Startup failures are only a matter of point of view(thomasthelliez.com)
thomasthelliez.com
Startup failures are only a matter of point of view
https://thomasthelliez.com/blog/2019/12/06/startup-failures-are-only-a-matter-of-point-of-view/
32 comments
In theory, yes. In practice, startups fail for common reasons. If you want to start a company, talk to every startup founder you can about their experience. It really is a different life path.
I agree with the notion of learning from your mistakes, but it's so disingenuous I'd call it bullshit to say it's not a failure. The startup failed. That doesn't mean you're a failure. But don't sugarcoat what happened for the sake of your feelings. If you can't even admit it's a failure, you're not likely to learn from your failures.
Yes, I realize there is a lot of semantics in my point, but I just fucking hate sanitizing communication. Be direct. Be transparent. Say what you mean. Don't turn it into some feel-good what-a-wonderful-journey bullshit.
Yes, I realize there is a lot of semantics in my point, but I just fucking hate sanitizing communication. Be direct. Be transparent. Say what you mean. Don't turn it into some feel-good what-a-wonderful-journey bullshit.
I guess you could rewrite it to say "just because you fail doesn't mean you're a failure" and point out that you're probably going to fail a few times while learning, and that's healthy.
> bullshit to say it's not a failure
So you agree with the article? Because the words "fail" and "failure" appear some 31 times.
Same discussion with the recent Space-X failure during a pressurization test. Arguments over the word "failure".
What is really being argued is what it means to fail. To many, it means: someone is incompetent. Heads should roll. There should never be any failures ever if everyone is doing their jobs. This is a naive view.
So people get upset over the use of the term, instead of explaining what they want to convey.
So you agree with the article? Because the words "fail" and "failure" appear some 31 times.
Same discussion with the recent Space-X failure during a pressurization test. Arguments over the word "failure".
What is really being argued is what it means to fail. To many, it means: someone is incompetent. Heads should roll. There should never be any failures ever if everyone is doing their jobs. This is a naive view.
So people get upset over the use of the term, instead of explaining what they want to convey.
I think you're being overly cynical, and thereby missing the point, which is that we conflate all 'kinds' of failures together. When you decide to spend your time and money on something like a company you learn very quickly to disambiguate "I failed to do X, but I learned Y, and I can keep going" from "I have failed to do the things I set out to do, fundamentally, and I am defeated".
And you might imagine the latter is "Your company failed" but it probably isn't. My goal isn't to start a company, it's to do good work and gain experience in this world, work with new people, etc, and if the company goes under that is a very different kind of failure. Really, the only failure scenario, for me personally, would be to give up.
And you might imagine the latter is "Your company failed" but it probably isn't. My goal isn't to start a company, it's to do good work and gain experience in this world, work with new people, etc, and if the company goes under that is a very different kind of failure. Really, the only failure scenario, for me personally, would be to give up.
> My goal isn't to start a company, it's to do good work and gain experience in this world, work with new people, etc, and if the company goes under that is a very different kind of failure. Really, the only failure scenario, for me personally, would be to give up.
I never said anything about letting a failure define you - in fact I said the opposite and that you should learn from your mistakes.
You seem to think the only person that matters when your company fails is you. Your investors certainly won't be happy about it. I also don't think many of your employees who just lost their jobs will want to celebrate your learning experience with you. Your company's failure doesn't just impact you, which is why "what a remarkable journey!" blog posts can come across as tone deaf.
I think you're viewing this from the eyes of an employee, and not a founder. There are very different rules for founders and employees.
I never said anything about letting a failure define you - in fact I said the opposite and that you should learn from your mistakes.
You seem to think the only person that matters when your company fails is you. Your investors certainly won't be happy about it. I also don't think many of your employees who just lost their jobs will want to celebrate your learning experience with you. Your company's failure doesn't just impact you, which is why "what a remarkable journey!" blog posts can come across as tone deaf.
I think you're viewing this from the eyes of an employee, and not a founder. There are very different rules for founders and employees.
You've completely missed my point. I will reiterate:
* Conflating all types of failures is problematic and something you must learn to avoid if you start a company
* Failure is more about larger goals than the steps to get there
So, I have no investors or employees, and my goals are my own right now. Eventually that may change, and I will have to change my goals to account for that.
I'm not sure why I'd be viewing this from the eyes of an employee as I am a founder.
* Conflating all types of failures is problematic and something you must learn to avoid if you start a company
* Failure is more about larger goals than the steps to get there
So, I have no investors or employees, and my goals are my own right now. Eventually that may change, and I will have to change my goals to account for that.
I'm not sure why I'd be viewing this from the eyes of an employee as I am a founder.
