Why Most Founders Don’t Take Good Advice(hardfork.substack.com) |
Why Most Founders Don’t Take Good Advice(hardfork.substack.com) |
OF COURSE nobody can use advice like "hire slow, fire fast". They ignore this advice because it's fucking useless. I just...how could someone think this was magical wisdom? Where to even start with this?
How about this: consider a linear model, Y = W @ X + b. You're multiplying some weights by some input features, adding a bias vector. Advice like "hire slow, fire fast" is a bias vector at best. It's just telling you to correct in some direction. But it's the weights that matter!
Of course you'll never be able to make decisions if you ignore the particulars of each situation. And notice what's not in advice like "hire slow, fire fast"? Anything about the actual situation. So of course this is useless!
How do these people even function if this isn't obvious to them? Do they do this in their actual lives? Just charge around discarding all the features and making their decisions by simple rules? How do they even open their laptops to type up this crap?
It is important to have mechanisms where good ideas are spread - and indeed encouraged socially - that do not require people who understand why the idea is good.
What you are seeing is the people who have (probably not on purpose) fallen into the role of pushing ideas they don't understand around in the hope that they are helping. Since it makes evolutionary sense, there are probably some % of people who just get a real kick out of finding out what someone smart thinks then repeating it ad-nauseam. If you are unusual enough to be an independent thinker it can be a bit baffling - but such people are useful and indeed vital. It would be nice to have a less noisy channel though.
People take free speech as always benefiting society, where good ideas are destined to win out in the end, when the reality is that it depends on if the system encourages good ideas to spread while inhibiting the bad ones. A system that rewards people disseminating bad ideas would result in a weak society.
They make decent money by writing books or reports, giving speeches or sermons, and in the process they influence large numbers of clueless people, among whom there are also quite a few important decision makers.
So while you may be immune to their charms, you cannot simply dismiss them as irrelevant.
No, it's not specific advice for a specific situation. But if I'm sat pondering whether someone is a good fit for the team, it's definitely been useful to remember this.
You can't expect someone to squirrel away every bit of good advice, just waiting for a time when it's useful.
I mean, there are plenty of times when I've slapped my head and said, "Oh, that's what they were talking about"... but mostly they told me when I didn't have the problem, and then I remembered too late :-\
Also, this pissed me off:
> But due to the depth of knowledge and experience here in Silicon Valley, there are many high quality people who do give great advice
I may live in Lower Fartville, but... really?
Dont hold off firing that needs to be done, but fire has did not seemed to be too good strategy.
It quickly becomes incredibly hard to discern what is actually good advice for your situation to what is bad advice with good intentions, especially without the lived experience.
When you're green, it's natural to seek advice from people you trust, people you think are smart, people with a lot of life and or business experience, family members, and so on. In most cases their advice is either going to be too general to be useful or they're going to have no knowledge and experience at what you're specifically working on, your domain, so their advice is far more likely to be dangerous.
Those people will want to help, people like to be asked for advice, it feels nice; I think most people like to hear themselves talk, it's a normal thing. Their intentions will be good. I also think it's common for people to not have a good grasp of where their expertise ends and where their weakly-supported opinions begin (something everyone is guilty of at times). If you ask for an opinion, input, advice, you're likely to get it, even if the person isn't very qualified to offer it. So it's important to be very selective about who you seek advice from, making sure that they're in a position to offer valuable insight to what exactly you are dealing with.
And as an aside, about the "right people" to get advice from: I love that concept of finding a mentor who is only just ahead of you, and therefore is solving the mistakes that you're just about to make.
For every piece of advice available, I can find you an equally credible person saying the opposite.
> This is no different than when growing up and you used to ignore your parents advice because you think you know better
To learn some things you have to experience them, often multiple times. That's why making mistakes is the most valuable part of any experience.
I have made a tonne of mistakes so far, a lot of them because I was disillusioned at the time -- but disillusionment is a double-edged sword -- it can be the catalyst a lot of people need when starting a company.
For example, before founding my startup, I read countless articles about the value of iterating fast. Yet I made the mistake! It seemed almost unavoidable.
However, because I had read that advice so many times and actually agreed with it, it made it way easier to correct course. As soon as I realized that I was making the mistake, I integrated all this previous advice very quickly.
Good advice does help, but it can only be integrated when one is ready for it.
Answer is deflection: founders just aren't as smart as the author.
And probably has nothing to do with your startup failing or succeeding.
People who give bad advice are people who repeat the people above, but without relevant background.
It is not about the audience, it is about the messenger.
I put together an ongoing collection to juxtapose the often contradictory advice here: https://knowledgeartist.org/articles/747efd5b-ab1d-492f-8dfb...
And by the way, founders often do take good advice - they take it from other founders, VCs (the good ones, at least) and other experts who are the ones that understand entrepreneurship and/or the domian of their startup. They hire experienced VPs and take their advice, because that's why they hired them.
Looking at this guy's LinkedIn, he spent ten years at Yahoo and has founded exactly nothing. Perhaps he ought to retitle the piece of "I'm upset that founders don't take my advice."
Maybe I'm crazy but I assume that most startups fail because their product or idea wasn't great enough to take off...
There's this whole world of advice surrounding the minutia of startups and I'm pretty sure generally we've found that even a half built great idea will likely take off ... and the best managed bad idea won't.
