6 ms·

"One of the most pervasive myths of startup life is that it has to be all consuming." This supposed myth long precedes startups. If you look at the outliers i

by pg 15y ago

"One of the most pervasive myths of startup life is that it has to be all consuming." This supposed myth long precedes startups. If you look at the outliers in any field, you'll find many if not most are by ordinary people's standards excessively dedicated to their work. Isaac Newton and Michelangelo (to name just two of thousands of examples) were notorious for neglecting everything except their work. The fact that this pattern is so old and so widespread suggests that it is not a myth. A startup is simply a company designed to grow at an exceptionally high rate, and Occam's razor implies that to succeed at this takes the same level of dedication as exceptional performance in any other field.

chc 15y ago
I think you and David have different definitions of a "startup," or at least different ideas of how fast and how big they need to grow. I think he just means something like "a small, young company with some ambitions of growth." Your definition is certainly the usual one, especially in Silicon Valley, but I think David just wants to remind people that that isn't the only option if you have entrepreneurial ambitions, so he's using a less common but broader sense of the word. He even says as much at the end: "It’s almost like we need another word. Startup is a great one, but I feel like it’s been forever hijacked for this narrow style."
- ejames 15y ago
  Part of it is a terminology problem. It's now common for any small business in the software industry to claim to be a "startup", even if it's actually a glorified consulting agency or contract software shop. Part of it is an integrity problem. In addition to describing your small business as a startup for marketing purposes, you might also call yourself a startup in order to make other claims - such as telling employees that their stock options are extraordinarily valuable, or making a rule that everyone must work 80 hours "just like the other startups". The flip side of the principle that exceptional businesses require exceptional effort is that almost all businesses are not exceptional.
nreece 15y ago
A startup is simply a company designed to grow at an exceptionally high rate Imo, most startups grow organically. Only a few grow at an exceptionally high rate.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
maratd 15y ago
> A startup is simply a company designed to grow at an exceptionally high rate From the perspective of a VC, I can certainly understand why you believe that. However, not all new businesses are geared toward VCs. I was never interested in outside funding. I am now running my second profitable business. I never once considered rapid growth as something that is even desirable, nevermind something I designed the business around. My goals have always been sustainability and profitability. There are many, many types of ventures out there, with a very disparate set of goals.
- tbrownaw 15y ago
  Not all new businesses are called "startups" either...
- abstractbill 15y ago
  I think "startup" has a pretty well established meaning at this point. Whether or not the meaning was hijacked, as claimed, I agree with the article - it would be useful to have a new name for businesses that are not designed to grow as quickly as a VC-funded startup.
portman 15y ago
Paul, Now that you're a parent, I'm curious if your opinion has changed (or will change in the coming years). For example, do you think you could have built ViaWeb if you had had children at that time? Is it possible to "neglect everything except your work AND your family", and still have the same probability of success a your childless doppleganger, who neglects everything except work?
- pg 15y ago
  Before I had kids, I knew that having kids made it harder to do great work. What I didn't understand was the way it happens. Before I had kids, I thought of kids as a distracting responsibility. Now I realize that the reason kids take up so much of your time is that you enjoy spending time with them. So for me at least the answer is not merely that I can't focus on work to the degree I used to, but that I wouldn't want to.
  - soosh 15y ago
    That much is true. I guess you're lucky with your son. My daughter sleeps so badly I've discovered a new side of my wife called "apocalyptic night mommy".
    - randall 15y ago
      I _love_ that I'm not the only one! We need a hacker parents support group.
phuff 15y ago
"The fact that this pattern is so old and so widespread suggests that it is not a myth." Or, I suppose, it could suggest just the opposite -- that it makes it all the more likely to be a myth... At the minimum it suggests that it is something which is worth a good ol' look at the empirical evidence to determine it's truthiness. I mean, DHH isn't making an empirically testable claim either, but this seems like the kind of thing that in this day and age there ought to be studies about...
jriddycuz 15y ago
I would agree that to be counted among your "thousands of examples" of outliers, one would have to be obsessively dedicated. Not everyone wants to be a Newton or a Da Vinci though. And there is nothing wrong with that. FogCreek and 37signals are certainly nowhere near as publicly visible as many SV startups, but they are successful and they became that way without the extreme levels of energy that SV startups seem to demand. Now those firms and their ilk may not fit your definition of "startup", but they are still ex nihilo undertakings that have been able to supply some very demanding consumers. They'll never be as sexy as the Valley kids, but their continued existence serves as ample evidence of their validity. And in that sense, it is a myth that startups must be all-consuming.
- abstractbill 15y ago
  Now those firms and their ilk may not fit your definition of "startup"... This whole debate seems to hinge on the definition of "startup". I'd be interested in historical evidence to back-up or refute the claim 37signals makes: Has the meaning of "startup" actually been hijacked? Or has it always meant what pg (and wikipedia) say it does?
  - jriddycuz 15y ago
