Check Out Noah Shanok's LinkedIn Stats (Last 30 Days)

What I Learned Posting On LinkedIn For 6 Weeks First, why am I posting on LinkedIn? I hope that sharing my experiences (including my many failures) helps others on their entrepreneurial journey. There's so much I wish I had known earlier, and if my stories can provide shortcuts for others, that's deeply rewarding. Client leadgen would also be nice but I’m thinking of it as a potential bonus in the future. I have a strong network and I've gotten all of my clients so far through referrals from existing clients, my network, or a client seeing me do a talk. So those are my primary avenues. I decided to do one "out of the box" and for me, out of my comfort zone activity just for the fun of it and to learn. LinkedIn seemed like the most logical choice. My background looks good, I already have some startup industry followers/connections, I'm posting about professionally-related stuff. I also wanted something that was reasonably low lift (vs. a podcast or video content on TikTok, etc.). So I decided that my input metric would be to just post 3 or more times a week for 6 months and then reevaluate (is it working? Am I enjoying it?). The 6-Week Results: • Published 18 posts generating ~70k impressions • Gained ~400 new followers (just crossed 3k followers) Key Lessons: • The embarrassment fades instantly - I'm not a natural self-promoter, but that discomfort disappeared after just one post. Don't let it hold you back. • AI tools make content creation efficient - Claude and other LLMs can help streamline the process, but personal stories consistently drive the best engagement. • AI tools can straight up make up data! Always ask for sources. I missed this on one of my posts and got called out on it (rightly so) • Beware the engagement trap - It's easy to justify constantly checking LinkedIn under the guise of "responding to comments quickly." Set boundaries. • Network awareness increases significantly - I'm definitely more top of mind with my connections. People regularly reference my posts in meetings. • The most one-day increase in followers came from a post with little traction - it was my post about firing faster. I think this means it resonated with the people that read it but they didn’t want to like/comment (for obvious reasons). My Approach: • I studied successful LinkedIn creators, talked with several friends who excel at it, and consulted with 5+ agencies (who charge $1K-$5K monthly for LinkedIn management). • The best agency advice I received? "Do cool sh*t and talk about it." Simple but effective. • If I decide the ROI is there but want to save time, I may hire help. As one agency pointed out, they function like personal trainers - if you're paying, you're committed, but the ideas and voice still need to be authentically yours. For now, I'm enjoying the process, which matters most. What's your experience been with LinkedIn content? Worth the effort?

Is Business School Worth It? My $2M+ Wharton Experience I walked away from millions in unvested StubHub stock options to attend Wharton. Was it worth it? Here's my unfiltered take: Why did I go to business school? At 27, I was inspired by StubHub's founders who I worked for - Harvard/Wharton grads who successfully raised funds post-dot-com crash. I attributed part of their success to their elite credentials. I wanted to be a founder myself and thought a prestigious MBA would give me that "smart on paper" advantage. The Wharton experience itself was transformative: • Made lifelong friends • Learned to play hockey and golf (badly) • Climbed Cotopaxi in South America • Travelled extensively  • Worked on numerous business ideas • Secured a job at BCG post-graduation (another “smart on paper” credential) But did it actually help my startup journey? My venture board members at Stitcher all had elite MBAs (Harvard/Stanford/Wharton). Coincidence? Maybe. But they also regularly backed founders without fancy degrees. YCombinator famously considers an MBA a negative signal for their program. As for the education itself? I failed Venture Capital class, and the analysis frameworks sometimes paralyzed rather than helped me. The honest verdict: Would I be financially richer had I stayed at StubHub? Absolutely. But hindsight is 20/20. At the time, StubHub's success wasn't guaranteed. The intangibles - network, confidence, experiences - are harder to quantify. So was it worth it? It was the two most fun years in my adult life and resulted in lifelong friends and experiences I wouldn’t have had otherwise. So to me, yes it was worth it. What's your take? Is business school worth the opportunity cost? Have you made a similar decision?

The Ultimate 1:1 Meeting Template (That Actually Works) After years of running 1:1s - from founding Stitcher to leading teams at AWS - here's the exact structure I use that transformed my management effectiveness. (h/t Matt Mochary) The Template: Each direct report maintains a shared doc with four key sections: 1) AGREEMENTS • Track specific commitments from both parties • Review and check off completed items at start • Delete once done 2) ACCOUNTABILITY • List quarterly OKRs (max 3) • Top 3 accomplishments since last meeting • Top 3 priorities until next meeting 3) COACHING • 2-3 wins since last meeting • 2-3 challenges, each including: - The issue - Their contribution to it - Proposed solution 4) FEEDBACK (both people give the feedback) • One thing done well • One thing to improve Very Important: • Ask directs to prepare in advance • Adapt the format to each individual's needs (e.g. one of my recent reports likes walking meetings - I read and then we walk) • Always start with personal connection first (trust/connection drives everything) When I was a first-time CEO at Stitcher, I wish I'd known this structure. It would have saved me years of ineffective meetings.

