Having read half the book at the time it came out, I noticed that there is pretty much nothing in common between all the various founders. In particular founders of RIM and Craigslist are people from different planets. I complained loudly about it, and eventually a friend pointed out that there was something I overlooked - they have all tried. Somehow that turned out to be a profound revelation to me. Combined with another push from a colleague, who's said "Denis, you always talk about these ideas you had, how come you never do much with them", that got me to start doing things rather than thinking about them.
The idea that most people just talk a lot and don't take action has been rediscovered for thousand of years. They should cover that in the Introduction.
It's #52 on this enjoyable list.
"That was not "your idea" unless you shipped something, otherwise I invented Facebook, Nest and Oculus Rift"
I'm fond of saying that founders don't need an idea, they need a plan. An idea is just a pie in the sky, but a plan can be executed and is therefore more easily dismissed as unrealistic or flawed. So if anyone wants to tell me their plan I'm all ears :)
I want you to appreciate the cruel irony of this situation.
My problem was the gap between knowing and doing, but if I read about it, which I did quite often, I wouldn't be able to take advantage of this knowledge due to... that same gap!
Years ago, I heard Woody Allen say that line, "80% of life is showing up." I think he was trying to be modest, but it's true. On the other hand, I have been around truly talented individuals whom are crazy, shut-ins, had horrid childhoods, or just anti-social. I sometimes think they make up the real talent, but will never get discovered?
What I like about this tech economy is the poor kid can still make a lot of money if they have the right combination of skills, ideas, and salesmanship? My generation was pretty much, going to a in-demand professional school, or having a rich father who would back you. A rich-caring father is still the an important factor though. It seems like poor kids are given one chance of making it big. The rich kid can fail a few times? I gotten more flack for bringing up rich kids, but I grew up in a wealthy/blue collar community.(Weird combination of families.) If you didn't ruin your brain at UC Santa Cruz, and had a somewhat understanding father; you are wealthy right now. I just saw it happen too many times to not be true. I can list rich father success stories at nausium.
The one that kills me is the inventor of the disposable dental pick.(you know--those white tooth picks you see thrown everywhere?). This kid's father invented all the products for this company. This kids father was a dentist and saw the need for consumer dental products. This kid had a sailboat in high school. This kid went to a private college, but was bored. His dad decided set him up in a nice office, a nice car, a nice house, a bigger sailboat, and speedboat, funding, prototypes, the best contacts(networking), and paid help. This kid just needed to --show up--at a few trade show meetings(first class only), and make a marketing pitch to Target. Well, the company, after the Target account is worth millions. The irony is I think the kid moved the company to the Midwest in order to get away from dad? Dad was overly nice, and just wanted to be a part of his son's life?
The tech industry overall is rapidly becoming more professional. In many places, looking and sounding "right" can outweigh superior technical skill. I wouldn't be entirely shocked if some day, most of the industry renders those "outcasts" as unwelcome.
Eh, maybe. Tech goes in cycles. I remember waaaaay back in the early 90s when IBM bought Lotus. Mitch Kapor commented that software was no longer startup industry. It had become corporatized. In the meantime the outcasts found new stuff to build.
Maybe in some spaces at some point in history, but certainly not in today's hyper-competitive startup scene, wherein showing up is the merest of prerequisites.
When I read about founders, I always think back to a college class I took, Weapons War & Strategy. The instructor had a favorite anecdote, to show the vast difference between normal people and elite warriors. In WWII, the German Navy used submarines to prowl around looking for shipping to sink. And it had a big (at least psychological) impact. But statistically something like 90% of tonnage sunk by the Kriegsmarine was due to 1% of U-boat captains. The rest of them were apparently just cruising around the ocean trying to avoid getting killed themselves.
Are Kriegsmarine the submarines? Are U-boats submarines? What's a tonnage? Who's "the rest of them", are they the ships that sank? Sorry I'm not great with history or the navy...
Kriegsmarine was (I think) the name for the German navy. U-boats were essentially submarines. Tonnage was the proportion of weight of the boats sunk. The "rest of them" refers to the rest of the U-boat captains.
What prevents JL from creating a Founders at Work 2 is what prevents 99% of founders from creating their first startup.
For most founders the situation is far bleaker though. There's an incredible amount of sacrifice required to even attempt a startup if you have a family, can't get investors, and all your friends and family are poor people. And yet this is what most people face today.
