To What End, this Sacrifice? The Difference Between Male and Female Bootstrappers
by Jory Des Jardins


I've been feeling very sorry for myself, all of the sacrifices I've made since bootstrapping a business--I don't go to the salon as often, I've put off my computer upgrade. And the other day, when I saw a gorgeous pair of boots that practically had my name on them I just walked right by, resigned to wearing an old pair. It's a blessing actually--all the time that I spend working; it's time that I don't spend spending.

But put down your violins, please. At least when you hear about this new generation of crazies--young entrepreneurs who take sacrifice to a whole new level. While my shoes aren't new; I do wash daily.

I missed Jessica Guynn's July 30 article in The San Francisco Chronicle--perhaps because that was the day after BlogHer, when my brain officially went on vacation--"Live-In Startups Combine Frat-House Culture with Venture Capital". The story features several startups--one which was a BlogHer sponsor--that are dealing with the belt-tightening typical of self-funding businesses by living commune-style.

Now, don't get me wrong, I love Lisa and Elisa, but hell if I'm going to LIVE with them, and my guess is that the feeling is mutual. But for the folks at Meetro, a start-up whose six founders all live and work together in a three-bedroom startup in the Haight neighborhood of San Francisco, shacking up is a business strategy.

It's the quintessential post-adolescent male fantasy of the business world: a grungy remix of the "Revenge of the Nerds" frat house with bunk beds and Snoopy sheets, a refrigerator packed with soda and beer, and a garage that doubles as the company break room, where employees can channel surf from the couch or take a dip in the inflatable swimming pool. There is no firewall between life and work for these young entrepreneurs, who live together while they build a social networking site that connects people in geographic proximity. Scruffy and stubbled, wearing shorts and sandals, the Meetro mavericks have given up sleep, salaries and personal space for the challenge of building a product they hope millions of people will one day use.

Of course, one could argue, these guys are young'uns, without much else going on. I had my bedroom-sharing days back in New York City, living on a publishing assistant's salary and considering spending more than $10 at a restaurant extravagant. I got through it by telling myself, do this now so that when you have a family you don't have to. The light at the end of the tunnel was a promotion, then a life. Applying the attitude to entrepreneurs the attitude is, live like a pauper, but once you either a) have a kid or b) turn 30, seek funding.

The founders of HubPages in Berkeley break this "convention". All of them are engaged to be married and/or parents, and they temporarily left their families to build a company in the Berkeley flatlands, where they could find a cheap office.

"The decision to work and live together was driven by our desire to accomplish as much as possible in a short period of time while at the same time save money," (Co-Founder Paul) Edmonson said.

Wearing headphones to mute the cacophony of saws and sanders and with a HEPA air filter to battle billowing clouds of dust, the three set up shop in the garage and bunked in the house in sleeping bags and on inflatable or old mattresses (with no box springs), living out of suitcases and cardboard boxes. For a while, their only office decoration was a clothesline strung across the garage.

There were no blinds on the windows, so they woke with the morning sun. With few distractions (they had no television, and not even a couch because the cat peed on it and they had to haul it to the dump), they put in 16-hour shifts fueled by eight pots of coffee. They ventured into the world to forage for takeout and not much else. Some days were strictly shower-optional.

In this case the sacrifice paid off: they churned out enough product to obtain $2 million in funding.

I have to agree with Guynn's assertion that this form of entreprenerial sacrifice is a "male" fantasy--a boot camp of sorts, a jaunt in the business wilderness with nothing but a hunting knife. The same primal desire that is driving my fiance to have his bachelor party in the woods eating wild boar while I opt for cheddar fondue. Though plenty of women have sought Start-up success, I wonder whether we'd do it in such a, well, uncivillized manner. Granted, $2 million is plenty civillized, but are we satisfied with the quick and dirty way of building value?

