7 ms·

I keep seeing these types of articles and it's the same story over and over again, "one must work 20 hours a day 7 days a week in order to be successful with yo

I keep seeing these types of articles and it's the same story over and over again, "one must work 20 hours a day 7 days a week in order to be successful with your startup." Is this always the case? I can't imagine it is. Surely there are people out there who ran their startup successfully on a part-time basis while working a full time job and enjoying quality family time.

mattmaroon 18y ago
It's not only not the case that you must do it, it's usually suboptimal, it's just hard to tell that from the inside. He even mentions himself that he's working at a greatly reduced capacity. If he spent less time at work and more time on himself, he'd probably get more done.
tdavis 18y ago
Well, here's the thing: (a) That is what we are told and (b) That is what is reinforced by those who have been successful How many stories have you heard that were basically, "Yeah, I started this company part-time, never worked on it more than a few hours a day because I had this other job, and it was bought for 20 million bucks!" Personally, I've heard none. Now, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that I still work 20 hours a day, because I don't. Last summer I was close, though. I stopped sacrificing my health at the beginning of this year when I began going to the gym every day again and stopped smoking a pack a day. Now that spring is upon us, I'm even beginning to remember a time when "woman" was a word in my vernacular. The reason you see these types of articles and the reason you will continue to is because for those of us who have no other jobs, our startups are our lives. I could work for Big Co. and go home at the end of the day not at all worrying about whether or not they will be there tomorrow. The company would pay me X to perform Y and that would be exactly what I'd perform (if I wanted a promotion, maybe Y+1). At TicketStumbler, I am not merely a cog. If I don't write code for that new feature or fix that bug or setup that new server, nobody else is going to. This means that not only do I constantly have a lot to do, but it all has pretty much the same priority: done yesterday. And if I decide to take a few days off instead of doing one of those things? I get the pleasure of feeling guilty about it the entire time. So it basically boils down to: at an early-stage startup you have the pleasure of controlling your destiny and being your own boss; for those of us who cannot stomach traditional employment, we feel as if we actually have a soul. The downside? Well, you live in a constant and unrelenting state of stress and obligation. The effects of that state differ from person to person, but alienations/estrangement from family and friends and unwillingness to prioritize anything other than the company are common ones.
- breck 18y ago
  (b) I've heard of many Internet companies like this. In fact, most of the stories I've heard of companies doing the 20-hour day thing end in failure. I think more people try it that way. Actually, I should rephrase that---companies that START OUT with 20 hour days more often than not end in failure. The reason why is simple: there's no reason why you need to work that hard until you've found a "magic model" and are scaling it. In other words, here is my blueprint for maximizing your odds of starting a successful Internet company: a) have stable income. b) start side projects part time, don't work on them for more than a few hours a day. c) once one of the side projects is generating significant revenue more than income source A, or is growing like a Twitter, then slowly ramp up to where you're working the 10+ hour day thing d) sell for bazillions If you skip A and B, you will likely fail.
  - anuraggoel 18y ago
    What you describe is the no-risk route. However, by going full time on a project you increase its chances of success significantly. I'd argue that it is very hard to determine that an idea (including successive iterations) will not lead to a successful internet company till you go full time on it.
    - breck 18y ago
      > However, by going full time on a project you increase its chances of success significantly. Yes, you do increase the project's chances of "success" significantly. You don't, however, increase your chances of success. Instead, you increase your chances of failure and decrease your chances of significant success. The reason is because odds are, you've chosen the wrong project. Also, as things inevitably go wrong, if you don't have a cushion you're greatly increasing your chances of failure. > What you describe is the no-risk route. There is still risk in putting time and/or money into a project part time. Also, even if your project has traction there will still be a lot of risk in going at it full time. I think the opposite of what I'm describing is not even the high risk route, it's the gambling route. You get more of a rush but it's not wise to do and generally ends badly. > I'd argue that it is very hard to determine that an idea (including successive iterations) will not lead to a successful internet company till you go full time on it. I disagree. I think you should assume odds are very high that the idea will not lead to a successful internet company, UNLESS you have good traction when you go full time on it.
anuraggoel 18y ago
'Hard work' is a relative term. In the end, it's all about competition. If you're building anything worthwhile, you will have competitors - if not in the beginning, after you launch. In order to be better than the competition, working smart is not enough, because you're not the only smart person around. The only option is to work smarter and harder than the competition. Now you could be in an industry where everyone works 8 hours a day, so working harder wouldn't give you too much incremental advantage. Unfortunately (or fortunately for those who can work 'hard'), tech startups are not that industry.
gruseom 18y ago
From what I've observed, when people say they spend "X hours a day working" (for some outrageously high X) what they're really talking about is how much time they spend at work, which is not the same thing. These quantitative games are a bit silly. It reminds me of when people brag about how many lines of code they churn out, as if that were a good thing. There is a real issue, though. Most startups demand an intensity of commitment that is difficult to reconcile with part-time engagement or even, it seems, with so-called work-life balance.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- access_denied 18y ago
  > that is difficult to reconcile Or even just in your head! You are constantly thinking about the project and that stresses you out.
DenisM 18y ago
I suggest you to read the "Founders at work" book and look for common patterns among the successful founders. Personally, I found exactly one thing in common - determination to get something done. That's it.

