4 ms·

I see three contributing factors here. - Startup founders almost by definition have unreasonable ambition – a level of interest, motivation and excitement that

by zach 15y ago

I see three contributing factors here. - Startup founders almost by definition have unreasonable ambition – a level of interest, motivation and excitement that exceeds their actual capacity. - The best people to work with on a project are very dedicated to their commitments and are placed in positions where their dedication is a priority. - People naturally place a higher priority on commitments that are existing, concrete, regular, place-oriented and are reinforced by the most social pressure from people they know well and interact with most frequently. (1) So, you get this. I've totally seen this before, not only having to be the one to say "no" (many, many times) and "I guess I can try working on it for an hour a day" (never enough) but even "wow, sorry, let me try to help" (when a friend's technical co-founder was swamped for months at their day job - again, it's hard to replace an expert or a full-time commitment). I really think that this was a good person to get with, they honestly wanted to do this, and they thought they could swing it if they made the commitment. But again, that's their ambition talking. Their dedication was stuck at their existing job. I can't imagine the stress this caused both of you and I hope you both move on wiser and more motivated from this. 1. This is why every company wants people on-site, of course.

joshwprinceton 15y ago
Thanks for your insight zach -- completely agree with your assessments on entrepreneurs and the importance of being together on-site
- zach 15y ago
  Thanks for bringing this topic up. This is a real and serious issue that isn't talked about much. But I should mention one more thing in greater detail, because it's crazy important. If there's one warning I would give to every potential technical co-founder and those who work with them, it's this. It's the very same motivation that drives the dedication of many developers — not to disappoint people depending on them — that often leads to a cycle of despair. Since developers are enthusiastic and don't want to disappoint people they've already made commitments to, they often choose to accept an easier form of cognitive dissonance over another. That is, they prefer to believe that they will make crazy things happen instead of accepting that they made a commitment they can't deliver on (even for perfectly understandable reasons). So they offer an overly-optimistic outlook or overcommit themselves as a result. They're not being knowingly dishonest as much as believing in something unrealistic. This pathology often starts with procrastination in school and can manifest itself like an addiction: it builds and builds until the individual either hits bottom (the stress is finally too much) or there's an intervention (they are confronted with a reality check or given an out). Be extremely careful about this because it is the epidemic of software (where estimation is difficult enough if you're completely rational, possibilities are great and heroic feats are legendary). Always be on guard and try to prevent this cycle from happening, because if it takes over an organization, things will begin turning in a Yeatsian gyre.
  - danenania 15y ago
    "things will begin turning in a Yeatsian gyre." Nice! Thanks, that was a great post--so very (unfortunately) familiar and true.
jlees 15y ago
Looking at it from the other person's point of view, you can discover a surprising amount. The blog post was entirely bashing Ted, but it's pretty clear to me what happened -- Ted told his company he was going to leave (or at least hinted), and then was offered a ton of shiny things such as new projects to stay. The safer route is to stay, so he did. Why? Risk aversion; if he weren't risk averse, he'd already be doing his own startup. The other angle is dedication/excitement. It's easy to sell an idea remotely but when the crunch comes and you have to work on it, to realise just how much work there is, and how little you actually care. A great hacker has so much vying for her attention that she really won't work on just any random project because you talk the talk, it has to be something interesting that she actually cares about. The number of non-technical people who try to sell me ideas that I can code up for them is growing longer by the day.

by zach 15y ago

joshwprinceton 15y ago

Thanks for your insight zach -- completely agree with your assessments on entrepreneurs and the importance of being together on-site

zach 15y ago
Thanks for bringing this topic up. This is a real and serious issue that isn't talked about much. But I should mention one more thing in greater detail, because it's crazy important. If there's one warning I would give to every potential technical co-founder and those who work with them, it's this. It's the very same motivation that drives the dedication of many developers — not to disappoint people depending on them — that often leads to a cycle of despair. Since developers are enthusiastic and don't want to disappoint people they've already made commitments to, they often choose to accept an easier form of cognitive dissonance over another. That is, they prefer to believe that they will make crazy things happen instead of accepting that they made a commitment they can't deliver on (even for perfectly understandable reasons). So they offer an overly-optimistic outlook or overcommit themselves as a result. They're not being knowingly dishonest as much as believing in something unrealistic. This pathology often starts with procrastination in school and can manifest itself like an addiction: it builds and builds until the individual either hits bottom (the stress is finally too much) or there's an intervention (they are confronted with a reality check or given an out). Be extremely careful about this because it is the epidemic of software (where estimation is difficult enough if you're completely rational, possibilities are great and heroic feats are legendary). Always be on guard and try to prevent this cycle from happening, because if it takes over an organization, things will begin turning in a Yeatsian gyre.
- danenania 15y ago
  "things will begin turning in a Yeatsian gyre." Nice! Thanks, that was a great post--so very (unfortunately) familiar and true.

jlees 15y ago

Looking at it from the other person's point of view, you can discover a surprising amount. The blog post was entirely bashing Ted, but it's pretty clear to me what happened -- Ted told his company he was going to leave (or at least hinted), and then was offered a ton of shiny things such as new projects to stay. The safer route is to stay, so he did. Why? Risk aversion; if he weren't risk averse, he'd already be doing his own startup. The other angle is dedication/excitement. It's easy to sell an idea remotely but when the crunch comes and you have to work on it, to realise just how much work there is, and how little you actually care. A great hacker has so much vying for her attention that she really won't work on just any random project because you talk the talk, it has to be something interesting that she actually cares about. The number of non-technical people who try to sell me ideas that I can code up for them is growing longer by the day.