

Why he is there and I am here - robfitz
http://thestartuptoolkit.com/blog/2013/12/1888/

======
patio11
In general, I've found it a bit more helpful to think "Where do I want to go
and what is the clear next step to a place closer to there than where I am
today?" rather than "Why am I not like this other person who I am not like?"
It's less disempowering and more actionable.

Bully for the gentleman who lives in Costa Rica. His success in no way makes
you worse off. If you presently do not have a software business, and you want
to some day have a software business, there's a very short list of things I
could recommend to you. Writing software and selling software are at the top
of the list.

If you want to run a software agency, your two tasks are stuffing the pipeline
and delivering engagements. If you don't have an engagement yet, find an
engagement, preferably one which will provide you a client/project that has
citation value in dealing with new clients. You then go on a cycle of stuff
pipeline to bursting / hire new employees to deliver engagements / stuff
pipeline to bursting / etc.

------
davidw
Well... sorry, but without more details, that's just fluff.

* How did they handle the stuff they weren't good at?

* Was this tested with other people? Is it possible to apply the method to people who were previously doing stuff they weren't good at and see results?

* With a startup, that does not have much money, the founders are responsible for doing everything. Presumably, they are not good at all of it. What should they do?

~~~
hjw
I think he means the general field of the startup catered to his skill set,
not the entirety of the project.

Also with X amount of founders presumably if one person cannot say design the
site, maybe another once can. I would assume not all of his cofounders have
exactly the same skill sets, but complimentary ones.

~~~
davidw
Well I'd rather not make assumptions and guesses, I want to read about how
things worked out.

~~~
hjw
You are right, and my comment was fairly speculative. I see it more as a
motivational piece though.

------
henrik_w
Yes, focus on your strengths. I like this quote:

"For years I have urged managers to concentrate their efforts in areas in
which they are strong and to waste as little effort as possible trying to
improve the areas in which they don't have much competence."

Peter Drucker (1909 - 2005), Austrian author of management-related literature

~~~
lazyjones
This is in contrast to a lot of recent advice on improving cognitive skills,
which tells us to do things that are hard, not those we are already good at
(basically the old specialist vs. generalist debate).

~~~
seren
I think that the rationale is that if you are already good at something, you
probably like to work in that area, and it won't be a chore to become even
better at it, you can become more "naturally" better.

I heard in recent coaching/leadership training that, as human beings, we have
a tendency to focus on our weakness or negative feedback, even if you got some
positive feedback at the same time. So it can cloud you judgement on how to
improve because you miss the big picture.

But it is more in an overall development sense, and is rather orthogonal to
develop cognitive skills or brain training.

~~~
6d0debc071
Comparative advantage[1] would be reason enough by itself. Why invest in
becoming a good programmer if you're bad at programming if you'll probably
never be as super-great at it as someone who found it easy and does it all the
time? It would make more sense for you to work on something you're already
really good at and trade with them to get the code you want.

In terms of the generalist vs specialist thing I'm reminded of the idea of
T-shaped people. Broad general competence to allow you to meaningfully be part
of the system, and deep specific competence to allow you a comparative edge.

Always end up wondering what the trade-offs are on how deep the tail of that
is compared to the height of the top though.

1\.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage)

------
frobozz
This is somewhat impotent advice, you don't just magically make money by
giving up everything you're no good at. There are two reasons for this:

1) I'm good at making things. I'm bad at sales, marketing, hiring and
delegation. I concentrate all my efforts on making things. Where's my 5
million?

2) You have to give it a reasonable punt. For example, there would be no
professional musicians if everyone followed this advice. No one picks up a
guitar or bassoon and declares themselves "good" straight away.

~~~
userulluipeste
1) Partner up with people good at sales, marketing, hiring and delegation.

2) You're right, «nobody is "good" straight away», there is a constant self-
improvement required. Yet, one might have inclinations which would make more
sense to invest in instead of stretching oneself thin all over.

------
UK-AL
Except 90% of jobs want to pidgin hole you. People have very little control
over what they end up doing in their jobs. The market dictates. You can't just
stop doing the stuff you don't like, and do the other stuff.

~~~
pc86
I don't know too many circumstances where you can take a $5 million payout
when you're working for someone else.

------
timdiggerm
Author assumes he's just as "good" as the guy he was talking to. Such optimism
may be wrong.

------
goshx
Great quote: "Raw talent is wasted if it’s busy doing the wrong stuff."

The key is figuring out what one is good at. Some people believe they are good
on something, trying to prove that to peers, but they are not.

------
ansimionescu
Um... Strengths Finder?
[http://strengths.gallup.com/110440/default.aspx](http://strengths.gallup.com/110440/default.aspx)

------
triskweline
Only doing what you're good at seems at odd with running a start-up, where
almost by definition you need to fight through stuff you don't like or excel
in.

If you're persistent you will eventually get to "design" your own job, but
that's some years down the road. If you want to concentrate on the things you
are good at _today_ , look for a nice 9-to-5 job at a company that matches
your values and don't look back.

------
danso
This part is a little too ambiguous:

> _I wanted to know why he can pull that off and I can’t. He’s 42; I’m 29. I
> asked what changed for him in the last 12 years. Was he always this
> good?...The first thing he said was this: Yeah, I was always this good. So
> were my cofounders...[but] I was also doing lots of stuff I wasn’t good at.
> The only thing I changed in the last 12 years is that I stopped doing those
> bits. "_

I think it's possible to think that part of being "good" is knowing "good"
from "bad", or, "wisdom" as others might put it. I don't think it's necessary
to think of "being good" as different from "being experienced"...as the two
qualities are so tightly co-dependent in something like
programming/designing/business-building.

It's an important distinction to make because I don't think we have to
attribute the success of young hacker/entrepreneurs to plain raw talent. Did
Facebook become the biggest network because Zuckerberg was the best PHP
developer in all of Harvard? I think the young people who hit it big do so
because they're in a phase of life when trying big risky new things is
_encouraged_ , and these provide opportunities and insights that are less
available to a middle-aged person of the same raw talent.

So, if you believe in karma and a purposeful universe, there's a nice balance
here...young creators have growing/hungry minds and fewer shackles...older
creators have more wisdom...and so there's a great number of avenues to
success for young and old.

(I'm leaving out luck/connections/privilege in this discussion, but they are
obviously factors for young and old)

~~~
henrik_w
Regarding luck, this was here on HN recently: "What if successful startups are
just lucky?"
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6794612](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6794612)

And the top comment (by pg): All successful startups are lucky, but they're
never _just_ lucky.