Determination alone really isn't enough. You need help. The one thing all successful founders have in common is that they found help early on from people in a position to help.
And since, "If your ideas are any good, you’ll have to ram them down people’s throats," those people almost certainly didn't get that initial help from the idea itself. They got it from who they were.
In other words, if you don't have rich friends or family, or you don't have a 'pedigree' based on where you went to school, be very careful because you're in for a bad time.
I'm not saying it's impossible (because the lottery is also not impossible), I'm just saying I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.
It may take you longer to get there, but you can do it without rich families, good connections and "pedigree". I've proven it myself many times. Just want something and work your ass off.
Yes, yes, no one is forcing you -- but you are being sold a bit, at least in America. And while there's nothing wrong with that, per se, the story you're being sold is that you just need to build a better mouse trap. That story, however, is a lie.
What I'm saying is a warning, not a complaint. I'm saying that you'll be told that you can be a hero if you slay the dragon and all you need is a new strategy. But if you look closely you'll notice that some adventurers come from a noble background and have a strategy -- plus a sword and armor. You are a peasant; you don't. The ones that came back, almost exclusively, had that sword and armor.
No one, I repeat no one, looked at the Page Rank algorithm and said, "I love the idea! Here's money to prove it." (Remember that statement about having to shove good ideas down people's throats.) No, instead, they looked at Page and Brin and said, "Stanford? Here's money to prove your point." That's the key. Without that reason for people to believe in you irregardless of the idea, you're in for an exponentially harder time. And even if you make it through, saying, "I killed the dragon without armor or sword," it will impress no one. You didn't notice the difference, why would anyone else? It will have been millions of times harder and no one will fucking care.
I'm an exception that proves the rule. After years of nosebleeds and broken ribs, my company is poised to explode. And yet it was easily the hardest, loneliest thing I've ever done. Yes, yes, no one is forcing you, but they're also not telling you the whole story. If you, as a sans-culottes, understand what I'm telling you and go to hunt the dragon anyway, God bless you. But I'll repeat what I said above: I wouldn't wish that journey on my worst enemy.
An imposition? What do you mean? That nobody's forcing you to do it, or that it isn't an onerous job, especially if you don't have money and family connections?
Nobody's forcing you to do it. Anyone who decides to take up such a mantle is going to face obstacles, and the journey will be unique for each person. Some will have it easier than others.
If a person thinks it's onerous before they've even started because they don't have x, then I doubt they're cut out for entrepreneurship anyhow.
Something that people miss, is that entrepreneurship is not a playing field where score is determined by what one cannot choose, it's an unforgiving mountain we're all trying to scale - there are infinite paths to the summit. What appear to be obvious advantages at the beginning of the journey end up being disadvantages in the middle. What one lacks in money and family connections can be often be balanced with grit and perseverance. Remember what you bring to the table.
On the other hand, it's fairly possible for an engineer to take some time off to build something he believes in. In the worse case, what would have been lost is the salary from that time spent on building something that didn't take off, but since the job market for engineers is good, it's definitely affordable.
> Isn't that exactly what JL and PG have made a career doing?
Yes, YC was modeled on the help PG received from his friend Julian Weber in creating Viaweb. Weber gave him money, advice, and introductions to other rich people that invested more money. PG wasn't merely determined, he was also helped by powerful people. Without that help it's likely there would not be a YC. No YC, no Airbnb.
YC's very reason for existing is probably its most powerful advice and should be considered implicit with all their other advice: you need help.
Are you saying PG/YC is in the business of being charitable? I think that behavior only emerges when the average payout is larger than what they put in..
How do you explain YC investing in Non-profits like Watsi? There is more to YC than the payout. There is definitely a core goal to help good people build better products. Money just usually follows.
I don't follow. A donation is a net loss even after the tax deduction. There is no profit from funding a non-profit, even if you can take a tax write off.
If you want to be cynical, good PR would be a much better explanation than something involving taxes.
+1 If anyone is looking for one weird trick to succeed in a startup, get rid of your TV. It's amazing what you can accomplish when you don't have easy time waster options readily available.
My related weird trick is to sleep less. Turns out for me I only need about 6 hours of sleep a night. As I've woken up early I've had a lot more time to build cool things without having to make as many personal sacrifices.
> The one thing all successful founders have in common is that they found help early on from people in a position to help.
Yes, but very rarely did the help come before the proved themselves in some way. They could have gone to the right school, learned the right skills, worked with the right people, gotten involved in the right clubs (on or off campus), took the right job, took the right risk, or any combination of those things. And things tend to multiply.
