

Chris Dixon, I love you man but you are wrong - satishmreddy
http://www.thoughtsonconsumerweb.com/chris-dixon-i-love-you-man-but-you-are-wrong/

======
mgkimsal
I guess I don't know enough about Chris Dixon.

"I don’t care if you succeed or fail, if you are Bill Gates or an unknown
entrepreneur who gave everything to make it work but didn’t manage to pull
through. The important distinction is whether you risked everything, put your
life on the line, made commitments to investors, employees, customers and
friends, and tried – against all the forces in the world that try to keep new
ideas down – to make something new."

Frankly, I don't care if Chris Dixon cares. I've got a 'hunch' he probably
wouldn't care if I care.

"The important distinction" in his mind is being 'a founder'. Plenty of early-
stage employees "risk everything", "put their life on the line", "make
commitments to investors, fellow employees, friends and family" and try
against all the forces in the world to make something new. It's just that as
'employees' they didn't 'found' it, which seems to be the distinction he's
drawing. In certain circles, a 'founder' is actually risking less, because
they're the ones out there pressing the flesh, networking, and being in the
public eye.

Even if that project fails, they've had months/years of networking with the
movers and shakers in their industry, while the other nameless schmucks toiled
away in relative obscurity to get absolutely 0. "Fail fast" is a mantra that
would be respected enough by many in startup circles to give that founder a
second, third, fourth chance at more funding or other opportunities. The
opportunities are much less open for someone who's bounced between startups,
chasing the dream from founder to founder, but never worked anywhere with any
real cachet ("sr lead developer on team of 2 on bijengo.com"). They'll hurt
their career later when they go back to 'job' (because funding keeps drying up
and they can't live off credit cards forever), and much of the corporate world
looks down on job hopping (that's a whole other story).

I've got loads of respect for the doers out there - people who make things
happen - regardless of whether they're the 'founder' or just one of the
initial core team that made the founders' vision a reality.

EDIT: Argh - the more I think about that post, the more miffed I get. Who the
hell works for this guy? Why would you want to work for someone who - by their
very public postings and pronouncements - holds the entirety of your chosen
life path in contempt? You can say I'm reading too much in to it, but "the
important distinction" part of that post - just over the top. How about, "the
important distinction" being whether you gave life your all, and used whatever
talents you have to create the best possible life for yourself and those
around you, "founder status" be damned? hunch.com could _not_ succeed with 50
"founders" running around making pronouncements - any successful company
_requires_ the very types of people Chris seems to look down on.

WAY too preachy of a post, and it would make me extremely wary of ever wanting
to do business with him. But I'm sure this sort of post rallies the faithful
who may be honored to spend $1000 to sit with him at a conference or charity
lunch. :)

~~~
satishmreddy
Wow. Thats much better said that the initial post. :)

~~~
mgkimsal
Thanks. I added a bit more after reflecting further. You were right to bring
it up, and thanks for giving me a moment to vent.

Back to 'working for myself' now. :)

~~~
satishmreddy
In general I like Chris and think he is a very helpful person. Shares his
knowledge. Just don't agree with this particular post of his. I was pissed
after seeing techcrunch follow up so I had to rant too. :)

------
klochner
Derek Sivers (paraphrased slightly):

    
    
        "As a leader, you should nuture your first few followers
         as equals, so it's about the movement, not you.
    
         Leadership is overglorified - it is really the first 
         follower who transforms the lone nut into a leader."
    

[http://www.ted.com/talks/derek_sivers_how_to_start_a_movemen...](http://www.ted.com/talks/derek_sivers_how_to_start_a_movement.html)

~~~
satishmreddy
Completely agree with that.

------
kenjackson
This is a comment from Lucretia Pruitt from CDixon's original entry. Truer
words, never spoken:

 _'The important distinction is whether you risked everything, put your life
on the line' -- CDixon

Really? I think you might be confusing "lifestyle" with "life" - soldiers,
police officers, fire fighters... They put their _lives_ on the line. Until
there's gunfire in the boardroom or the need to run through a burning building
to plug in a server? You don't have any idea what putting your life on the
line means if you think it fits in with being a startup guy.

Putting your life on the line means risking you life - last I checked, not a
lot of "oops sorry Bob - the market took a wrong turn and it killed us... So
here's your poison pill, hare kiri knife, gun with just one bullet... We know
you'll do the right thing."

I've been the kid of the successful start up parents - even when they were off
with new partners. It's no noble, heroic, the-music-swells-at-the-end scene
where the kids clambour around the conquering parent saying "Yes! Yes! Who
cares if you missed every school play I was ever in! You built a company from
the ground up and won!"

