
What Makes Founders Succeed - revorad
http://foundersatwork.posthaven.com/what-makes-founders-succeed
======
DenisM
A funny story linked to this book.

Having read half the book at the time it came out, I noticed that there is
pretty much nothing in common between all the various founders. In particular
founders of RIM and Craigslist are people from different planets. I complained
loudly about it, and eventually a friend pointed out that there was something
I overlooked - they have all tried. Somehow that turned out to be a profound
revelation to me. Combined with another push from a colleague, who's said
"Denis, you always talk about these ideas you had, how come you never do much
with them", that got me to start doing things rather than thinking about them.

~~~
briholt
"Showing up is half the battle"

~~~
jsprogrammer
"the other half is actually winning"

~~~
fezz
And there's short term winning and long term winning. You can win short term
as a founder and screw things up long term.

~~~
Retra
I'm curious what inspires people to go three levels deep into a game of
tautological platitudes.

~~~
jsprogrammer
Increases the absurdity, which increases the chances someone will notice the
flaws, instead of blindly integrating useless platitudes.

------
zekevermillion
When I read about founders, I always think back to a college class I took,
Weapons War & Strategy. The instructor had a favorite anecdote, to show the
vast difference between normal people and elite warriors. In WWII, the German
Navy used submarines to prowl around looking for shipping to sink. And it had
a big (at least psychological) impact. But statistically something like 90% of
tonnage sunk by the Kriegsmarine was due to 1% of U-boat captains. The rest of
them were apparently just cruising around the ocean trying to avoid getting
killed themselves.

~~~
toxicFork
Are Kriegsmarine the submarines? Are U-boats submarines? What's a tonnage?
Who's "the rest of them", are they the ships that sank? Sorry I'm not great
with history or the navy...

~~~
pm
Kriegsmarine was (I think) the name for the German navy. U-boats were
essentially submarines. Tonnage was the proportion of weight of the boats
sunk. The "rest of them" refers to the rest of the U-boat captains.

------
staunch
What prevents JL from creating a Founders at Work 2 is what prevents 99% of
founders from creating their first startup.

For most founders the situation is far bleaker though. There's an incredible
amount of sacrifice required to even attempt a startup if you have a family,
can't get investors, and all your friends and family are poor people. And yet
this is what most people face today.

Determination alone really isn't enough. You need help. The one thing all
successful founders have in common is that they found help early on from
people in a position to help.

~~~
nostromo
> You need help. The one thing all successful founders have in common is that
> they found help early on from people in a position to help.

Isn't that exactly what JL and PG have made a career doing?

~~~
wakaflockafliz
Are you saying PG/YC is in the business of being charitable? I think that
behavior only emerges when the average payout is larger than what they put
in..

~~~
stingrae
How do you explain YC investing in Non-profits like Watsi? There is more to YC
than the payout. There is definitely a core goal to help good people build
better products. Money just usually follows.

~~~
wakaflockafliz
Easily explained: TAX DEDUCTIBLE!

Sorry, but I am not buying into the theory that "money just follows". That's a
sweet pipe dream and all, but not a reality I'm familiar with.

~~~
landryraccoon
I don't follow. A donation is a net loss even after the tax deduction. There
is no profit from funding a non-profit, even if you can take a tax write off.

If you want to be cynical, good PR would be a much better explanation than
something involving taxes.

------
visarga
Luck and passion. But mostly luck.

Example: how is it possible that Google couldn't make its own successful video
streaming service and had to buy YT for billions? They had the expertise and
money, but it didn't catch on.

Why did previous tablets fail and iPad succeed? Microsoft was into tablets
long before iPad.

Sometimes, no matter how rich or smart you are, or how good your idea is, it's
going to flop because it didn't encounter the perfect environment and moment
to take roots. Because not even rich players can control the environment, they
resort to buying promising startups trying to hitch a ride to success on their
wings, or alternatively, the YCombinator model of seeding and grooming
startups. How many of YC startups flopped, even with help?

Edit: seems I am not in agreement with the crowd. Instead of downvoting,
please argue in replies.

~~~
dasil003
You're getting downvoted because luck isn't actionable, it's just a post-hoc
explanation of events. There's always someone who wants to make themselves
feel better about their lack of success by attributing others' to luck.

But here's the thing, we are all continuous actors in our own lives.
Successful founders have a healthy vision of what they can control and what
they can't, and they try to maneuver their companies into a position to
succeed based on the state of the world as they see it at the time. What looks
like luck from 30,000 feet was actually the result of a concerted effort day-
in and day-out, usually over the course of years, to put themselves in a
position to succeed. The fact that there success isn't reproducible, or that
they weren't in control of everything does not mean that they succeeded
because luck. That's a lullaby that wantrepreneurs tell themselves to protect
their egos, but it's poisonous to ones ability to build something successful.