Going to the right school opens doors but so does learning the right skills. And both can lead to the right job working with the right people. The right clubs are hit or miss but can also lead you to the right people. The right risk might put you next to the right person for that one conversation that changes your perspective or path.
* Also, every time I said "right" above, it should be in quotes. Because what's right for you on your path isn't necessarily the same for everyone else. I grew up poor but went to a great college. My first couple jobs were mediocre but I worked with some great people. My skills were basic until I got involved in a few meetups/user groups and then had to learn to get better. I worked for a couple terrible startups that burned out quickly but I met great people. They forced me to learn more constantly. Then I turned those skills into something bigger and better as I could. I'm not calling myself "successful" but I have had successes.. and a lot of failures. ;)
Example: how is it possible that Google couldn't make its own successful video streaming service and had to buy YT for billions? They had the expertise and money, but it didn't catch on.
Why did previous tablets fail and iPad succeed? Microsoft was into tablets long before iPad.
Sometimes, no matter how rich or smart you are, or how good your idea is, it's going to flop because it didn't encounter the perfect environment and moment to take roots. Because not even rich players can control the environment, they resort to buying promising startups trying to hitch a ride to success on their wings, or alternatively, the YCombinator model of seeding and grooming startups. How many of YC startups flopped, even with help?
Edit: seems I am not in agreement with the crowd. Instead of downvoting, please argue in replies.
You're getting downvoted because luck isn't actionable, it's just a post-hoc explanation of events. There's always someone who wants to make themselves feel better about their lack of success by attributing others' to luck.
But here's the thing, we are all continuous actors in our own lives. Successful founders have a healthy vision of what they can control and what they can't, and they try to maneuver their companies into a position to succeed based on the state of the world as they see it at the time. What looks like luck from 30,000 feet was actually the result of a concerted effort day-in and day-out, usually over the course of years, to put themselves in a position to succeed. The fact that there success isn't reproducible, or that they weren't in control of everything does not mean that they succeeded because luck. That's a lullaby that wantrepreneurs tell themselves to protect their egos, but it's poisonous to ones ability to build something successful.
"Successful founders have a healthy vision of what they can control and what they can't, and they try to maneuver their companies into a position to succeed based on the state of the world as they see it at the time. What looks like luck from 30,000 feet was actually the result of a concerted effort day-in and day-out, usually over the course of years, to put themselves in a position to succeed"
...
Isn't calling something a "healthy vision" also a post-hoc explanation of events? I see people putting in "a concerted effort day-in and day-out... to put themselves in a position to succeed" but they generally don't know ahead of time all those factors necessary, so after several years of not succeeding... what did they do wrong?
Each path to 'success' at the level most people think of it, with respect to deca-millionaire levels of wealth - generally doesn't appear to be reproducible at all.
The difference that I'm trying to highlight is that calling something "luck" takes away the responsibility of the actors. This is a dangerous mentality for a founder, because their own actions and decisions are all they have in the pursuit of success.
> I see people putting in "a concerted effort day-in and day-out... to put themselves in a position to succeed" but they generally don't know ahead of time all those factors necessary, so after several years of not succeeding... what did they do wrong?
They took wrong actions in pursuit of their goals. Whether they can pinpoint specific actions is up to the individual, and ultimately it's a guessing game. But to throw your hands up and declare luck is a weak-minded excuse—certainly we must acknowledge that given infinite possibilities, success was possible, they just didn't find the right path.
"calling something "luck" takes away the responsibility of the actors. This is a dangerous mentality for a founder, because their own actions and decisions are all they have in the pursuit of success."
On the other hand, I've met plenty of depressed, completely delusional startup founders who were convinced that their business failure meant that they did something wrong, because hey...it's never luck, right?
You're setting up a false dichotomy: it's possible -- essential, really -- too acknowledge that luck plays the most important part in any startup. You still have to maximize your chances of getting lucky, and that's the part you can control.
Luck is a necessary but not sufficient condition. Any success story that does not acknowledge that some level of unforseeable fortune contributed to the success is someone deluding themselves, or trying to mislead you, possibly to sell you a book.
Looking forward we should ignore luck, because as you note it's not actionable. But when looking backwards we should take it into account.
For example: don't let "bad luck" prevent you from starting a company, and don't get discouraged by others' "good luck."
But, after failing or succeeding, you should be realistic with yourself and admit luck played a role.
