Zen Mohanty | B2B 📈

I run B2B businesses. I analyze B2B businesses here from all CXOs POV.

Helpful b2b insights on your feed 🚀 DM.

[Zen Mohanty | B2B 📈 @ScaleWithZen]

Day 4/100 of building my FIRST tech business.

The target: Get the first 3 paid customers before Day 100.

Small change of plan.

I’m pausing the public build updates for a bit to focus on learning, practice, and basic clarity.

I was moving toward starting a service business.

But I realized something important:

A product can often be learned while building.

A service business is different.

If you’re selling expertise, you need enough real knowledge to diagnose problems, ask better questions, and avoid selling vague promises.

So I’m changing the path slightly.

For the next 1–2 months, I’ll focus on:

Building deeper working knowledge

Practicing through small projects

Doing freelance-style work where possible

Understanding real customer problems before packaging the offer

The 100-day goal is not cancelled.

The target is still the same:

Get the first 3 paid customers.

But before pushing the business publicly, I need stronger clarity on the problem, workflow, and value I can actually deliver.

[Zen Mohanty | B2B 📈 @ScaleWithZen]

Day 3/100 of building my FIRST tech business.

The target:
Get the first 3 paid customers before Day 100.
Took a short break, but I’m back.

Yesterday, I started creating the first set of artifacts that can help me understand the customer problem better and eventually sell with more clarity.

What I did yesterday:
Reviewed the workflow from the ground up.
Started mapping how the work is actually done before jumping into solutions.
Collected the key artifacts I need to create during this phase.
Started working on the first batch of artifacts.

My learning:

If you don’t have deep experience in a field, don’t start by selling your “skill.” Start by understanding the workflow.
Because pain points don’t appear clearly from the outside. They appear when you go through the process yourself.

My adjustment:
Earlier, I thought Phase 1 could be done quickly.

Evolution:
1. I'll watch someone do.
2. I'll just do it.
3. I'll go into enough mess to understand.

So, now I think it needs a few more days.

So Day 3 to Day 10 will be focused on building the base artifacts, testing the workflow, and understanding where the real friction exists.

Today’s plan:

Continue Phase 1.
Create the next set of artifacts.
Practice the core tools for 1 hour.
Document what breaks, what feels slow, and what creates confusion.

The goal is to understand the problem from first principles.

Follow along if you’re trying to build something uncomfortable before feeling fully ready.

[Zen Mohanty | B2B 📈 @ScaleWithZen]

@mohantyabhijit Always, mentor! 😍🙌

[Zen Mohanty | B2B 📈 @ScaleWithZen]

Day 2/100 of building my FIRST tech business.

The target:
Get the first 3 paid customers before Day 100.

Yesterday, I created a rough workflow model and understood the basics of how the system works.

Then, I spoke with my tech-mentor whom I had contacted earlier for validating my work throughout this process.

A few important things this person suggested:

1. Watching and researching alone is not enough. To really understand the workflow, I need to go through the process by doing it.

2. Don’t try to understand the entire system at once. Break the workflow into smaller parts. Solve the parts individually. Then connect them back into the bigger workflow.

3. It was mentioned that once I complete the smaller phases, we’ll go through the full workflow together end-to-end.

So I’ve now divided the workflow into 4 phases.

I am aiming to complete Phase 1 today.

Follow along if you’re trying to build something uncomfortable before feeling fully ready.

[Zen Mohanty | B2B 📈 @ScaleWithZen]

@originaestudio_ Thank you! 🫸

[Zen Mohanty | B2B 📈 @ScaleWithZen]

Day 1/100 of building my FIRST tech business.

The target:
Get the first 3 paid customers before Day 100.

I had already done some pre-work earlier:

Mapped possible industries
Listed potential ICPs
Studied possible problems
Bought the domain

But I didn’t execute:
No building.
No selling.
No real market feedback.

So this 100-day challenge is about moving from thinking to execution.

Yesterday was Day 0:
I used it to define the operating process.
I also picked one ICP to test first.
I’ve also contacted an expert in the domain to validate my work. This will work like weekly mentorship.