~~~
mgkimsal
"Successful founders have a healthy vision of what they can control and what
they can't, and they try to maneuver their companies into a position to
succeed based on the state of the world as they see it at the time. What looks
like luck from 30,000 feet was actually the result of a concerted effort day-
in and day-out, usually over the course of years, to put themselves in a
position to succeed"

...

Isn't calling something a "healthy vision" also a post-hoc explanation of
events? I see people putting in "a concerted effort day-in and day-out... to
put themselves in a position to succeed" but they generally don't know ahead
of time all those factors necessary, so after several years of not
succeeding... what did they do wrong?

Each path to 'success' at the level most people think of it, with respect to
deca-millionaire levels of wealth - generally doesn't appear to be
reproducible at all.

~~~
dasil003
The difference that I'm trying to highlight is that calling something "luck"
takes away the responsibility of the actors. This is a dangerous mentality for
a founder, because their own actions and decisions _are all they have in the
pursuit of success_.

> _I see people putting in "a concerted effort day-in and day-out... to put
> themselves in a position to succeed" but they generally don't know ahead of
> time all those factors necessary, so after several years of not
> succeeding... what did they do wrong?_

They took wrong actions in pursuit of their goals. Whether they can pinpoint
specific actions is up to the individual, and ultimately it's a guessing game.
But to throw your hands up and declare luck is a weak-minded excuse—certainly
we must acknowledge that given infinite possibilities, success was possible,
they just didn't find the right path.

~~~
timr
_" calling something "luck" takes away the responsibility of the actors. This
is a dangerous mentality for a founder, because their own actions and
decisions are all they have in the pursuit of success."_

On the other hand, I've met plenty of depressed, _completely delusional_
startup founders who were convinced that their business failure meant that
they did something wrong, because hey...it's never luck, right?

You're setting up a false dichotomy: it's possible -- essential, really -- too
acknowledge that luck plays the most important part in any startup. You still
have to maximize your chances of getting lucky, and that's the part you can
control.

------
7Figures2Commas
There are countless founders who have failed who:

1\. Were determined.

2\. Demonstrated perseverance.

3\. Suffered rejection.

4\. Are adaptable.

5\. Weren't motivated entirely by money.

The primary reason a founder succeeds is that he or she works on the right
thing at the right time and does it in the right way. That's vague and
practically unactionable, so it's not going to become a popular view, but the
reality is there's no set of character traits that guarantee success, and
there's no blueprint for building a successful company. If there was, 90% of
the founders in Silicon Valley would be fabulously wealthy, and half the
people who attend Startup School would have a unicorn within two years.

You can have incredible character traits, but if you're working on the wrong
thing, or going about building the right thing at the wrong time in the wrong
ways, it doesn't matter how smart, hard-working, adaptable, etc. you are.

The power law distributions at even the best venture capital funds demonstrate
just how difficult it is to identify founders who are going to succeed, even
when trying to do so is your full-time job.

~~~
qmalxp
Perhaps the point isn't that people with these traits always succeed, but
rather that people who succeed all have these traits.

~~~
gull
And also, that knowing the traits doesn't mean you can change yourself to
adopt them fast enough or at all.

------
sparkzilla
It's a really great essay. I love the quote "Don’t worry about people stealing
your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you’ll have to ram them down people’s
throats". I think the most exciting time for a founder is when you've done
that and the world starts to catch up with you, and the uncertainty,
rejection, stress and work starts to pay off. For those interested I collected
many of Jessica's interviews here: [http://newslines.org/jessica-
livingston/](http://newslines.org/jessica-livingston/)

------
jordigg
Would love to see a new book about successful and not so successful founders
and lessons learned along the way. Comparing them with the first book to find
interesting facts about how things and people's perspective have changed over
time will be very interesting. Something else would love to read about is
international founders and how moving to the valley helped them succeed
comparing when they were in their respective countries.

Thanks to Jessica for all her work and heart she is putting helping founders
succeed and this way inspire others around the world to keep creating great
things.

------
throwaway41597
If determination is the single most important quality, doesn't it deserve its
own book? Determination is so personal and emotional, it'd be hard to find
founders willing to confide, but I believe it would fill a huge need for
aspiring founders. Maybe some stories would have to be anonymous, but if
vetted by an author such as jl, that would be okay I think.