If you've been successful: realize that your success is not 100% the fruit of your efforts -- be a bit humble about how you got where you are.
If you've failed: realize that perhaps you just drew a bad hand and maybe it's not the right environment for your idea -- don't be too down on yourself, and don't be afraid to try again.
hindsight vision is always 20/20. certainly luck isn't all that is required, but despite making the 'right' moves, there's an ocean filled with dead businesses or startups at the bottom. Nobody likes to talk about the fact that these were led by smart people, had everything right going for them until they find themselves in new waters and submerge. It's not at all attractive to write about those that have fallen and that anybody could be next. We don't like talking about it because it is scary. Nobody can predict the waves with 100% certainty. Today's champions maybe tomorrows losers, today's losers maybe tomorrows champions. It's naive to assume that you have complete control over all aspects of your business or life. More often, humanity's greatest innovations have arisen by accident or when they were looking for something and ran into something else. Ask yourself, when was the last time something went exactly as you planned? If you answered 'often', you haven't really tried anything worthwhile.
I've upvoted you because, whilst it may not have been the most useful way of putting it, I agree that luck plays a large part (and I'm a founder myself). As others have pointed out though, there are a lot of things you can do to try to maximize your chances of being 'lucky', and a lot of good advice for founders is essentially this.
For those interested in reading more about the role of luck (amongst other very interesting discussions about how we make decisions), I'd heartily recommend reading "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman (and "The Black Swan" by Nassim Nicholas Taleb too as a nice complement).
Luck (or timing, or circumstance) is a big factor. But we're all responsible for creating circumstances in which we can benefit from luck. I think that's where the "showing up" tendency is so huge. You have to show up everyday, even when shit ain't happening, to benefit from serendipitous events. More rigorously, you have to optimize your payoff function (in the Talebian sense) so that you can benefit from luck for reasons other than pure chance.
If you don't understand the difference between the original Microsoft tablet and the iPad, then it's not surprising that success appears to be all luck.
I play blackjack as a hobby. Blackjack is somewhat unique among casino games in that your skill can have a dramatic impact on your results. What you call luck, professional gamblers call variance. Things can go extremely well or very poorly in the short term regardless of skill, but over the long term, variance ("luck") becomes meaningless and skill becomes the determining factor in the player's results. This applies to any game where skill can affect the outcome even slightly, and certainly includes the startup game.
We see successful people get lucky all over the place but it's the success that they have in common along with passion and most importantly the intellect to back both. To say their success is owed to luck is an unfalsifiable proposition.
Steve Jobs would be insulted if you suggested the iPad was luck, and for good reason. Microsoft's tablets sucked, and even after the iPad they butchered Windows 8 over making it more tablet-like. But this is precisely why the recent trend of devaluing ideas and touting execution is worrisome. If it were true then Microsoft should have won. They shipped first and kept shipping. What Steve had were ideas. Quality ideas that Bill had when he grew Microsoft into a monopoly. And business strategy, marketing, corporate philosophy... They are all ideas! If you don't value what you are executing then honestly you probably are wasting your time.
Look at anyone successful especially entrepreneurs and they are all fountains of ideas. Hard work and execution is the given. What these people do is think harder. Whatever the situation, a good idea can make something work. Luck reverse engineered is always either insight, preperation, or determination. Insight is a fresh idea. Preperation requires having ideas of the future. Determination is knowing your idea works.
To borrow the words of Chomsky, "we don't need more heros, what we we need are good ideas." Or to take it further perhaps heros with ideas. There should be no line between ideas and execution. They are one in the same.
Do you think we would have an Apple if Steve had been raised by his biological parents and not his adoptive ones in Mountain View? Would there be a Microsoft today if young Bill hadn't had access to that GE computer through the ASR terminal purchased by his private school? They were both gifted and worked their asses off, but you can't help but wonder if all that hard work would have paid off if they'd been born on the wrong side of the tracks.
Luck is important, but not uncontrollable. Successful people manufacture their own luck - they study probabilities and maneuver to become exposed to the best chances, repeatedly.
Read about the four kinds of luck. And how to become 'more lucky'.
Luck #1: Pure stochastic luck. Roll of a dice.
Luck #2: Doing enough things that you get lucky. If you don't try, your chance of doing something = 0. If you try 10 things, it's non-zero.
Luck #3: Doing enough things, plus a prepared mind. You had the right background to recognise when luck knocked on your door, and seized it.
