I am not an investor, but a startup founder. Please don't take it the wrong way, but I would have never hired a person who thinks the way you write. I am sure you are a great person, skilled and experienced technically, and all that stuff. But when you are trying to get a new business off the ground, you basically risk your whole life. If you surround yourself with people who don't share your beliefs and goals, who you can't rely on, who care about other things more than about building a successful business, you are totally doomed from the beginning. There is nothing wrong, by the way, with the way you treat such things. Most people on Earth are not entrepreneurs, so it's expected. The point was that if you think that way, you should never even think about joining a startup (at least not at the initial stage).
Regarding the skills, the motivation is much more important (I believe, at least). Say, if you don't know a thing about software engineering, but you love the industry the product targets at, and you are willing to learn, I would be happy to hire you and reject all the experienced engineers from Google, Facebook and other fancy companies who don't give a damn about the product, regardless of how skilled they are.
If you surround yourself with people who ... care about other things more than about building a successful business
I've worked with all kinds of laggards, attitude cases and/or bona fide sociopaths my time; most are difficult to spot up front.
But show me someone who genuinely cares more about their employer's or their own business than their spouse and their children, and who hasn't done the only honorable thing to do once they've reached that point -- namely, to file for no-fault divorce and unambiguously hand over custody of said children to said spouse; along with a hefty trust fund for each kid -- then at least I'll know they'll be impossible to work for or with in any capacity, and inevitably a poison pill to any effective, sustainable organization.
In other words -- you're bluffing. No one (who isn't single and without kids) genuinely believes that you shouldn't "care about other things more than about building a successful business". Everyone knows that it's a balancing act -- it's just a question of how you tune the parameters.
But if you genuinely, literally believe that -- then do the world a favor, and put the following disclaimer on each and every job description you put out: "Please be advised that this position is not suitable for persons entrusted with the care of young children (or minors). And in any case, such persons will not be hired."
This is horrifyingly sad. Please erase evidence of this before the HN edit deadline expires and seek therapy. They offer it online now: try http://talkspace.com.
The impact you can have on the world through children is much bigger than the impact you can have through Yet-Another-Music-Startup. A typical child is going to influence generations. It will be hundreds of years before their significance fades, whether their influence is positive or negative. That is true for anyone who has kids. Be a positive influence.
I've personally heard of maybe 3 music startups and I know the names of 0 music-related founders. Most of these companies will exist for a few years and then dissipate, and that's fine. They will serve a function for a limited time and make some users happier, and perhaps provide a good living for their investors, founders, and employees. Then no one will remember them, and that is as it should be. Please come back down to earth.
While it's true that you won't become famous by raising good kids, the net effect is far superior for everyone than any corporate effort could be. Family support and encouragement at all levels (parents, spouses, siblings, children) is a pre-requisite, not a drain, that enables the world's visionaries to succeed. Successful relationships with a spouse and a child are (usually) maturing, perspective-broadening things that make people better workers, not worse ones.
I'm sure your investors would be very put off if they found these comments, not to mention your wife and daughter should they ever stumble across it. Please do yourself and the innocent people in your family a favor and fix not only these posts, but the attitude that birthed them.
I am afraid you are still not getting what I've been trying to explain. There might exist completely different perspectives and things can work differently for different people, different relationships, etc.
Not spending a lot of time with your family doesn't necessarily mean having bad relationship or having troubles with your relatives. Moreover, if your partners accept what you do and how it affects them (sometimes maybe in an unfortunate way), it actually can make your relationships much stronger.
What will happen with the next generations - no one knows. I think it's a bit irrelevant and idealistic. I live my own life. I want to make the best out of it. For myself, for my family, and for all the other people. What will happen after my life ends won't really matter for me (I am an atheist/agnostic). I am not saying we shouldn't invest our resources in the next generations, but instead of hoping on our kids and putting all the burden on them, I firmly believe we first should do whatever we can ourselves.
I am afraid your examples actually play against you. Steve Jobs (just off the top of my head) completely abandoned his family and built one of the greatest company of all times.
Please just try to get a bit out of your personal mindset and try to think and look at these things from a different angle. If something seems to be bad or wrong for you doesn't really mean that it's bad or wrong for everybody.
Steve Jobs (just off the top of my head) completely abandoned his family and built one of the greatest company of all times.