You're really using a gotcha by claiming to be a startup founder, but also have no employees or investors.
Yes, in your current situation your viewpoint makes sense. Once you have investors and employees that worldview is no longer tenable unless you're a sociopath. Right now you're only responsible for yourself - once that changes so will your goals (as you pointed out yourself).
I don't think we're disagreeing so much as speaking from very different perspectives.
Yes, in your current situation your viewpoint makes sense. Once you have investors and employees that worldview is no longer tenable unless you're a sociopath. Right now you're only responsible for yourself - once that changes so will your goals (as you pointed out yourself).
I don't think we're disagreeing so much as speaking from very different perspectives.
I'm not trying to use a 'gotcha'. This isn't an argument from authority, I'm trying to use my experience as a vehicle for understanding one facet of this topic.
My fundamental point is simply that failure is a matter of goals. For startup founders failure is something you are likely going to think about constantly as you ramp up to deciding to quit your job and put your idea out there, and that's a waste of time, and it's due to conflating different failures.
Once you move past that point, and start taking on more responsibilities, your goals have to shift if you're any kind of ethical person. While early employees may be willing to take on a lot of risk, and are fundamentally responsible for the choice to come on, it would be, as you said sociopathic, not to feel any kind of responsibility.
I think, given this statement, we likely agree? But then you criticized the article for being too "Feel good", which I think is a mistake. Yes it is "feel good", but maybe it's hard to understand why you need to frame things that way when you're putting yourself out there like this.
My fundamental point is simply that failure is a matter of goals. For startup founders failure is something you are likely going to think about constantly as you ramp up to deciding to quit your job and put your idea out there, and that's a waste of time, and it's due to conflating different failures.
Once you move past that point, and start taking on more responsibilities, your goals have to shift if you're any kind of ethical person. While early employees may be willing to take on a lot of risk, and are fundamentally responsible for the choice to come on, it would be, as you said sociopathic, not to feel any kind of responsibility.
I think, given this statement, we likely agree? But then you criticized the article for being too "Feel good", which I think is a mistake. Yes it is "feel good", but maybe it's hard to understand why you need to frame things that way when you're putting yourself out there like this.
> I think, given this statement, we likely agree? But then you criticized the article for being too "Feel good", which I think is a mistake. Yes it is "feel good", but maybe it's hard to understand why you need to frame things that way when you're putting yourself out there like this.
Honestly my comment is largely a response to seeing "feel good" blog posts as a whole, and quite frankly I was overly harsh relative to the author's post. In that sense, you could say my criticism is too mean and unjustified, but I think my point still stands and it seems very popular (although it's hard to say how many people upvoted a cynical comment without reading the article first).
If the author is reading this, I apologize - my comment is about the genre of your blog posts more than your blog post itself. Luckily now it does not appear to be the top comment.
Honestly my comment is largely a response to seeing "feel good" blog posts as a whole, and quite frankly I was overly harsh relative to the author's post. In that sense, you could say my criticism is too mean and unjustified, but I think my point still stands and it seems very popular (although it's hard to say how many people upvoted a cynical comment without reading the article first).
If the author is reading this, I apologize - my comment is about the genre of your blog posts more than your blog post itself. Luckily now it does not appear to be the top comment.
[deleted]
This article proposes thinking of yourself as a neural network learning something.
Funny enough, I find pretending I'm a self-driving car helps remove my ego while driving. Someone wants to speed up to cut me off? I'm not going to get angry. I'm a self-driving car algorithm, and I only care about doing the safest, most predictable thing.
It looks incredibly silly when I write it out like that but it actually helps to think that way.
Funny enough, I find pretending I'm a self-driving car helps remove my ego while driving. Someone wants to speed up to cut me off? I'm not going to get angry. I'm a self-driving car algorithm, and I only care about doing the safest, most predictable thing.
It looks incredibly silly when I write it out like that but it actually helps to think that way.
I have another way of dealing with road rage. I am overly empathetic and give everyone the benefit of the doubt.
Someone cuts me off in traffic? Whoa, they must be in a hurry to take a risk like that. I wonder if they have a very important meeting.
Someone cuts me off in traffic? Whoa, they must be in a hurry to take a risk like that. I wonder if they have a very important meeting.
I take the view that all other drivers are potentially an off-duty policeman, a mad axe murderer who knows where I live or a confused little old lady.
First time I ever come across this sentiment and I can totally see your point, thank you for taking the time to write this out.
I sometimes find myself being able to be more creative by imagining myself as someone more creative doing the work for me.
Tangentially, imitation is a severely underrated way to learn. A lot of people who are really good at X started out by trying to copy their heroes verbatim. (E.g., you're a kid who wants to be good at guitar, so you try to play exactly like Jimi Hendrix for the first 5 years of practice.)