Luck #4: The things you did in the past, gave you an angle of attack that no one else saw or thought possible. You did these things, but then seemed lucky.
Now you could say the Paypal guys were lucky to do Paypal, or the Youtube guys were lucky to do Youtube.
But do you then attribute the Paypal mafia, and the Youtube mafia's further successes also to luck?
Yes luck is there, but if you are persistent then you should eventually succeed.
In 10 years one can start ~5 startups. And if after 5 failed startups one does not make it then oh well.. then she/he probably really really does not have any luck (or she/he is an idiot).
Luck (probability) exists, but I'm of those ones who believe that what you get is a result of what you have done before.
Do you really think iPad is selling more than Microsoft because a lack of passion or luck? Same with Google and YT.
I think you are wrong here and most of the times people use the excuse of bad luck, timing, etc. to protect themselves of their bad execution.
YouTube won because it was first-- by the time Google tried to make a go of it, YouTube was pretty rooted in the market-- video creators went where the audience was.
The iPad was a massive step up from previous tablet efforts-- both with touch technology and software experience.
Certainly there is a timing and luck component to both of these.
Google Video actually beat YouTube to market by about 3 months.
The problem was that Google Video was missing some critical features beyond the video player. It was harder to upload videos. It didn't get embedding until after YouTube, and then its embedded player had a clunkier, less-branded interface than YouTube's. It lacked the "related videos" sidebar that was the crucial feature that made YouTube take off. Google also couldn't put up the copyrighted content that YouTube often turned a blind eye too.
YouTube's actually a really good example of the better product winning. They understood their market and aggressively put out features that their early adopters wanted. It wasn't all that apparent to outsiders that the product was better, because the details don't register for them. (Personally, I didn't see what the big deal with YouTube was until 2007 or so.) But for the key early adopters, it was pretty clear which one was more fun to use.
I'm not so sure YouTube was first. There were a LOT of video startups at the same time as YouTube. Honestly I think a lot of YouTbe's early success was due to rampant copyright infringement. Once Google bought them companies like Viacom smelled money and went after them.
Tablets previous to the iPad didn't fail...except perhaps the Newton. Tablets were successful in industrial markets. What made the iPad a consumer success was the same thing that made the iPhone successful: a little bit of genesis touch technology and a whole lot of ubiquitous bandwidth backed by billions of bucks of marketing. Pull bandwidth out of the equation and the app store via a cable connection to a desktop connected to Dialup makes touch appear as the incremental improvement on pen that it is. ATT's data plans are what changed mobile from RIM and Exchange to the future we live in.
As an aside. editing a post to complain about Downvotes makes it worse. Please invest the effort in improving the way in which your ideas are communicated instead. The HN guidelines discourage such complaints anyway.
that was my conclusion. in fact the article might as well write up on 'How to become President of United States'. The book 'Hard thing about hard things' talk about this. There's no formula to success. However, we have this hero culture where hardship is required to do great. It simply does not guarantee any level of success. Being a complete lazy ass isn't going to help or working 50 hour week or answering email at 4 am isn't going to push the needle at your company. You might tell yourself that, but it doesn't matter because the outcome is binary. You make it or you don't, or it feels like you made it (sitting in expensive chair in your office on investors dime, burning cash, Andreesen talks about this).
one reason that people are downvoting you is because they know it's true and it scares them. imagine if you told them, no matter how much you flail in the water, a large portion of you will be going back home.
The primary reason a founder succeeds is that he or she works on the right thing at the right time and does it in the right way. That's vague and practically unactionable, so it's not going to become a popular view, but the reality is there's no set of character traits that guarantee success, and there's no blueprint for building a successful company. If there was, 90% of the founders in Silicon Valley would be fabulously wealthy, and half the people who attend Startup School would have a unicorn within two years.
You can have incredible character traits, but if you're working on the wrong thing, or going about building the right thing at the wrong time in the wrong ways, it doesn't matter how smart, hard-working, adaptable, etc. you are.
The power law distributions at even the best venture capital funds demonstrate just how difficult it is to identify founders who are going to succeed, even when trying to do so is your full-time job.
Maybe if she does a second book, it should be about startup founders who are successful with one startup, then go on to do a second startup that fails. That population must exist, and the analysis would be really interesting.
>The primary reason a founder succeeds is that he or she works on the right thing at the right time and does it in the right way.