No, actually, your kids will have the dual issue of hating that they never had
you around and have sworn never to do that to their own kids along with this
knowledge that the only way you'll approve of them is if the do the same thing
to their kids.

Some day we'll hit that paradigm where success doesn't require the sacrifice
of you family - but apparently not today._

------
webwright
"...who are putting their careers on the line working for a no name company
that may fail any day"

If you're talking about software engineers, I don't think there's much risk
there other than opportunity cost. When a company folds, other startups
generally swarm pretty quickly to snatch up the team.

Chris is absolutely right that there are two types of people in the world, but
isn't necessarily saying there aren't THREE types of people in the world. Or a
whole spectrum. But his point stands-- a founder suffers through everything
this post describes PLUS working for free/debt for months.

~~~
pvodsevhcm
Yes, that's what I recall happening in the valley from 2001-2004. Other
startups just swarmed over the hundreds of thousands of developers out of
work.

~~~
enjo
That extended far beyond early stage employees. Hundreds of thousands of folks
(nationwide) lost their jobs at established companies in the wake of that
mess. I don't see how early stage employees faced any greater risk.

~~~
pvodsevhcm
> Hundreds of thousands of folks (nationwide) lost their jobs at established
> companies in the wake of that mess.

False. If you went to the east coast, people were largely unaffected by the
dot-bomb in the valley. The most significant impact was seeing various stock
market indexes drop, which hit people in the pocketbook, but it did not result
in layoffs.

------
melvinram
Reading Dixon's post (not comments, just the post), I didn't get the sense
that he was devaluing the work or sacrifices of early or even late stage
employees who are going to give a lot of their "sweat & blood". From what I
gathered, he was saying that the entrepreneurs are a different breed of people
after the experience and that the joys and pains are different for them.

Let's get one part of the post out of the way first. The OP talks about
missing family events for the company. Not wise, but understandable. I've
taken similar decisions very early in my life and wouldn't do it again whether
as a founder or employee. Not wise, but understandable. That aside, what the
OP experienced as an early employee was likely the tip of the iceberg that the
founders experienced on other instances.

The OP mentions not getting paychecks for some stretches. I applaud him for
doing that but what he didn't experience was that 6 months prior, the founder
probably took out a 2nd mortgage to keep up with everything and that they
might be taking no salary or deferring it. What they didn't experience was the
haunting thought of telling the employee that they might not be able to make
payroll or worse, playing out the current situation 6-12 months out and seeing
that you (the founder) might have to do the most painful part of your role and
tell them that you can't afford to keep them.

I've know friends who've taken out that 2nd mortgage and truly given their
all. When I started, I didn't own a home so I had the fortune of not having
that option. However, I've had to do that last part the first year that I got
in business. It hurts like hell even till today, 8 years later. The stress
that you face, day in and day out... it's bad. Now I don't discount the work
or the sacrifices that my initial employee made. He'll always have a brother
in me and he has my greatest appreciation & respect. But it's just not the
same.

I think that's what Dixon was saying. I'm curious though what prompted his
train of thought.

~~~
satishmreddy
"You’ve either started a company or you haven’t. ”Started” doesn’t mean
joining as an early employee, or investing or advising or helping out. ......
The important distinction is whether you risked everything, put your life on
the line, made commitments to investors, employees, customers and friends, and
tried – against all the forces in the world that try to keep new ideas down –
to make something new."

That is what pissed me off. I was not a founder. I did not have a house and I
was not going to take any more CC debt. But I put everything else I had on the
line. And Chris is telling me that unless I founded a company everything I
gave up meant nothing. Even founders draw the line some where right. After
that second mortgage? Similarly I had my line drawn some where too but it was
pretty deep.

~~~
melvinram
Not the same as being a founder is not == nothing.

Being an early stage employee takes guts, it's respected and often they are
going play a ginormous role in the success or failure of the company.

But's not the same as being a founder. There is nothing to get bent out of
shape about. It's just different.

Similar to how the President bares the ultimate responsibility and stress even
though the brave soliders in the field and the generals that command them pay
the ultimate price at times.

~~~
satishmreddy
Not getting bent out of shape. Just politely disagreeing with Chris. :)

I appreciate Chris a lot for the time he puts into his blog and I have
acknowledged that numerous times in my comments on disqus.

But I disagree with him on this topic.

------
onan_barbarian
Looking through to the original post, I've got to agree with Satish on this
one. I've met plenty of 'early employees' with WAY more skin in the startup
game than a lot of 'founders' I've met.

Here in Australia, particularly, you can't swing a cat without hitting a half-
dozen rich kids or mid-life Accenture employees looking to jazz up their
comfortable lives who have founded tiny, pointless companies that will wander
around for a while then comfortably expire.

