

Difficult is Good - cwan
http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2011/02/difficult-is-good.html

======
wallflower
How much of brilliance/perseverance can be nurtured/injected by parents early
on?

SCVNGR's Seth Priebatsch[1]

"It's an idea that a 5-year-old Seth also learned on a ski trip.

Seth's dad took him to the top of a black diamond run and skied down about 100
feet to wait for his unprepared son. Seth threw a fit, cursing up as much of a
storm as a 5-year-old could muster. But then it clicked.

"He wasn't going to come get me," he said, "so at a certain point, you just
start moving."

Also, Bill Gates [2]

"The future software mogul was a headstrong 12-year-old and was having a
particularly nasty argument with his mother at the dinner table. Fed up, his
father threw a glass of cold water in the boy's face.

"Thanks for the shower," the young Mr. Gates snapped."

"Still, they worried that [Bill] seemed to prefer books to people. They tried
to temper that streak by forcing him to be a greeter at their parties and a
waiter at his father's professional functions."

[1]
[http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/innovation/11/02/seth.priebatsc...](http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/innovation/11/02/seth.priebatsch.scvngr/index.html)

[2] <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124061372413054653.html>

~~~
arethuza
I'm pretty sure those traits can be influenced by parents - but the real
question is what the long term success rate is. I've met people who did really
well because their parents provided that kind of focus, but I've also met
people who were completely screwed up by it.

Our own approach has been to make sure our son has had a lot of opportunities
to learn stuff (e.g. he has been skiing since his 3rd birthday) but we do try
and ensure that these things are first and foremost about being fun rather
than an ordeal.

------
dabent
I do wonder what Fred Wilson and other VCs perceive as "difficult," even from
brilliant people. A founder demanding to retain control after a series A might
be seen as difficult from the VC's eyes. A founder who has a great vision
that's not easily understood and is strong-willed might be seen as difficult,
but that's the kind of brilliance and persistence that's also seen as the
means to success.

Then again, someone who just makes outrageous demands with no reason can be
worthless to just about everyone.

~~~
rgrieselhuber
Do many people actually give up control of the company after raising Series A?
I can't think of a single reason why I would do that.

~~~
dabent
pg actually wrote an essay about that:

<http://paulgraham.com/control.html>

------
palebluedot
How often is money made with normal people that are difficult to get along
with? If it is the same as normal + easygoing (i.e. rarely), then the defining
characteristic would seem to be brilliance (according to the referenced
quadrant chart).

Perhaps, however, it is more likely that a brilliant entrepreneur is difficult
as opposed to easygoing, so the article's point of needing to get along with
difficult people makes sense in that aspect. Do VC's & angels in general find
that correlation to hold true?

------
bennylope
Reminded me of an article from Harvard Business Review
([http://hbr.org/product/competent-jerks-lovable-fools-and-
the...](http://hbr.org/product/competent-jerks-lovable-fools-and-the-
formation-of/an/R0506E-PDF-ENG), accessible excerpt
<http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/4916.html>) about the same matrix. The authors
found that team members tend to prefer "lovable fools" over "competent jerks"
due simply to the difficulty of working with the latter. Of course, employees
working on a team don't have the same interests that investors do.

~~~
jdp23
My experience at companies large and small is that employees prefer likable
competent people over jerks and fools. Why isn't that also in the investors'
interests?

~~~
bennylope
Strictly comparing the bottom left quadrant (the "lovable fools") to the upper
right quadrant (the "competent jerks"). Everyone would rather work with
someone who is likable and competent.

In a large company, dabent's "BigCo", as long as you're getting your paycheck,
an easy-to-along-with but less competent coworker may be less of an impediment
to your ability to do your job than a competent jerk. It may also be that the
article's authors were not using the same concept of "difficult" as Fred
Wilson was.

~~~
jdp23
> Everyone would rather work with someone who is likable and competent.

So it would seem, but Sequoia says they make less money working with them than
they do with competent jerks.

> In a large company, dabent's "BigCo", as long as you're getting your
> paycheck, an easy-to-along-with but less competent coworker may be less of
> an impediment to your ability to do your job than a competent jerk.

The same's true in a small company. And it's easy to overlook the
destructiveness of jerks; [http://www.amazon.com/Asshole-Rule-Civilized-
Workplace-Survi...](http://www.amazon.com/Asshole-Rule-Civilized-Workplace-
Surviving/dp/0446526568) started as an HBR article as well. So once again, I
don't see why investors interests should be different.

~~~
ebaysucks
I think you and Fred Wilson are talking about different things.

Being a "jerk" is about backstabbing people. That's not a good long term
strategy.

Being "difficult" is sticking to your vision and not being afraid to offend
people defending it. That's a good long term strategy if you're a good
entrepreneur.

~~~
jdp23
Here's the definition Fred was using, by Don Valentine of Sequoia: 'Along one
axis, he put "easy to get along with" on one end and "hard to get along with"
on the other end.'

------
sayemm
"...most often we make money with brilliant people who are hard to get along
with, but we rarely make money with normal people who are easy to get along
with."

The former sounds just like Steve Jobs and the latter sounds just like John
Sculley.

------
nanijoe
Could it be that brilliant people who are easy to get along with, typically
dont need VCs to start with?

------
jdp23
Wait a second, though. Team dynamics are a key factor of any startup's success
(as snprbob was just saying at <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2208326>
). Difficult people screw that up.

So "sometimes we make money with brilliant people who are easy to get along
with, most often we make money with brilliant people who are hard to get along
with" may well be an accurate description of Sequoia's results, but the most
likely explanation for it is that it's due to how they're selecting during
their funding process and then how they're interacting with the companies once
they've funded them.

~~~
dabent
Someone can be difficult from an investor's perspective, but not so with a
team member. Both a team member have different personalities and motivations
which might not align. Co-founders are probably more likely to have found an
alignment, then moved forward together.

Also, if co-founders are friends, they've likely learned to get over each one
another's difficult spots and manage to have a bond that lets them work
together.

------
arrel
It's easy to get things done if you're a difficult bastard. People may not
like it, but if you yell loud enough they'll often do it. At least as long as
you're yelling.

Relating it back to Jim Collins's books (like "Good to Great"), the difficult
geniuses create phenomenal successes that peter out once they leave, but the
easy going geniuses build organizations that are great on their own and can
generate success without all the yelling.

Inspiration is more powerful than browbeating, but it's also a whole lot
harder.

------
code_duck
"sometimes we make money with brilliant people who are easy to get along with,
most often we make money with brilliant people who are hard to get along with,
but we rarely make money with normal people who are easy to get along with."

You can distill that down to "we make money with brilliant people, not normal
people". Seems reasonable.

It leaves out what must be the truly bad spot, normal people who are difficult
to get along with.

------
neworbit
TL;DR: We invest in brilliant people who get things done, we don't mind if
they're jerks as long as they get things done.

------
levigross
Wahoo I have hope!