I think this is very true. But the interesting thing is that often the founders themselves don't know their project is the right thing at the right time. Even after the official start of my site it took me almost a year to realize what the project actually is, and even now I'm working every day to define it so I can express it to others. As it grows I have to get to know it more and adapt it so it can grow even more. The ability to be able to adapt your project to the market is the key to success I think. Darwin said: It is not the strongest of the species that survives, but rather, that which is most adaptable to change.
That means you have to know your market and you have to know what you are doing. You need to know where you want to go, and the steps you need to do to get there. You need to try stuff. Most of it won't work, but some will. You need to do things for the sake of the business even if you do not personally want to do them. The business and its market may not be obvious at first so it's important to persist and revise and look for ways to grow, to survive until you get understanding. It's like that thing where people say they want to follow their passion. If you start a business and it grows you will quickly become passionate about it. But you have to start it.
This is a constraint problem, right? Yes, you can outsmart the market and/or be lucky and pick a big problem at the right time, have the right resources, and nail execution. In that case you don't need to have any of the above to be successful. That's not exactly a revelation but it's not actionable, either. The interesting part that's going on here is that you can actually be successful without picking the right problem at the right time, with almost none of the right resources, and sometimes even with horrible execution.
It's like a recipe for waffles. There's a lot of ways to make good waffles, where good is defined as tastes great, crispy, browned nicely, etc. You can tinker with the browning in a few different ways, you can tinker with how to get them to be light and fluffy, you can tinker with the flavor. Other than flour and water, almost nothing is absolutely required, but you have to have _some_ of the other things, and in the right proportions, or you're going to have a crappy breakfast.
It seems like in both waffles and startups some recipes are more robust than others. They increase the chance of success even when other requirements aren't satisfied. I think what Jessica is getting at is that the most robust founders have perseverance (the first 3 all roll up to that trait) but aren't too stubborn to change their idea (#4). Their motivations are intrinsic, not externally defined (#5). None of these ingredients are absolutely required, but most successful startup recipes include them.
[Can you tell I had waffles this morning for breakfast? They were yummy, too! Yeast and an overnight rise makes for some really fluffy waffles, you should totally try it!]
> ...but Jessica's point is about some traits that many successful founders shared among themselves.
My point is that these traits are shared among tons of founders who didn't succeed. So they clearly don't make founders succeed, making "What Makes Founders Succeed" a poor title for Jessica's post.
> Having these traits alone won't make you succeed but if all other conditions are met your will have bigger chances of succeeding.
I said that I agreed with your comment. Those traits may increase chances of succeeding when starting a startup but aren't the only thing you need to succeed.
You are making a claim that putting these traits into practice increases the probability of success. How would you propose going about measuring performance to prove it increases the probability?
It's just my personal opinion, difficult to prove or measure, but I believe Jessica's point after meeting and working with over 900 startups and getting to know so many founders.
We should learn the other side of the equation and analyze people who didn't succeed and why. Then we will be able to compare and prove (or not) increases probabilities.
But this is exactly the point. How do you know that it is a correlation? To establish a correlation you would also have to look at all the founders who did not succeed. As far as I am aware, Jessica has not done this.
My use of correlation is indeed confusing and probably inappropriate.
What I ment to say is that Jassica saw these common traits in successful founders. We can thus deduce that these are probably required. But they are obviously not sufficient.
It's a really great essay. I love the quote "Don’t worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you’ll have to ram them down people’s throats". I think the most exciting time for a founder is when you've done that and the world starts to catch up with you, and the uncertainty, rejection, stress and work starts to pay off. For those interested I collected many of Jessica's interviews here: http://newslines.org/jessica-livingston/
Would love to see a new book about successful and not so successful founders and lessons learned along the way.
Comparing them with the first book to find interesting facts about how things and people's perspective have changed over time will be very interesting.
Something else would love to read about is international founders and how moving to the valley helped them succeed comparing when they were in their respective countries.
Thanks to Jessica for all her work and heart she is putting helping founders succeed and this way inspire others around the world to keep creating great things.
If determination is the single most important quality, doesn't it deserve its own book? Determination is so personal and emotional, it'd be hard to find founders willing to confide, but I believe it would fill a huge need for aspiring founders. Maybe some stories would have to be anonymous, but if vetted by an author such as jl, that would be okay I think.
It would also be useful to hear more actual failure stories, not only those from founders who have managed to turn things around, but those who just failed. Even if it scares some away from startups, maybe there are some lessons to be learnt too.