Which he later came to regret, most profoundly:
Years later, after Jobs left Apple, he acknowledged Lisa and attempted to reconcile with her. Chrisann Brennan wrote that "he apologized many times over for his behavior" to her and Lisa and "said that he never took responsibility when he should have, and that he was sorry."[2]†
In general, you may want to re-visit the implicit principle on which you're operating: namely "Someone incredibly famous and widely admired for their achievements did highly contemptible thing X, that was plainly and unnecessarily hurtful to other people; therefore, it's OK if I do it."
As if it was ever necessary for Jobs to have turned his boak on his family in the flagrantly callous manner that he did in order for us to have the shiny gizmos that we hold in our hands today, in the first place. If anything, all it amounted to was a distraction and impediment towards those ends.
I am not operating on that principle, actually. And I don't recommend anyone to follow it. I am not sure why you have come to this conclusion. My point was that saying that "all the successful people got successful because their personal things mattered for them more that their business" doesn't seem to be correct, and I gave the example with Steve Jobs. I don't really admire him, I never met him, and had no idea what kind of a person he was. I honestly just don't care because it doesn't matter. The key point I was trying to explain to you guys is that people are different, some of them think and behave differently, some of them may have different values and priorities. But we all live our own lives and make our own choices clearly understanding what we do. So, you just can expect from people around to live different lives with different view and goals (regarding all the things - business, families, food, hobbies, education, etc.). And that's okay.
First, I want to commend you for remaining civil and calm on this very personal topic and recognizing that I'm not trying to attack your fundamental character. That does show that you have a lot of restraint and that you are good at processing the data before you critically and carefully. Most people aren't able to keep it together after a reply like mine.
I understand that you don't have to spend "a lot of" time with your family to have a good relationship with them. One of the most important roles to play in a family is that of breadwinner, which necessarily means that you will have to spend a lot of time out winning the bread. Though this prevents you from spending time with your family, it's an act of love for and in behalf of your family, and it's a good thing to do. So it's not just about not spending "a lot of" time with them.
You should spend some time with them, and they should be higher priority than a business venture. It is fine that you and your wife have an understanding, but I think your phraseology may be cockeyed. A family should never be second-best. It is always worth the time. When you say your family is less important, it evokes images of letting your wife die alone in the ER after an accident so that you can keep making cold calls. Your family should be top priority, which doesn't mean you have to spend every waking hour physically with them -- it just means everything you do should be first and foremost in their service. That includes commercial endeavors, but is not limited to them. Balance must be achieved.
I finished reading Ed Catmull's Creativity Inc. last night. The book ends with an afterword in which Catmull, who spent a quarter-century working closely with Steve Jobs at Pixar, discusses the unfair treatment that Steve receives in the media. He lamented that everyone wants to immortalize Steve in his early, immature days, the days when he was a hothead and would behave questionably. That's the Steve we always hear about, but according to Catmull, Steve matured hugely between the start of their relationship and his death. Catmull explicitly ascribes that maturity, the maturity that allowed him to do his best work and revitalize Apple, to Steve's family. Once he started caring about his family and paying more attention to his 3 kids, they helped him learn how to be a better leader, a better manager. How to be kinder and more mindful.
Even tech's best-known example of a deadbeat dad wasn't able to achieve his dreams until his family issues were fixed. Remember, despite young Steve's obvious talent and vision, he was forced out because he was brash and off-balance. After 15 years of additional maturity and growth, which, again, Catmull attributes directly to Steve's improved relationships with his wife and children, he was able to come back to Apple and finally make the lasting impact he envisioned.
After finishing Creativity, Inc. I went to Pixar's web site and clicked around. The only video I watched was from director Brad Bird. He was talking about how hard it is to be a director and how there are many conflicting demands. And he said, "I'm a much better director since having kids; they teach you how to stay calm". First and only video I watched. Not searching it out in any way. No indication that children would be mentioned before I clicked. And here again, just in one night, the second substantial evidence I encountered that caring for children makes workers better.
You have to get this right. Whatever you think you're going to do in the commercial world, it can't be second fiddle to your deep-seated psychological and biological needs for family, belonging, and so forth. I understand you are probably going to say that some people just don't need that kind of thing, to which I say, baloney. Surely some people end up not having that kind of thing, but the evidence is clear: a healthy family life (which includes prioritizing family as the 1st priority) makes workers better, not worse. Family is a pre-requisite to doing one's best work, not an afterthought.
