> In a different context though small errors can result in very large penalties, even extinction.
But in practice, for startups it's almost never the case, and having this belief is actually harmful.
Backing up for a second, have you started a startup yourself, or know (have had a 1 hour, 1:1 convo with) anyone who started a startup for which that happened? If so I would like to hear the story.
Personally, I've started 4+ startups, 2 successful, and directly know dozens of startup founders. So I know many failed startups. None of them was due to a small error that resulted in large penalties. Most of them was due to lack of determination, or speed, or being too conservative if anything.
The above belief you have is so harmful for a startup not because it's wrong, but because it's so intuitive and drives startups in diametric opposite direction of success. By slowing down at each stage to do a "small errors" analysis you move a lot slower and fail by default. The fear of making a small error has killed more startups than just a small error.
The intuition is correct historically. Back when humans were in small tribes, if we lost our reputation, we would be outcast and lose our lives. For the startup world (and e.g. modern dating world), that intuition doesn't apply.
I have indeed started a company, but it was different then - we didn't have VC money to spend, so we built it from literally nothing. Our product has to calculate numbers, in a specific time frame. Failure to produce results on time, or excessive numbers of errors, (or excessive errors) can lead to significant issues for customers resulting is serious financial implications. That is my context.
I feel like the main thread of replies to my comment focused on the speed. Whereas perhaps I was commenting more on the "break things" aspect. We did, and still do, move quickly at times, and slower at others, but we work quite hard not to break things.
Our customers need our software to be reliable. It impacts them, and also (in a big way) their customers. They need it to work, not be broken.
That's my context. In my context breaking things is not OK. Your context may be different. My path is not necessarily good for you, your path is not necessarily good for me.
So I say it again - all advice can be useful, or harmful. Context matters. Make sure you understand your own context, and the context of the advice giver in deciding if the advice is worth anything.
Indeed, if my context is not your context, then my experience is of no value to you. So I agree with your first question;
>> have you started a startup yourself,
Discovering my context helps you understand my advice. That is a good instinct to have.
> Personally, I've started 4+ startups, 2 successful, and directly know dozens of startup founders. So I know many failed startups. None of them was due to a small error that resulted in large penalties.
> Most of them was due to lack of determination, or speed, or being too conservative if anything.
You simply don't get it, but most people don't, including founders. Lack of determination, speed, or being conservative, are the symptoms of those errors. They are second-order effects that cause third-order effects, and so on, in a vicious cycle. Maybe those founders learned those habits from a previous company, but at the root of it was a decision that wasn't given enough care.
They can be related to morale issues, resulting from small details or flaws adding up. Also from hiring decisions, stemming from again small details or flaws in that process.
> If you think people have scar tissue, you should see organizations. Each time there's a disaster, they create a process to prevent future disasters of that type. Eventually they accrete a thick layer of these processes that prevents them from moving. Then they die.
So you're saying entrenched companies become too conservative due to their over reactive policies and get slowed down to the point where they die? I'm really struggling to understand how you think this somehow contradicts what the person you're replying to said.
Alright, this is the part of the message in question, in case it wasn't clear:
> But in practice, for startups it's almost never the case, and having this belief is actually harmful.
Maybe they were thinking of startups in the earliest stages (before having any real number of employees, Pre-series A), but the failures in those situations are less nuanced, at least in this context - do they really need discussion? The article is clearly talking about companies that were not in the earliest stage at the time of the actions being discussed.
But in practice, for startups it's almost never the case, and having this belief is actually harmful.
Backing up for a second, have you started a startup yourself, or know (have had a 1 hour, 1:1 convo with) anyone who started a startup for which that happened? If so I would like to hear the story.
Personally, I've started 4+ startups, 2 successful, and directly know dozens of startup founders. So I know many failed startups. None of them was due to a small error that resulted in large penalties. Most of them was due to lack of determination, or speed, or being too conservative if anything.
The above belief you have is so harmful for a startup not because it's wrong, but because it's so intuitive and drives startups in diametric opposite direction of success. By slowing down at each stage to do a "small errors" analysis you move a lot slower and fail by default. The fear of making a small error has killed more startups than just a small error.
The intuition is correct historically. Back when humans were in small tribes, if we lost our reputation, we would be outcast and lose our lives. For the startup world (and e.g. modern dating world), that intuition doesn't apply.