [8:02] have a lot of star athletes who are [8:04] Olympic athletes who are like after [8:06] they're done they come back and [8:08] recognize this but I do think a lot of [8:10] people actually [8:12] have some forms of these thoughts. It [8:14] doesn't mean you it means you have [8:15] clarity of mind for the ambition for the [8:18] future thinking. But what I experienced [8:21] then was a felt experience of what it's [8:23] like to actually be there and then being [8:26] really grateful for the boredom where [8:28] I'm like, "Oh, wow. I'm so grateful to [8:30] be bored because I'm here." And then I [8:34] try to carry that with me. Um I I think [8:37] it actually leads you to make better [8:39] decisions that are less rushed, less [8:42] confused about like the nature of like [8:44] what's happening. [8:45] >> Do you dip back into this? Do you [8:46] meditate? You have a practice every day? [8:48] >> No. So that's the interesting thing. I [8:50] used to have a practice every day when [8:51] things were more challenging. Um [8:54] >> we'll get into that. [8:55] >> Yeah. [8:57] >> Um I find that I come in and out of it, [9:00] but you know, again, like some of the [9:02] thoughts that I've come to are like the [9:04] the end goal of that is to really um [9:07] merge it into your day-to-day life. And [9:10] so the practice is remembering it when [9:12] you should be anxious or when something [9:14] is going wrong. So I'm like, "Okay, I'm [9:16] practicing it right now." Um, and the [9:18] goal I really what I really like about [9:20] some of these traditions is that at the [9:22] end they're like, "Here are all these [9:23] tools." And then at the end they're [9:24] like, "Drop the tools. There is no there [9:26] is no path. You know, I can't teach you [9:28] one way or another. You just have to see [9:29] what it's like by living." [9:31] >> I've met with you a few times, but I was [9:33] on the Skoya team. [9:34] >> I'll tell you my reaction. [9:36] >> Yeah, please. [9:37] >> I was negative on it. Yeah. [9:38] >> And I was like, Kareem's not motivated. [9:40] He's too laidback. He doesn't have a [9:42] chip on his shoulder. [9:44] Um, and Alfred Lyn at Sequoa gives me [9:46] crap for this still. I had obviously had [9:49] it wrong. Um, do you think a lot of [9:51] people read you wrong that way? [9:53] >> Um, [9:53] >> you had a narrative that was just like [9:56] flies in the face of the narrative I had [9:58] about what a successful tech founder [10:00] looks like. [10:00] >> I think I'm doing it on purpose. I mean, [10:02] I'll just say it. It's uh I but it's not [10:06] not to like rub people the wrong way or [10:08] to like push it in their face, but um [10:11] one it's probably just like my nature is [10:13] a little bit contrarian. Like I find [10:16] when everybody's doing one thing, it [10:18] stops being appealing. I'm like an indie [10:20] person probably versus a pop person. But [10:22] also but and and and I was worried about [10:25] that for a while. I'm just like am I [10:26] just trying to is that just a way of [10:28] generating being noticed? But um when I [10:32] when I've been in situations where I [10:34] feel felt kind of like aligned with what [10:36] people were saying, I've actually been [10:38] okay with it. So I've proven to myself [10:41] that it's not just a bit. Um [10:43] >> there's a little bit of a bit though [10:45] >> there for sure. Like it's nothing is one [10:48] thing or another. There's a little bit [10:49] of a bit. I [10:51] >> I try to catch myself when I'm enjoying [10:53] it too much and rein it back in. Uh but [10:56] there's a little bit of a part that has [10:58] fun with it. I think that the dominant [11:01] narrative around how to build things um [11:04] one doesn't really appeal to me. I don't [11:06] think it's the only way. I also think it [11:08] creates a lot of damage that isn't being [11:11] seen around and it's just like is this [11:13] actually better for the world? Is this [11:14] >> what do you mean by that the damage? [11:16] brought that up twice [11:17] >> like basically take take something like [11:20] hey the only way to build is 996 blah [11:22] blah blah right um and it's like what [11:26] does that do to people who only see that [11:28] and and like new people who have no idea [11:31] what works and what doesn't are just [11:32] copying whatever other people are saying [11:34] um and by the way you need to work [11:36] extremely hard and in fact I've been [11:38] working extremely hard for extremely [11:40] long and the I just value consistency [11:44] for example and what I found is is more [11:46] useful. And I found that you need to [11:48] tell a story that is actually like [11:50] honest to where you're at and what you [11:52] need to do. And and sometimes you do [11:54] need to work 996, but to me that was [11:56] like, well, maybe you don't have a moat [11:58] or maybe you need to do something so [11:59] extraordinary, right, that it requires [12:01] that sacrifice from you and everybody [12:05] around you. Um, but a lot of the times [12:07] it's just performative. And what does it [12:10] do to the people that are in this [12:13] situation, right? and what they force [12:16] their employees to do and then what they [12:18] you know pass on to the next generation [12:21] of founders and how they build. I we [12:23] were just looking at this case study uh [12:27] and the these are kind of like rough [12:29] unfiltered thoughts but when you look at [12:30] a business let's say you look at Apple [12:32] >> I actually think it's interesting you're [12:34] here in Boston because you're at Harvard [12:36] Business School for McKenzie two-day [12:38] deep dive for [12:39] >> right yeah [12:40] >> scaling companies I think it's [12:41] interesting you took two days out of [12:42] your schedule to do that [12:43] >> yeah I I thought that was interesting [12:45] too [12:46] >> why it's like you don't have you don't [12:47] have a lot of going on [12:49] >> um [12:49] >> Verun's doing everything [12:50] >> he's he's amazing yeah Let's make him [12:53] CEO. Um, [12:55] everyone. So, I did one at Stanford a [12:58] couple of years ago with Veroon and uh, [13:00] initially we were super skeptical, but [13:02] it was super generative actually for us [13:04] mainly just taking the time together. [13:06] Um, and occasionally one I roll the [13:09] dice, but two, [13:12] um, I find that when I'm in a space [13:15] alone and being fed information, then I [13:18] get a lot of like ideas. So, it's it's [13:20] mainly for me. [13:22] Um, and it especially like I'm in like a [13:24] little room alone, you know, there's no [13:26] distractions and I think it's a [13:28] important time right now to like think [13:30] clearly, especially about, you know, [13:32] what is your value prop? Like what are [13:34] you really doing? Um, [13:36] >> I think it's it's kind of funny to me [13:39] that a lot of times what you think [13:41] you're doing is not actually what you're [13:43] doing or what customers value. Like for [13:45] example, take Dualingo, [13:47] >> right? Um, is it really teaching you how [13:50] to learn a language? I don't know many [13:52] people that have fully learned the [13:53] language from Dualingo. Or is it kind of [13:56] like a edutainment game? Or is it maybe [13:59] a motivational thing that helps you kind [14:01] of remember that you want to learn this? [14:02] Here's a little bit uh or maybe it like [14:05] helps you stop being anxious. I've seen [14:06] a lot of people just needing to do it to [14:08] calm themselves down. But if your [14:10] company thinks that they're really [14:12] teaching a language, then you would make [14:14] certain choices that are different than [14:16] if you think it is a tool to kind of get [14:18] you excited about learning some new [14:20] material at a basic level. Um, anyway, I [14:23] think you should be really clear about [14:24] what your company actually is doing [14:27] versus what you want it to do or think [14:28] that it should do versus what your [14:30] customers actually are getting value [14:32] from. And those things need to align. [14:33] I'm going to come back to some of this, [14:36] >> your philosophies and you're kind of [14:38] like a CEO monk to me. [14:40] >> Um, but just to give the audience some [14:43] context, like you've had a it's an [14:45] unusual journey. It's people call it a [14:47] seven-year overnight success. You kind [14:49] of wander through the desert for a long [14:50] long time and then you found product [14:52] market fit and it really ripped. There's [14:55] a lot of founders who are going through [14:56] that desert. U let's call it you did it [14:58] for five years. [14:59] >> Yeah. [15:00] >> What was that like? Why didn't you give [15:02] up? Um, well, you heard earlier I'm [15:05] incapable of giving up. But [15:06] >> I did, but you you sold businesses [15:08] before. [15:09] >> Yeah. Well, I thought I mean that's [15:11] right, but I was much that was just like [15:13] my first attempt. And I think I learned [15:15] one that was a mistake. Wouldn't want to [15:17] do that. [15:17] >> Okay. [15:18] >> Um, and number two, [15:20] I think you need to keep going at [15:23] something to really, you know, uh, well, [15:26] you shouldn't keep repeating the same [15:27] things. That's usually the door is right [15:29] next to you. Um, but I I have this issue [15:33] actually even with people at the company [15:35] where you know you're doing something [15:37] for a year or two, suddenly it gets [15:39] boring for example or you think you've [15:41] mastered it or you're like I should go [15:42] to this other company and like lead this [15:44] thing but you're just at the cusp of [15:46] actually getting to the point where it [15:48] gets interesting [15:49] >> or you're not. [15:50] >> Or you're not. But the difference [15:52] between those two things is very hard to [15:54] tell. Yeah. And you need to often push [15:56] through that. The hard part is the part [15:59] where you think you're getting bored or [16:00] you think, you know, because you you you [16:03] give yourself a lot of I actually called [16:04] it like um this is feeds into your monk [16:07] idea, but like the devil is a shape [16:09] shifter, you know? So, it's kind of like [16:11] the thing that's whispering in your ear [16:14] like, "Hey, it's it's actually your [16:16] board or this thing isn't aligned with [16:18] your interests or you should do this or [16:20] that." Those are all different ways of [16:21] procrastinating um and not facing the [16:24] hard thing. So one you need to give it [16:26] enough time to tell yourself for sure [16:28] was it actually [16:30] >> five years is a long time. [16:31] >> Oh yeah. So well back to the five years [16:33] is not that that there was I think the [16:36] five years was a combination [16:38] really of us. [16:41] It was a spiritual journey. I like that [16:43] you call it the the long you know the [16:46] strange long trip. a long strange trip. [16:48] >> You have you've had a very long strange [16:50] trip. [16:50] >> Yes. Um it is a very long strange trip, [16:52] but for me it was actually mostly around [16:55] um deciding and committing to what we're [16:58] building. Like we had a lot of really [17:00] good ideas. We did a little bit of each [17:03] and a lot of them have actually become [17:04] companies and I'm friends with the [17:06] people whose companies they've become [17:08] and all of our analysis of them was [17:10] correct. We're like this is what's going [17:11] to happen. It'll stop at this point [17:13] because of this. But then you get into a [17:15] place where you're like, okay, what's [17:17] Especially with venture capital, you're [17:18] like, what's the biggest thing that I [17:19] can do? What is the most impactful thing [17:21] that I can do? And I think if your [17:23] ambition is really big, this is one of [17:25] the pitfalls that you can fall into [17:27] where my co-founder and I were like, no, [17:29] we're trying to do the biggest thing [17:31] that we can do. And so we would keep [17:33] changing it to be like, well, if we [17:35] pointed here, it would be even bigger. [17:37] Meanwhile, stuff is happening in the [17:39] market, so technology is changing. So, [17:40] we keep being like, "Oh, now we could do [17:42] this even bigger thing." And at some [17:44] point, I was like, "It doesn't actually [17:46] matter. I'm not trying to do the biggest [17:48] thing. I'm just going to do what is [17:51] available right now in front of me and [17:53] commit regardless of where that goes." [17:55] Um and so the you know like yes it's [17:58] five years but really there was like two [18:00] years of us building two years of us [18:02] kind of being confused and then we kind [18:06] of decided and rebuilt a few things and [18:09] committed and then we started seeing [18:12] kind of the the results immediately. It [18:14] just took some time for everybody else [18:16] to hear about it. Uh but once we [18:18] committed it almost worked [18:19] instantaneously. I kind of think of [18:21] everything as like you're going along, [18:22] you're making a it's a dip and then you [18:24] come out the other side, right? [18:26] >> But sometimes not a dip. Sometimes it [18:27] just keeps going, right? [18:29] >> Did you have doubts [18:31] >> uh that it might keep going and people [18:33] and did people around you say like what [18:35] are you doing? You're really talented. [18:36] You could be doing any number of things. [18:38] >> Uh yeah, tremend tremendous doubt for [18:41] sure. [18:42] >> I think people were Yes, people would [18:44] say that. But, you know, I would say [18:46] that people typically, especially like [18:49] me and my co-founder Nikolai, like were [18:51] like they thought we were the some of [18:53] their smarter friends, right? Um, and [18:56] felt like we should be able to do [18:59] whatever we want. And so, um, when we [19:03] were in that loop, it was also like [19:04] painful because we're like, hey, we know [19:06] that we should be able to do this. [19:07] Everybody else is telling us that. And [19:09] in fact, we have a lot of signals like [19:11] we raised money. we have when we talk to [19:13] customers they're really impressed so [19:15] what is the actual problem like why [19:17] isn't it working um and that took a lot [19:20] of introspection but I also think that [19:23] um like at some point I I feel like we [19:27] identified what the issue is around like [19:30] commitment and deciding to do something [19:33] um and I've said it in like other places [19:35] like I I think I realized okay there's a [19:38] lot of stuff that people don't talk [19:39] about in building a company they just [19:40] say it's hard. But what is actually [19:42] hard? Like in this case, what was hard [19:44] was having the courage for people that [19:47] are perceived to be a certain way or [19:49] smart or whatever to be like, "Hey, [19:51] we're just going to pick this thing. I [19:52] don't care how silly it sounds. I don't [19:54] care about the shame if it fails [19:56] publicly. I don't care actually what you [19:59] think about it." Uh, in fact, when when [20:01] I decided to commit, I stopped listening [20:04] to everybody. I was like, I'm not [20:05] listening to you. I'm not listening to [20:07] my customers, by the way, who are wrong [20:10] uh about what they want or h how if you [20:13] listen to the wrong people at the time [20:15] when it's like a small idea, you kill [20:17] it. [20:17] >> We didn't listen to customer like the [20:19] first seven years. I was the customer. [20:21] We just blocked out what they wanted. We [20:23] built what I wanted and then we flipped [20:25] it and it became a serum company and [20:26] we're very customercentric now. [20:28] >> I think companies founders are talking [20:30] about just focus on the customer. [20:32] >> I don't think that's right a lot of [20:34] times in the early days of a startup. [20:35] Well, I think it's like [20:36] >> because everyone can do that. [20:38] >> Yeah. Well, let me tell you what I think [20:39] about this because it's like if you're [20:40] like, you know, it's like in computer [20:42] science hill climbing, right? You need [20:43] to pick the right hill and then [20:45] listening to customers is kind of [20:47] fine-tuning it. Yeah. [20:48] >> But also I think the reason people talk [20:51] about listening to customers so much my [20:53] sense is as the company grows you start [20:56] to have your own kind of like dynamics [21:00] that and it's a reminder to hey it's not [21:03] about what you know I tell people it's [21:04] not about what Kareem wants because I I [21:06] I don't want you to listen to me. I want [21:08] you to do the right thing. Right? So and [21:12] my what I'm telling you is a proxy to [21:14] what I think is the right thing. But if [21:16] I tell you to build a feature and it's [21:17] the wrong feature and you think it's the [21:18] wrong feature you and you know what the [21:20] right feature is then what I want is [21:22] Clay to succeed. I don't want you to do [21:25] what Kareem so you know people had to be [21:28] reminded you can't use Kareem told me X [21:31] as an argument to do something unless [21:34] there's only very few times where I will [21:35] tell you 100% this is what I need you to [21:37] do. [21:37] >> Okay. I went to a presentation that Elon [21:40] gave once and he did this thing where he [21:42] drew all these vectors up and they were [21:45] all different sizes and they were [21:46] pointing in different directions. He's [21:48] like, "The magic behind my companies is [21:51] I just get the darn vectors aligned, [21:53] right? Have the strongest ones I can and [21:55] when they're perfectly aligned, things [21:57] hum." How in your world do you get the [22:00] darn vectors to align or you don't care [22:02] that much about it? No, I think that you [22:05] that is the generally right sentiment, [22:07] but I think there's many many different [22:09] ways to build a company, right? And it [22:11] depends on what it is that you're [22:13] building and the conviction that you [22:15] have in that, right? So sometimes in a [22:17] lot of these companies there's like a [22:18] master plan and it's like here's where [22:20] we're getting to, here's step one, fill [22:22] in the blanks, right? And this is we're [22:24] aligned here. Um I think a lot of times [22:26] you discover things as you're building. [22:28] So for me, I think there's two different [22:30] time periods. there's a period where we [22:33] don't know exactly what's going on and [22:35] we people closest to the problem might [22:38] have more of a sense and then when you [22:40] hear it from them for me I would say one [22:42] of my like superpowers is when you tell [22:45] me something that I think is capital T [22:46] truth I hear it and it sticks you know [22:49] >> it's loud [22:50] >> yeah it's loud and then when I repeat it [22:51] to other people they remember it we're [22:53] there so once that happens then we align [22:56] everything towards that and we're super [22:57] clear so there's periods of of like [22:59] total alignment everybody's pushing in [23:01] the same direction. This is the singular [23:03] goal. And there's other periods where [23:05] you need some slack. You need some like [23:07] ability for people to make choices and [23:09] you need to know which one you're in. [23:11] >> Okay, let me just stick on this for a [23:12] second. Verun