I’ve divided the project into 5 modes:

Research mode
Presence mode
Outreach mode
Closing mode
Delivery mode

This is not a waterfall plan.

Research and presence will build the base. After that, outreach, closing, and delivery will run together.

Today, I’m starting with RESEARCH mode.

The first task is understanding the customer workflow deeply.

Not:
“What service can I sell?”
But:
How does the target company currently work?
Where does the workflow slow down?
Where does risk enter?
Where does the buyer already feel pain?
What problem is painful enough to pay for?

Today’s focus:
Use GPT and Perplexity to understand the usual workflow
Break down unfamiliar technical terms
Create my own workflow model
Validate it with someone experienced
Read 2 books related to workflow thinking

This may take 2–5 days.

It may take 5 days if I learn by doing.
It may take 2 days if I learn by watching.

I’ll first try to understand the workflow by watching and studying.

If that doesn’t give me enough clarity, I’ll switch to learning by doing.

The aim is to understand the workflow well enough so my offer, outreach, and delivery are not based on random guesses.

PRE-MORTEM for today:

1. I can over-research.
When I research, I get curious and go too deep. That can pull me into interesting but low-priority topics.
But if I don’t ask first-principle questions, I’ll just obey whatever GPT gives me.

So the balance for today is:
Think from first principles.
Ask questions.
Avoid low-yield sources like podcasts and creator content for now.

2. I can get lost in tools.

I don’t need to master every tool today.
I only need to understand what each tool does, why it matters, and where it fits in the workflow.
If there are multiple tool options, I’ll note the differences and move on.
I can waste the expert call.
If I don’t prepare well, I may ask vague questions.

3. Before speaking with the expert, I’ll prepare a clear workflow model and specific doubts.

If they show anything live, I’ll record the screen.
The goal is to notice where they challenge my assumptions.

[Zen Mohanty | B2B 📈 @ScaleWithZen]

@Boltcutterlab Thanks, man! 🤝

[Zen Mohanty | B2B 📈 @ScaleWithZen]

Today, I’m starting a 100-day business execution challenge.

This is my FIRST tech-side business.

I’m starting with the easiest model & path I can take.

Goal: get 3 paid customers before day 100.

Every morning, I’ll share:

What I did yesterday
What worked
What failed
What I’m doing today

Four years ago, I made a public commitment around waking up early. I stopped midway.

That taught me one thing: public posting is not enough.

This time, I’m treating it as a daily operating system: action, evidence, feedback, correction.

On Day 100, I’ll share the result: customers, revenue, mistakes, lessons, and whether this worked or failed.

No polished founder story. Just execution, feedback, and reality.

This is NOT a one-time challenge.

I want this to become my operating style: whenever I enter a new domain, face a hard problem, or step outside my comfort zone, I’ll make the process public.

Follow along if you’re building something uncomfortable before you feel ready.

[Zen Mohanty | B2B 📈 @ScaleWithZen]

This reminds me of an idea I liked from "The Knack".

In the early stages, founders are advised not to rely too quickly on calculators or spreadsheets while doing financial planning.

Not because tools are bad.

But because the goal is not just to get the numbers done. The goal is to understand how the business actually works.

When you sit with the numbers yourself, you start noticing the relationships:
revenue, margin, cash flow, pricing, volume, leakage, risk.

A sheet can help you calculate. But observation helps you understand.

I think the same applies to AI and coding. AI can help us move faster. But if we use it too early in the thinking process, we may miss the part where our own mental model gets built.

Maybe the better question is not “Should I use the tool or not?”

It is: “Am I using the tool to avoid thinking, or to think better?”

[Addy Osmani @addyosmani]

https://t.co/jKCIAEzai7

[Zen Mohanty | B2B 📈 @ScaleWithZen]

Closing deals may get you into Level 1.

But real selling starts when your intent shifts from “how do I close?” to “how do I understand and help?”

[Zen Mohanty | B2B 📈 @ScaleWithZen]

Countries do have capability-building problems. Most don’t have China’s cushion, so founders are forced to think “survival first.”