    Startup companies can come in all forms, but the phrase "startup company" is often associated with high growth, technology oriented companies. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startup_company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startup_company This seems to be a reasonably good description of what the word means and what it is commonly associated with. You can call practically any young firm a startup, but it does most commonly refer to PG's definition. Like DHH said in the post, "starting a business" just does not have the near-mythical connotations "startup" has, but those connotations are result of the stories that typical startup culture provides. I don't think there's a way to make "starting a sustainable business" sound sexy because it's not a very sexy idea. And perhaps people with a spouse and kids shouldn't worry too much about how sexy an idea is, but rather how valuable it is.
martincmartin 15y ago
This is the old "working harder vs. smarter" dilemma. When you're looking who to fund/hire, or what kind of culture to build, you can either attract people who work smarter or work harder, or both. Working smarter is like finding an algorithm with a better time complexity. I was recently on a project where we could do it using The Architecture Going Forward That Is Always The Right Answer To Every Question, or the pragmatic way. I argued for the pragmatic way, but lost. February is the 1 year anniversary of this project. It has fallen far short of our goals, and we're now undoing the Grand Architecture way and implementing the pragmatic way, which is almost done and would have only taken 3-4 months, to achieve better software performance. Working harder is like improving the constant: if you spend 80 hours instead of 40 hours, maybe you can get 20-40% more done. Of course, it's great if you can get both. Working harder AND smarter. And there are a handful of people who do that. But not many, and you can't build a company full of them. Also, once people have had a lot more experience, and gained the ability to see the pitfalls before they step in them, they tend to want different things out of life, like, not working crazy hours. So you really have to choose. My favourite movie of all time is Kurasawa's The Seven Samurai. In the movie, a very experienced Samurai has to put together a team quickly, so the "job interview" starts with the candidate walking to a room where someone tries to hit him with a pole. The first candidate is inexperienced but very talented. He parries the blow. The second candidate, as he's walking up to the room and before he could possibly see the assailant, somehow senses him and avoids the situation entirely. I'd pick the second guy over the first guy any day.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
huggyface 15y ago
This supposed myth long precedes startups. The myth he talks about is specifically startup life, so it can't possibly precede it. It is perhaps a bit aggrandizing to compare, for instance, the general day to day operation of Stack Exchange or Reddit or any other "startup" style site with two of the greatest in human history. There are a lot of very successful organizations and individuals who don't commit themselves to the demonstration of heroic effort. You don't hear about them because heroics is a nice narrative, and the lack of heroics is seldom worthy of mention.
aespinoza 15y ago
In my personal opinion, I think "all consuming" just lacks optimization. Isaac Newton and Michelangelo didn't know any better. At their time, their process was the only one. At this moment, we have learned to work smarter, not harder. You can definitely have kids and do a great work. Hell you can have multiple companies and do a great job. Our time is more focused on having a full life, not only focusing on one thing but also being able to hustle between all the aspects of life. Myth or not myth doesn't mean that it is the only way. And even if geniuses like Newton and Michelangelo followed a way of doing things, doesn't mean it is the only way. Besides even if you kill yourself working, doesn't mean you'll be successful. If you stay focused and work smart, you have better odds at success.
- hasenj 15y ago
  Isaac Newton and Michelangelo didn't know any better. At their time, their process was the only one. Come on! Newton invented calculus before he turned 26, I'd like to see someone invent calculus today before they turn 26. (Most people have trouble understanding it, and this includes me). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=danYFxGnFxQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=danYFxGnFxQ
  - aespinoza 15y ago
    I agree. I'm not trying to take away their contribution. But I do believe we ha learned a lot more to improve process, from their time to ours.
cageface 15y ago
A lot of people of that stature were also miserable, abusive, and self-centered. It almost seems to come with the territory. For most of us shooting for a better life balance is probably much more likely to make us happy.
stiff 15y ago
Einstein had a day job as a patent clerk when working on relativity. Leibniz did manage to invent calculus, including the notation used to this day, even though he picked up mathematics relatively late in life and even though he also had a job and lots of other occupations in philosophy, engineering, politics etc. You can do a lot if you dedicate to a problem 10 quality hours a week for 10 years. It still takes a lot of dedication and focus, but stating as some kind of law that unless you work obsessively all the time you can not succeed is rather simplistic for something as vague and at the same time as complex as "success". Hard work isn't a virtue by itself, the capability to do work is a precious resource, that should be used wisely where it will make the most impact.
- brlewis 15y ago
  Yes, but how long did it take relativity and calculus, respectively, to gain traction? I've implemented a great idea myself in my spare time, but it won't change the world until it spreads. I'm not sure how successful I can be continuing it as a part-time project.
- pg 15y ago
  stating as some kind of law that unless you work obsessively all the time you can not succeed is rather simplistic for something as vague and at the same time as complex as "success" Did I do that? It seems to me that what I said was: "you'll find many if not most are by ordinary people's standards excessively dedicated to their work."
danssig 15y ago
Mental work isn't like physical work. Throwing more hours at it doesn't mean you'll get an increase, at least not for long.