talked about how you [23:15] operate very well in gray situations, [23:18] ambiguity, uncertainty, and you value [23:21] that in employees. What I found is when [23:25] things were very gray inside of HubSpot, [23:28] things slowed down, [23:29] >> right? And people would say, "You need [23:30] to clear the fog." They literally say [23:32] that to me. And I'd be like, "Okay, we [23:34] have to there's four decisions that need [23:35] to be made." Or typically there's one [23:37] big decision we need to make. Like, [23:38] Brian, you need to make damn decisions [23:40] so we can break all these ties and move. [23:43] >> So, I was a little bit more I was like, [23:44] I let it get gray, but man, the black [23:46] and white really helped us move. [23:48] >> I actually agree with you. Um, I really [23:51] value nuance is what I think he's trying [23:54] to say. And so, you know, sometimes [23:56] there's a decision and you know the [23:58] decision but you're not making it and [24:00] you need the courage to make it or you [24:01] don't have enough information or [24:02] sometimes not making a decision is the [24:04] correct decision. [24:05] >> But it's more about the clarity of you [24:07] if you know what that is and you're just [24:08] avoiding it or maybe it's a really hard [24:10] call and you don't want to make tough [24:11] trade-offs. [24:12] >> Yes, tough trade-offs. You don't want to [24:13] do it, right? [24:14] >> So, I think if you know that, then you [24:16] need clarity and you need to make it [24:18] happen. This is kind of like what I tell [24:20] people around this is we all create, we [24:22] all love startups. they're doing new [24:24] things and then as it becomes a big [24:26] company now we hate the big company but [24:29] the way it becomes a big company is [24:30] through this you know somewhat of a of [24:33] like the path of clarity the generative [24:35] phase is messy so I'd say that like I am [24:40] capable of holding that mess and [24:42] >> two contradictory ideas in your head [24:44] >> and are not I would ask people to do it [24:47] and they do it for a little while and be [24:48] like that I don't want to do that [24:50] anymore [24:50] >> because it because it's extremely [24:52] painful [24:52] >> it hurts their Yes, it hurts their head. [24:55] It's it's difficult. It requires [24:57] difficult conversations. So, I don't [24:59] think everybody can do it, but I do [25:01] think that um the more you trust people [25:04] with that, some segment of them will [25:07] value that. And I remember like being an [25:09] employee and I would have valued that. [25:10] >> Yeah. Okay. Just going back to your [25:13] seven year five years through the desert [25:14] in your two years at some point you said [25:18] this one you had a very broad vision and [25:20] then you're like this one use case going [25:21] to work. [25:22] >> Yeah. and you picked it outbound sales [25:24] marketing whatever you want to call it [25:26] go to market engineer eventually did [25:28] that kind of hurt you that you had this [25:30] big broad platformy thing and then like [25:32] we're going to really n like narrowing [25:34] >> yeah that was very very difficult and I [25:37] I'd say that um well I'll say two things [25:39] so one is that um you know it's [25:42] interesting that you perceive me as this [25:44] or like people perceived me as this [25:45] before my friends actually in the past [25:48] perceived me as extremely aggressive [25:50] really intense and people can't even [25:52] imagine that right now. Um, [25:54] >> I find you intense, [25:55] >> which I still am, but it's like [25:57] contained um, and directed and hopefully [26:01] like more, you know, something that I'd [26:04] like to open up when necessary. Um but [26:07] on the on the point of like picking so I [26:10] would say that um it was actually my [26:13] co-founder Nikolai who identified this [26:16] segment and use case and I was finding [26:20] it very challenging to commit to this [26:23] and I think he was too because I'm like [26:25] how is this related to like you know we [26:27] wanted to give the power of programming [26:29] to more people [26:30] >> and that still lives on in the fact that [26:33] we called it go to market engineering [26:35] and to like the idiosyncr ratic way in [26:36] which like all the features are built to [26:39] give you that like maximum power and [26:41] flexibility, but we would yo-yo between [26:44] kind of like maximum power and [26:45] flexibility and hey, it should just work [26:47] out of the box simplicity. And at some [26:49] point we're like okay, let's just commit [26:51] um [26:52] >> power and flexibility [26:53] >> and to the power and flexibility which [26:54] was the exact opposite of what everybody [26:56] believed would work and what customers [26:59] said like I'll give you people everybody [27:01] has copied this waterfall enrichment [27:03] concept, right? Um, but you know what? [27:06] If you talk to customers, they're like, [27:07] "Listen, I just want the number of [27:08] people that work at a company. I don't [27:10] care where you're getting it from. I [27:11] just want to wave a magic wand and do [27:13] that." And my my argument has been like [27:16] once the technology is there for that, [27:17] we will do that. But at the moment, the [27:19] best technology is put everything [27:21] together, give you transparency, and [27:23] speed up that process. That's what [27:26] actually solves the problem. You can say [27:27] like, "I want to go from New York to [27:29] London in like one hour, but I can't do [27:32] that for you. So what's the next best [27:34] thing? [27:35] >> Yeah, [27:35] >> we have a couple things in common [27:37] between the companies. We very early we [27:41] said we're going to create this category [27:42] called MM marketing. It really worked. [27:44] You've done the same thing with go to [27:46] market engineer. It appears to be really [27:47] working. [27:48] >> Yeah. [27:48] >> Everybody in their brother asked me how [27:50] to create a category and there's a [27:52] little bit of magic in it. [27:53] >> Right. [27:53] >> Can you talk about how you did it, the [27:56] decision on the name, how you propagated [27:58] it? Advice for so many founders who want [28:00] to do this. You know the common advice [28:02] about this is don't do it right and it's [28:04] very challenging which it is. I think [28:07] >> you I don't think you can create [28:09] necessarily a category. You can take [28:11] something that is happening and name it. [28:14] >> That's what we did [28:15] >> right and then give it uh like put a [28:18] circle around it. Be like here give it [28:20] some fuzzy boundaries which is [28:22] important. Um and then allow something [28:24] that's already happening. It's kind of [28:26] like a wave and you're like okay I'm [28:28] going to name this wave. I'm going to [28:29] give it uh credibility. But for us, the [28:32] way you know we did it was uh one we [28:35] started noticing people use the term GTM [28:39] instead of sales in the most [28:40] forward-looking organizations and the [28:42] ones that would adopt us. So we decided [28:44] to use that and then we were like well [28:47] what are they doing? there. We used to [28:49] have like a term called customer [28:50] engineer where it's just like it's kind [28:52] of like forward deployed engineer and [28:54] we're like what what if you actually the [28:56] best categories I think are like two [28:58] words stuck together right um because I [29:01] think language is evolving like imagine [29:03] if you had like uh Roomba what would you [29:05] call it before you invented like a [29:07] vacuum you know it would be really hard [29:09] to name it [29:09] >> y [29:10] >> who came up with the name and when you [29:11] came up with you're like we're going to [29:13] create a category around it or did it [29:14] just sort of started happening? [29:15] >> No. So Verun and I were chatting about [29:17] what we should call our own people who [29:19] are helping customer fine [29:21] >> and then I was like let's just call them [29:23] go to market engineers [29:24] >> as opposed to now they might have called [29:26] it forward deployment engineer. [29:27] >> Yeah. Or customer engineer but we wanted [29:28] it to be unique to our thing and and [29:31] actually credit to uh Mike Rol who was [29:34] one of our early investors. I would meet [29:36] with him and he'd be like we should own [29:38] a title. And I was like, well, how are [29:39] we going to do that, you know? And so [29:41] when we were like talking about this, [29:43] we're like, okay, it's go to market [29:44] engineer. Let's call our own team go to [29:45] market engineers because they're helping [29:48] you think about your go to market in a [29:50] systematic way. So basically, I think it [29:53] needs to connect to some of the core [29:56] assumptions about your product. So if [29:57] you think about clay, by the way, um [29:59] most of the decisions are obvious. So [30:02] this is where the clarity is important. [30:03] I I think people get really confused [30:05] when they hear me say like you should [30:06] live in ambiguity all that stuff. There [30:08] are certain things that need to be super [30:10] clear and living in the ambiguity allows [30:12] you to one day get to the clarity. So [30:15] for us some of the decisions that we [30:17] made that are super important are we are [30:20] going to be for a technical user. We're [30:23] going to call them the goto market [30:24] engineer. We're going to be the most [30:25] powerful and the most flexible. We're [30:27] not going to own the data. are going to [30:29] be a data marketplace and we're going to [30:31] charge in usage and not seats [30:33] >> clear [30:34] >> right now those decisions do not change [30:38] and have not changed and actually if you [30:41] look at the product all the decisions [30:43] are super clear if you go back to that [30:45] and we're like hey does it make it more [30:46] powerful does it make it more flexible [30:48] over simplicity one of our things is [30:50] power and flexibility over simplicity [30:52] not because we don't want it to be [30:54] simple but when they conflict we give [30:56] you power because it's a technical user [30:58] Now we can also sell it to you in a [31:00] particular way. Uh and it was super [31:02] important for me for it to be PLG by the [31:04] way. That's another reason why it took [31:06] so long cuz this is a very difficult [31:07] product to make it usable use and PLG [31:11] typically don't fit [31:13] >> right um [31:14] >> or not hard to use but powerful. [31:16] >> Powerful. Yeah. And so needed to be a [31:18] type of customer who can pick it up and [31:21] hack around with it. And then the usage [31:23] based meant I really like this thing [31:26] that I I think I was reading something a [31:30] long time ago around like Hegel's like [31:32] idea of like thesis and antithesis and [31:34] then leads to synthesis. So that's like [31:35] how it's like a theory of history. And [31:38] then there was this guy Furbach who's [31:39] another philosopher who was um also [31:42] talking he kind of flipped around his [31:45] whole thesis and was like you know [31:46] Heggo's thing is like we're going [31:48] towards God or gist or whatever and [31:50] Furbach was like actually we're already [31:53] like the complete thing and we are um [31:57] projecting like the idea of God is like [31:59] our own projection of our own misgivings [32:01] and things like that. [32:02] >> Wait, what's this got to do with go to [32:03] marketing? [32:04] >> So let me let me bring it back for you. [32:05] But this welcome to my mind. Okay, I [32:07] like it. [32:08] >> So to me the interesting thing, this is [32:10] more of a like fact that I think is [32:12] interesting, but the interesting thing [32:14] is like taking something and then [32:16] flipping it on its head is a great [32:19] technique for innovation and then taking [32:21] that thing to its natural conclusion. So [32:23] you can, you know, in philosophy you [32:24] would like study these two theorists and [32:26] like look at their ideas, but it's the [32:28] same thing here. It's like, hey, what if [32:30] we took everybody told me that you [32:32] should sell to salespeople if you're in [32:34] go to market um and it needs to be super [32:36] simple and it's seat based. Flip [32:38] everything around, you have a new [32:39] product. Right now, is this a better [32:41] product than the old generation of [32:43] products? You have to have a thesis [32:44] around that as well, which we do. Um, [32:47] but I think that's kind of the approach [32:50] that I took at the time that helped us [32:54] make all of the other decisions later [32:57] easy. [32:57] >> Fell out of it. [32:58] >> Yes. the name how did it propagate? [33:01] >> Um so you called your folks JTM [33:03] engineers. [33:04] >> Yeah. So the go to market engineers this [33:07] is a I think this is very subtle and [33:10] very tricky right because if you go out [33:11] I think you guys did a different thing [33:13] where you were like we are going to like [33:15] go out and talk about this and we did [33:17] something very similar like there was [33:18] SEO and blogging and all this stuff and [33:20] we said that's inbound marketing and by [33:22] the way what was good about it was there [33:24] was an enemy. No one liked outbound [33:25] marketing and outbound marketing was a [33:27] word inbound wasn't [33:28] >> right. [33:29] >> But we just flogged it like we wrote a [33:31] book, we wrote articles, we did a [33:32] conference. [33:32] >> So we took the exact opposite approach [33:34] and again yeah which is like don't I [33:37] mean some people don't even know that we [33:38] came up with this right? [33:40] >> It's kind of like you need to think of [33:41] concentric circles that it's going to [33:43] evolve. So we talked to agencies [33:45] >> who are already doing this work and uh [33:47] we started talking about how our own [33:49] team is called go to market engineers. [33:51] they started adopting it because it was [33:53] a cool term and showed up on their [33:55] LinkedIn and then they uh we we [33:59] basically empowered them with all the [34:00] information all the things to make them [34:04] more successful and look good and [34:06] because they needed business. So here's [34:09] a big [34:10] >> this is the same as us like we educated [34:12] and we gave them everything they needed. [34:13] Yes. [34:14] >> To create an inbound marketing agency. [34:16] >> Exactly. And the only part is that we [34:18] try to not take credit for it or be [34:20] involved in the conversation and we [34:22] leave the conversation open and this may [34:24] be part of the ambiguity thing. So we're [34:26] not like here's what a goto market [34:27] engineer is. We're letting the market [34:29] evolve and it's actually broadening as [34:31] it should. You know if you're using [34:33] claude you're a go to market engineer. [34:35] Go to market engineering and why I think [34:37] the category is a category is that it's [34:39] a point of view on the world. It's not a [34:41] technology. It's like how do you run [34:43] your go to market team where you build [34:44] tools where you test hypothesis and then [34:47] with AI it makes all of that much much [34:50] easier since code is cheap right so um [34:54] first the agencies but you needed and [34:56] again obviously you know this because [34:58] it's like agencies need the work so [35:00] they're going to be if you were [35:01] targeting companies no one wants to tell [35:03] you how they grew in fact you know our [35:05] new kind of internal tagline for clay is [35:08] go to market infrastructure to grow in [35:10] ways your competitors can't. That's the [35:13] whole point of it. It's like how do you [35:14] do something that no one can copy, [35:16] right? [35:17] >> Turns out people are followers, [35:18] >> right? But the thing is um that's why [35:21] you need to build a system that you can [35:23] update quickly because it the just the [35:25] path to people copying you is going to [35:27] be fast and you need to understand your [35:29] business well enough to come up with the [35:30] next hypothesis or AI needs to [35:32] understand your business well enough. [35:33] >> Okay. So you you come up with a clever [35:35] name, [35:36] >> right? [35:36] >> You called your people that you started [35:38] educating the agencies on it. They like [35:40] the name. and they started using it and [35:42] it just sort of slowly spread. Is that [35:44] kind of [35:45] >> it's how you did it? [35:46] >> I would say it quickly spread in certain [35:48] areas and then we provided some [35:52] scaffolding around um like we published [35:56] a couple of articles but we tried to [35:58] stay in the background of this. [36:00] >> Yeah. [36:00] >> Um [36:01] >> we did not we were competing with [36:03] content marketing at the time. [36:05] >> Yeah. [36:05] >> And so we were aggressive with it. We [36:07] didn't want to lose that kind of that [36:08] makes sense. Yeah. [36:09] >> Yeah. Um, I think the main thing is that [36:12] we came up with a I don't know if you [36:14] guys thought about it as a title or a [36:16] category. We thought about it as a title [36:18] and I knew that one day it would be the [36:20] category. [36:21] >> We didn't think of it that way. We [36:22] thought of it as like a new way to go, a [36:25] new way to market, [36:26] >> right? So, so that [36:27] >> yours more a title. It was different. [36:28] >> Yeah. So, we thought about it as a title [36:30] and we wanted the people to call [36:31] themselves that. And so, we were focused [36:33] on that. And then the idea was that we [36:36] earn the right to call it a category. [36:38] And by the way, I think time really [36:40] matters in all these things. It's the [36:41] storytelling. So if you go too early and [36:43] start telling the story, in fact, people [36:45] push back against you. Uh so you need to [36:47] pick the moment where there's so many [36:49] people who are invested in this. You [36:51] know, we had our own community round. So [36:54] there are people who we've proven. And [36:56] by the way, we have like organic. The [36:58] other thing that we did that's super [36:59] important by the way is we have clay [37:01] clubs in over like 80 places in the [37:04] world. [37:04] >> We played these same games. They worked. [37:07] These things worked. just help them. [37:09] >> Um, but but the key thing around that is [37:12] like now that people have actually made [37:14] a lot of money from it and that it's [37:16] helpful to them, [37:17] >> you call it the category and it's [37:19] important that the category is bigger [37:21] than you. That's I think the last piece [37:23] that's super clear um and continues to [37:26] evolve. Right. Another thing you have in [37:29] common with HubSpot is the whole agency [37:31] thing was the sec. We started as direct. [37:33] >> Yes. [37:34] >> And I was the first salesman. Um, and we [37:38] were quite good at it actually. And then [37:40] we had this one sales rep named Pete [37:41] Capuda. [37:43] >> And [37:44] >> great name. [37:44] >> Yeah. And he and we had a lot of [37:46] agencies interested. And I remember it [37:48] was like two, three years in I was like [37:50] the product's not ready for someone else [37:52] to sell it. It's not mature enough. [37:54] >> It's like don't call on