
Grow the Puzzle Around You - katm
http://foundersatwork.posthaven.com/grow-the-puzzle-around-you
======
closeparen
If you've spent any time working with stage managers, this isn't
counterintuitive at all. Complex human endeavor runs more smoothly with a
skilled and dedicated operator systematically clearing the logistical and
interpersonal hurdles, creating a conducive space for the "real" work. We've
known this for a while in performing arts. I hope call-outs like this will
bring tech around to the role’s importance.

~~~
escapecharacter
As a person with a theatre background now doing startup tech work, I agree the
magic of “the show must go on” is unparalleled.

------
kkotak
Thanks Jessica for that wonderful and candid post. I've applied for YC once a
while back but didn't get in. I think many founders who don't have access to
YC get bitter and start thinking it's a clan and only certain type of people
(Elite schools, etc.) get in.

I think the problem, as you rightly pointed out, is that a lot of
entrepreneurs are not that at all. They want to start a company and do a me-
too venture just to ride the 'Sold to XYZ' train.

No one likes the test or to be judged by others and resent being rejected.
When we talk of emotional intelligence, I think it's about knowing what you
want to and can do, and allowing your peers or mentors to help you get there.
I've met many YC alums and do see a certain set of qualities that unite them -
I suspect those are the ones you picked up on :)

Thanks to you and the YC team for creating a wonderful new pathways to
fulfillment for budding entrepreneurs.

------
wallflower
> The first was the quality that caused my YC cofounders to nickname me "The
> Social Radar." I was one of those kids that you just couldn’t get anything
> past. If something seemed off or out of character, I noticed and made
> inquiries. I was always trying to figure things out based on subtle social
> cues.

> When it came to investing, I had something that my cofounders didn’t have: I
> was the Social Radar. I couldn’t judge our applicants’ technical ability, or
> even most of the ideas. My cofounders were experts at those things. I looked
> at qualities of the applicants my cofounders couldn't see. Did they seem
> earnest? Were they determined? Were they flexible-minded? And most
> importantly, what was the relationship between the cofounders like? While my
> partners discussed the idea with the applicants, I usually sat observing
> silently. Afterward, they would turn to me and ask, "Should we fund them?"

Perhaps the unreplicable advantage of YC in its early years.

I've always been fascinated by this and would like to learn more about how to
do this. However, I think it is really a function of how much experience you
have talking to real people. For example, it is easier for me to retroactively
analyze a social situation after it happens (like a date) than to proactively
act and do the "right things" in the moment of the situation. I think it
really comes down to how much true experience and pattern recognition you
have. You can't analyze a situation correctly until you have been through it
way too many times and can "step back" from yourself.

I think perhaps a small handful of my more socially adept friends are good at
it but probably not at the level of JL.

~~~
whatshisface
You have to watch out for the "water dowser" effect. If you're in front of a
group of people who have no ability to check your answers, it's very easy to
convince them that you're always right. If a trusted person with good social
skills came in and said, "don't work with him he's not earnest," how would the
room ever find out whether he was or not? They'd be unlikely to trust him
enough to end up in a situation where they'd be able to see for themselves.

~~~
noonespecial
It's also impossible to know if she's "set right".

It's not enough to never pick a "bad" team if you're also turning away 9 out
of every 10 good ones.

~~~
michaelmior
That all depends on the return you get from the 1/10 good ones. If you do
great with that one good team, it could be totally worth it. I could
definitely imagine a scenario where picking no bad teams has higher value than
picking more both good and bad.

------
mrleiter
First of, thanks for being part of YC and making it such a great place. I've
never been there, but the whole spirit is healthy and that I very much
appreciate.

>I looked at qualities of the applicants my cofounders couldn't see. Did they
seem earnest? Were they determined? Were they flexible-minded? And most
importantly, what was the relationship between the cofounders like?

