6 ms·

This post makes me happy :) > "Worst of all, PIH is probably not trying to make the world a better place through technology." Don't worry, PIH, Startup Guy is

This post makes me happy :) > "Worst of all, PIH is probably not trying to make the world a better place through technology." Don't worry, PIH, Startup Guy isn't either. There are really two main camps of startup founders I've met. There's the type that really wants to bring a vision to life - they have a pseudo-religious fervor about something, whether it's gaming, transportation, lodging, or something else. They really want to change the world, and it's not just talk. Then there are ones that are really in it to make money. They want to create a company, exit, and go do what they really want to do. Sit on a beach, roll up to the club in a Rolls Royce, travel, whatever. It's a sliding scale. Every founder has some balance of being genuinely passionate about what their company does, and the desire to just cash out. All said and done though, the founders I meet tend to lean much further towards the latter than the former.

the_cat_kittles 13y ago
This has been my experience as well. The people that actually care about building and designing things tend to be the builders and designers. Maybe thats why most non-technical / non-design founders I have known seem to really just be about the money.
- potatolicious 13y ago
  Ehh, I wouldn't give the builders and designers a free pass either. I've met just as many engineers and designers who are in it for the money. All in all the people who genuinely want to change the world and are willing to put their money where their mouth is, are very few and far between. Regardless of their profession or background. The dissonance is that startups, particularly VC-funded high-growth startups make a lot of noise about disruption, changing the world, and the such. But somehow, with few exceptions, when push comes to shove they will take the exit over their vision.
  - rhizome 13y ago
    The disruption is a reputation, a stereotype, that does not really hold sway the more we see developers and business people enter the industry from more traditional educational institutions.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- antitrust 13y ago
  > Maybe thats why most non-technical / non-design founders I have known seem to really just be about the money. Not to pick nits, but I think the dichotomy you're setting up here is silly. Business administration or leadership are skills as technical as coding or design, and if done correctly, can be more so. With that in mind, there's an art to making money. Just churning over cash in the short term doesn't have that. Building a brand that can last for a century takes a genius.
  - the_cat_kittles 13y ago
    Good point. Maybe a more important distinction is how someone evaluates the product. Do they think its a success just because it made a ton of money? Or do they have some more intrinsic measures of what makes it good, and look at the impact it actually has on people? With that in mind, I can see how a gifted business administrator can do their job (maybe make the company money) while being motivated by the more intrinsic stuff about the company. I guess I just try to stay away from people who's ONLY yardstick is how well it sells.
kemist 13y ago
My favorite founders are the ones that are in it for the journey. You have to look hard to find them but they're out there.
- melling 13y ago
  Well, since this in HN, maybe we could throw out a few. In particular, which ones qualify in NYC?
  - potatolicious 13y ago
    I work at one, we're in DUMBO. My email is in my profile, and yes we're hiring ;)
veesahni 13y ago
I don't fit in those buckets. I have no external funding and no desire for it. I'm not in it to change the world or for a big exit - I'm in it for freedom. Freedom to steer the business in the direction I feel is right. Freedom to work on what I choose is important. The one advantage of this approach is that my primary focus is the needs of my customers, rather than the needs of my investors.
- jmduke 13y ago
  If you learn a lot of corporate strategy, you'll read about the importance of aligning the goals of your customers with the goals of your investors (and then you'll suddenly read that phrase in every earnings and annual report ever.) The idea being: there's an inherent paradox in trying to serve two mistresses, one who wants profit and the other who wants value. Something that isn't touched on too much is that it's sometimes better to only have one mistress. When your customers are your investors, then your priorities and goals suddenly become a lot clearer.
  - liljimmytables 13y ago
    sorry to be the guy that gets picky about words, but i think you mean contention rather than paradox
    - jmduke 13y ago
      Whoops -- yep, you're right! (In my defense, it's very early and I'm very bad at words.)
      - yaddayadda 13y ago
        I actually think "paradox" is a perfectly acceptable word in the context used. The common usage meaning - contradiction - is particularly apropos. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox edit: fixed nasty typo
        13y ago
zacharycohn 13y ago
Paraphrased via The Founders Dilemmas: There are two types of founders - money oriented and control oriented. A good HBR article about the topic: http://hbr.org/2008/02/the-founders-dilemma/ar/1 http://hbr.org/2008/02/the-founders-dilemma/ar/1
- jastreich 13y ago
  Here's the problem with that... False assumptions being made in the article include: - You need venture capital to be successful - The goal should be public trading Cargil, Koch Industries, Mars, LAMPO Group and many others remain privately held. - You can measure the potential for financial success of a company in some real tangible way, and tell how close you are too that potential. I also don't think that money and control are the only two orientations to have here. Or perhaps there are subgroups to money and control orientation. For instance, Fred Rogers (Mr. Rogers) wanted to pass on his show to another; but, couldn't find someone who met his high standards of morals, communication skills, and permeability. After his death, the Fred Rogers Company (formerly Family Communications) did launch a new show, and it was still important enough to get Fred's widows blessing before it aired. Is that control oriented, or is quality oriented? Or take a look at company founding CEOs that have missions or beliefs that forbid them from taking shortcuts to maximize profits, like an unwillingness to outsource to parts of the world that treat labor like cattle. Is that simple "control orientation? I am control oriented, and for that reason won't take on debt, venture capital, investors or partners. I am clear, it is mine, I have a vision for it, and you can't have it or pervert it. Profit isn't as important as delivering a good product and actually touching lives.