I'll speak for myself: Not particularly. While I love the thought of my company earning a lot of money, I prefer more organic growth. In the Start-Up world that's often a subjective distinction. For some, "organic" means making a case for value based on a number of factors that haven't yet come to fruition. To me, organic refers to the natural gravitation a business makes over the course of several cycles or seasons. I want more than a seed, I want to put an apple on the table and say, "I grew that."

And there may be intrinsic differences between male and female entrepreneurs. According to a study conducted six years ago by Cheskin Research and Santa Clara University's Center for Innovation & Entrepreneurship, there are several differences they noted in male and female fundraising styles:

Men and Women differ significantly in their networking skills. Men spend more time networking in order to further their business goals than do women. This doesn’t necessarily indicate that women are less social. In fact women value their ability to develop relationships. It may be that men integrate business into their social lives more than women do.

For more discussion on this difference, see this post.

Women and men share the same motivations driving them in their entrepreneurial and business pursuits. However, contrary to the common belief that financial gain is the primary motivator for entrepreneurs in today’s emerging markets, more interpersonal values take precedence. For example, most valued is cultivating relationships with clients, followed closely by taking on challenges in order to learn, and next by mentoring others. One of the least important motivators is making money.

Don't get us wrong: Women like money; I want shoes. But not at the expense of cutting myself off from the rest of the world. Guynn's article refers to the nonexistent social lives of her young, male subjects. For many women, this is too much of a sacrifice. We may not go out for drinks quite as often with our peeps, but we have to maintain connection somehow.

Traditional gender differences still exist. Successful women consider themselves nurturing, compassionate, sensitive and polite, though neither gender considers these traits essential for success in business. Men tend to consider themselves team players more than do women. Sports as a business metaphor has widely different interpretations; and while many women played team sports in school, they did not necessarily see this as an experience which was key in the development of their business skills.

I believe that men consider extreme circumstances such as commune start-up building to be a bonding experience. However, putting Lisa, Elisa, and I in a single apartment for six months with only one bathroom and Top Ramen would result in one or all of us being committed to an institution.

Successful women and men agree on and embody a majority of attributes associated with entrepreneurs. These include persistence, a positive attitude, creativity, and vision. However women value courage, independence, strength, and fearlessness more highly than men do. These value differences are likely a reflection of the attitudes women have had to maximize in order to succeed in the business world.

We also value hygeine more, apparently.

A later study conducted by Santa Clara University's Global Women's Leadership Center showed that while male entrepreneurs raised more money than female entrepreneurs, women-owned businesses created more value over time.

In other words, we're not built to flip.

I'll just have to wait for the shoes.

Jory Des Jardins also blogs at Pause.

Submitted by Jory Des Jardins (view blog) on Tue, 09/12/2006 - 3:37pm

Comments

 

Yes, but did you FRANCHISE your lemonade
stand?

That, apparently, is one of the key experiences successful entrepreneurs have in common, according to a USA Today article I found at the door of my hotel room at BlogHer. (I hope I'm remembering the publication and date correctly. Thank goodness eidetic memory is not a prerequisite for success.)

But really, not just having had a lemonade stand, but franchising it? Show me a 10-year-old lemonade stand franchiser, and I'll show you a bully who steals kids' lunch money.

Still, the whole idea of "entrepreneur" means something different to me than it does for most "entrepreneurs." Maybe I'm unclear on the concept, but it seems to me that "bootstrapping" is not what HubPages was doing -- not if they were bucking for "funding." It seems to me that anyone who isn't in the Sand Hill Road family tree is going to have to "bootstrap" a bit to get a venture funded. But is that bootstrapping the entire business, or is it speculating? How short can the self-funding phase be and still be called "bootstrapping"?

The reason we're bootstrapping our business is so that we can pursue our own vision of the company, and not follow someone else's idea of what we should do. Isn't that what most people starting a business do? For the independence of it?

Yet I wonder if, for women, the real difference from the motivations of men is that women don't really have very good alternatives. How many mothers with children off to school find a welcoming job market waiting for them? How many women over 45, mothers or not, can get work doing anything? When the alternative is working for $7 at Office Depot, starting up that crazy business idea maybe doesn't seem such a crazy idea after all.