them. But we [37:56] also had like like a weekend you could [37:58] you could do anything you wanted on the [38:00] weekends or after hours. It's kind of [38:01] like Google's 20% done. [38:02] >> Yeah. [38:03] >> And one weekend he started calling on [38:05] him and you can just look at the in the [38:08] histogram of the numbers and it's [38:10] typically a bell curve but he was like [38:13] 4x the next month in revenue. I was like [38:16] I guess Pete was right. And then we [38:18] started building a whole program. It's [38:19] like a separate company to engage with [38:21] these people and take care of them. [38:22] Yeah. How how did that happen to you in [38:25] advice for people who want to create an [38:26] alternate? So many people come to me [38:28] want to create a second channel and it's [38:29] very hard. [38:30] >> Yeah, it's very hard. I mean and we it's [38:32] you know I don't know that we've fully [38:34] cracked that but I think that um [38:37] >> I would say like a big part of this was [38:39] Verun as well like we were in WhatsApp [38:41] groups with people who own agencies. We [38:44] we I feel like the the the answer that I [38:47] think people don't really want to know [38:49] is there's there's no playbook. We were [38:51] being honest and genuinely authentic. [38:54] The mission is how do we help companies [38:56] grow and we're like we're going to help [38:58] you grow no matter what. Back again to [39:00] some of my pieces around like how I was [39:03] operating. I was not operating and maybe [39:06] you were reading this correctly. I'm not [39:08] like I am trying to make Clay [39:10] successful. I was like I'm doing what I [39:13] think is interesting and I hope that is [39:15] aligned with what makes Clay successful. [39:17] I'm interested in that. uh but actually [39:20] I want to make these people successful [39:21] and they felt that genuiness and we did [39:25] really crazy you know Verun he's he's uh [39:29] I think he was talking to someone on [39:31] WhatsApp and the person was having [39:32] trouble fixing something on Clayton he [39:34] was like I'm coming over to your house [39:35] right now and the guy was like don't [39:36] come he was like no I'm coming and they [39:38] became really good friends [39:40] >> so we built [39:41] >> genuine authentic friendships with a lot [39:44] of the people and some people left their [39:47] job to start cleances [39:49] Yeah. And we were just kind of on that [39:51] journey with them. Uh truly. [39:54] >> Yeah. [39:54] >> I think if in our heads [39:57] >> we were thinking, hey, we're trying to [39:59] create this category and we need them to [40:01] do X, Y, and Z. People are very good [40:03] people readers, by the way, and they can [40:05] read your intention. Um similar to VCs, [40:08] right? That's their top thing is they [40:10] can read your intention. So if you're [40:12] going to go there and fake confidence, [40:14] that's not going to work. You need to [40:15] truly believe that you have the magic [40:18] sauce. [40:19] >> Another thing that everyone's coming to [40:21] me asking about is pricing and you guys [40:23] announced a pricing change. You caught a [40:26] bunch of heat for it and you responded [40:28] in an interesting way. All CEOs seem to [40:31] go through like getting punched in the [40:33] face by the market and you just you just [40:35] kind of got punched. Um I don't actually [40:37] care that much about the pricing. Talk [40:39] about the backlash to it and talk about [40:41] what you did and kind of your philosophy [40:42] around it. I would say the backlash is [40:44] minimal or at least we perceive it to be [40:46] minimal. We did [40:47] >> loud to me, [40:48] >> right? I think like we did a bunch of [40:50] like analysis around like sentiment [40:52] analysis on some of these things and [40:54] we're like it was like 70% neutral, you [40:56] know, somewhat some negative people and [40:59] I think all the people that were quite [41:01] negative or loud about it had some [41:04] self-interest. Uh so, you know, they [41:06] owned something where it would benefit [41:09] them for this to not work. um we haven't [41:12] seen kind of that negativity show up in [41:14] the numbers. So that's another way in [41:16] which I know but the the way that we [41:18] dealt with it [41:19] >> I think that's the interesting part. [41:21] >> Yeah. And you know I don't know there's [41:23] like a huge backlash against Ferrari's [41:24] new like electric thing. And by the way [41:26] I was reading there was a huge backlash [41:28] when they had their SUV which they don't [41:30] call an SUV. It's an FUV or whatever but [41:32] now it's completely sold out. [41:34] >> Okay. Um so anyway that back to like our [41:37] pricing change the the things that help [41:39] us withstand something like that is like [41:41] one what is our conviction in our [41:42] thinking right so we're like hey we [41:45] bundled like credits credits cost data [41:48] and whatever we act what value we [41:51] provide and we were big enough at this [41:53] point to and thought that we were well [41:55] known enough that we can break it up [41:57] into two axes and then make it so that [42:00] it's clear where what you're paying [42:01] where and also make it cheaper [42:03] >> splitting splitting compute and [42:05] splitting the data. [42:06] >> Right. Exactly. Got it. [42:07] >> And so now that we have compute and data [42:10] um and we trusted the sophistication of [42:13] our like um customers to eventually [42:15] understand that um and also understand [42:17] that it's truly in their benefit like we [42:19] calculated it and we're like this will [42:20] be cheaper for you on the short term and [42:22] on the long term we should all make more [42:24] money, right? But the other thing is [42:25] that we were absolutely transparent in [42:28] our document. Um it couldn't be more [42:31] trans. literally was word for word what [42:33] we were saying internally in our [42:34] meetings. Um and that's a common thing [42:37] for us in the way that we operate and I [42:40] think maybe unusual and surprising to [42:42] people. [42:42] >> Yeah. It disarms them. [42:44] >> Yeah. And it it goes back to this [42:47] >> equals trust. It's not even correlated [42:49] with it's like equals it. [42:50] >> It equals trust. [42:52] >> And in order to do that, you need the [42:53] right channel. You need to be talking to [42:55] the right people. Otherwise, the [42:56] transparency could actually be damaging [42:57] to you. But I think that's like where [42:59] the nuance believing in nuance and that [43:02] even though everybody wants you to speak [43:04] in bite-sized pieces, we're like, "Hey, [43:06] we're going to actually show all of our [43:07] work even though it's long." Um, and [43:10] then other people will actually read it [43:11] and digest it. [43:12] >> Yeah. I I I thought that was very well [43:14] handled. Um, I want to kind of shift to [43:17] kind of you as CEO. What's your day [43:20] like? [43:21] >> Um, I have like two terms for it. One is [43:24] I'm a momentum detective, right? And so [43:27] I just go around the company and I love [43:29] this. [43:30] >> Yeah. I find momentum is so hard to get [43:33] if you lose it. And so anytime you see a [43:36] area of the company losing momentum, [43:38] that's where your focus should be [43:39] because sometimes you just need to [43:40] grease it and then it keeps [43:41] >> Oh. So you don't hop on where the [43:42] momentum's hot, you hop on when it's [43:44] starting to wayne. [43:45] >> Yes. So well, it's both, right? Um you [43:48] want to know the places where it's hot, [43:50] but often those places don't need you. [43:53] What is the unique thing that you can do [43:54] as a CEO, right? I'll give you a couple [43:57] of examples of things that for example [43:59] I've done that created momentum and then [44:01] places where I've like kept the momentum [44:03] going but [44:04] >> you know the go to market engineering [44:07] right like getting that right and then [44:10] you know we had Mishi and Verun write [44:12] that article but like getting that and [44:14] putting this is what we're doing push [44:17] through with it and then we came up with [44:18] this concept of go to market alpha I was [44:20] talking to a friend of mine and we were [44:22] like hey this is the term and then I [44:24] went back and I was talking to a couple [44:25] people, it resonated with them and we're [44:27] like this is it. Now we use this in all [44:29] of our uh like and you know people [44:31] initially were like alpha that sounds [44:33] like really nerdy you know [44:35] >> the customers are nerdy [44:37] >> right but or just like it's too fin and [44:39] I'm like people will get it from finance [44:41] you don't even need to know as soon as I [44:42] say it people oh yeah you need to have [44:44] some competitive advantage but it's a [44:46] better word for it [44:47] >> so we have a couple of these things [44:48] where every once in a while there's one [44:50] idea that generates momentum um I'll [44:53] give you another idea we needed a [44:55] feature that we call audiences which you [44:58] you know, allows you to have like a [45:00] concept of a company or a person in the [45:03] product so that you can aggregate [45:05] signals on it. Um, and it's backed by a [45:07] CRM. So, we're not building a CRM. It's [45:10] backed by that. But to get that going in [45:12] the company was incredibly challenging. [45:14] You know, people are like, "What about [45:16] our tables?" Well, like we don't want [45:18] this to have table limits, no row [45:20] limits, no cell size limit, a lot of the [45:22] limits that we just remove it. So, I had [45:24] to motivate it in a different