Lessons in Leadership: An Interview with Mark Tipps, FCV Partner & COO

Q: You've built and led teams in courtrooms, on Capitol Hill, in a presidential campaign, on the sidelines of football and baseball fields, and now in venture capital. What's the one leadership lesson that traveled with you through all five?

MT: The lesson that applies across all sectors is genuinely caring for the people on your team and subordinating your own personal interests to the team's. You can either do that or you can't. If you can, it will build trust, which, in turn, will lead to the creation of an entity that is bigger than the sum of its parts. For example, if you want young associates to work harder and take an ownership role, tell them how important what they do is to the final outcome and how much you count on them, trust them, and need them. Show them vulnerability. If they feel they're truly part of something much bigger than themselves, they'll go the extra mile. That lesson holds true in every area of life, whether it's a legal team, political team, sports team, or business team.

The biggest mistake people in leadership positions make is believing that they're the be all and end all and that the other people are just there for support. People are intuitive, they can feel that. When they know you're focused on yourself, don't really care about them, or you view them as a widget, you get exactly the kind of effort you deserve.

Sadly, many people in positions of leadership actually fail to lead. They perceive they were elevated to this place because they deserve it, they have the answers and are smarter than the people around them. Inevitably, they give off that air. They fail to build trust. Then when they fail to get the results they want, they end up blaming it on the people around them, when in fact, the problem emanates directly from them.

Q: Most people specialize. You kept starting over in rooms where you had no track record yet. What did you learn about earning authority fast?

MT: When you're new to an organization and placed in a leadership role, the biggest mistake you can make is feeling like you need to prove yourself immediately - to prove that you belong in that leadership role, that you have the answers, and that you know what you're doing. In fact, you should do the opposite. Be honest with the people around you. Tell them you're new to this, that you will need to learn, that you will desperately need their help and advice in certain areas, and that you are relying on them. And then keep your mouth shut unless and until you actually have something important to say. Too many people come into new situations and in the first meeting, regardless of the topic, start spouting off all kinds of thoughts and ideas. It's clear they're trying to assert leadership, but their credibility is immediately damaged because they aren't talking from a real knowledge base. People can smell the BS a mile away.

When you do choose to speak, speak about something you actually know about, speak with authority, and speak with a level, serious tone. People will sense your credibility. The cumulative effect of using your judgment in a measured way and deferring to others when you don't know the answer, is that people start listening when you do talk. You inevitably build respect and ultimately trust, and that, eventually, gives you the ability and opportunity to lead.

Q: At Bass, Berry & Sims, you were named hiring partner in your first year as a partner. What made a first-year partner the right person to run recruiting, and what did you learn about building a system that outlasts whoever is running it?

MT: I'd been on the hiring committee since I was a first year associate, and I liked meeting new people, so I guess that's why they chose me. I was 31 at the time. We had two full-time employees who helped organize the hiring process, so I certainly had a lot of help, which was good because we were hosting 15-18 clerks per summer and hiring 7 or 8 associates per year.

The most important thing I learned from that role was that having a really effective hiring program required a great product, i.e., a great firm. As I mentioned above, people can smell BS a mile away, and while there were certainly some young law students who just wanted to be wined, dined, and entertained, most could see through all of the fancy treatment. What mattered most to them was meeting the other lawyers on the team and assessing whether these were the people they wanted to spend hours and hours with each day. So, in the end, it came back to being genuine and showing people what a real slice of life in your firm would look like if they worked there. It came back to actually caring about them. If you do that you'll attract good people. You don't need a lot of bells and whistles. If the bells and whistles are what attracts people - they're probably the wrong people.

Q: You co-founded Walker Tipps & Malone and ran its business side for seven years, which is a different job than practicing law. What surprised you most about that shift?

MT: Well, you're right - there's a big difference between practicing law and running a law business. I was fortunate that I'd already had a lot of experience hiring people at Bass and managing people in the U.S. Senate. That made it easier. Running a small law firm is just like running any other small business. We had roughly 30 employees, between attorneys and non-attorneys. You have to hire people, pay rent, develop processes and procedures to keep things straight, make payroll, continually improve your service, deal with clients and vendors, and handle HR issues.

In the end, like everything else, it came down to people - how you treat people. For example, one thing we instituted at WT&M was sharing our profits with everybody in the firm, right down to the 21 year old receptionist. We believed that if every employee had a chance to share in the profits they'd be incentivized to go the extra mile. So, we started setting aside a portion of every partnership draw for our employees. At first, it was awesome - the attitudes were great and our people really went the extra mile. But eventually, and despite the fact that no other firm was doing this, after a few years our employees became accustomed to it, and it became almost an entitlement. It no longer incentivized them to do great work, it was just expected. That taught me that you can't simply set things up in a good way and then let them go on autopilot and assume that everything will be OK. Managing a team requires constant cultivation, like a garden. It requires constantly assessing processes and people. It requires walking around and making sure that people are OK in their personal and professional lives. The more of that you do, the more hands-on you are in showing people you care, the better chance of keeping everything heading in a good direction.

