
The default state of a startup is failure - adahm
http://cdixon.org/2012/05/18/the-default-state-of-a-startup-is-failure/
======
gexla
"A friend of mine got a job at a big company and was shocked to see his
colleagues worked just a few productive hours a day."

Depending on what you do, I would say this is natural. I don't care what Henry
Ford says (8 hours a day is different for some types of work than it is for
others.) I can't go into "super focus" mode for much more than 4 hours per
day. I can do my half day of being "wired in" and then take care of lighter
tasks for another couple of hours.

There are days when working on an exciting project that I can code for 12+
hours for a few days, but not all of those hours are productive. Typically on
these sorts of days I can run into a problem which I bang my head on for a
couple of hours and then fix it within 5 minutes the next day after a
refreshing sleep.

Maybe part of the problem is that that these places should shorten the work
day (but keep payment the same.)

~~~
winter_blue
John Carmack has written something about being super-productive in a fixed
chunk of time.

But I can see where your coming from. After certain set (~5) of being super-
productive, you burn out. And you just can't take it any more.

At these times it _is_ best to take a break and do something different. I've
found that these breaks (~1 to 2 hours) tend to make you more productive in
your next chunk. (Rather than being burn out and weary.) It gives you time to
think and churn ideas for what you will do next.

Lastly I want to add; knowing what you want to do next makes a difference.
When you know exactly what you want to do (the spec), you naturally are about
implementing it - when not knowing the spec, you're figuring things our as you
go and that slows you down. In addition it's always better to sit down and
gives additional exclusive time to thinking of your program rather than
figuring things out as you go.

------
chmike
Startup life expectancy is determined by its financial income (investment not
included). This is only loosely linked to the smartness of its members or the
energy and effort they put into developping and running the business.

The equation is all about maximizing user interest so that the startup
acquires new one, and lowering the barrier to income. Google's business model
is a reference example on this.

Regarding the difficulty to induce adoption of a new product, there is a known
energy barrier for people to change their habit, even if they know their
current habit is not good or optimal. This means the startup needs a strategy
to overcome this initial bump. There are many. Once overcome, things get much
easier.

One of the strategy is to exploit people's natural tendency to be helpful and
the positive perception of generosity (kickstarter). This strategy is used in
called calls. Ask for advice or help (beta user program), once in a welcomed
helpful and generous mood, they'll more easily open their purse or help spread
the word (dropbox).

------
keeptrying
Another way to put it is that, if you move from full-time job to startup, you
are going to have to actually create real value (at least value for some large
number of people).

At a regular 9-5 job, especially if you havent worked anywhere else before,
you can fool yourself into believing that you create value by doing 1-2 hours
of work a day (I know lots of people like this).

This is also the reason why people such a huge (harsh) change going from job
to startup. You realize you werent really doing that much in your job!

~~~
bdr
You can create value working 1 to 2 hours at a regular job. After all, if you
can create value in eight hours then surely you'll create _some_ in two.

Value isn't just the magnitude of the work you do. It's that multiplied by the
importance of the direction you're going in. Companies are good at pointing
your work in a direction that's already known to create value. One of the hard
parts of a start up is figuring out a new such direction.

~~~
keeptrying
I guess I worded it incorrectly.

In a big company the machine to create value is already present and the
company will create value whether you input value or not. If you quit your
job, your company will carry on fine.

So essentially your value is small and by definition limited and replaceable
(unless your in a small company).

In a startup the magnitude and expanse of value that you create is just so
much bigger. You need to create value in different unrelated spaces - creating
sales, writing code, hiring etc.

Its like comparing a rocket to a firework or better an engine to one of the
cogs in its engine.

------
wturner
I think the authors main point is the degree of indifference involved in
making something happen. There's a quote I heard Robert Greene give where he
said "I'm a firm believer that most people simply prefer to do nothing". The
bad side of this is you might have a great idea but are not able to amass the
traction due to the lack of anyone else caring or seeing how your vision
benefits them, or the world, or whatever. The good part is if you ever get a
project set in motion that is successful the same rules of indifference apply,
only now they're in your favor. That's why scrambling to just get something
out the door and experiment is so important.

------
naeem
He brings up some good points, but what does this have to do with anything?
Obviously the default state of a startup is failure... what do his preceding
two paragraphs have to do with anything? I guess I just don't quite understand
the point of this article.

If it's just a PSA about the fact that startups are hard work, I'm not sure
what new information it is we're getting here or why this post is being
upvoted to be honest.