way. um it [45:27] wasn't getting traction which is kind of [45:28] interesting uh but it was I had to [45:30] motivate it by saying okay we need [45:32] signals which is we already have data we [45:34] need data changing over time and so [45:36] let's build signals that was okay people [45:39] got that and we then were selling [45:40] signals and we started beating companies [45:42] that only sold like job changer signals [45:45] then the team themselves realized well [45:48] what if you have five signals what are [45:50] you going to aggregate it of well you [45:51] need this concept of an audiences which [45:53] we were talking about before Um and that [45:57] like you know I think it's kind of again [45:59] the storytelling I should have been [46:00] telling that story before but like [46:02] leading the team so that they believe [46:03] themselves and they have the momentum is [46:06] very different than me being like you [46:08] need to build this feature even if so [46:10] one of the things I think you realize co [46:11] is that you are sometimes way ahead of [46:13] everybody else [46:14] >> because you're getting input from so [46:17] many places not just because you're [46:18] smarter or whatever it is but you're [46:19] just getting your purview is larger and [46:23] that's all you're thinking about all day [46:24] and you have an intuition for this that [46:26] you've built over time because I've made [46:29] a huge number of mistakes everywhere, [46:30] but I've also been doing this for so [46:32] long. [46:32] >> Yeah. Momentum detective. I love that. [46:35] Right. [46:35] >> You're good at branding, by the way. [46:37] >> Apparently, [46:37] >> all your cliences, all that stuff. [46:39] You're very clever at it. Uh you've got [46:42] kind of two modes. [46:43] >> Yeah. I I think there's the there's that [46:46] one and then there's really it really is [46:48] mainly around like people are in some [46:52] kind of you know funk and I remove that [46:57] u [46:57] >> advice on how to do that for other CEOs. [47:00] Um, so actually my head of people told [47:03] me that I'm uh the only CEO that she's [47:05] worked with that has apologized and I [47:08] would say that that's one very helpful [47:10] technique. Like someone was telling me [47:12] for example they had they had like a [47:14] bunch of problems, right? And it was [47:16] like there are many there are many [47:18] problems that seem like they're the [47:20] problem but often if you listen and [47:23] apologizing doesn't mean necessarily [47:25] that something you know that the whole [47:28] organization is wrong. It might be that [47:29] we didn't listen to you or we didn't [47:31] treat you in the way that made you feel [47:33] respected. And once that calms down, we [47:35] can then deal with the actual problem. [47:38] Um, and people are very sensitive to [47:40] that. [47:41] >> Just very tactically like your day, do [47:43] you leave a lot of open time to momentum [47:47] surf? Um, are you packed every half [47:50] hour? [47:50] >> Um, it goes in phases. So most of my [47:53] days for a very long time were packed [47:55] like every 30 minutes, every 20 minutes [47:57] and it's complete um context switching. [48:01] So you know it's recruiting product [48:03] decision making listening to someone [48:05] removing a problem comp issues um you [48:08] know talking to partners those [48:10] >> all the things [48:10] >> all the things and then once I do that [48:13] for some period of time um typically you [48:17] know typically if that happens too many [48:20] weeks in a row I need to stop delete [48:23] everything and leave a ton of space. I [48:27] prefer like we run the company in um [48:29] just in time decision- making. So like [48:31] some unusual things that we do uh which [48:34] we will eventually introduce but not yet [48:36] is we don't have an exec team meeting [48:38] which I think people find bizarre um how [48:41] do you stay aligned all that stuff we [48:43] call we have open space call me whenever [48:46] um and then we resolve it otherwise [48:47] people wait for the meeting as you know [48:50] um but yeah I think that the open space [48:53] is my preference and the other way where [48:57] everything is packed works but is [48:59] typically means things aren't like [49:02] people don't have the information for [49:04] them to make distributed decision-m and [49:06] I need to control everything in order to [49:08] make things work but it's exhausting and [49:10] you can only do for sometimes it's [49:12] necessary but you can only do it for you [49:14] know months at a time [49:16] >> and where do you get your think time in [49:18] or like I want to go really deep on and [49:20] build an agent for myself like where do [49:22] you how do you fit that in is that [49:24] weekends or [49:26] >> kind that has to be after work weekends [49:28] etc but I also like I would say I'm [49:30] unusual in that my thinking like for [49:32] example I go out dancing with my friends [49:35] and I'm thinking and I'm also talking to [49:37] them about it and so I'm I tend to like [49:40] movement actually and doing things or [49:42] you're on a hike those are helpful um [49:45] but again like I I sometimes I actually [49:49] think again this is maybe [49:50] counterintuitive but like you don't want [49:52] to look at something directly to see it [49:55] you might want to squint at it because [49:57] it's too much so I get information [50:00] through other people um and then process [50:04] that and then come up with a decision um [50:08] rather than you you can't just rely on [50:10] like your firsthand experience of like I [50:12] you know I built a lot of the initial [50:14] product uh with my co-founder so I I [50:17] remember everything about it but I try [50:20] to make decisions now without needing to [50:23] you know like if someone tells me [50:24] there's an issue with a feature I can [50:26] simulate it in my head and use I don't [50:28] need to like play around with [50:30] and with kind of like let's say playing [50:32] around with LM there's so many people [50:34] experimenting and trying to soak that in [50:36] the firstirhand knowledge is limited. [50:39] >> Do you have one-on ones or you're like [50:41] yeah what do you think about that? How [50:43] many direct reports do you do one ones? [50:45] >> Um so the [50:46] >> these are just tactical things [50:48] >> people ask me all the time. [50:49] >> So [50:51] um right now I probably have seven [50:54] direct reports. I've been limiting I'm [50:57] actually just so I I've I've gone back [51:00] and forth. Um and I'm trying to put [51:03] everybody in the same meeting and have [51:05] like one-on- ones once a month. But [51:07] again, [51:07] >> we did exactly that for our first five [51:09] years. [51:09] >> Yeah. Go back to just in time [51:11] processing. Just if you need something, [51:12] come to me is the easiest way. But I did [51:15] manage the whole engineering team up to [51:17] six 70 people. [51:18] >> I see. [51:19] >> Um without a head of venge until last [51:21] September. [51:22] >> Okay. That was a lot. [51:24] >> Yeah. So I tend to and just through the [51:26] managers, but I had like pretty much a [51:29] direct relationship with almost all the [51:31] engineers because I I wanted to keep [51:34] that [51:35] >> stay close to it. [51:36] >> I didn't do one-on- ones for the longest [51:37] time and then I did one-on- ones every [51:39] week. I really wish I didn't. [51:40] >> Yes, [51:41] >> it's a little so they're they can be [51:43] draining. [51:43] >> Very draining. [51:44] >> Where are you on that? [51:45] >> Um I think that it's draining. I've [51:48] removed one-on ones. I I have one-on- [51:50] ones with so now actually my new one-on- [51:52] ones are with people that are not [51:54] reporting to me where I'm like these are [51:56] top priorities for the company. So I [51:57] have a one-on-one with our head of sales [51:59] because I'm like we need to stay [52:00] aligned, right? Um if there's an uh a [52:03] thing where we're like doing some new [52:05] project, I'd rather have one-on- ones [52:07] with that person. Um, so it's I'm trying [52:10] to do it actually with in places where I [52:13] feel like the reason I have it with our [52:15] head of sales is our sales team is [52:16] growing so tremendously and I'm the [52:18] person who's the like communicating the [52:21] culture and I want to make sure we stay [52:22] aligned and then any issues can be [52:24] brought up and dealt with quickly. But I [52:27] don't need that with you standing weekly [52:29] one ones. [52:30] >> I'm deleting all of those. You got it. [52:32] >> Um, let's just talk about trust. People [52:35] used to complain to me that I trusted [52:37] the handful of people and really [52:38] overindexed on their input and sounds [52:41] like you're a person that gets a lot of [52:42] input from a lot of places and then [52:44] maybe didn't trust my trust circle was [52:47] small. People complained about that. [52:48] >> Interesting. Yeah. [52:49] >> Similar. [52:50] >> Um Yeah. So, and did you did you change [52:53] that as people talked to you about it? [52:55] >> I tried to. It didn't. Yeah. [52:56] >> Honestly, it didn't really work. [52:58] >> Trust is hard to build with me. [52:59] >> Yeah. Uh I think that I have a similar [53:02] thing. I'm not um I have like trust [53:04] issues for sure. [53:05] >> Yeah. [53:06] >> Um but it's like different I mean [53:07] there's different levels of trust. So [53:09] there's like real trust which I have [53:12] with a handful of people. [53:13] >> That's what I'm talking about. [53:14] >> Yeah. That's what what people have said [53:15] to me is that I'm too forgiving. [53:19] >> Um so I'd say I have