I'll confess this, though. I do find that the business takes away a lot of social life. Sure, part of that is that, as we get older, we all drift apart, maintaining ties with only are best of friends -- the ones who stick around through all the rough spots and the ones who can reconnect after five years and it's as if no time had passed. But the big part of it is the demands on my time. I work 16-hour days. I answer emails at midnight. I set aside personal plans to meet business obligations. Birthday? Ah, there's always next year. (It "helps" that I'm not in a relationship right now, though whether that's a boon is debatable.)

It's all for that apple on the table. It's real to me, even if nobody else can see it yet.

Laura Scott
design, snap, blog ... admin

Submitted by Laura Scott on Tue, 09/12/2006 - 18:48
 

To your point, Laura

To your point, Laura,

"Yet I wonder if, for women, the real difference from the motivations of men is that women don't really have very good alternatives"

That is absolutely the reason why women are the fastest growing group of entrepreneurs. But as a single who can't claim kids to be the reason for my defection from the corporate world, I'm like you and am simply driven to accomplish something--much to the detriment of balance. I love how you summarized the other sacrifices--they made my boots sound like boogers.

Jory Des Jardins
BlogHer
Personal Blog Pause

Submitted by Jory Des Jardins on Wed, 09/13/2006 - 07:40
 

Age?

Related thoughts:

Statistically speaking, don't women start businesses at later ages? If that's the case, it would explain a lot about won't put up with frat-house work environments.

I never think of myself as a business, but I suppose I am, as I work primarly as a freelancer. Bootstrapping is a way of life as I try to balance doing work I enjoy with having a life that allows me time to do the things I enjoy that aren't work. (Whew, I think the grammar is okay, but rambling, what?)

I wonder sometimes if bootstrapping isn't posturing - LOOK AT HOW CREATIVE WE ARE - to cover for bad financial planning. I've worked in startups during the bootstrapping phases and it seemed more a reaction to blowing the first rounds on swag and interior designers and fancy lunches.

I'm absolutely not saying that's what you - Laura, Jory - are doing, but that sometimes, it's show and not sense. How is having a bunch of guys in a frat house office a sustainable model? Scooters for everyone! And hey, take out is on the way! So 1999. Time to rent that movie again, what was it? Startup Dot Com. THAT was it!

Nerd's Eye View

Submitted by Pam on Wed, 09/13/2006 - 03:55
 

True that, Pam. Why do you

True that, Pam. Why do you need to find a compound to isolate yourself in? I feel we get a lot done by holing ourselves in our home offices and using good conferencing technology.

Jory Des Jardins
BlogHer
Personal Blog Pause

Submitted by Jory Des Jardins on Wed, 09/13/2006 - 07:42
 

My favorite client...

...is a company run by two guys I've laid eyes on three times in four years. (Nice numbers, and true!) Our editor is in upstate NY, I'm in Austria almost every time I work for them. One of the guys is my neighbor in Seattle, but we do conf. calls with the Prez because he's in an inconvenient location in his basement in an eastern suburb.

We have NEVER missed a deadline or failed to deliver the goods. It's actually incredible - talk about yer distributed work force using "good conferencing technology."

Nerd's Eye View

Submitted by Pam on Wed, 09/13/2006 - 08:51
 

Always a bridesmaid, never a CEO

When I graduated from Harvard Business School, HBS, in 1976, about 15% of the HBS graduates were female. We entered the work world riding the crest of the Second Wave of Feminism, highly trained, and ready to go.

With my five years of engineering at DuPont, prior to HBS, I thought things were going to be pretty straight forward when I joined Hewlett-Packard, HP. But without mentors, the first women to work there way through the management minefield turned out to be trailblazers whether we wanted to be or not.