I second this. People who say soft skills are dead or unnecessary are wrong in
my opinion. Of course, software is software and hardware is hardware. But how
does it get there? And where does it go from there? People help people and
being nice to each other is not only more beautiful, but also leads to higher
productivity in my experience. Having more empathy for your co-founders,
employees and investors goes a long way.

~~~
jasode
_> People who say soft skills are dead _

Are you sure people actually say that? This struck me as odd because it seems
to be the total opposite of what people say. It seems virtually everyone
stresses _" soft skills"_ repeatedly.

But I have no proof of this so I just did a quick search of Google's 130
trillion pages to try and get a sense if people out there are really saying
that soft skills are useless:

 _" soft skills are dead"_: 3 results (and 2 of them happen to be from you in
this thread):
[https://www.google.com/search?q="soft+skills+are+dead"](https://www.google.com/search?q="soft+skills+are+dead")

 _" soft skills are useless"_: 7 results :
[https://www.google.com/search?q="soft+skills+are+useless"](https://www.google.com/search?q="soft+skills+are+useless")

 _" soft skills are worthless"_: 4 results :
[https://www.google.com/search?q="soft+skills+are+worthless"](https://www.google.com/search?q="soft+skills+are+worthless")

 _" soft skills are in demand"_: 43000 results :
[https://www.google.com/search?q="soft+skills+are+in+demand"](https://www.google.com/search?q="soft+skills+are+in+demand")

 _" soft skills in demand"_: 94000 results :
[https://www.google.com/search?q="soft+skills+in+demand"](https://www.google.com/search?q="soft+skills+in+demand")

Also, on HN... In the top 3 threads with "soft skills" in the title, the
comments all emphasize the importance of soft skills:
[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=soft%20skills&sort=byPopularit...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=soft%20skills&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story)

~~~
backpropaganda
"soft skills are dead" is not expressed that way. It's expressed as "the
cofounders should be tech", and other such advice which emphasizes the
technical capabilities of the cofounders and early hires, and to not trust
"suits". Not taking a side here, but just saying that the valley does tend to
emphasize a lot on tech over other aspects of running a business.

~~~
strken
It gets a bit complicated when the soft skill in question is dealing with
technical people and making sure they're as productive as possible, because
this has historically been an area where non-technical managers struggle.

------
reilly3000
What a great piece. There is a distinctive quality that YC's alum have in
common has shaped the rest of the software world. Would Microsoft be reshaping
its culture as it is without Dropbox, Stripe, Reddit and others demonstrating
a new way to operate, a new set of values? The world is better off IMHO with
the ethic that Jessica helped create. Go English Majors!

------
anant90
> I read the book Startup by Jerry Kaplan, about his pen computing company
> called GO, and I was immediately hooked.

Incidentally, I read Founders at Work by Jessica Livingston back in my college
senior year in 2012 and, as she put it, was immediately hooked.

Thanks for writing that book, and for everything else you've done for the
startup world.

------
nl
Jessica's 2001 (wow!) book "Founder's at Work"[1] is something everyone should
read.

The stories behind lots of theses names everyone has heard are amazing. I
still remember reading it in about 2006 and being so immediately impressed
with everything Paul Buchheit said. It was shocking to me, because I'd started
that chapter thinking he shouldn't be in the book ("Gmail? He's not a
founder!").

The other thing was the superficial "insights" that one particular (well
known) founder had in the book. They were clearly wrong, and they have colored
my thinking about luck and being in the right place ever since. It's only
recently I've started rethinking that after they made some good (lucky?)
investments over the last few years.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founders_at_Work](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founders_at_Work)

~~~
mooneater
* 2007 book

~~~
nl
That makes a lot more sense!

The Google preview says 2001 for me, which it gets from
[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/98233.Founders_at_Work](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/98233.Founders_at_Work)
(note the "first published 2001")

But Gmail wasn't out then, so that can't be right, and I must have read it in
2007 or 2008.

------
erlend_sh
Great, much needed article.

I wouldn’t use Mark Zuckerberg as an example of someone you “got right”
though. Whether his creation has been a net gain for society as a whole is
highly debatable, which I think should disqualify him as an entrepreneurial
success story.

------
charlieflowers
I enjoyed the article, but I worked for a startup in 1999 that was funded by a
technology accelerator. So it would appear Ycombinator wasn't the first,
unless this is meant in some more specific way.