It would also be useful to hear more actual failure stories, not only those
from founders who have managed to turn things around, but those who just
failed. Even if it scares some away from startups, maybe there are some
lessons to be learnt too.

~~~
unabst
Actually I don't agree that determination is personal. It boils down to love
really. It's the passion that keeps every founder going and most of them wear
it on their sleeve in addition to completely embodying it. They use it to hire
people, to sell their idea, and to keep going. But the key is for passion to
ascend into will power. The best common man analogy is when we must go pee. We
do whatever it takes to prevent public embarrassment with complete focus,
maximum speed, and accute intellect. For a moment we all become geniuses.
Entreprenuers use this power to overcome anything. Of course not because they
want to but because they are forced to... As if to avoid embarrassment.

~~~
throwaway41597
> I don't agree that determination is personal

Love and passion are as personal as it gets.

> It boils down to love really

And "what's love?" You don't choose who you love or what you're passionate
about while determination is deliberate effort. I agree that love helps you do
things that are hard but it's so whimsical and out of your control that I
think it's not enough. Say you love video games and programming, is that
enough to make a successful game? Unless you try tens of games, throw away all
but one, debug the hell out the performance and manage to market it in such a
crowded market, you'll always fall short I think.

> when we must go pee. We do whatever it takes

Not very convinced by your analogy. Starting a company is a long-term effort.
And usually, there aren't many road blocks on your way to the bathroom.

~~~
unabst
But passion is what makes you determined and not give up. Like chasing someone
you have a crush on. And imagine wanting to pee in an unfamiliar town or even
a foreign country. We would get creative. Starting a company is long-term
repetition of immediately threatening circumstances.

------
Alex3917
In addition to successful innovations looking bad, successful founders often
look pretty bad as well. Maybe not right when they're starting whatever
business that is actually going to be successful, because presumably by that
point they more or less have their shit together. But certainly five or ten
years before, when they are spending their time learning things that are
valuable rather than optimizing for grades, career success, etc.

------
semerda
Love the book!

Could founder success early on be broken into 2 parts?: 1\. Founder EQ
(internal + external) and 2\. Market/Time.

We know that in the wrong market/time startups have a hard time gaining
traction. Sometimes you need to give time i.e. keep going through the dark
times; to reach a time when the market is ready/needs what you are offering.
It's that analogy "A rising tide lifts all boats". So you need to get your
boat into the water.

As for Founder EQ. Internally - strong to battle through the tough emotional
times (perseverance, adaptability etc) and externally - how the founders
communicate and work together to get stuff done. We know founder disputes kill
many early startups.

Once traction is gained and money flows then those 2 might not be as
important. Money does solve many problems. At that point everyone inside the
company is spinning the cog and inertia takes over.

------
bozoUser
I haven`t read the book but it would be interesting if we can see some stories
about founders who have failed or the mistakes that these founders committed
that proved very costly. Would love to see some major examples of what/how
things went wrong - did some feature/stand from the founders or board result
in a backlash from the community (ex: recent press on reddit) or a product
that couldn't stand by itself for too long etc.

------
hkmurakami
This is not to knock anything or anyone at all but... to posit that
"perseverance makes founders succeed" seems to promote some very strong
survivor bias.

Or maybe it just sounds sort of perversely tautological to me. Seeing people
follow _necessary but not sufficient_ conditions just sounds perilous to me,
even as a founder myself.

~~~
chmike
Succeeding founders where perseverant, but being perseverant will necessarily
make you succeed. It is a correlation, not a cause-effect relationship.

------
dom96
I've never read this book but would love to. After looking it up on Amazon I
see two books: Founders at Work and European Founders at Work. Has anybody
read both or can comment on either? Should I buy the former, the latter (I
live in Europe) or both?

~~~
cjbarber
The former is by Jessica. The second one is not by Jessica -- seems to be an
inspired imitation.

I'd suggest buying the former (at least at first).

------
decisiveness
>People like the idea of innovation in the abstract, but when you present them
with any specific innovation, they tend to reject it, because it doesn’t fit
with what they already know.

This can be true, but I think often, people tend to reject an idea because it
_does_ fit with what they already know.

People look for usefulness, and will hastily disregard something that reminds
them of a previous innovation that failed. I don't doubt they are sometimes
wrong, and perseverance on a seemingly weak innovation can be turned into
something wildly successful, I just wonder how many founders wasted much
effort trying to succeed when their innovation never really had a chance to be
very useful.