Companies come and go. Maybe you'll get sued into bankruptcy, or maybe you won't (as a music startup, you probably will). Your family is permanent. It is static. It is stable. The economy can't change it. What you do or don't do is going to affect your wife and your children not only for the rest of their natural lives, but for the lives of tens of thousands of their descendants over the next few hundred years. You need to get your head on right and acknowledge that fame and accreditation are fleeting and stupid, and they don't make a real impact. They can't outdo biology.
Unfortunately, you still couldn't get the point I was trying to deliver.
By the way, please note that I never argued with anyone here regarding their beliefs and personal views. Neither did I give them advice or ask to do something. I just pointed out that various people can live, think and behave differently (some of them a lot). I never said anything regarding what is right/wrong or good/bad. I prefer to let people decide for themselves. And I believe this is very important for people to keep open-minded so the humanity could continue developing itself and thrive. Make mistakes, learn from them, improve, and so on.
Do you really think that people can treat seriously what you write and feel respect for you when you constantly tell them what they "have to do", or make such references as "baloney", "stupid", or ask them to "seek therapy", and stuff like that?
I respect what other people say and do even if their views are totally different from mines. Sometimes I learn something from them, sometimes they learn something from me. But whatever they, or I, think and do is our personal choice, and no one can tell whether it's right or wrong.
You sound very judgmental, but it doesn't make you right (or wrong). It's all still only your personal opinion. Is Trump the future of the USA or its doom? Is Putin a rescue for the whole world or evil? There are both supporters and haters. Who is right? I am not to judge. And neither anyone else, I believe. The future will tell us. I respect your way of thinking, and will appreciate very much if you start doing the same (regardless of whether you agree or not with some particular things, and towards all the people around, not me specifically).
>Unfortunately, you still couldn't get the point I was trying to deliver.
I got the point, but I disagreed with it. It's incorrect to say I missed the point. Your point is that family is less important than business. I will never believe this, and fortunately, most people's basic emotional functions remain sufficiently intact to be repulsed at the suggestion.
>Neither did I give them advice or ask to do something. I just pointed out that various people can live, think and behave differently (some of them a lot). I never said anything regarding what is right/wrong or good/bad. I prefer to let people decide for themselves.
This is moral relativism and it's another hallmark of naivety. There are objective goods and objective truths in the world. Stop fighting it and try to discover what they are. You may be surprised to learn that much of it is dictated not by inflexible social structures, traditions, or expectations, but rather by human biology, a force that none of us can modify or long defy.
>Do you really think that people can treat seriously what you write and feel respect for you when you constantly tell them what they "have to do", or make such references as "baloney", "stupid", or ask them to "seek therapy", and stuff like that?
I don't think you understand that I was trying to complement you.
Yes, I believe most people recognize the hazards of moral relativism and believe there are some things that are practically universally true. I believe the words "stupid" and "baloney" are completely legitimate expressions. I believe advice like "seek therapy" and "you have to do x" are also legitimate expressions.
You are free to agree or disagree, of course, but that doesn't mean everyone's manner of discourse must have the indecisive, middling tone as yours.
>But whatever they, or I, think and do is our personal choice, and no one can tell whether it's right or wrong.
No, there are objective rights and wrongs. Some things are so wrong that we've pooled resources to create police forces, prisons, etc. in order to punish and confine people who commit those wrongs. For the third time, moral relativism is not a real position.
>You sound very judgmental, but it doesn't make you right (or wrong).
I am happy to make some intermediate judgments -- we all must do so to get through every day. I don't think I've judged you personally, but I have judged the positions and actions you've described. It sounds like a principle that needs application in your life.
>I respect your way of thinking, and will appreciate very much if you start doing the same (regardless of whether you agree or not with some particular things, and towards all the people around, not me specifically).
I complimented the thought process you were using, so obviously I have some basic respect for your ability to restrain your emotions. However, I will never respect the idea that business should matter more than family ever. We just went over how that was shown profoundly to be incorrect. Had Jobs never sorted out his familial issues, he most likely would've faded into obscurity, continually unable and unwilling to work with others, and Apple's astonishing comeback would never have had happened. Jobs would've been a tragic historical figure, scarcely remembered outside of highly technical circles. Catmull says Jobs owes the developments that made him workable to his family life.
At this juncture it just feels pointless to try to explain any more of this to you. This article sounds like it's written by a college freshman and is full of ridiculous exaggerations. I think we'd all agree that interrupting your work day "14 times" to take personal calls is excessive -- does anyone actually do that? No one does that.
