3 ms·
I read the whole thing, but you lost credibility at the first sentence. It's a proven myth that a failing at a start-up is no indicator of success at your next
by andrewljohnson 18y ago
I read the whole thing, but you lost credibility at the first sentence. It's a proven myth that a failing at a start-up is no indicator of success at your next start-up.
The only "predictor" of future success in any world is past success. Give me a successful person with any reasonable background, and I'd prefer them to a failure as the leader of a company.
As Professor Paul Gompers says, “for the average entrepreneur who failed, no learning happened.”
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5941.html http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5941.html
- rjurney 18y agoI would suggest that failing at a startup and demonstrating that you've learned from that failure would be a strong indicator of success. There's so many common lessons people learn.
- andrewljohnson 18y agoBefore just repeating the fallacy, why don't you read the HBR link I posted. As it turns out, what you say is just not true, when actually measured. On what basis would you suggest otherwise? Anecdotal evidence from a bunch of failed entrepreneurs who want to believe the experience helped them?
- rjurney 18y agoI didn't repeat the fallacy, I characterized his talk. He's explaning that he learned an awful lot about metrics. Failing is one thing, demonstrating that you've learned is another.
- mannicken 18y agoWould you take a person with no experience in startups (and hence no failures) over person who failed a startup?