My practical reason against this? I'm young. I have 80k in student loan debt. I can make headway into my indentured servitude (and create space to later accept greater risk) even as an early developer in a startup, throwing money at those loans. I can also learn from that experience, and build up my own projects with friends in my spare time that will likely blossom into a company someday. But I can't yet afford to pay myself on a shoestring.
Thanks for the feedback. I'm young as well and working through debt. The point isn't necessarily to venture out and start a company but to begin inculcating a founder-like outlook on how you work and approach life, even in the largest organizations. Finding opportunity, approaching work with a beginner's mind, etc. can be done in any organization, large or small.
As I re-read your article with less quickness to reply, I see you're making exactly that point. I'm mostly pre-occupied lately with that very tension between working for one's self and working for others, so my response had a fair bit of that going into it. Great post.
It is always valuable to know how business works. As much as engineers deride the 'suits' I've known brilliant engineers who couldn't make a profit at a lemonade stand if their life depended on it.
A small anecdote. I talked with the CEO of a startup who was looking for a CTO. They were building a brand which they would leverage into an advertising magnet using crowd sourced content. "Great, but online advertising comes from Google, why would Google sell ads on your product?" was my response. They had a great product idea, and good execution, but the business of advertising online really was built around search ads, nearly everything else was remnants. The missing piece was fitting into the existing infrastructure in a way that could fund them until they could pull in advertisers directly.
Difference between thinking like an engineer and thinking like a founder. Where does your idea add value, how much value does it add, and how much of that can you keep after you give away enough to facilitate adoption of your product.
Though the title may imply differently, Jeff's point (to me, at least) focuses on a founder's mentality rather than actually quitting your job. None of the suggestions Jeff includes cannot be executed in a greater organization-whether it consists of 5 employees or 5,000.
Silicon Valley seems to prefer "founder," but all those traits sound close to "leader" in my book.
It is a dangerous thing to not think like a leader until you get to a position of leadership, as a) without a leader's mentality you may not even get to that position and b) once you are there you may not be as effective as you'd like (since you did not have any practice thinking that way).
It is a dangerous thing to not think like a leader until you get to a position of leadership
This should be qualified. Their are formal and informal notions of leadership. You are only a leader to those who follow or report to you, but there are other beyond that scope with or for whom you work. Part of "being a leader" is knowing the difference. A 2nd lietenant is a leader to his platoon. In many ways, he's more of a leader than his higher ups.
But he does a huge dis-service to himself and his team if he doesn't integrate his team's operations into a larger context. That doesn't mean just "following orders" per se. (Although respecting formal rank goes without saying). It might just mean keeping a distinct identity for good morale and "brand image" for his platoon, however subtly (reliable, good to work with). So when assignements or opportunities arise he is well placed to get his pick of the litter.
Likewise, this idea scales. A CEO needs to maintain such a position with his company in the market place. And a similar position in the minds of his investors relative to their other portfolio companies, etc. So, you don't outgrow this. You are never to young. Or too old. Or too successful. Its just a question of scale and peergroup and mental frame. Everybody has a boss. etc.
So, a leader knows how to exploit his position. But he never ignores it, images it, or forgets it. He is aware of it and works to improve it. And he keeps this all in proportion to the scale with which he is endowed with both respect and authority.
Exactly.. a year ago today, I was right where you are.. in 3 months my loans will be completely paid off, and I'll have learned a ton in development experience. Its a breath of fresh air to not have those loans hanging overhead
They're really claustrophobic, no? The high-interest private ones are the worst, and the ones I take the most satisfaction of throwing hundreds of dollars at every month (above the hundreds in interest).
Terrible advice - quitting your job to be a founder does NOT instill you with the necessary skills and mindset to be a successful founder. The skills required to succeed as a founder does not appear just because you call yourself a "founder". Things like negotiating with difficult co-workers, identifying what defines good team work chemistry, charming your boss, charming your underlings, etc., are all challenges better encountered in your current work environment than when you start your company (and screw it up due to lack of experience).
Jumping into the water before learning how to swim because somebody said "hey, the best way to learn how to swim is to just do it - that's how I did it!!"
The most difficult challenge for young adults inexperienced in the adult world of employment/business (corporate politics, backstabbing vendors, non-paying customers, unscrupulous business partners, etc.) is separating the noise. I believe this post (although well meaning) is "noise" that will harm more than help.
"quitting your job to be a founder does NOT instill you with the necessary skills and mindset to be a successful founder."