~~~
siddharthdeswal
I can appreciate how you feel, but the winner writes history. Out of
curiosity, what was the name of the tech accelerator that you're referring to?

~~~
charlieflowers
Red Hot Law Technology Accelerator in Atlanta, GA.

I've known of many others too. I'm sure Red Hot wasn't the first.

------
tbrock
Reading this gave me goosebumps. Bravo Jessica, you should be increbily proud
of your work and what you’ve helped others achieve.

Photo of Alexis Ohanian at dinner in first batch is classic!

------
danschumann
That first class all looked like misfits, social outcasts, and the typical d&d
crowd. Entrepreneurship wasn't cool back then. I think those are who I will
invest in if I'm ever in that position: people who are entrepreneurs because
they have no other choice, not people who are entrepreneurs because they could
do anything.

------
patkai
Jeez, how painful to think that she has to explain her role regularly just
because she is a woman. My wife and I are both software developers, and
recently moved from Helsinki to Berlin, with two kids. If you could see the
faces when we tell people how we moved here, "with _her_ job" :D First they
look at her, like "does she look the part", and then looking at me, like "what
does he really do?" It's actually fun, and more of "our thing" to watch those
reactions than a pain, but in the bigger scheme of things what a waste that we
are scared of all those wonderful women who could work with us, but don't.

~~~
Krustopolis
She didn't say it was because she was a woman, in fact she explicitly says it
was because she was the only non-technical cofounder.

~~~
erikpukinskis
I think the issue is that there’s a kind of Jim Crow discrimination if we try
to act as if “technical” is a valid filter for whether someone is recognized
as making a clear contribution. If women are less likely to make technical
contributions, and we only recognize technical contributions, then we’re de
facto minimizing crucial contributions of women.

Also, what does “technical” even mean? Why is setting up the legal structure
of a company non-technical but writing HTML for the web site is technical?

Sometimes I wonder if non-technical is just a slur.

~~~
kumartanmay
Had it been early years of YC, this post of explaining herself could have made
sense. After so many years of being at the helm of YC, who is a nut to doubt
her? Or is it that she is still insecure and any indirect reference to her
capability, she begins to explain herself. I am speculating and I would be
really happy to be proven wrong!

------
omeid2
It is interesting that someone who works at the forefront of startups which
thrive on adoption and change makes an argument that if you read between the
lines, it's essentially an argument for Nature in the good ol' Nature vs
Nurture debate.

------
chc8
This is an amazing story. Truly inspiring, thank you.

------
staunch
I absolutely grant that Livingston was crucial to YC's success but it would be
wrong to ignore the reality of what holds most people back: lack of
opportunity.

The opportunity that Paul Graham gave Jessica Livingston is being massively
underplayed here. He would not have chosen to start YC without her but he
could have. It very well might've failed without her. That's entirely
possible. But she absolutely could not have started YC without him and his
money. She would have had no opportunity to become the great success story she
has become.

YC partners fund ~3% of the founders that ask them for opportunity. That
leaves ~97% of people out in the cold, desperate for the same kind of
opportunity that made them successful.

The reason YC funds so few founders used to be their limited resources. Now
they have all the resources they could possibly want and they've consciously
chosen not to scale. YC has become a VC firm that is perpetuating exactly the
problem they were founded to fix. It's an exclusive club for the chosen few
and a mark against anyone that is not granted membership. Just like the old
elitist VCs they were supposed to replace.

I don't begrudge YC or any of its partners their personal success. I do think
YC has gone from being a potentially great force for good to probably a net
negative for society.

~~~
dennisgorelik
> a net negative for society

Where did that come from?

Even if YC is "elitist" now -- that does NOT mean "negative for society".

~~~
omeid2
I am uncertain of the staunch analysis but I believe they're making the
argument that YC gives a massive advantage to startups that are part of it,
and staunch believes that the selection process is unfair, so it follows that
YC gives unfair advantage which can be reasonably seen as net negative.

------
meuk
Nice read, but it could have done without the patronizing 'what you should
learn from my story'.