Find someone who's really good at something, and pretend to be them. In copying their mannerisms you might accidentally pick up on some of their keys to success.
Find someone who's really good at something, and pretend to be them. In copying their mannerisms you might accidentally pick up on some of their keys to success.
That failure can be a teachable moment is well-known and is applicable in all aspects of life, it is not particularly interesting to read about that in this specific context. In some ways, it is also insulting.
For some there are real-world (often financial) consequences to failure, and that an article about why their egos shouldn't be bruised when facing a failure is the least of their worries.
For some there are real-world (often financial) consequences to failure, and that an article about why their egos shouldn't be bruised when facing a failure is the least of their worries.
The key is failing successfully. Try hard. Ask lots of questions. Be humble. After all of that you can still fail.
“It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life".
“It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life".
No one should be proud of failing and learning from their own mistakes if they did not bother learning from the mistakes of others first.
If a startup is trying to create economic value, then there is no point of view. You either made money or you did not.
If the real startup is the friends we made along the way while spending investor cash, then sure.
If the real startup is the friends we made along the way while spending investor cash, then sure.
Are most startups created for economic value? That doesn't track with me at all, as a founder, and having talked with many others.
Most are doing it because it's just their kinda work, that's how they like to operate.
Most are doing it because it's just their kinda work, that's how they like to operate.
I guess my questions would be
1. "what exactly do these founders believe they are starting up?"
2. "if they aren't trying to create a sustainable business, how could they recruit employees with a clear conscience?"
1. "what exactly do these founders believe they are starting up?"
2. "if they aren't trying to create a sustainable business, how could they recruit employees with a clear conscience?"
I get the point, but this is pretty heavy on cliches.
Also, when a startup fails, a bunch of people lose their jobs and have to scramble to get their lives back on track. If an entrepreneur walks away from that saying "That wasn't a failure becayse I learned a lot!" they kind of come off as a sociopath.
Also, when a startup fails, a bunch of people lose their jobs and have to scramble to get their lives back on track. If an entrepreneur walks away from that saying "That wasn't a failure becayse I learned a lot!" they kind of come off as a sociopath.
It's indeed a point of view. If I factor in the opportunity cost of my failures it's even greater and harsher.
The article paints is a hooray-optimist view of praising failure as learning which might help someone who just folded its dream startup, but offers no revelation.
It also fails to mention that you can keep trying as long as you have money. Few privileged people can spend its life trying to build startups and fail constantly.
The article paints is a hooray-optimist view of praising failure as learning which might help someone who just folded its dream startup, but offers no revelation.
It also fails to mention that you can keep trying as long as you have money. Few privileged people can spend its life trying to build startups and fail constantly.
Yes, we should try to learn from our failures, but this article overlooks the very real emotional and economic damage that can happen to early-stage founders and employees (and their families/friends). Even when trying to view failures as learning opportunities.
Source: I've been a part of many early stage startups, am working on one right now, and have many close friends who have done the same.
Source: I've been a part of many early stage startups, am working on one right now, and have many close friends who have done the same.
Anyway, what if some failures are unavoidable? Like, what if some things are external to what you can anticipate or accomplish? For example, here is a todo list for a typical startup:
1) Learn the tools so you can make stuff
2) Optionally find a handful of teammates with similar interests or pain points to help
3) Get funding
4) Work on your startup for 6 months to 2 years
5) Get traction by hard sells or going viral
6) Scale by improving the product, adding employees, etc
7) Exit and move on to the next startup or retire with millions of dollars
There is currently no solution for steps 3 or 5. The rest of the steps are straightforward and done by most software developers in one form or another dozens of times over a career (except for 7 obviously). Most people on the outside only see steps 2, 6 and 7 so have a distorted view of the startup process because those tend to be the easiest steps or take care of themselves after the startup acquires a life of its own. On top of that, they may only dream about startups because step 1 tends to depend on demographics. Step 4 (the part we care about because it’s our lifestyle so we’d almost do it for free) tends to be the least important, but also the riskiest because your idea will manifest when someone else does it after the 2 years window of opportunity passes.
So as far as I can tell 20 years into my career, until we solve steps 3 and 5, startup failure will hover around 90% or more. Learning from mistakes only eats away slightly at that number, perhaps by giving people more of what they want in step 5, or expanding your professional network for steps 2 and 7. So the smart thing to do is play it safe contracting or working for companies, never accomplishing anything of any importance other than making rent or raising children like humans have done for thousands of years.
So since it’s Friday, I’d like to put out a thought to meditate on that maybe we should be trying to make a startup to solve startups, along the same lines as what Y Combinator is doing.