by pg 15y ago

chc 15y ago

I think you and David have different definitions of a "startup," or at least different ideas of how fast and how big they need to grow. I think he just means something like "a small, young company with some ambitions of growth." Your definition is certainly the usual one, especially in Silicon Valley, but I think David just wants to remind people that that isn't the only option if you have entrepreneurial ambitions, so he's using a less common but broader sense of the word. He even says as much at the end: "It’s almost like we need another word. Startup is a great one, but I feel like it’s been forever hijacked for this narrow style."

ejames 15y ago
Part of it is a terminology problem. It's now common for any small business in the software industry to claim to be a "startup", even if it's actually a glorified consulting agency or contract software shop. Part of it is an integrity problem. In addition to describing your small business as a startup for marketing purposes, you might also call yourself a startup in order to make other claims - such as telling employees that their stock options are extraordinarily valuable, or making a rule that everyone must work 80 hours "just like the other startups". The flip side of the principle that exceptional businesses require exceptional effort is that almost all businesses are not exceptional.

nreece 15y ago

A startup is simply a company designed to grow at an exceptionally high rate Imo, most startups grow organically. Only a few grow at an exceptionally high rate.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

maratd 15y ago

> A startup is simply a company designed to grow at an exceptionally high rate From the perspective of a VC, I can certainly understand why you believe that. However, not all new businesses are geared toward VCs. I was never interested in outside funding. I am now running my second profitable business. I never once considered rapid growth as something that is even desirable, nevermind something I designed the business around. My goals have always been sustainability and profitability. There are many, many types of ventures out there, with a very disparate set of goals.

tbrownaw 15y ago
Not all new businesses are called "startups" either...
abstractbill 15y ago
I think "startup" has a pretty well established meaning at this point. Whether or not the meaning was hijacked, as claimed, I agree with the article - it would be useful to have a new name for businesses that are not designed to grow as quickly as a VC-funded startup.

portman 15y ago

Paul, Now that you're a parent, I'm curious if your opinion has changed (or will change in the coming years). For example, do you think you could have built ViaWeb if you had had children at that time? Is it possible to "neglect everything except your work AND your family", and still have the same probability of success a your childless doppleganger, who neglects everything except work?

pg 15y ago
Before I had kids, I knew that having kids made it harder to do great work. What I didn't understand was the way it happens. Before I had kids, I thought of kids as a distracting responsibility. Now I realize that the reason kids take up so much of your time is that you enjoy spending time with them. So for me at least the answer is not merely that I can't focus on work to the degree I used to, but that I wouldn't want to.
- soosh 15y ago
  That much is true. I guess you're lucky with your son. My daughter sleeps so badly I've discovered a new side of my wife called "apocalyptic night mommy".
  - randall 15y ago
    I _love_ that I'm not the only one! We need a hacker parents support group.

phuff 15y ago

"The fact that this pattern is so old and so widespread suggests that it is not a myth." Or, I suppose, it could suggest just the opposite -- that it makes it all the more likely to be a myth... At the minimum it suggests that it is something which is worth a good ol' look at the empirical evidence to determine it's truthiness. I mean, DHH isn't making an empirically testable claim either, but this seems like the kind of thing that in this day and age there ought to be studies about...

jriddycuz 15y ago

I would agree that to be counted among your "thousands of examples" of outliers, one would have to be obsessively dedicated. Not everyone wants to be a Newton or a Da Vinci though. And there is nothing wrong with that. FogCreek and 37signals are certainly nowhere near as publicly visible as many SV startups, but they are successful and they became that way without the extreme levels of energy that SV startups seem to demand. Now those firms and their ilk may not fit your definition of "startup", but they are still ex nihilo undertakings that have been able to supply some very demanding consumers. They'll never be as sexy as the Valley kids, but their continued existence serves as ample evidence of their validity. And in that sense, it is a myth that startups must be all-consuming.

abstractbill 15y ago
Now those firms and their ilk may not fit your definition of "startup"... This whole debate seems to hinge on the definition of "startup". I'd be interested in historical evidence to back-up or refute the claim 37signals makes: Has the meaning of "startup" actually been hijacked? Or has it always meant what pg (and wikipedia) say it does?
- jriddycuz 15y ago
  Startup companies can come in all forms, but the phrase "startup company" is often associated with high growth, technology oriented companies. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startup_company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startup_company This seems to be a reasonably good description of what the word means and what it is commonly associated with. You can call practically any young firm a startup, but it does most commonly refer to PG's definition. Like DHH said in the post, "starting a business" just does not have the near-mythical connotations "startup" has, but those connotations are result of the stories that typical startup culture provides. I don't think there's a way to make "starting a sustainable business" sound sexy because it's not a very sexy idea. And perhaps people with a spouse and kids shouldn't worry too much about how sexy an idea is, but rather how valuable it is.