~~~
Alex3917
"I'm not sure what new information it is we're getting here or why this post
is being upvoted to be honest."

What makes something insightful isn't whether it has new information, but
whether that information is connected in a new way. This qualifies because
he's done a good job expressing the connection between a couple different
ideas that are very important in their own right but that one wouldn't
necessarily think of as being connected. (Think Euler's identity.) Granted
other people have made this connection before, but what makes this a great
post is that he's done it in a very simple and easy to remember way, one that
provides a solid foundation for slotting other ideas into also.

------
akg
Paul Graham has a similar premise in this essay:
<http://paulgraham.com/hubs.html>, where he mentions that the default mode for
startups is Death. Dixon argues for surrounding yourself with extraordinary
people, Graham makes the case for being in a startup hub.

------
6ren
Though it's not said, I get the impression that they were technical co-
workers... so I need to point out you need "technical skills for technical
success; business skills for business success".

I've seen developers work hard on cool features that no one needs, or are too
hard to use, or meet a need better met elsewhere. These mistakes are due to
not seeing from the user's perspective - and yes, I'd classify doing so as a
business skill.

They won't communicate why it's worth using, see how it fits in with what
people want to do, allow it to be difficult to try out (download, install, get
started, learn). An easy way to address all these is ensure you yourself are a
user (and representive of a sufficiently large segment of users).

I believe that if you really know what you're doing, you don't need to work
very hard, placing focussed leverage on just the right point to make
everything happen (caveats: 1. if you want _enormous_ success, there'll be
competition and you'll have to work hard; 2. the big problem is that we
_don't_ know what we're doing - in a sense, finding out the actual work of a
start-up).

------
EricDeb
I would go so far as to say the default state of a human is mediocrity and
general failure. It takes discipline to achieve even moderate success

------
Stratoscope
de·fault [dih-fawlt]

noun

1\. failure to act; inaction or neglect: _They lost their best client by sheer
default._

2\. failure to meet financial obligations.

3\. _Law_. failure to perform an act or obligation legally required,
especially to appear in court or to plead at a time assigned.

4\. _Sports_. failure to arrive in time for, participate in, or complete a
scheduled match.

5\. lack; want; absence.

<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/default>

~~~
nviennot
6\. _Computers._ a value that a program or operating system assumes, or a
course of action that a program or operating system will take, when the user
or programmer specifies no overriding value or action.

------
f45s8g2
The part about the colleagues only putting in a few productive hours each day
is spot on. They are riding on the company's coattails. It is a sort of
corporate-sponsored welfare that no one notices until the company stops
performing. Then the dead weight is cut loose. Look at Yahoo.

Maybe some people don't find sitting in meetings all day to be all that
satisifying. But they are stuck in it due to family expenses. Maybe they would
prefer something more stimulating, if they could have the chance.

The default state of the startup should be: _fun_.

More fun than you would have by being required to show up and remain for eight
or more hours each day at a corporate campus where you can clearly see people
are not getting much done, but are relying on their position as a source of
corporate-sponsored welfare.

To work on a startup should be a privilege for anyone who has worked in a
corporate setting for any length of time.

Riding on the success of a large corporation is easy. In many cases all you
need to do is show up. But that doesn't always mean you were "a success" or a
part of the reason for the company's success. You may have come along after
they had already succeeded, looking for an easy payout. Some people make a
career out of this. They never join early stage companies. Again, there are
family expenses and these motivate people's decisions.

Working on a startup is a way to be able to take full credit for whatever
happens. It might be credit for failure. It might be for success. But at least
you know you were responsible, and not riding on someone else's coattails.

------
its_so_on
I wouldn't go quite a far as the poster. I do agree that the default state of
an idea is "not being done", but once it IS done, does offer something, and
has any paying users at all, the default if they are happy is for them to
return and keep spending (if you remain competitive and fill a void with great
customer satisfaction) and moreover to tell their friends. People worry about
scalable business models for a good reason: if there is a bottleneck (e.g. you
have to personally meet the client before they pay you in the business you
chose) then you will meet that bottleneck very soon! I would say the default
state of a startup that is shipping and has cusomers is "more work (demand)
and ideas than we're able to roll out/handle". not a bad place to be, but if
you do your job you can count on being there. If you follow PG's philosophy,
then when you're at this point you have lots of revenue (instead of lots of
users overpowering your resources, with you trying to 'grow some more' before
'eventually' figuring out a monetization model)

------
adventureful
One of the best and most concise things Chris has ever written. Three
paragraphs packed full of wisdom.

