4 ms·

One real test to see if you're ready to be an entrepreneur is seeing if you would do a startup for 2 years, working 80+ hours with the emotional roller-coaster

One real test to see if you're ready to be an entrepreneur is seeing if you would do a startup for 2 years, working 80+ hours with the emotional roller-coaster while knowing you would certainly fail. Personally, I would. I enjoy it way too much.

Joakal 16y ago
If you're certain to fail, why do the startup? Did you mean the uncertainty of success?
- bdclimber14 16y ago
  Not even the uncertainty of success, but the certainty of failure. The learning experience is the reason. I'm a firm believer of "Fail early to succeed often."
  - rwhitman 16y ago
    "The certainty of failure". I like that.
  - zackattack 16y ago
    Why not at least aim for success so you don't accidentally program yourself for failure?
    - bdclimber14 16y ago
      Well definitely, and I'd hope every entrepreneur has the confidence in their company to think he will be successful. I just meant, given the hypothetical situation where you knew you would fail, would you still do it? Basically, are you doing it just for money, or is it for more than that?
      - zackattack 16y ago
        Your argument doesn't make sense because even if you're doing it just to learn, you're learning entrepreneur skills so you can do it for other reasons later.
        bdclimber14 16y ago
        I think it still applies. You could rephrase it to say, would you work 80+ hours each week, no pay, for 2 years, just to have a powerful experience and greater knowledge (and the company fails)? It's not a failure from every perspective, but I don't think such a thing exists. Failure to make an exit, or failure to sustain the startup is mostly what I mean.
        cap4life 16y ago
        Where's the motivation for pressing on if there's a certainty of failure i.e. a certainty of your startup not making a profit? If the motivation comes from an innate desire to learn more about your market, your competitors, etc. then working on a startup begins to look more like academic field research and less like executing a viable business model. Not to collapse into an argument over semantics, but the very core meaning of the startup concept absolutely rests on the will to survive no matter the odds, a strong desire to succeed and sustain itself as an entity that provides something of value to real customers. If this is true, then the founders of the startup who got into it only to have a "powerful experience and greater knowledge" would, in essence, be going against the very nature and purpose of a startup.
Duff 16y ago
I guess that would depend on the definition of failure. Relishing failure as in the "Charge of the Light Brigade" (ie. marching to certain death) is a little masochist IMO. Not too appealing to me. But if a almost certain failure served a greater good that mattered to me, I guess that I'd be with you. Failure is a concept with shades of grey, and largely depends on your definition of success. I've met a few people who from my perspective are amazingly successful who feel that they are failures.
- bdclimber14 16y ago
  I agree, just as there are many definitions of "success" there are many definitions of failure. Here, I have an optimistic view of failure, as in the startup has to close doors with a profitable exit. Even if the startup had a positive impact on customers and the world, I'd classify this as a failure (because of failure to sustain).
groaner 16y ago
I've worked 80+ hour weeks on an emotional roller-coaster knowing I would certainly fail. I definitely hated it. The difference is that this was at BigCo. Does this mean that I'm not cut out for a startup? (EDIT: Am I a fool for believing that I can escape from 80-hour work weeks and emotional roller coasters by working at a startup?)
- bdclimber14 16y ago
  I think the big difference is in the outcome. That situation at BigCo won't make you better, I think it only drains you. That type of work at a startup though transforms you for the good. The main reason has to do with ownership.
- keeptrying 16y ago
  I think it helps if you've done this once already. Ie death marches at bigco. The thing that everyone seems to have forgotten is that large part of the 80 hours at a star up as a founder, is self driven. Ie you'll jump out of bed everyday excited to get to work. If you can make sure you don't get burnt out, I think it's sustainable at 40 hours a week. Michael Wolfe has some great answers on quora about how to run a startup and not get burnt out.
nhangen 16y ago
TBH, I don't even think of failure - I just know that I have to build stuff. Even in cases of failure, I never really feel like I've lost anything, and it's especially true when I'm building things for me instead of trying to get rich quick. Perhaps this quote sums it up: "I don't build in order to have clients, I have clients in order to build." The startup is my client.

