Hacker News Reader

Comment by cpkpad | Hacker News Reader

Nope. I've seen plenty of successful companies bumble around and have dumb luck. The reverse is also true -- perfect execution is rare and almost guarantees success.

I'll reemphasize that even competent execution is rare; few people can execute perfectly on business AND technology AND marketing AND design AND .... Especially first-time entrepreneurs.

Fortunately, the other guy's deeply imperfect too. In capitalism, you just have to be better than the other guy. It's pretty hard -- the other guy has been at it for a while and you're just starting out, but it's far from impossible. Most businesses execute very poorly.

Fortunately, each time you try to execute, you get a little bit better at all of those, so after a few tries, you can out-execute. You also learn the advantages smaller, more agile players have over bigger ones.

I agree with the persistence bias argument 100%.

View on HN

Ive seen plenty of successful companies that got lucky, but none with dumb luck. Which are you referring to?

Execution is an HN startup meme. Correctly: most businesses execute very unluckily. You're hopelessly down the rabbit hole if you think skill has the most to do with it, it's total nonsense. VCs don't invest in skill, they invest in crapshoots. Skill is a prerequisite, luck is what makes people rich. Don't pretend otherwise or you'll make it more painful when you fail (99% of the time).

I've seen order-of-magnitude difference in abilities of companies to:

* Build products

* Sell products

* Recruit

* Build rapport with customers

* Evaluate business models

Most of that is ability. Few people have ability in /all/ of those directions. I've seen people who are even competent (not great) at all of those launch successful business after successful business.

By "successful" I don't mean billion dollar unicorn. I mean businesses which employ tens (or hundreds) of people, have millions in revenue, and last indefinitely.

This stuff isn't rocket science. If a Fortune 500 make widgets, and you make higher quality widgets at lower cost and make people aware of that, you'll run a sustainable business.

As a small business, on one hand, you'll have slightly less access to distribution and marketing channels. On the other hand, you'll have a much leaner cost model (no multi-layer executive hierarchies to sustain). Your team will also be much more focused, productive, and agile. You'll also be more risk-tolerant. All of those provide competitive advantages.

I wish we'd (as a whole) stop using quantitative terms for things that aren't quantifiable. We can all do that, it's easy and it makes us sound smart.

I've seen $100mm+ companies fail because Google decided not to like them anymore. I'm talking about external forces that are far more powerful than execution. And there are lots of 'em (an infinity, even!).

External forces happen. I've certainly seen businesses shut down for reasons outside of their control. It's just that this happens a minority of the time. Most of the time, businesses shut down either because:

1. High-risk venture. Someone wants to be the next Facebook and takes a 1-in-a-100 gamble at a billion dollars.

2. Stupid idea/business model. Founder is a true believer in some idea which doesn't match reality.

3. Poor execution. It's a good idea and business model, but any of the hundred things which can shut down a business do: technology takes 10x as long to develop and is buggy; founder fails to recruit good people; zero external sales/visibility/marketing ("if you build it they will come" or wildly implausible assumptions about viral or similar); costs get out-of-control; etc. Most founders I know can do all of those reasonably, and one or two brilliantly. It's hard for me to emphasize how important (and hard) it is to be at least competent at all of those since messing up any one will shut down a company.

> perfect execution is rare and almost guarantees success

Isn't that a tautology? Is there any reliable measure of execution other than the success that follows?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com