At the time the words we heard from Human Resources (HR) Departments was that they were looking for qualified women in their technical positions. The operative word here is "qualified." The problem was that once they got a qualified woman who had superb credentials and experience, she was, in effect, over-qualified because she probably ended up having more education and experience than her peers.

But it was that, or as I found out when I interviewed at another firm and was asked "how many words per minute could I type?" They had called me in for supposedly an Engineering Manager's position, but wondered if I would mind doing light secretarial work?

It's kind of tough being the only woman at a meeting of engineers because no other women had made it into the ranks.

But things changed rapidly. I recall being at the 1981 National Meeting of The Society of Women Engineers, SWE, and it was a real high. One of the keynote speakers was science fiction author Ray Bradbury. I recall his opening words. "One thousand engineers gathered together ... and all of them women. Talk about science fiction!"

A friend of mine from HBS, who was in the same Section with George W. Bush (class of 1975) and had some great stories which I won't repeat here, suggested that the pioneering women who "broke the glass ceiling," a word we made up (it seems) at HP in 1979, ended up spending themselves in the struggle to break through. It is said the there is a particularly flat career trajectory among the classes that graduate in that late 1970s early 1980s cusp. Many sacrifices were made including delaying family or even mate relationships. And was it work it or even beneficial?

Caught in the lower part of the pack, more savvy women started to go around it and as things softened, we can have women who have made it to the top at HP, and that's great. It's long overdue.

On the other hand, those of us who see that we have not made it through the pack, yet have super experience and qualifications and educations, what's for us. As our younger, less seasoned sisters work their way to CEO and COB, what options do we have when we're always the bridesmaids and never the CEOs?

So, like many of us, what we are doing is parachuting in. Parachuting? An old Second Wave term for a project a woman manager turned around, only to have a man parachuted in to run the now promising project. At least Carly Fiona got parachuted in to redirect HP, and if she failed ... who'd expect less?

Most here probably don't remember Mary Cunningham and the scandal that she could be made a Vice President, though there were many men of her years and experience who moved that far that fast.

But these are old struggles and old wounds and old battles.

The new way, indeed, is for women to parachute themselves to the top of their own organizations and put all that experience and education to work.

Currently, as my business partner and I build our organization, I have remarked that I have not worked so hard in years, and yet never have I enjoyed myself so much.

Time to move and not wait for the big "proposal" from "Mr. Corporate-right."

These boots are made for walkin' and that just what they'll. One of these days these boots will make me a CEO, too.

Submitted by Katherine Lawrence on Wed, 09/13/2006 - 09:49
 

Great discussion Jory...

You know, I have pondered both sides of this entreprenurial coin for a long time. I have pretty much led my entreprenurial endeavors with the same approach as you, Jory - at least, in the less risky sense. But a couple of weeks ago, a very interesting short article apppeared on the USAToday Small Biz blog called For female entrepreneurs, the cost of being cautious. A quick excerpt:

Research has shown that women, more than men, keep companies smaller by taking fewer risks -- including with financing. Now, a study shows that women who take advantage of all financing options are likely to have faster-growing businesses.

I guess a question I - and likely other female entrepreneurs - struggle with, is this:

Am I conservative with my business growth because I enjoy the organic, tactical hands-on experience, or is it because I fear making big mistakes with someone else's money?

For now, I'm on the slow road because I know it is the right road - but it also calls for a deeper awareness within ourselves, to ensure we make our decisions for the right reasons, and to push ourselves harder when the time comes to get outside of our comfort zone.

Wendy Piersall

Founder of eMomsatHome.com.

Passionate about self help, adding value, and living a balanced and extraordinary life.

Submitted by eselfhelp on Wed, 09/13/2006 - 09:51
 

Third possibility: $$=control

Am I conservative with my business growth because I enjoy the organic, tactical hands-on experience, or is it because I fear making big mistakes with someone else's money?

Wendy: I think there's a third possibility, which is that women often go into business for themselves because they're tired of feeling their destiny is controlled by outside, often resistant, forces.

Does funding represent giving some of that hard-fought control back? And should it?