Q: As Senator Frist's first Chief of Staff, you helped hire and manage a team of 46 to build his Washington operation from scratch. Neither of you had Washington experience. What did you decide early on that mattered for the next twelve years?

MT: I was looking for great attitudes, people who wanted to share Sen. Frist's mission to be a citizen legislator. There were tons of experienced people who wanted to come work for him. But many were Hill veterans (House and Senate) who seemed more excited about taking their next career step, versus working for a freshman Tennessee Senator. It was the role, not the person, that attracted them. Most weren't from Tennessee and had no loyalty to us. So, it was an interesting exercise because many old DC hands had told us to hire experienced DC people, but instead, we tended toward hiring young people from Tennessee who were really excited about Sen. Frist and the opportunity to be a part of his team.

We did blend in a few highly experienced people to the team, particularly Ramona Lessen, as Scheduler, who had 16 years of Senate experience. But, by and large, we hired people from Tennessee who considered themselves lucky to have the job, and who I thought would work really hard for him. In the end, that was a good decision. The issues in Congress are myriad, but they aren't that complicated. With time and reasonable intellect you can master them. So, having people with great attitudes, a hunger to work in the Senate, and a loyalty to Bill Frist paid off.

Q: Culture is often described as something that happens slowly. Was there a moment you felt it take hold?

MT: I don't know that there was one moment when it all clicked. I do remember three distinct events that stood out. First, in the first couple of months I sensed that there were some folks who didn't necessarily agree with Bill's position on certain issues or his approach to dealing with a problem, and others who were frustrated by some of the job requirements, including some long nights. We had an "all hands on deck" meeting. I pulled out a copy of the Constitution and asked them to find anywhere in it that mentioned anything about Senate "staff." I reminded them that he was the one who had run and was elected, and that he was the one who voted on the Senate floor. The rest of us were superfluous. I told them politely if they couldn't get behind him, they should go work for someone else. People understood the message. A second moment was when we had an offsite in the summer of year one - 1995. We had gone full blast from January to the summer recess, and we got everyone together in Crossville, TN. for a couple of days. That's when the team really came together, got to know each other well, and began to jell. Finally, after the first year, Roll Call, one of the daily periodicals on Capitol Hill, published a story naming the "10 rising stars of the Republican Party," and freshman Senator Bill Frist was one of the ten. Not surprisingly, the entire team was excited about that. They felt a great deal of pride and accomplishment in that article. After that they really became a cohesive bunch.

Q: During the Chinagate hearings, you led a team of more than 50 attorneys, FBI agents, and investigators, then personally examined witnesses over 42 days of live testimony. How is leading a team different when the outcome is being watched and the pressure is that public?

MT: Managing lawyers was challenging because they're smart, confident and have lots of opinions. So, each day we had 50 opinions on what we should do! Managing these hearings is where I realized that at some point, you just have to press on the gas as hard as you can even when you're not exactly sure where you're going. Planning is important, and can take you a long way, but sometimes in life you don't have time to plan, you don't have the luxury of seeing everything unfold before you, and so you can't fully debate the merits of all sides. Sometimes you just have to take the next best step. That was what the investigation was like. We literally were interviewing witnesses in one room, while simultaneously taking deposition testimony from others in another room, and then lining them up for televised testimony a week later. It was like making brick with one hand and laying it with the other.

The actual televised testimony was the easiest piece for me because it was just being a trial lawyer, which I had done for over a decade. In fact, in many ways it was easier because there was no judge for the opposition to object to if you asked a bad question! Nor did I have to worry about the rules of evidence. Preparation for the testimony piece was just like preparing for a trial. Paying attention to detail. The one big difference was we had 7 live TV cameras pointing at us and a bevy of newspaper photographers in front of the dais. On the day I questioned my first witness live on TV Sen. Thompson leaned over and asked if I was nervous. I said: "Yes sir, a little." He laughed that deep laugh of his and said: "Hell, I bet they couldn't drive a nail in your ass with a sledgehammer!" He was right!

The national press coverage piece of it was the most interesting and most challenging aspect. We had nightly briefings with ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN. We quickly learned that you couldn't put witnesses on and take them through the facts chronologically like you would in a trial. If we really wanted the public to pay attention to an issue we needed to front-load that testimony in the first 30 minutes of the morning when it was being covered live. After that, CNN would keep replaying it on Headline News, and the other networks would also continue to replay it. If you told the story in chronological order and got to the most important stuff in the afternoon, nobody ever saw it or heard about it.

As far as lessons in leadership, the investigation taught me how to lead under a tremendous amount of scrutiny and pressure. I've never been more nervous or more overwhelmed, and I didn't hide that from my colleagues if they asked. Yet, every day I did my very best to act like it was all under control. The people you're leading tend to reflect your demeanor. If you act scared, nervous, or scattered, they will likely do the same. It was an incredibly exciting experience, but it took a couple of years to decompress!

Q: On Lamar Alexander's presidential campaign, you had forty people spread across Tennessee, New Hampshire, and Iowa. How did you keep a team aligned when you couldn't be in the room with most of them?