the_cat_kittles 13y ago

This has been my experience as well. The people that actually care about building and designing things tend to be the builders and designers. Maybe thats why most non-technical / non-design founders I have known seem to really just be about the money.

potatolicious 13y ago
Ehh, I wouldn't give the builders and designers a free pass either. I've met just as many engineers and designers who are in it for the money. All in all the people who genuinely want to change the world and are willing to put their money where their mouth is, are very few and far between. Regardless of their profession or background. The dissonance is that startups, particularly VC-funded high-growth startups make a lot of noise about disruption, changing the world, and the such. But somehow, with few exceptions, when push comes to shove they will take the exit over their vision.
- rhizome 13y ago
  The disruption is a reputation, a stereotype, that does not really hold sway the more we see developers and business people enter the industry from more traditional educational institutions.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
antitrust 13y ago
> Maybe thats why most non-technical / non-design founders I have known seem to really just be about the money. Not to pick nits, but I think the dichotomy you're setting up here is silly. Business administration or leadership are skills as technical as coding or design, and if done correctly, can be more so. With that in mind, there's an art to making money. Just churning over cash in the short term doesn't have that. Building a brand that can last for a century takes a genius.
- the_cat_kittles 13y ago
  Good point. Maybe a more important distinction is how someone evaluates the product. Do they think its a success just because it made a ton of money? Or do they have some more intrinsic measures of what makes it good, and look at the impact it actually has on people? With that in mind, I can see how a gifted business administrator can do their job (maybe make the company money) while being motivated by the more intrinsic stuff about the company. I guess I just try to stay away from people who's ONLY yardstick is how well it sells.

kemist 13y ago

My favorite founders are the ones that are in it for the journey. You have to look hard to find them but they're out there.

melling 13y ago
Well, since this in HN, maybe we could throw out a few. In particular, which ones qualify in NYC?
- potatolicious 13y ago
  I work at one, we're in DUMBO. My email is in my profile, and yes we're hiring ;)

veesahni 13y ago

I don't fit in those buckets. I have no external funding and no desire for it. I'm not in it to change the world or for a big exit - I'm in it for freedom. Freedom to steer the business in the direction I feel is right. Freedom to work on what I choose is important. The one advantage of this approach is that my primary focus is the needs of my customers, rather than the needs of my investors.

jmduke 13y ago
If you learn a lot of corporate strategy, you'll read about the importance of aligning the goals of your customers with the goals of your investors (and then you'll suddenly read that phrase in every earnings and annual report ever.) The idea being: there's an inherent paradox in trying to serve two mistresses, one who wants profit and the other who wants value. Something that isn't touched on too much is that it's sometimes better to only have one mistress. When your customers are your investors, then your priorities and goals suddenly become a lot clearer.
- liljimmytables 13y ago
  sorry to be the guy that gets picky about words, but i think you mean contention rather than paradox
  - jmduke 13y ago
    Whoops -- yep, you're right! (In my defense, it's very early and I'm very bad at words.)
    - yaddayadda 13y ago
      I actually think "paradox" is a perfectly acceptable word in the context used. The common usage meaning - contradiction - is particularly apropos. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox edit: fixed nasty typo
      - 13y ago

zacharycohn 13y ago

Paraphrased via The Founders Dilemmas: There are two types of founders - money oriented and control oriented. A good HBR article about the topic: http://hbr.org/2008/02/the-founders-dilemma/ar/1 http://hbr.org/2008/02/the-founders-dilemma/ar/1

jastreich 13y ago
Here's the problem with that... False assumptions being made in the article include: - You need venture capital to be successful - The goal should be public trading Cargil, Koch Industries, Mars, LAMPO Group and many others remain privately held. - You can measure the potential for financial success of a company in some real tangible way, and tell how close you are too that potential. I also don't think that money and control are the only two orientations to have here. Or perhaps there are subgroups to money and control orientation. For instance, Fred Rogers (Mr. Rogers) wanted to pass on his show to another; but, couldn't find someone who met his high standards of morals, communication skills, and permeability. After his death, the Fred Rogers Company (formerly Family Communications) did launch a new show, and it was still important enough to get Fred's widows blessing before it aired. Is that control oriented, or is quality oriented? Or take a look at company founding CEOs that have missions or beliefs that forbid them from taking shortcuts to maximize profits, like an unwillingness to outsource to parts of the world that treat labor like cattle. Is that simple "control orientation? I am control oriented, and for that reason won't take on debt, venture capital, investors or partners. I am clear, it is mine, I have a vision for it, and you can't have it or pervert it. Profit isn't as important as delivering a good product and actually touching lives.