like one one kind [53:22] of like thing that I'm trying to change [53:25] is being forgiving, forgiving, forgiving [53:27] and then explode, right? Because I've [53:30] been super annoyed. um and feel like [53:32] I've given too much. So, I'm trying to, [53:34] you know, give you tons of like I'm I'm [53:37] actually angry right now. I'm annoyed [53:39] >> uh over time. [53:40] >> Do you hold on to people too long? [53:42] >> Uh definitely. U but it has worked out [53:47] sometimes. I I keep hearing, you know, [53:49] people are like, "It's never worked [53:50] out." Um I would say that we are as an [53:53] organization, we believe in you. we want [53:56] it to work out and we're constantly [53:59] assuming the best intentions and [54:01] sometimes because you know it's [54:04] sometimes the person sometimes the [54:06] context right so you can get the wrong [54:08] with the wrong context you get the worst [54:09] out of someone um so there have been [54:11] situations where something seemed [54:13] completely off and I like listened to [54:15] this person did the exact opposite of [54:17] what everybody you know like um I'll [54:19] give you an example that's would seem [54:21] absurd right someone did something wrong [54:25] Um, and it doesn't matter what the [54:27] details are, but uh, I gave them an [54:29] increase in salary. [54:31] >> Why? [54:31] >> Right now, that seems crazy because I [54:34] >> seems like something a contrarian CEO. [54:38] >> Uh, now that person is one of the best [54:40] performing people in the company, right? [54:42] And the reason is I realized there was [54:44] it was out of like [54:46] >> structural things held them back [54:48] >> and it was out of like partially out of [54:50] the fact that they were not being paid [54:51] correctly. [54:52] >> Okay, fine. So, but it but you could [54:54] have been like, "Wow, this person is [54:55] really and you're just like ha you [54:57] shouldn't reward something when someone [54:58] does the wrong thing." But actually, [55:00] sometimes you can fix it. Okay. I heard [55:03] I've heard you or maybe everyone told me [55:05] that a company exaggerates a founders's [55:08] traits. What traits [55:11] are you happy it's exaggerating of [55:13] yours? And what traits are you like, I [55:15] wish it wouldn't. [55:17] >> Right. That's good. Yeah, I told him [55:18] that. I feel like it's a um [55:21] >> I I by the way I agree [55:23] >> usually it's like where I get surprised [55:25] by people. So I do feel like people [55:28] seem really open and enjoy working [55:32] together and it's very at least that's [55:34] the feedback that we constantly hear is [55:36] that it it people are having fun. Um and [55:39] sometimes they [55:41] >> yeah they're like you know there there's [55:42] an absurdist kind of like feeling to the [55:44] company. It feels like po I don't know [55:46] it's like a postmodern painting. you [55:48] know, there's stuff um and then [55:50] everything has its counter point. You [55:52] just need to be conscious of what it is. [55:54] And I do think like I really value [55:57] patience as can be seen by the five-year [56:00] thing. And I think sometimes we are too [56:03] patient with things um that are not [56:06] right. [56:07] >> It's not a dip. It's going to keep [56:08] going. [56:09] >> Yeah. It's not good enough. And I think [56:11] um like I have very high standards and [56:14] at the same time I'm very forgiving. Um, [56:17] and so I think that um, [56:19] >> where does that come from? [56:21] >> The very forgiving part, [56:22] >> high standards, but is that mom? Is that [56:24] dad? Where's that? [56:25] >> Um, yeah, I think the I mean the high [56:28] standards I feel like it's like taste. [56:29] My parents like have high standards. My [56:32] but and the forgiving part. Yeah, it [56:35] probably is like and my my dad is very [56:38] forgiving, but I think it also is like [56:41] um back to kind of like why are we doing [56:43] this, which I don't know that everybody [56:45] is thinking about [56:47] >> until later u the way that I'm [56:49] interacting with people at work? You [56:53] know, one of the things I think about is [56:54] I I've talked about this for example at [56:56] the company, right? Uh this is like um [56:58] if you can't forgive your coworker for [57:01] some infraction or some random thing [57:04] they said to you or some like small [57:06] competitive nature thing that you're [57:08] doing, how are we going to actually [57:10] forgive people in the world? How are we [57:12] going to make this work? Um this is a [57:15] microcosm. Everything that is happening [57:18] in your personal life as a problem is [57:20] probably happening at work as well. just [57:23] at work we can give you feedback and the [57:25] you know the stakes might be lower in [57:27] some ways right um and that's why we [57:30] have like you know we try to cover [57:32] therapy we try to cover coaching we give [57:34] coaching to people who are not leaders [57:36] because often it's IC's who are going [57:38] through kind of you know sometimes [57:40] people are going through crazy cycles of [57:42] emotional things because I made some [57:44] random comment passing by or someone [57:46] said something to them and then it [57:48] really gets in their head and how much [57:50] time are we wasting on this versus doing [57:52] productive work. So on the one hand, you [57:54] can be like, "Hey, we're a company that [57:57] is trying to, you know, maximize [57:58] shareholder value and dominate the world [58:00] and make as much money as possible." [58:02] You're probably wasting a ton of [58:04] money by not dealing with like people's [58:07] emotions around very silly things. Um, [58:11] and also by perpetuating kind of like I [58:15] actually think what this is a pet theory [58:17] that I have is that very few people get [58:19] to this stage of company, right? Um, and [58:22] it's very when you're in it, it's very, [58:25] you know, you're kind of trying to stay [58:27] exactly on the line of success. So, you [58:29] don't want to try too many crazy things. [58:31] You want to focus on your product and [58:32] what's unique about you. And so, you get [58:34] this wisdom from other people who have [58:36] done it. And it's all kind of like we [58:38] call it couch wisdom. You know, it's [58:40] it's not really studied. It's like what [58:42] this person did before and therefore [58:44] they'll give you some advice. You will [58:47] do it and you'll get the exact same [58:48] problems that they had. So sometimes [58:50] we're trying different things. You know, [58:52] people tell me like, "Hey, you should [58:53] hire fast, fire fast." Well, that has [58:55] specific set of problems. [58:56] >> Higher slow, fire fast. [58:57] >> Yeah. Higher slow, fire fast. [58:59] >> You don't believe in that. [59:00] >> I I [59:01] >> You obviously don't. You just said the [59:02] fire [59:02] >> Yeah. Yeah. I I also think um I think [59:04] that there's a lot of moments where we [59:06] should make decisions faster around [59:08] that, but I just don't believe in these [59:09] rules of thumb that I think at some [59:12] point you shut down internally. You stop [59:14] like thinking about the situation. [59:16] You're just following the rule. What [59:17] other CEOSism do you think are stupid? [59:21] >> A lot. [59:22] >> Like [59:23] >> I think driving people really hard [59:28] uh without paying attention to like I [59:31] like for examp I'll give you one example [59:33] like people come in and they're like AI [59:35] is going to create ton of productivity. [59:37] We should lay out fire 20% of the team [59:40] without knowing what you're actually [59:41] doing. And that's what makes people like [59:43] IC's think exacts are dumb, right? [59:45] Because they're going to meetings [59:46] together. They hear some other person [59:48] did this. You just go and do it. And I [59:52] think there's a huge lack of empathy for [59:55] like the team. And I feel it sometimes [59:57] too. It's like management, you know, [59:58] it's like the principal agent problem, [60:00] management versus like workers where [60:02] you're like, why aren't people thinking [60:03] correctly? Why aren't they, you know, [60:06] taking action? Why aren't they like [60:07] owning this? Well, there's incentives [60:09] aren't aligned for that. Uh anyway, I [60:13] have I I also think that [60:15] um thinking of work, this is a big one [60:19] for me rather like my definition of fun [60:21] is very broad obviously. So like type [60:23] two fun is fun for me. Climbing [60:25] something is fun. But I think motivating [60:28] people through either just greed or fear [60:32] or discipline [60:35] um is not always the optimal. You need [60:39] you need the whole toolkit. So like you [60:41] know another word for discipline could [60:43] be [60:45] >> the fear and greed thing. That's those [60:47] are the [60:47] >> those are all levers by the way. Yes. [60:49] >> How do you think about that? [60:50] >> Um I'm I'm uh I believe in like the full [60:54] spectrum of the things. So it's like [60:55] devotion is as good as discipline. Like [60:58] you can't just use some of these tools [61:01] without understanding both motivate your [61:03] team to win but also create like a place [61:07] that you actually want to be in. So my [61:09] point is there's something about [61:11] business, this is again like some of my [61:13] own that that feels like you're just [61:16] trying to take this thing and hand it to [61:18] someone else. Like it's like a musical [61:20] chairs thing, right? So like the best [61:22] businesses I I said this at the [61:24] beginning like Apple, it's like well [61:26] who's actually doing all of the stuff? [61:29] It's