Joakal 16y ago

If you're certain to fail, why do the startup? Did you mean the uncertainty of success?

bdclimber14 16y ago
Not even the uncertainty of success, but the certainty of failure. The learning experience is the reason. I'm a firm believer of "Fail early to succeed often."
- rwhitman 16y ago
  "The certainty of failure". I like that.
- zackattack 16y ago
  Why not at least aim for success so you don't accidentally program yourself for failure?
  - bdclimber14 16y ago
    Well definitely, and I'd hope every entrepreneur has the confidence in their company to think he will be successful. I just meant, given the hypothetical situation where you knew you would fail, would you still do it? Basically, are you doing it just for money, or is it for more than that?
    - zackattack 16y ago
      Your argument doesn't make sense because even if you're doing it just to learn, you're learning entrepreneur skills so you can do it for other reasons later.
      - bdclimber14 16y ago
        I think it still applies. You could rephrase it to say, would you work 80+ hours each week, no pay, for 2 years, just to have a powerful experience and greater knowledge (and the company fails)? It's not a failure from every perspective, but I don't think such a thing exists. Failure to make an exit, or failure to sustain the startup is mostly what I mean.
        cap4life 16y ago
        Where's the motivation for pressing on if there's a certainty of failure i.e. a certainty of your startup not making a profit? If the motivation comes from an innate desire to learn more about your market, your competitors, etc. then working on a startup begins to look more like academic field research and less like executing a viable business model. Not to collapse into an argument over semantics, but the very core meaning of the startup concept absolutely rests on the will to survive no matter the odds, a strong desire to succeed and sustain itself as an entity that provides something of value to real customers. If this is true, then the founders of the startup who got into it only to have a "powerful experience and greater knowledge" would, in essence, be going against the very nature and purpose of a startup.

Duff 16y ago

I guess that would depend on the definition of failure. Relishing failure as in the "Charge of the Light Brigade" (ie. marching to certain death) is a little masochist IMO. Not too appealing to me. But if a almost certain failure served a greater good that mattered to me, I guess that I'd be with you. Failure is a concept with shades of grey, and largely depends on your definition of success. I've met a few people who from my perspective are amazingly successful who feel that they are failures.

bdclimber14 16y ago
I agree, just as there are many definitions of "success" there are many definitions of failure. Here, I have an optimistic view of failure, as in the startup has to close doors with a profitable exit. Even if the startup had a positive impact on customers and the world, I'd classify this as a failure (because of failure to sustain).

groaner 16y ago

I've worked 80+ hour weeks on an emotional roller-coaster knowing I would certainly fail. I definitely hated it. The difference is that this was at BigCo. Does this mean that I'm not cut out for a startup? (EDIT: Am I a fool for believing that I can escape from 80-hour work weeks and emotional roller coasters by working at a startup?)

bdclimber14 16y ago
I think the big difference is in the outcome. That situation at BigCo won't make you better, I think it only drains you. That type of work at a startup though transforms you for the good. The main reason has to do with ownership.
keeptrying 16y ago
I think it helps if you've done this once already. Ie death marches at bigco. The thing that everyone seems to have forgotten is that large part of the 80 hours at a star up as a founder, is self driven. Ie you'll jump out of bed everyday excited to get to work. If you can make sure you don't get burnt out, I think it's sustainable at 40 hours a week. Michael Wolfe has some great answers on quora about how to run a startup and not get burnt out.

nhangen 16y ago

TBH, I don't even think of failure - I just know that I have to build stuff. Even in cases of failure, I never really feel like I've lost anything, and it's especially true when I'm building things for me instead of trying to get rich quick. Perhaps this quote sums it up: "I don't build in order to have clients, I have clients in order to build." The startup is my client.