The startup skill set(swombat.com)
swombat.com
The startup skill set
http://swombat.com/2012/1/23/startup-skill-set
13 comments
Skills are highly overrated I think, it needs persistence above all to succeed with your startup. E.g. when I read this http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/22/post-mortem-for-plancast/ my first thought was: he gives up too fast (very interesting comment by Scoble also). I don't say you don't need skills at all, but if you never give up you will pick up the skills along the way.
That is a very common "tech startup world" meme, and very damaging, in my opinion. Persistence is in fact utterly useless unless you're persisting at the right things.
My experience, on the contrary, is that, at least outside the Valley, many founders persist years past the point where they should have given up and done something else instead. And the reason they fail is not that they didn't persist long enough, but that they lack the skills to implement their ideas (usually on the customer development / marketing side). I've seen examples of both skilled founders pulling off apparently boring ideas, and unskilled ones failing at apparently good ideas despite persisting for years.
If anything, my observation is that the most reliably successful people I know are not persistent at all - or rather, they're persistent at the overall game of entrepreneurship, rather than at doggedly following a dead startup into the grave. Skilled and experienced entrepreneurs have the guts to recognise that what seemed like a brilliant genius idea 3 months ago is in fact a total waste of time, and do something else instead. The biggest differentiator, though, is skill.
Moreover, whereas "being persistent" or "having great ideas" is a character trait that is quite difficult to change, anyone can learn skills and improve their chances this way.
Finally, looking at the example which you picked, Plancast persisted for 2 years - a year and a half after, in the founder's words, "things began to stall". That seems reasonably persistent to me. Of course, it's easy to stand on the sidelines and say "they should have kept trying for longer" - because it's not your life that's elapsing while they work on that dud startup idea.
My experience, on the contrary, is that, at least outside the Valley, many founders persist years past the point where they should have given up and done something else instead. And the reason they fail is not that they didn't persist long enough, but that they lack the skills to implement their ideas (usually on the customer development / marketing side). I've seen examples of both skilled founders pulling off apparently boring ideas, and unskilled ones failing at apparently good ideas despite persisting for years.
If anything, my observation is that the most reliably successful people I know are not persistent at all - or rather, they're persistent at the overall game of entrepreneurship, rather than at doggedly following a dead startup into the grave. Skilled and experienced entrepreneurs have the guts to recognise that what seemed like a brilliant genius idea 3 months ago is in fact a total waste of time, and do something else instead. The biggest differentiator, though, is skill.
Moreover, whereas "being persistent" or "having great ideas" is a character trait that is quite difficult to change, anyone can learn skills and improve their chances this way.
Finally, looking at the example which you picked, Plancast persisted for 2 years - a year and a half after, in the founder's words, "things began to stall". That seems reasonably persistent to me. Of course, it's easy to stand on the sidelines and say "they should have kept trying for longer" - because it's not your life that's elapsing while they work on that dud startup idea.
I don't say "persist without looking where you are going", of course, pursuing a bad idea for 20 years won't work out. I can't back it up here on the spot, but if you study a bit you'll find that most success stories were no instant success. It became a meme for a reason, same thing about having a good idea. Just a good idea is not enough, but it certainly helps.
Plancast: Two years is way to short to draw conclusions IMO. Why don't they address the user feedback? If they want to reach the broader audience, why not change the definition of "Event" into something we do more often? Etc.
Plancast: Two years is way to short to draw conclusions IMO. Why don't they address the user feedback? If they want to reach the broader audience, why not change the definition of "Event" into something we do more often? Etc.
Indeed, you need persistance to learn where you are going, to learn how to execute and what it means to execute. :)
If you're working on a big idea that is slightly ahead of its time, then persistence can pay big dividends -- check out the story of Pandora (http://www.businessinsider.com/pandora-story-2011-6).
If you're working on a smaller, highly tactical idea then persistence is often a waste of time. Anyone who meets a lot of startups will see many ideas that just aren't going to work. The sooner the founders realize it and move on, the better off they are.
If you're working on a smaller, highly tactical idea then persistence is often a waste of time. Anyone who meets a lot of startups will see many ideas that just aren't going to work. The sooner the founders realize it and move on, the better off they are.
"Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan ‘Press On’ has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race."