like Foxcon like well here's this [61:31] beautiful business that has all the [61:33] numbers are going correct but it's [61:35] because I can squeeze my suppliers in [61:37] this way. Now, I'm not going to think [61:38] about that supplier. It's kind of like [61:39] throwing your rubbish somewhere else and [61:40] you're like, "That's in China or that's [61:42] over there." And what I'm like thinking [61:45] about is like, "Hey, we live in the [61:46] world together. What happens if I win [61:49] but you lose?" Um, it's fine. Like, I [61:52] guess you'll you can just jump off and [61:56] maybe you'll not get caught and no one [61:57] will worry about it. But I'm I don't [62:00] want to do that because I don't want to [62:02] live with myself in this way. [62:04] >> Okay. I had Jack Dorsey on a few weeks [62:06] ago. He YouTube rhyme. Um he's an [62:10] original thinker. He's not central [62:12] casting for CEOs and he's, you know, [62:15] he's laid off a big chunk of his [62:17] employees, but I think he's really [62:19] retoled the way the company works and, [62:22] you know, he's put AI in the center and [62:23] he's delegating a lot of decisions to [62:25] the center. The people are on the [62:26] outside. He's rethought his org chart, [62:28] it's compensation. He's sort of [62:29] reimagining it. [62:31] >> I assume you're following some of that. [62:33] What's your take? [62:34] >> I think that, you know, it's hard with [62:37] like public companies too because it's [62:39] like you what is the narrative versus [62:42] what's reality. I I do think that [62:44] sometimes you do need to retool the [62:46] company. Um and maybe you hire too many [62:48] people or maybe things are changing. Um [62:51] and we don't have really good ways in [62:53] general to say the truth without um co [62:58] without people [63:00] again I I really think it is this [63:01] principal agent problem, right? It's [63:03] like whatever you say is being parsed to [63:05] be like is it what you really said or [63:07] does it mean something else? Are you [63:08] covering up something? [63:10] >> I don't think he was covering it up. [63:11] >> Yeah. So that's what I mean. I'm just [63:13] like I think that you could take it at [63:14] face value and be like this is actually [63:16] what [63:16] >> I think he's actually doing the thing. [63:17] >> Yeah. And I think that's probably right. [63:20] >> And do you think he's on the right [63:21] track? [63:22] >> Um [63:23] >> like he's got two layers of like he's a [63:25] crazy flat. He's got a big team working [63:27] on his trying to make all his systems [63:29] legible. Get everything in that legible [63:30] system. his people are really [63:32] responsible for making that system as [63:33] legible as it can be and then building [63:34] agents on top of it and just turning [63:36] over a lot more of the decision making [63:38] over time to he calls it the [63:41] intelligence. [63:41] >> Yeah, it's a really hard thing for me to [63:44] comment on just because I haven't [63:46] actually thought about it deeply enough. [63:48] >> Yeah. Okay. I got a couple more just [63:51] bringing you back to the philosopher [63:53] king. You've got a line. There's no [63:56] elephant in the room. The elephant is in [63:58] your mind. I can't believe he told you [64:00] that. [64:03] >> How does that apply to being a CEO? [64:05] >> That was an off-the cuff comment, but I [64:08] I uh if I remember correctly, I have, [64:11] you know, like a Q&A [64:12] >> every every week. It used to be every [64:14] week, now it's every other week, and [64:15] it's optional and people [64:17] >> um show up and we talk about anything. [64:19] And I I think my leadership style or [64:23] communication style in general is to [64:24] call the thing out that you might be [64:27] wondering and assume that you are a [64:29] smart person. Um and not kind of like [64:32] dance around it. And so typically what [64:35] we do in these meetings is just be like [64:37] here are all the things that you might [64:38] be worried about. Well, every week [64:40] actually in our in my all hands um I [64:43] talk to people on the team constantly [64:46] um and I hear various things from them [64:48] about what's happening in the company, [64:49] how's the culture changing or not [64:51] changing and I try to bring these things [64:53] up um so that we can all be aware of [64:56] them [64:57] >> you know so one of the things [64:58] >> calling them out [64:59] >> yeah calling them out like hey people [65:01] feel like um we can't um we we're [65:05] stepping on each other's toes and I'm [65:06] like okay let's discuss that how does [65:07] that how does that manifest. What do we [65:09] want? What behavior do we want? [65:11] >> Y [65:11] >> um and I think a lot of the times [65:14] >> um [65:14] >> so you're calling the elf in the room [65:16] out. What about the elephant in the [65:17] room? [65:17] >> Right. So So a lot of the times nothing [65:20] is happening and it's just your [65:24] in anticipation of the problem [65:27] >> or sometimes uh we call this like you're [65:29] bringing baggage from another company [65:31] where something happened to you and then [65:33] you're like hey I don't trust you guys [65:35] yet. And so you're creating the problem [65:38] because you're you're seeing this thing [65:40] in your head that isn't even happening [65:41] in reality. So I'm just like, tell us [65:43] what's actually going on so that you [65:44] don't work based on some perceived [65:47] reality that isn't even real. [65:48] >> What do you want to do when you're old [65:51] and gray like me? What's next for you? [65:53] >> It's hard to think about the future. [65:56] >> But I happen to be an electrical [65:58] engineer by training and I have also [66:01] >> uh been playing more music recently. Um, [66:06] so I want to be doing a lot of like [66:08] generative ambient music. Uh, I've been [66:12] doing a bunch of stuff like that [66:13] already. Okay. [66:14] >> I don't know. There's something around [66:15] like creating soundsscapes and getting [66:18] into [66:20] uh like that place where you know you [66:23] can't really I music is all about [66:25] predicting kind of the next sound. But [66:27] I've really been enjoying this idea of [66:29] like if you can't predict it but it's [66:30] still like good. What does you're [66:32] expanding kind of like your sound [66:33] vocabulary. Okay. [66:35] >> Yeah. [66:35] >> I appreciate you coming on. It was a [66:37] wonderful conversation. Congrats on all [66:38] your success. [66:39] >> Thank you. Thank you. [66:41] >> Hey everybody, I hope you like that [66:42] episode with Kareem. I really enjoyed [66:44] the conversation. I have a lot of [66:46] takeaways. I'm going to give you my [66:47] three and I'm going to give you a couple [66:50] stories of my own that tie in. Uh two [66:52] nights ago I had dinner with Kareem and [66:55] David Solomon from Goldman Sachs and TK, [66:57] the CEO of Kshi. [67:00] And my takeaway from the dinner was, [67:02] "Holy crap, are these three homo sapiens [67:05] different and holy crap is their CEO [67:08] playbook different." And it reminds me [67:10] of an old quote, you know, I think it [67:13] goes, "Be yourself. Everyone else is [67:15] taken." I think it was Oscar Wild who [67:17] said it. [67:19] I leave that with you. I hope you can be [67:21] yourself because everyone else is taken. [67:23] There's a lot of ways to do this. I'm [67:24] trying to look for the one way. The [67:26] truth is there's a lot of ways to be [67:27] successful as a CEO. Um the second thing [67:31] he's sort of the a philosopher and he [67:34] reminded me of something I've I've been [67:36] working on and people say pe folks who [67:38] live in the past tend to kind of be [67:40] depressed and folks who live in the [67:42] future tend to be anxious and folks who [67:45] live in today tend to be a little bit [67:47] happier. I myself tend to live in the [67:50] future and I'm kind of anxious and I [67:52] remember when my anxiety peaked and this [67:54] may be happening to you so I relay it. I [67:56] remember doing a company meeting around [67:59] 100 150 employees and just looking out [68:02] and seeing, oh my gosh, there's so many [68:04] people relying on me to make really good [68:06] decisions. They're taking care of their [68:08] kids. They're paying their mortgages. [68:10] They're taking care of their parents in [68:11] a lot of cases. It wasn't actually in [68:14] the tough times at the beginning. It was [68:15] when we were actually scaling and [68:17] starting to do pretty well that my [68:18] anxiety uh increased. Anyway, if that's [68:21] you, this is just a reminder. Living in [68:23] the present is a good place to be. Um, [68:26] I'm trying to do more of that myself. [68:28] Kareem gave me a really good reminder of [68:30] that. The third thing is I like his [68:32] line, devotion versus discipline. It's [68:35] really hard to scale a startup without, [68:38] you know, real devotion from your [68:40] employees. And your your vision and your [68:44] your story has to be really compelling. [68:47] And if it's not, you should work on [68:48] that. You yourself need to be really [68:51] compelling. You need to inspire [68:53] followership. You want people to want to [68:55] kind of walk across broken glass to work [68:57] for you. And like your company probably [69:00] has stuff hanging on the walls, you [69:03] know, slogans and things you come up [69:04] with your culture code stuff. It's [69:07] incredibly important that you don't just [69:09] talk to talk, but actually walk the walk [69:12] on those slogans on the wall. I'll leave [69:14] you those three. Hope you liked it. I [69:16] really enjoyed him. See you next time.