Don't Fall Asleep at the Wheel: Successful Entrepreneurs Have Lives
good.is
good.is
Failure to distinguish between startups and ordinary
companies is the source of the news stories we see
every six months or so announcing the discovery that,
contrary to popular belief, most entrepreneurs are in
their forties.These are very different things with different skills required, but, as the startup founder is the new thing here, it should get a new word instead of trying to force an existing, understood term to have a new meaning and just causing a lot of confusion as a result.
Edit: Does anyone happen to know the success rate (for some definition of success) for restaurants?
Pretty low failure rate, compared to a startup.
[1] http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2007-04-16/the-restauran...
Isn't it possible that due to the way YC is structured ($18k of funding for 3 months where you have to relocate to the Bay Area), your sample is strongly biased towards younger founders, and that the median age for a successful startup founder is actually 40 or older?
Obviously my knowledge of startups isn't limited to those we've funded.
If you're really interested in the question of successful founders' ages and not just using this as an excuse to argue with me, you can learn a lot from publicly available information. Make a list of the most successful startups of recent times, and find the average ages of their founders. E.g. what was the average age of the founders of Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo, Google, and Facebook?
What you seem to have identified in 'Startup = Growth' is a subset of the startup ecosystem more akin to 'wildcatting.' Both wildcatters and the ventures you seek risk capital from domain experts. These wildcatting risks and rewards are huge as you know better than most.
Maybe a more dignified word than 'wildcatting' can be found but 'startup' is taken.
Sorry if I am a bit dubious of the claim.
Also, I think that this is primarily restricted to Internet where it has become increasingly easy to start new companies, and people create a mobile app and call it a "startup". Telecom and Semiconductor companies are still founded by more experienced people, though I don't have age data.
I'm not sure if you meant it that way, but personally I found your comment a little condescending towards people in their forties, and I'm one of them having just crossed over the threshold. As people in their youth have done amazing things, so have people in their mid to late years, and its more about attitude than age in my very humble opinion.
- for Web / consumer startup the majority of entrepreneurs are in 20s
- for enterprise enterprise applications startup is seems like entrepreneurs in 30s
- for enterprise infrastructure startup is seems like entrepreneurs are in 40s
As of now the most of growth is in Web / consumer startup so it seems like all entrepreneurs needs to be in 20s.
There's a huge myth about Japan in that many people believe that salary men work insane hours out of dedication to their jobs. In reality, there is very little productivity in Japanese corporate offices. While the salaryman might stay for 12 to 13 hours a day, only 4 or 5 is spent actually working -- the other half is spent dicking around. They stay out of a social contract, a culture of not being the first to leave.
I think the kind of startups that we talk about here have a lot in common with the traditional Japanese corporate office culture.
You think the startup founders working 18 hour days are dicking around for most of that time? I'd say you're almost certainly wrong.
I'm not saying the post is wrong either, a good work/life balance might be the path to success. But the people who don't have that are not playing WoW all day at work.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=209195
Barely anybody hit 10 hour days of solid productivity; typically, people can manage about 7ish hours of actual work, only 3-4 of which is coding or other heavily intellectually demanding tasks. This squares with several worker-productivity studies done around WW2 (when major corporations were deciding whether to move to the 8-hour workday; the standard at the turn of the century was 14 hours), which found that productivity decreases after 8 hours, and the time spent dealing with mistakes eats up any marginal increase in output. Having worked in one startup where much of the eng team seemed to work 12-14 hour days, I can anecdotally confirm that.
It's not that they're dicking around, it's more that they are probably staring at their computer screen cursing or berating themselves. Or feeling despondent and miserable about their chance of ever shipping product. Or writing code, but writing the wrong code which will just have to be ripped out once they think about the product again.
There's been a lot of research done into "ego depletion" - basically, 100+ studies have found evidence that the ability to focus and make yourself get things done is an exhaustible resource, and then recent studies by Carol Dweck have indicated that your abilities to do so, in some sense, depend upon your mindset going in and whether you embrace the task to begin with. The logical place to answer this would be with an fMRI study, and the first such study was just published a week and a half ago. The abstract indicates they found something, but the article itself is paywalled:
http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/09/20/scan...
Say that we find that ego depletion comes from a shortage of blood glucose in the brain. If that's the case, the cure could be as simple as stocking the microkitchens with M&Ms (man, maybe Craig Silverstein had the right idea 14 years ago). It's also known that certain stimulants like caffeine and amphetamines help you overcome your normal mental fatigue limits - the problem is that they often tend to create dependency and lose their effect if you chronically overuse them. The reason for looking into the physical mechanism is that we might then be able to find simple solutions that work and don't have long-term side-effects.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/magazine/do-you-suffer-fro...