Actually I don't agree that determination is personal. It boils down to love really. It's the passion that keeps every founder going and most of them wear it on their sleeve in addition to completely embodying it. They use it to hire people, to sell their idea, and to keep going. But the key is for passion to ascend into will power. The best common man analogy is when we must go pee. We do whatever it takes to prevent public embarrassment with complete focus, maximum speed, and accute intellect. For a moment we all become geniuses. Entreprenuers use this power to overcome anything. Of course not because they want to but because they are forced to... As if to avoid embarrassment.
And "what's love?" You don't choose who you love or what you're passionate about while determination is deliberate effort. I agree that love helps you do things that are hard but it's so whimsical and out of your control that I think it's not enough. Say you love video games and programming, is that enough to make a successful game? Unless you try tens of games, throw away all but one, debug the hell out the performance and manage to market it in such a crowded market, you'll always fall short I think.
> when we must go pee. We do whatever it takes
Not very convinced by your analogy. Starting a company is a long-term effort. And usually, there aren't many road blocks on your way to the bathroom.
But passion is what makes you determined and not give up. Like chasing someone you have a crush on. And imagine wanting to pee in an unfamiliar town or even a foreign country. We would get creative. Starting a company is long-term repetition of immediately threatening circumstances.
If I ever invested money I'd look at determination as the primary criteria. It's hard to measure though- what questions would be good to figure out how determined someone is?
- How long did it last?
- How successful was it?
- How hard was it really (novelty, competition, complexity, regulations, number of people involved, lines of code if applicable)?
- What were their mistakes? Which were the most painful?
- How did they correct their trajectory?
- What will they change this time?
But you have to calibrate your expectations with the current project, otherwise you'll pretty much filter any first timer.
In addition to successful innovations looking bad, successful founders often look pretty bad as well. Maybe not right when they're starting whatever business that is actually going to be successful, because presumably by that point they more or less have their shit together. But certainly five or ten years before, when they are spending their time learning things that are valuable rather than optimizing for grades, career success, etc.
Could founder success early on be broken into 2 parts?:
1. Founder EQ (internal + external) and
2. Market/Time.
We know that in the wrong market/time startups have a hard time gaining traction. Sometimes you need to give time i.e. keep going through the dark times; to reach a time when the market is ready/needs what you are offering. It's that analogy "A rising tide lifts all boats". So you need to get your boat into the water.
As for Founder EQ. Internally - strong to battle through the tough emotional times (perseverance, adaptability etc) and externally - how the founders communicate and work together to get stuff done. We know founder disputes kill many early startups.
Once traction is gained and money flows then those 2 might not be as important. Money does solve many problems. At that point everyone inside the company is spinning the cog and inertia takes over.
I haven`t read the book but it would be interesting if we can see some stories about founders who have failed or the mistakes that these founders committed that proved very costly. Would love to see some major examples of what/how things went wrong - did some feature/stand from the founders or board result in a backlash from the community (ex: recent press on reddit) or a product that couldn't stand by itself for too long etc.
This is not to knock anything or anyone at all but... to posit that "perseverance makes founders succeed" seems to promote some very strong survivor bias.
Or maybe it just sounds sort of perversely tautological to me. Seeing people follow necessary but not sufficient conditions just sounds perilous to me, even as a founder myself.
I've never read this book but would love to. After looking it up on Amazon I see two books: Founders at Work and European Founders at Work. Has anybody read both or can comment on either? Should I buy the former, the latter (I live in Europe) or both?
>People like the idea of innovation in the abstract, but when you present them with any specific innovation, they tend to reject it, because it doesn’t fit with what they already know.
This can be true, but I think often, people tend to reject an idea because it does fit with what they already know.
People look for usefulness, and will hastily disregard something that reminds them of a previous innovation that failed. I don't doubt they are sometimes wrong, and perseverance on a seemingly weak innovation can be turned into something wildly successful, I just wonder how many founders wasted much effort trying to succeed when their innovation never really had a chance to be very useful.
Having read half the book at the time it came out, I noticed that there is pretty much nothing in common between all the various founders. In particular founders of RIM and Craigslist are people from different planets. I complained loudly about it, and eventually a friend pointed out that there was something I overlooked - they have all tried. Somehow that turned out to be a profound revelation to me. Combined with another push from a colleague, who's said "Denis, you always talk about these ideas you had, how come you never do much with them", that got me to start doing things rather than thinking about them.