mattmaroon 18y ago

It's not only not the case that you must do it, it's usually suboptimal, it's just hard to tell that from the inside. He even mentions himself that he's working at a greatly reduced capacity. If he spent less time at work and more time on himself, he'd probably get more done.

tdavis 18y ago

Well, here's the thing: (a) That is what we are told and (b) That is what is reinforced by those who have been successful How many stories have you heard that were basically, "Yeah, I started this company part-time, never worked on it more than a few hours a day because I had this other job, and it was bought for 20 million bucks!" Personally, I've heard none. Now, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that I still work 20 hours a day, because I don't. Last summer I was close, though. I stopped sacrificing my health at the beginning of this year when I began going to the gym every day again and stopped smoking a pack a day. Now that spring is upon us, I'm even beginning to remember a time when "woman" was a word in my vernacular. The reason you see these types of articles and the reason you will continue to is because for those of us who have no other jobs, our startups are our lives. I could work for Big Co. and go home at the end of the day not at all worrying about whether or not they will be there tomorrow. The company would pay me X to perform Y and that would be exactly what I'd perform (if I wanted a promotion, maybe Y+1). At TicketStumbler, I am not merely a cog. If I don't write code for that new feature or fix that bug or setup that new server, nobody else is going to. This means that not only do I constantly have a lot to do, but it all has pretty much the same priority: done yesterday. And if I decide to take a few days off instead of doing one of those things? I get the pleasure of feeling guilty about it the entire time. So it basically boils down to: at an early-stage startup you have the pleasure of controlling your destiny and being your own boss; for those of us who cannot stomach traditional employment, we feel as if we actually have a soul. The downside? Well, you live in a constant and unrelenting state of stress and obligation. The effects of that state differ from person to person, but alienations/estrangement from family and friends and unwillingness to prioritize anything other than the company are common ones.

breck 18y ago
(b) I've heard of many Internet companies like this. In fact, most of the stories I've heard of companies doing the 20-hour day thing end in failure. I think more people try it that way. Actually, I should rephrase that---companies that START OUT with 20 hour days more often than not end in failure. The reason why is simple: there's no reason why you need to work that hard until you've found a "magic model" and are scaling it. In other words, here is my blueprint for maximizing your odds of starting a successful Internet company: a) have stable income. b) start side projects part time, don't work on them for more than a few hours a day. c) once one of the side projects is generating significant revenue more than income source A, or is growing like a Twitter, then slowly ramp up to where you're working the 10+ hour day thing d) sell for bazillions If you skip A and B, you will likely fail.
- anuraggoel 18y ago
  What you describe is the no-risk route. However, by going full time on a project you increase its chances of success significantly. I'd argue that it is very hard to determine that an idea (including successive iterations) will not lead to a successful internet company till you go full time on it.
  - breck 18y ago
    > However, by going full time on a project you increase its chances of success significantly. Yes, you do increase the project's chances of "success" significantly. You don't, however, increase your chances of success. Instead, you increase your chances of failure and decrease your chances of significant success. The reason is because odds are, you've chosen the wrong project. Also, as things inevitably go wrong, if you don't have a cushion you're greatly increasing your chances of failure. > What you describe is the no-risk route. There is still risk in putting time and/or money into a project part time. Also, even if your project has traction there will still be a lot of risk in going at it full time. I think the opposite of what I'm describing is not even the high risk route, it's the gambling route. You get more of a rush but it's not wise to do and generally ends badly. > I'd argue that it is very hard to determine that an idea (including successive iterations) will not lead to a successful internet company till you go full time on it. I disagree. I think you should assume odds are very high that the idea will not lead to a successful internet company, UNLESS you have good traction when you go full time on it.

anuraggoel 18y ago

'Hard work' is a relative term. In the end, it's all about competition. If you're building anything worthwhile, you will have competitors - if not in the beginning, after you launch. In order to be better than the competition, working smart is not enough, because you're not the only smart person around. The only option is to work smarter and harder than the competition. Now you could be in an industry where everyone works 8 hours a day, so working harder wouldn't give you too much incremental advantage. Unfortunately (or fortunately for those who can work 'hard'), tech startups are not that industry.

gruseom 18y ago

From what I've observed, when people say they spend "X hours a day working" (for some outrageously high X) what they're really talking about is how much time they spend at work, which is not the same thing. These quantitative games are a bit silly. It reminds me of when people brag about how many lines of code they churn out, as if that were a good thing. There is a real issue, though. Most startups demand an intensity of commitment that is difficult to reconcile with part-time engagement or even, it seems, with so-called work-life balance.

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
access_denied 18y ago
> that is difficult to reconcile Or even just in your head! You are constantly thinking about the project and that stresses you out.

DenisM 18y ago

I suggest you to read the "Founders at work" book and look for common patterns among the successful founders. Personally, I found exactly one thing in common - determination to get something done. That's it.