In hard industries, engineering and capital allocation can’t be separated too cleanly.

A pure engineer-founder can die from bad cash management.

A pure finance-first founder can hollow out the technical base.

Nations probably need founders who can do both: build real technical capability and keep the cash engine alive long enough for it to compound.

Even if you look at large manufacturing companies in India and elsewhere, many take out large dividends instead of reinvesting aggressively into future capability.

Founders need to take a stand and create their own cushion for innovation.

Expecting the government to save you is an unhelpful operating mindset.

But elite founders also need to take responsibility: reinvest, build capability, and inspire others to go for innovation.

[sphinx @protosphinx]

Chinese founders are usually:

- engineers
- party members
- capitalists

In that order.

So when they build or acquire a company, maximizing shareholder value is not the first objective. The first objective is acquiring know-how and industrial capability.

The mindset is: "we should know how to build this thing in China for the simple reason that my civilization needs to learn this sooner or later and i don't care about consequences or optics - if it looks like stealing IP so be it, I don't have to explain..."

The only people judging you are in your local party HQ.

If you’re a credible founder in China, you can go to a local party chief and say: "I need x engineers, land, and some starter funds to build this widget company"

And if the state thinks the industry matters, you’ll get the best resources in the province, industrial land and enough support to get going. The rest is up to you.

Many, many fail. Like most people think they would be successful with capital - go to China and see. You get everything - land, capital, people and even then the success ratio is like 1-5%...

OG American founders were also engineer-first. Bill Hewlett and David Packard built HP as engineers. Same with a lot of old American industrial giants. But over time those founders exited and the boards got taken over by pure financial operators focused entirely on maximizing quarterly shareholder value.

A single generation of this mentality hollowed out the entire American industry. Product-first founders like Elon Musk exist today because there was a generational demand for good engineering lead founders.

Indian boomer founders meanwhile were always capitalist-first from day one. Not even saying that negatively. Many come from communities that are insanely optimized around capital survival and allocation. That’s a real skill developed over centuries.

But the downside of that mindset is that they were rarely engineer-first or product-first EVEN if they were engineers by training. They were always capitalist first.

And that's very reasonable. They're on their own. Nobody has their back. They need to perform or die.

So when an Indian conglomerate acquires something like Jaguar, the instinct becomes:

- optimize margins
- reduce costs
- extract shareholder value

But if you don’t deeply understand first principles of car manufacturing, how much value can you really compound long term ? So companies get handed to hired professionals and MBA operators. The exact same class of people that helped hollow out American industry.

Now America is slowly realizing pure financial capitalism can become self-destructive because eventually the spreadsheet people cannibalize the actual industrial base in pursuit of EPS.

India already lives in that reality. Infosys is a good example. A company effectively consuming itself to maintain quarter-on-quarter performance without aggressively building the future.

And as I said they’re not even wrong. Anyone would do the same unless the system is realigned for long term incentives.

Who in India actually has your back if you miss numbers for 2-3 yrs while investing heavily into long-term capability ? Tesla survived because retail investors and the American public effectively backed Elon Musk through a decade of chaos and losses.

Toyota delivers 6-7x of Tesla's profit EVERY QUARTER but Tesla wins because try posting and see Tesla retail investors explaining you the future of automobiles.

Indian scarcity markets can't and won't tolerate that kind of long-duration industrial gamble. Its a 3k gdp/capita country nobody has time for long term nonsense plus who know who's grfiting vs being serious...people talk about nationalism then take your money and run.

China solved this by
- serve the party
- align with state goals
- stay below the radar and build

the system will protect you while you build.

In India you are on your own.

- manage the regulators
- manage capital - which is very expensive
- manage your own power/infra
- deal with corruption
- manage untrained talent

All of that becomes a massive tax on operations.

Nobody has the time to do any long-term thinking. Any anyone who does that would be eaten alive by those who optimize for survival.

[Zen Mohanty | B2B 📈 @ScaleWithZen]

B2B founders should be careful copying consumer-startup funding logic.