Elisa Camahort
BlogHer and Worker Bees
elisa@blogher.org/elisa@workerbees.biz

Submitted by Elisa Camahort on Wed, 09/13/2006 - 10:47
 

Wow

Oh - Elisa - GREAT question!! And I do think you hit the nail on the head to some degree with the obvious answer. You are absolutely right in that we forge our own careers for the most part because we can't get the flexibility coupled with great career opportunities elsewhere. The jobs like that are few and far between.

Since I have never taken on what we would call 'funding' (VC style or bank loan) - I have a harder time answering the second question - should taking on an investor's money mean relinquishing control? Already I can hear the valid points from both sides of the coin... :)

Founder of eMomsatHome.com.

Passionate about self help, adding value, and living a balanced and extraordinary life.

Submitted by eselfhelp on Thu, 09/14/2006 - 09:16
 

Control and funding, yes

In the film business, much use is made of the limited partnership. Limited partners invest, and typically have a favored payout position at least until they get their money back (but it's all defined by the limited partnership agreement). Young independent filmmakers don't want the dentist or Uncle Howard telling them what scenes to cut or whom to cast. The film is the business, and the investor is the "stooge" (i.e., without power).

We don't see that approach much in business, though. I suppose it's natural, when the investment side is the real business, and the entrepreneurs are the stooges (once they say yes). It's all about power then, and of course control is lost to the VC firms.

What's unfortunate, though, is the homogenizing effect on new ventures that require more capital than a bootstrapped venture can generate, at least in the early going. There's a lot of groupthink out there. Look at the conformity of thought in "web 2.0" and "the new economy" and "the webtop" and....

It's very exciting to see these new things coming, but I wonder at how they represent a new orthodoxy, and not an embracing of new ideas or out-of-the-box thinking. We're just getting a new box. ("The king is dead. Hail to the king!")

New independent ventures offer chances at some true innovations, with more freedom and ability to adapt rapidly. The VC ties may not just take away power, they may stifle the very creativity they purportedly nurture. It's a lot safer, after all, to make money following a path already proven, or where the new conventional wisdom points.

Maybe that's an unfair generalization, and I'm sure people can find exceptions -- companies that got money with few strings attached and thrived through groundbreaking innovation. But how many new businesses owned people of either gender have the inside track with a VC firm or investment banker where they can get a fair hearing with open minds? How many bootstrappers can mortage a house or leverage a trust inheritance to provide the collateral required to get anything but a credit card cash advance at 28% interest?

Laura Scott
design, snap, blog ... admin

Submitted by Laura Scott on Fri, 09/15/2006 - 11:02
 

thanks

Ha, thanks Jory for the writeup, you brought in some good points. As one of the 'guys' in the meetro commune I have to say that it does require a lot of sacrifices that are hard to make.

I think what makes this possible is that we're all really passionate about changing the way people connect and meet other individuals in the real world - something that is both important and exciting to us. We've also done this without external funding (hence all the sacrifices.) I don't think this could work for just any product.

We came to Palo Alto to be in the *heart* of silicon valley. I'm amazed to be only blocks away from the Hewlett-Packard garage, where one could claim that's where this all started (where Bill Hewlett slept in a shed behind the home of recently married Dave and Lucile Packard, working solely out of their garage)

The first time I met the team, I was amazed at all the passion and dedication they showed to something that was important to them. As soon as we met, I knew I wanted to be a part of it.

We all come from very different backgrounds (and cultures), which has made for a rich environment offering many perspectives. I find it a lot of fun and an amazing learning experience.

Vincent
Meetro

Submitted by vlauria on Tue, 09/19/2006 - 08:34
 

Hi Vincent!

Well by the looks of your picture you don't look like you're suffering too much. Or maybe you took it before you began your entrepreneurial journey ;)

Jory Des Jardins
BlogHer
Personal Blog Pause

Submitted by Jory Des Jardins on Wed, 09/20/2006 - 06:47