May I point out that this is the best age -FOR- venture capitalists to fund and -FOR- the tech media to write about but not for entrepreneurship in general. VC and the tech media focus on the same thing... businesses that are in essence experimental rocketships. Most will implode fantastically but there will always be a few that go to the moon. Thats only one form of venture - even in tech.
After spending the entirety of my twenties working on failed startup after failed startup I finally reached something that actually is turning a profit.
Now that I'm well past my twenties I no longer have interest in working those extreme hours but I'm not sure if I would have had enough experience to make some of the decisions I do today had I not invested all that time in failed businesses. It's a catch-22. I feel that my time spent against the grindstone was beneficial in my experience but I'm loathe to suggest anyone else go through the same process.
I think the only advice that is worthwhile is "you need a rock outside your company" you need something that isn't subject to the whims of the market that you can rely on. If the company is your rock then failure is going to hit you very hard; you'll be cleaning up your office with nothing - no life, no family, no friends.
Everything else is subject to how you operate.
[1] What's a "successful" company, by the standards of this and similar article? I don't want to inform my decisions with a study that considers Dropbox, on the one hand, and any sustainable small business, on the other, to be equally successful. There'll always be more of the latter.
Why are these entrepreneurs named "high-valued" by their peers? Because they worked their butts off in their 20s and early 30s. Being named "high-valued" is a reverse-looking statement based on the entrepreneur's past achievements.
In my job, if I worked as efficiently and quickly as possible, I would not be able to go out to lunch with coworkers, chat with people around the office about if we're getting iphone 5, etc,, or take time to go to the tap room on Thursday afternoons for a quick beer break and chat with coworkers. So I would essentially be more boring than the computer I sit at. When I first started working, I would eat at my desk, bringing all my food from home, not go out for coffee breaks, so that I could have time to go the gym after work, talk to my family, etc. When my friend called me a monk I started to reconsider the value of being social and "wasting time."
I guess all I'm saying is that if working insanely long hours is partly due to comraderie-building or "messing around," boosting morale for all, laughing, than I think that sort of activity is worth it.
“Founders tended to be middle-aged—40 years old on average—when they started their first companies. Nearly 70 percent were married when they became entrepreneurs, and nearly 60 percent had at least one child, challenging the stereotype of the entrepreneurial workaholic with no time for a family.”
There must be a lot of context missing from this statistic, or it is simply untrue. The suggestion that one can master a classical instrument with only 4.5 hours of focused practice a week is absurd.
I've spent most of my life playing the Violin, alongside many different levels of professional musicians. Low- Mid-level professionals start at 3 hours a day of solo practice, not including group rehearsals. Most prodigies, those that go on to be soloists, are practicing 6-10 hours a day by their teen years. Without fail, the people that put in more effort, both in focus and in hours, are better players.
Maybe Pinkus Zuckerman or Itzahk Perlman only practice 4.5 hours a week these days, but they certainly didn't in their prime.
"The best typically worked in stretches of no longer than 90 minutes, three times daily."
So 4.5 hours a day, not 4.5 hours a week. That makes a lot more sense.
(Interestingly, this is about the same as the amount of focused coding time I can get in a day, and I structure it similarly: 3 intense periods of about 90 minutes.)
I disagree. As someone who spent all of his 20s building businesses, I can definitively say that I lost the most valuable thing anyone has: time. Sure, the experience is good, but its not as good as having focused myself on other more productive things.
Contrary to what you may hear on TV or here, businesses are not made of candy. It requires sacrifice, hustle, and a huge amount of time. Time better spent living life. Young adults don't get that. They think its like Hollywood portrayed it in the Social Network. Nope. It is pretty shitty actually. Even if you join something as good as YC, you still have to hustle a great deal without any guarantee whatsoever. Problem is that what you are gambling here is your life, investors just gamble money. Money comes and goes. Life, not so much.
Then why am I building a startup at age 33, when I already have a successful business? I'm a flip floppin' paradox. Sometimes we do what we do because thats what we know how do to. I'm too dumb and old to do anything else (best guess).
This is no longer true. A couple of years ago, college seniors graduated with an average of $25,000 in debt. And that number is growing. What this means is that the percentage of people who have "nothing to lose" in their 20s is shrinking rapidly. Instead people are seeking "safe" corporate jobs in order to be able to pay off their debts. Working in a risky startup is not a realistic option for them.