— Calvin Coolidge
Sales == Huge. I've known guys to clear 250k because they could bring in millions in revenue single-handedly.
I wouldn't classify "making things" as nearly important; The founder that can sell can also "sell" someone on making it for him... But, having a good sense of design would be incredibly useful.
I wouldn't classify "making things" as nearly important; The founder that can sell can also "sell" someone on making it for him... But, having a good sense of design would be incredibly useful.
Speaking from experience, I think you skipped what I believe is the primary and most important skill.
The willingness to take risk on that your idea. Passion comes a close second. I believe there is a correlation between passion and the willingness to take the required risk to fulfill that passion.
==
As an aside, I can only imagine how awesome the event would have been. I attended the first Lean Camp with DHH. Startup events are one of the things I really miss in the UK.
The willingness to take risk on that your idea. Passion comes a close second. I believe there is a correlation between passion and the willingness to take the required risk to fulfill that passion.
==
As an aside, I can only imagine how awesome the event would have been. I attended the first Lean Camp with DHH. Startup events are one of the things I really miss in the UK.
Does anyone really do anything assuming the idea will fail though? Unless of course it's an experiment where the outcome doesn't matter - taken as a form of education.
It takes persistance foremost. For myself, I knew there were risks though I would continue to find ways to reduce risk - whether it was problem solving and planning, figuring out what I needed to do next to reduce the risk. This required something at a lower base level than willing to take on risk.
So what's more base than risk? Being able to manage yourself during a challenge, learning your own limits, what you are capable of - which takes self-awareness. The more I've learned myself over the years, my limits, the better I've become at self-regulating, and the better I know what I need to succeed. Any money I've spent so far I've considered an educational expense.
Life's all about learning, and hopefully being able to find enjoyment and being able to help others hopefully find enjoyment, too.
It takes persistance foremost. For myself, I knew there were risks though I would continue to find ways to reduce risk - whether it was problem solving and planning, figuring out what I needed to do next to reduce the risk. This required something at a lower base level than willing to take on risk.
So what's more base than risk? Being able to manage yourself during a challenge, learning your own limits, what you are capable of - which takes self-awareness. The more I've learned myself over the years, my limits, the better I've become at self-regulating, and the better I know what I need to succeed. Any money I've spent so far I've considered an educational expense.
Life's all about learning, and hopefully being able to find enjoyment and being able to help others hopefully find enjoyment, too.
I agree that those are important... but they're not skills!
Skills are things you do with varying levels of competence, not things you are. "Willingness to take risk" is not a skill. "Passion" is also not a skill! "Risk mitigation" would be a skill, but I think it's not as core as the 12 I listed.
Skills are things you do with varying levels of competence, not things you are. "Willingness to take risk" is not a skill. "Passion" is also not a skill! "Risk mitigation" would be a skill, but I think it's not as core as the 12 I listed.
I disagree. You have to learn how to not be adverse to risk - it is something, a skill, you can learn. It is personal development, which could be argued is a lower base level skill. It's confidence related as well, and having confidence will help you be able to learn the 12 skills you listed.
By the definition, you are right.
However, I looked at the list as intangible things you would require to do a startup. You wrote: "Being at least baseline-competent in all the skills on this list will markedly decrease the chances that you screw up your first business in a really obvious and easy to avoid way."
'Emotional skills' are too important not to be mentioned in anything about what you need to be successful in a startup.
We have seen how having the skill and not the emotional aspect can pan out [1]
[1] http://steveblank.com/2011/11/30/youll-be-dead-soon-carpe-di...
However, I looked at the list as intangible things you would require to do a startup. You wrote: "Being at least baseline-competent in all the skills on this list will markedly decrease the chances that you screw up your first business in a really obvious and easy to avoid way."
'Emotional skills' are too important not to be mentioned in anything about what you need to be successful in a startup.
We have seen how having the skill and not the emotional aspect can pan out [1]
[1] http://steveblank.com/2011/11/30/youll-be-dead-soon-carpe-di...
In addition to the skills listed in the article it's important for a founder to be flexible and open-minded. Being infatuated with an idea, direction, or vision may not allow you to see opportunities where they exist (recently PG talked about this in Shlep Blindness: http://www.paulgraham.com/schlep.html). Perceptions, ideas, and markets change and one needs to change and adapt with them if it's fitting.