4 ms·

But we're not talking about founders lying about their start-ups chances (the lottery ticket is a winner). We're talking about founders lying about the present

But we're not talking about founders lying about their start-ups chances (the lottery ticket is a winner). We're talking about founders lying about the present situation of their start-ups (not being transparent about financial health of the company). If, like you say, both parties involved understand the risk, why can't founders disclose more?

ChuckMcM 11y ago
> why can't founders disclose more? I expect it revolves around how people treat information. Have you heard the paradox about if you found out that in the future you would be able to time travel, and so in the present you slack off on an exam knowing you can come back and fix it later, but slacking off results in you not discovering time travel? There is a similar one in leadership where if you, as a leader, express doubts about the future your team will have doubts about the future and then they won't be operate at the level they need to in order to succeed. In some cases folks will believe that if they share all the information it will spook their team and make the negative outcome even more likely. Of course you can't know that until you actually try it, and once you try it you can't reverse it. Not surprisingly, one of my personal stress 'nightmares' (dreams I get when I'm under a lot of stress) is that I've just done the one thing that, having done it, it is now clear it is going to make for a worse outcome. I don't doubt there are times when extra transparency would be a positive, and where it would be a negative. And I understand why people, unable to predict if it would help or hurt, choose not to be more transparent.