MT: The Alexander for President campaign was tough. I was hired as the national campaign manager, but I was the very last person hired. That was not an ideal situation, and I spent as much time trying to build camaraderie with a bunch of strangers, who I'd had no hand in hiring, as I did trying to figure out how Lamar Alexander could win the Republican nomination when George W. Bush was clearly running away with the campaign. We kept people together by communicating as frequently as possible (this is pre-Zoom) and going to New Hampshire or Iowa in person whenever necessary.

In the end, this experience helped me hone people skills, and it taught me a lot about how to manage a tight money situation. Almost every pay period I had to figure out how to pull the dollars together to make payroll, so from the standpoint of just being a pure operator in a tight situation that was probably the most valuable thing I learned. It was an uphill battle, and everybody involved knew that, but we kept showing up each day. And sometimes that's all you can do.

Q: After thirty years in law and politics, you became an athletics director, teacher, and coach at an all-boys school. What did teaching and coaching teenagers teach you that thirty years with adults hadn't?

MT: Well, a couple of things. First, you go through life making assumptions about people's base level of knowledge, their familiarity with teachings, sayings, and history in general, and you assume everyone kind of knows what you know. But when you start teaching and coaching people who weren't born till after the year 2000, none of that holds true! So, you constantly have to reinvent yourself when you're leading a much younger generation. Yes, you can tell them who Vince Lombardi was. You can explain historical things to them, but in the end, you have to find current reference points that they find relevant in order to connect.

Second, and much has been written about this, but the current generation of young people is quite different than prior generations. And this is particularly true at a private boys' school where many of the parents are not just helicopter parents, but actually bulldozer parents. So, these kids expect things to be just right, and they don't handle the ups and downs of life very well. For example, when they don't perform well on the field, their resiliency can be quite low. They don't necessarily bounce back. So, once again, you can't assume a certain level of tenacity that existed in the past, you have to meet these kids where they are and find ways to deal with them, as opposed to complaining about it. It isn't their fault they're the way they are. It's the world we, the adults, have created for them.

Q: You've coached youth baseball for more than thirty years. What advice would you give a first-year Little League coach that also applies to a first-time founder?

MT: Simple - find ways to get everybody involved and interested. The most important things about coaching Little League are making it fun, teaching fundamentals, and making it something the kids will want to do next year. I used to tell our seventh grade football coach: "I don't care if you win any games. Your measure of success is simply how many of these kids come out for eighth grade football." We didn't want to lose kids who might turn out to be great because they didn't find 7th grade football fun. I think this advice applies to a Founder as well. If you can't make everyone on your team feel they're a part of something bigger than themselves, feel that their time and effort is valuable and that they're appreciated, you're not going to keep them and, in the end, that will have a detrimental effect on your company.

Q: In venture capital, you've described yourself as a "sparring partner" for portfolio company founders. What does a good sparring partner do that a mentor or advisor doesn't?

MT: There's a lot of overlap between a sparring partner, on the one hand, and a mentor/advisor on the other. The mentor/advisor role is one based on your past experience, trying to give advice and direction from 30,000 feet. And while a sparring partner may also do that, I think of that role as a real-time tester of strategies, testing thoughts and helping in real time situations. So, a good sparring partner can pull back and give good advice based on experience, but they can also engage in specific factual circumstances to test strategies, convictions, ideas, and help shape the other person's actions.

Q: Is it important that FCV portfolio leadership live FCV's mission, too?

MT: Yes, absolutely. The only way a portfolio company is going to achieve our mission to transform healthcare and improve lives is if they're successful, and the only way they're going to be successful is if they have good leadership. So, a big part of our diligence is trying to assess leadership.

All founders are operators by necessity at the outset, but over time they need to transform themselves into more than operators, but actual leaders. There are a handful of qualities that can be important in defining a leader, and Harrison Frist and I have written about these. I think a great leader is self aware, humble, inspirational, honest, resilient, persuasive, diligent, and wise. These are hard qualities to measure, and no one has them all. They're the so-called "soft issues." I like to learn what makes someone tick. What did they do as children that made them happy? What made them sad? What's their relationship with their parents and their extended family? Who do they talk to when the chips are down? When they have great news to share? How do they handle failure? How do they see themselves in relation to other people? These are nebulous concepts, and certainly very difficult to capture, but it's where we focus.

Q: If you had to boil four decades of building teams across five fields into one piece of advice for someone leading a team for the first time, what would it be?

MT: Same answer I gave to the very first question - subordinate your personal interests to the interests of the team. If every decision you make is about what's best for your team, and not what's best for you, you'll have a much better chance to succeed. By elevating the people around you and caring more about them you'll build trust with them, and they'll be willing to go the extra mile for you. If they don't believe you care about them, then no matter how great your idea or product is, it will be difficult to find good people to do good work. It may sound trite, but you can boil it down to the golden rule: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If you treat people in that way, good things will happen. If you use people to elevate yourself, eventually bad things will happen. So … work hard, play fair, and help others.