Now good management advice is still good advice, although the advice here is pretty close to truisms as it gets. Yeah fire fire fast, that doesn't tell who who and why and etc. That feels very much like the "Be Radiohead" type advice.
Actualy gamechanging ideas pushing a company into success by itself is quite rare.
Would have been best to stop the article there.
> 3) They think they are Exception to the Rule.
They are. Or rather, they need to be if they expect to succeed (by VC definition of succeed, which is the context of this article). Successful VC funded companies are by definition, exceptional. There is no playbook to follow, except T2D3 at all costs.
People seek advice from people that are successful. That is why receiving startup advice is so stupid. Being successful in the startup world is mainly luck with a sprinkle of grit. The analogy would be interviewing a lottery winner on how "they did it". The advice is worse than nothing at all. Here is the irony: Advice from people that fail at startups IS useful and actionable - but people don't like to listen to those people.
EG. Munchery. If they had started in 2020 during covid they would be a billion dollar company. They started in 2011 and failed terribly. Luck. IF they had been successful, and did launch in 2020, the advice from this CEO would be horrible. "Hire top talent, etc" Because* the only reason they did succeed was due to timing - and that advice wouldn't be seen or given.
Seeking advice from successful founders can be useful because some of what they did likely increased their odds of getting lucky, and following their advice could boost your own luck stat, which is useful even if the particular stroke of luck your startup needs is totally different from your advisor's.
Apparently not. Look at a great incubator. They invest in new ideas all day. It's basically gambling.
I’m also sure you are a super successful entrepreneur and so definitely know it’s 90% luck.
If it wasn't mostly luck, accelerators would have an improved success rate, because they are selected by experienced people based on judgement calls about their likelihood of succeeding [0].
Accelerators actually have, at best, a very minor improvement on the base success rate.
Therefore we can safely conclude that startup success is mostly luck.
[0] Of course, this is using a definition of success that is more than just getting investment. I would define it as "becoming a sustainable business". But that would exclude things like Uber and Twitter that are not sustainable (yet), but are undeniably successful.
The error that you have made being that in the scenario presented, the successful entrepreneur does not know that luck is the main reason for their success.
A better zinger would be something in the lines of suggesting that the poster only knows all this because of how acutely they have failed. Just as you have.
This is gold! I used to buy into the idea that small colleges were a better learning environment for students due to the increased interaction with professors (class sizes ~30 vs 300). However, with younger TA's leading discussion sections, I changed my mind. I've seen professors who totally didn't understand the conceptual problem a student was having because the professor had crossed that bridge 30 years ago and forgot about it.
I'm not going to attempt to unpack "inherent superiority", but on the surface this seems like a terrible false belief or conclusion. Free speech has social difficulties. It sucks when we hear ideas we disagree with distributed widely through media. Amazingly, the dissemination of bad ideas is not one of it's problems.
> "good ideas are destined to win out in the end"
Free speech permits individuals to make _informed decisions_. Good information. Bad information. Evaluation must be separate from dissemination.
This is the Millennial parent's crisis. How to teach children growing up in the age of the internet (free speech), to make good decisions (evaluation) when they can find literally anything online (good, bad, lies, etc.).
I apologize if I'm being too strong in my reaction to what might just be an off the cuff _idea_. Any other time I would ignore the comment, but its being conflated here with a very real problem of our time--the dissemination of deliberate misinformation and lies, and the difficulty and _high cost_ of navigating this ecosystem.
The latter is an issue of pollution.
(BTW, do you know the itemized costs of your water service to your home is typically 3:1 or 4:1 sewage:fresh?)
The canonical case for me is creationists, who apply some of the most trivially bad reasoning I can conceive, yet it doesn't actually mess up their daily lives. It even benefits them, since it reinforces membership in their tribe. Sure, it cuts them off from certain careers -- more than they realize -- but most people don't directly apply evolution all that often. (Indeed, many who do, like armchair evolutionary psychologists, usually do it wrong.)
People can often compartmentalize their bad reasoning in ways that the negative effects are distant enough that they get along just fine. It may bite them long term, but in the long term we're all dead anyway. The time frame in which "good ideas win in the end" may be several human lifetimes.
This was mentioned in ComicCon@HOME video panel: "Watchmen and the Cruelty of Masks" which I watched last night [1][2]
And it's been mentioned by Richard Dawkins in the context of "flat-Earthers" [3], and, of course, religion itself.
Right now I'm thinking a lot about memetics as having explanatory power for the long-term effects you describe.
[1]: https://www.comic-con.org/cciathome/2020/wednesday [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5R-9kcV0WY&feature=youtu.be [3]: https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/richard-dawkins-flat-ea...
Evaluation is inevitably linked to dissemination. We cannot evaluate what we have not received, yet we are now receiving too much to effectively evaluate.
And then there is the matter of bias - once an idea has been repeated enough times it takes hold, regardless of rationality.
>the dissemination of deliberate misinformation and lies, and the difficulty and _high cost_ of navigating this ecosystem.
Isn't this distinction arbitrary? To an observer, the intention of the messenger is opaque. Deliberate lies and innocent misinformation arrives together for us to evaluate. Dealing with it at the source introduces a variety of problems in our current model, and judging intent with regards to speech is problematic.