martincmartin 15y ago

This is the old "working harder vs. smarter" dilemma. When you're looking who to fund/hire, or what kind of culture to build, you can either attract people who work smarter or work harder, or both. Working smarter is like finding an algorithm with a better time complexity. I was recently on a project where we could do it using The Architecture Going Forward That Is Always The Right Answer To Every Question, or the pragmatic way. I argued for the pragmatic way, but lost. February is the 1 year anniversary of this project. It has fallen far short of our goals, and we're now undoing the Grand Architecture way and implementing the pragmatic way, which is almost done and would have only taken 3-4 months, to achieve better software performance. Working harder is like improving the constant: if you spend 80 hours instead of 40 hours, maybe you can get 20-40% more done. Of course, it's great if you can get both. Working harder AND smarter. And there are a handful of people who do that. But not many, and you can't build a company full of them. Also, once people have had a lot more experience, and gained the ability to see the pitfalls before they step in them, they tend to want different things out of life, like, not working crazy hours. So you really have to choose. My favourite movie of all time is Kurasawa's The Seven Samurai. In the movie, a very experienced Samurai has to put together a team quickly, so the "job interview" starts with the candidate walking to a room where someone tries to hit him with a pole. The first candidate is inexperienced but very talented. He parries the blow. The second candidate, as he's walking up to the room and before he could possibly see the assailant, somehow senses him and avoids the situation entirely. I'd pick the second guy over the first guy any day.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

huggyface 15y ago

This supposed myth long precedes startups. The myth he talks about is specifically startup life, so it can't possibly precede it. It is perhaps a bit aggrandizing to compare, for instance, the general day to day operation of Stack Exchange or Reddit or any other "startup" style site with two of the greatest in human history. There are a lot of very successful organizations and individuals who don't commit themselves to the demonstration of heroic effort. You don't hear about them because heroics is a nice narrative, and the lack of heroics is seldom worthy of mention.

aespinoza 15y ago

In my personal opinion, I think "all consuming" just lacks optimization. Isaac Newton and Michelangelo didn't know any better. At their time, their process was the only one. At this moment, we have learned to work smarter, not harder. You can definitely have kids and do a great work. Hell you can have multiple companies and do a great job. Our time is more focused on having a full life, not only focusing on one thing but also being able to hustle between all the aspects of life. Myth or not myth doesn't mean that it is the only way. And even if geniuses like Newton and Michelangelo followed a way of doing things, doesn't mean it is the only way. Besides even if you kill yourself working, doesn't mean you'll be successful. If you stay focused and work smart, you have better odds at success.

hasenj 15y ago
Isaac Newton and Michelangelo didn't know any better. At their time, their process was the only one. Come on! Newton invented calculus before he turned 26, I'd like to see someone invent calculus today before they turn 26. (Most people have trouble understanding it, and this includes me). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=danYFxGnFxQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=danYFxGnFxQ
- aespinoza 15y ago
  I agree. I'm not trying to take away their contribution. But I do believe we ha learned a lot more to improve process, from their time to ours.

cageface 15y ago

A lot of people of that stature were also miserable, abusive, and self-centered. It almost seems to come with the territory. For most of us shooting for a better life balance is probably much more likely to make us happy.

stiff 15y ago

Einstein had a day job as a patent clerk when working on relativity. Leibniz did manage to invent calculus, including the notation used to this day, even though he picked up mathematics relatively late in life and even though he also had a job and lots of other occupations in philosophy, engineering, politics etc. You can do a lot if you dedicate to a problem 10 quality hours a week for 10 years. It still takes a lot of dedication and focus, but stating as some kind of law that unless you work obsessively all the time you can not succeed is rather simplistic for something as vague and at the same time as complex as "success". Hard work isn't a virtue by itself, the capability to do work is a precious resource, that should be used wisely where it will make the most impact.

brlewis 15y ago
Yes, but how long did it take relativity and calculus, respectively, to gain traction? I've implemented a great idea myself in my spare time, but it won't change the world until it spreads. I'm not sure how successful I can be continuing it as a part-time project.
pg 15y ago
stating as some kind of law that unless you work obsessively all the time you can not succeed is rather simplistic for something as vague and at the same time as complex as "success" Did I do that? It seems to me that what I said was: "you'll find many if not most are by ordinary people's standards excessively dedicated to their work."

danssig 15y ago

Mental work isn't like physical work. Throwing more hours at it doesn't mean you'll get an increase, at least not for long.