I've heard from several young people early in their career recently that they want to be VCs because they don't have the risk appetite to be an entrepreneur. The irony? The data shows your odds of "making it" are actually higher as a venture-backed founder than as a VC. Let's break it down: As a VC... • Only ~20% of VC firms consistently generate top-quartile returns across multiple funds • 80% of partners never make it to Fund II • Median VC fund returns have hovered around 1.0x over the past decade Meanwhile, as a venture-backed founder... • ~33% of Series A companies exit at >3x • ~25% of venture-backed companies exit at >5x • Your upside is technically unlimited (Figma's $20B exit comes to mind) Plus, consider this: There are ~1,000 active VC firms in the US, with maybe 2-3 partners each. But there are 50,000+ venture-backed startups. The math is clear: There are literally 10x more successful founders than successful VCs out there. And here's the kicker - if you bootstrap, your odds get even better: • 51% of bootstrapped companies reach profitability in their first year • 4 in 5 successful software companies never take VC funding The median bootstrapped exit is smaller ($12M vs $50M for VC-backed), but founder ownership at exit averages 80% vs. 15% for VC-backed companies. Key insight: Unless you're genuinely passionate about being a professional investor, you might as well build something. The odds are more in your favor, and the journey of creation is infinitely more rewarding.

Ever wonder why Amazon's interview process is so intense? As someone who conducted hundreds of interviews as an Amazon Bar Raiser, I can tell you it's not just for show - it's a carefully engineered system that's produced one of the most successful hiring engines in business history. But first, what's a Bar Raiser? They're a group of senior Amazonians, separate from the hiring team, who ensure hiring standards remain consistently high even when teams are desperate to fill roles. Think of them as the guardians of culture and long-term talent quality. The process is unique: • Every candidate faces 5-7 interviewers, including one Bar Raiser • Each interviewer is trained in behavioral interviewing using the STAR method (Situation, Task, Action, Result) • Instead of asking hypotheticals, we probe for specific examples: "Tell me about a time when..." • We take detailed notes on exact stories, quotes, and data points • Every answer must demonstrate Amazon's Leadership Principles in action Why this level of rigor matters: • Past behavior predicts future performance far better than hypothetical answers • The STAR method makes it nearly impossible to fake experiences • Having multiple interviewers probe the same examples from different angles reveals inconsistencies Three key principles that startups should steal: First: Written narratives over group discussion • Amazon interviewers write detailed notes independently before discussing the candidate • This prevents groupthink and the loudest voice dominating • For startups: Have each interviewer email their decision and reasons why before any debrief. You'll be shocked at how often initial impressions differ Second: Future potential over past experience • Bar Raisers are trained to evaluate "trajectory" - where someone could be in 2-3 years • We'd regularly hire someone less experienced with steeper growth over a more qualified but stagnant candidate • For startups: Your early hires need to evolve as you scale. Prioritize learning velocity over current capability Third: Leadership Principles as a shared language • Every Amazon hire is evaluated against the same principles, from warehouse to AWS • This creates clarity and removes bias - you're assessing specific behaviors, not gut feel • For startups: Define 5-7 core attributes that matter most. Use them religiously in hiring. It aligns your team on what "good" looks like The most counterintuitive lesson: Great hiring processes should regularly generate disagreement. If every decision is unanimous, you're probably not pushing hard enough on assessing future potential. What I've implemented with some of my clients based on my learnings: • Define 5-7 core values that matter most • Train interviewers in behavioral questioning • Clear rubrics for assessing potential • Mandatory written feedback before debriefs The results? Fewer miss-hires and a more cohesive company culture.

Bill Campbell coached Steve Jobs, Larry Page, and Jeff Bezos. But his most valuable leadership lessons didn't come from Silicon Valley—they came from a college football field where he lost nearly every game. As head coach at Columbia University, Campbell's record was a brutal 12-41-1. Yet those struggling seasons shaped how he would later coach the tech leaders who built companies worth over a trillion dollars combined. From the football field, he learned lessons that transformed Silicon Valley: • That leadership is about serving the team, not yourself • That direct, honest feedback delivered with genuine care is transformative • That you win by developing people, not just by developing strategy • That every player, from star quarterback to backup lineman, needs to know their role matters Campbell brought that locker room wisdom to boardrooms. He treated CEOs not as untouchable visionaries, but as team players who needed support, candid feedback, and occasional tough love—just like his football players. The greatest coach in Silicon Valley history never fully left football behind. He just found a different field to play on. Perhaps that's why they called him "Coach" until the day he died—because at heart, whether he was building championship teams or trillion-dollar companies, he was always teaching people how to play the game better together. It's a reminder that our hardest seasons often prepare us in unexpected ways for our greatest contributions. If you’re in one of your hardest seasons now, keep going and keep that in mind.