This makes them a 'founder', and thus somehow in a different category to
employee #5 or #3 or whatever of Google, Facebook or Microsoft. Big. Fucking.
Deal.

------
civilian
Honestly, maybe the OP was working too hard? I mean... did he get lots of
equity? A million dollar pay-day? If not, I don't think it would be worth it
to do 5 years of long-distance with one's significant other.

~~~
kleinsch
Agreed. If you're going to make sacrifices like that, you better have a "set
for life" equity stake in the company. Otherwise, you're just a sucker.

------
enjo
I've been on both sides of this coin. Once as a founder (just over 4 years)
and once as a very early employee (5 years). While I can certainly appreciate
the level of commitment and hard work that those early employees put in,
nothing compares to the stress level of ultimately being in charge of the
thing.

The fact is, the world needs both. Early stage employees may not bear the
risk, but they'll certainly bear much of the responsibility. Without smart,
hard working, and extremely dedicated team members the day-to-day stress of
building a company would kill me. That I can offload some of that stress to a
unique set of people that make up my team... is huge.

I think they're both right. Maybe there are three types of people in the
world? Founders, doers, and all the rest?

~~~
satishmreddy
"Early stage employees may not bear the risk, but they'll certainly bear much
of the responsibility."

That nails it.

------
danilocampos
I was hoping this would be an indictment of Dixon's remarks by pointing out
that there's a lot more in the world than the passion-or-cash fueled Candy
Land nerd orgy that is the world of startups. And that, in this larger world,
there are many other types of people who really do impressive things as well.
(edit: And, the trouble with pissing contests set up over binary distinctions
is that all I have to do is find a trauma surgeon or an astronaut to make the
argument look silly. It's just such a bad way to make a point.)

But OP used the same lens as Dixon. And if we're going to settle with that
lens, well, Dixon is right – it's tough to beat the guys who put their nuts on
the line while everyone calls them crazy. No matter how crazy their followers
(that is, employees) end up being.

I say we all agree that the world is too interesting and nuanced to divide
people up by a single bit.

~~~
satishmreddy
I agree that life is much more than just a startup. There are many more things
more valuable than making a startup successful. My point is that the founders
deserve credit for a companies success but discrediting early employees is
ridiculous.

------
klochner
when self-hosting goes wrong . . . site is down, can anyone summarize?

~~~
civilian
The post was in response to [http://cdixon.org/2011/04/26/there-are-two-kinds-
of-people-i...](http://cdixon.org/2011/04/26/there-are-two-kinds-of-people-in-
the-world/)

============

You wrote a post saying there are “two kinds of people in the world” putting
founders in a different plane than everyone else including the early employees
who put their lives on the line to work with you.

There are more than two types of people. And when you say that you undervalue
all the early employees at a company who are putting their careers on the line
working for a no name company that may fail any day. It undervalues every
engineering manager who went without a pay check the last two months but has
to hustle to hire an employee to get product out the door on time. It
undervalues every early employee who lived in the office all week to get your
product out the door. It undervalues every business dev guy who is being asked
“who do you work for again?” and puts on a smile to sell your product. it
undervalues every engineering manager who is working their ass off to hire
good people when the top companies are hiring like crazy.

I didnt found a company but I wanted to make the one I joined as an early
employee succeed at all cost. And I gave it 8 years of my life. I got a pay
check but I gave it much much more than I got paid for.

* I skipped both my brother’s and my sister’s weddings in India.

* I visited my dad who had a stroke once in 5 years as I was working non-stop.

* I did long distance for 5 of the 8 years I dated/married to my wife.

* I travelled non stop for 2 of the 3 years we lived in the same apt.

* I went without a pay check for months at a stretch to keep the company going when times got tough and I hustled to get the company back on track.

So Chris please dont tell me that only Founders matter.

~~~
earl
Wow. I really hope the blogger isn't proud of neglecting his brother, sister,
father, and wife for some company. He has skewed priorities.

~~~
satishmreddy
It is not about being proud. It is about the fact that it is not only the
founders who face difficult choices and make a lot of sacrifices to get a
company off the ground. :)

Priorities change with age when you get wiser but those were the choices I
made in my 20s for a company that I was not a founder of.

------
shareme
Humility, I would state unless he as worked as either type ..Mr Dixion needs a
lesson in humility before preaching to any o either class..

Too many of the VC asset class problems today resemble the need to make
assumptions not borne out by experience with some those VCs never having had
their own decision making forged under real conditions.

I can now understand why older VCs sometimes give Mr Dixon the yelling
treatment.

------
jsavimbi
Site down already?

~~~
satishmreddy
AWS issues. rebooting.

------
benmathes
To paraphrase this whole debate: "My group is better than your group because I
am a member of it".