I don't think I advised anyone to quit one's job and become a founder in the strict sense. Dorsey redefined what it means to be a founder (someone foundational to an organization, regardless of when they joined) and I advised that the skills founders possess are valuable as an employee and founder alike.
> I don't think I advised anyone to quit one's job
You should change the title to "Why you should be a founder" (or "Why you should think like a founder") rather than "Why you should quit and be a founder". Just as I suggested that changing the title is something you should do, your article title suggests that quitting one's job is something one should do.
I had a modest exit on my own startup, then ended up joining an existing company that I like a lot just so that I can learn some of these skills for the next time around. It's been extremely hard to maintain that perspective day to day though, because the experience has spoiled me and made me hard to work with.
What's the point of redefining "founder" to mean "good employee?" There is nothing magical about any of those criteria you listed; they're just basic aspects of being an effective human being.
At 40, I am reminded of how little I knew 2 years after finishing my schooling.
Yet, I had the audacity of believing I had it all figured out...for 5 minutes at a time. Then, I would tell myself "You're foolish, but that's OK, now is your time to be foolish."
When I read articles such as this one, I rejoice at the idea that youth is eternal.
23 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 60.4 ms ] threadThe point is that your title "Why You Should Quit Your Job to Be a Founder" contradicts your explanation here. So it is a link bait title.
I did however like the article.
A small anecdote. I talked with the CEO of a startup who was looking for a CTO. They were building a brand which they would leverage into an advertising magnet using crowd sourced content. "Great, but online advertising comes from Google, why would Google sell ads on your product?" was my response. They had a great product idea, and good execution, but the business of advertising online really was built around search ads, nearly everything else was remnants. The missing piece was fitting into the existing infrastructure in a way that could fund them until they could pull in advertisers directly.
Difference between thinking like an engineer and thinking like a founder. Where does your idea add value, how much value does it add, and how much of that can you keep after you give away enough to facilitate adoption of your product.
Silicon Valley seems to prefer "founder," but all those traits sound close to "leader" in my book.
It is a dangerous thing to not think like a leader until you get to a position of leadership, as a) without a leader's mentality you may not even get to that position and b) once you are there you may not be as effective as you'd like (since you did not have any practice thinking that way).
This should be qualified. Their are formal and informal notions of leadership. You are only a leader to those who follow or report to you, but there are other beyond that scope with or for whom you work. Part of "being a leader" is knowing the difference. A 2nd lietenant is a leader to his platoon. In many ways, he's more of a leader than his higher ups.
But he does a huge dis-service to himself and his team if he doesn't integrate his team's operations into a larger context. That doesn't mean just "following orders" per se. (Although respecting formal rank goes without saying). It might just mean keeping a distinct identity for good morale and "brand image" for his platoon, however subtly (reliable, good to work with). So when assignements or opportunities arise he is well placed to get his pick of the litter.
Likewise, this idea scales. A CEO needs to maintain such a position with his company in the market place. And a similar position in the minds of his investors relative to their other portfolio companies, etc. So, you don't outgrow this. You are never to young. Or too old. Or too successful. Its just a question of scale and peergroup and mental frame. Everybody has a boss. etc.
So, a leader knows how to exploit his position. But he never ignores it, images it, or forgets it. He is aware of it and works to improve it. And he keeps this all in proportion to the scale with which he is endowed with both respect and authority.
Let's take some highly desirable attributes in an employee and give them a label "Rockstar". Er, no. "Founder".
When words are the currency of persuasion, expect inflation.
Jumping into the water before learning how to swim because somebody said "hey, the best way to learn how to swim is to just do it - that's how I did it!!"
The most difficult challenge for young adults inexperienced in the adult world of employment/business (corporate politics, backstabbing vendors, non-paying customers, unscrupulous business partners, etc.) is separating the noise. I believe this post (although well meaning) is "noise" that will harm more than help.
I don't think I advised anyone to quit one's job and become a founder in the strict sense. Dorsey redefined what it means to be a founder (someone foundational to an organization, regardless of when they joined) and I advised that the skills founders possess are valuable as an employee and founder alike.
The trouble with your argument is that many highly successful founders did just that.
Much of what people learn inside existing companies is toxic.
I had a modest exit on my own startup, then ended up joining an existing company that I like a lot just so that I can learn some of these skills for the next time around. It's been extremely hard to maintain that perspective day to day though, because the experience has spoiled me and made me hard to work with.
When I read articles such as this one, I rejoice at the idea that youth is eternal.