Consumer businesses often need capital for speed:
Brand.
Distribution.
Network effects.
Land-grab markets.

B2B usually has a cleaner test:
Will someone pay for this?
If yes, customer cash is often the best capital.

Not always. But often.

Because customer-funded growth gives you things VC money cannot fake:

Proof.
Control.
Case studies.
Real demand.
Sharper offer.
Sales learning.
Delivery learning.

Raise equity too early and you can confuse motion with traction.

More tools.
More hiring.
More content.
More “growth.”
More dashboards.

But still no clear pain, no sales rhythm, no repeatable delivery.

But, but...
Medium to heavy-weight projects like Manufacturing or Infrastructure have different logic.

If cash flows are visible and assets can support the capital, debt may be smarter than selling ownership.

But debt without cash flow is not also smart.
It just makes the clock louder.

The real question is not:
“How do I fund this?”

The real question is:

“What kind of business engine am I building?”

Equity for uncertainty + speed.
Customer cash for proven demand.
Debt for durable cash flow.

I've seen people losing it because of this in B2B! Capital is not just money. It decides your behavior.

[Zen Mohanty | B2B 📈 @ScaleWithZen]

“Move fast and break things” works until the thing has wheels, batteries, service centers, and angry customers.

That’s the lesson I take from Ola Electric.

Not “speed is bad.”

That’s lazy.

The real lesson:

Speed at the wrong stage becomes expensive.

In software, you can often ship, watch, rollback, and improve.

Bad button? Fix it.
Broken flow? Push an update.
Wrong feature? Kill it.
The mistake stays mostly inside code, screens, and dashboards.
Hardware is different.

A hardware mistake has weight.

It becomes inventory.
Repair queues.
Service calls.
Customer anger.
Trust damage.

You can patch software over the air.

You can’t OTA your way out of weak testing, weak manufacturing, or weak service depth.

But, but....
Agility is not wrong.
It has to live in the right place.
For reversible things, agility can happen in the market.
For expensive things, agility has to happen before scale.

Build.
Test.
Break.
Fix.
Stress-test.
Then ship.

This made me look at my own work differently.

Different game. Same trap.

I spent months thinking through the business:

ICP.
Target market.
Ideal client.
Offer.
Positioning.
Delivery.
Sales motion.
What good clients should look like.

It felt serious.

But the output was not serious enough.
Not enough sales calls.
Not enough rejection data.
Not enough hard proof.
Not enough delivery feedback.
So I questioned my effort.
“Maybe I’m not pushing hard enough.”
But sometimes effort is not the issue.
Sometimes the plan has simply stayed too long away from reality.

Working harder on an untested plan is still waste.

Changing everything whenever frustration shows up is also waste.

That’s where the sprint matters.

Pick the plan.
Run it properly.
Get market contact.
Read the output.
Then keep, fix, or kill.
A plan deserves a sprint.
Not blind loyalty.
Speed is not the goal.
Learning before the bill comes due is the goal.

[Casper @CasperOnChain]

Alex Hormozi says the secret to happiness is repeating your best days

"My boss told me, ‘The secret to happiness is living as many days in a row like that as you can’"

"What is one day that I like and how do I live that day as many times in a row as possible?"

[Zen Mohanty | B2B 📈 @ScaleWithZen]

@hariharan790 @abhipsyc @KiranKS Not scripted; but definitely planned for entertainment.

I can prove with data.

[Zen Mohanty | B2B 📈 @ScaleWithZen]

@paraschopra Most people in their 20s go to the gym for signal. But beyond that, they mostly go for mental health, fitness & longevity.

But if cognitive load will be gone, some people will do it stuff for status. And some people will wait for high quality research.

[Zen Mohanty | B2B 📈 @ScaleWithZen]

@jspujji 🚀

[Navalism @NavalismHQ]

Happiness (if you want it):*

1. Meet basic needs

2. Avoid cheap dopamine

3. Leave the past alone

4. Limit desires to ones achievable at the edge of your capability

5. Find something beyond yourself (mission, children, God)

*Most people want something else.

@naval