If you got married in 2003 you're probably into your 30s by now. I'm not sure what it's going to take but I hope something helps you snap out of this ridiculous mindset. You can save yourself the pain by trying to re-evaluate things now.
Nope. I can only reiterate that you've completely missed the point. It actually was that people may have different opinions, regarding their priorities in their lives as well. And it's only up to them to decide what those priorities are. Whether you like it or not.
Probably your first step is learning that when people disagree, it's not that "they've missed the point". It's that they got the point, but they don't think you're right. That's the first step to learning to cope.
I understand that you are saying people can set whatever priorities they want in life. I agree that people are, for the most part, free to do that. That doesn't mean that some priorities are not objectively wrongly prioritized. It's not all relative.
Anyone who prioritizes business over family is objectively wrong (and we used to have laws that made that clear, which have, for the most part, been neutered in the last half-century -- a big loss IMO).
Your point is that no one can make value judgments about another person's priorities. I don't agree. People can, should, and do. You are of course factually correct that you can't be physically stopped from having the wrong priorities. That doesn't make them right. Historically, when behaviors appear that manifestly show a mis-prioritization of this type, the behavior is illegitimate and the perpetrator would be punished by the civil authority for the behavior.
Anyway, this thread is already ridiculously deep and quite off-topic. Let's stop it here and agree to disagree.
I am so sorry to see that there are people so much limited in their way of thinking and with how they treat their and the others' lives. Hopefully you will learn your mistakes over next years. I will pray for you. :)
I am afraid that I have to say now that most of the things you have written are objectively wrong. Too bad you don't seem to comprehend that... But it's good that it doesn't really affect me and my life (which I consider pretty happy, by the way :) ).
You could try to go outside and talk to different kinds of people more. Maybe changing multiple occupations wouldn't hurt either. So you could meet and perceive people from different worlds. That usually helps broaden your mind.
I'm an entrepreneur too. I'm indicating that the philosophy you're sharing serves only the investors, and that's why they try to ingrain it into naive or inexperienced founders.
There is a problem when you allow your work to consume everything. Things are out of balance. That's true no matter how small or big the company is. It's not healthy for the founders or the employees to behave that way.
This isn't to say that one shouldn't spend a lot of time working on stuff or that strict insistence on a 40-hour week is always appropriate, but there is more to life than work, even when you're trying to get a startup off the ground!
Some equilibrium must be maintained, for the sanity of all. Specifically, delaying important familial developments like marriage and children or spending so much time engrossed in work that you become negligent of your familial responsibilities is absolutely an unfair trade, no matter how rich you get from the startup lottery (and realistically, you'll probably get 0 rich, which makes neglecting permanent, irrevocable relationships like family even less intelligent).
I understand that you disagree and would avoid hiring someone who is interested in work-life balance, and that's fine, but my belief is that this attitude is not good and you're not going to get good people with it. It artificially constrains your selection of talent to the naive and/or the desperate, neither of which make a good foundation for a company.
There are some valid points in what you are saying. But they all depend very much on tons of personal things. E.g., on your relationship with your spouse and kids. I probably got lucky, and my wife understands what I am doing and why, and why I don't spend a lot of time with her. She just accepts it, and we've been together for 13 years already. Or, say, if you enjoy doing whatever you are doing more than anything else.
I am not saying that all people should follow that. Again, my point was that there are people who try starting/running a business, who are in love with what they are doing, whom you may even call insane to a certain extent, and who expect to find (at least at early stages) people who completely share their goals, vision and beliefs. And who won't hire a person who thinks that there are things more important, regardless of whether it's their family or a weekend hiking.
I've read while ago that founders of some startup (AirBnb?) had spent about half a year to hire their first employee, and the question they typically asked the candidates was "Would you take the job if you knew you would die in a year?", or something like that. So, I personally understand and share that approach completely. As you can see, at least I am not the only person who treat these things that way.
And, again, I am not saying that it's for everyone, but people should keep in mind that it can totally be the case when they apply for a job at a startup. People are different. I agree that most of them feel about life same way you do - treating their families or some personal hobbies as higher priorities. But not all of them. Some people approach their lives differently.
Regarding the skills, the motivation is much more important (I believe, at least). Say, if you don't know a thing about software engineering, but you love the industry the product targets at, and you are willing to learn, I would be happy to hire you and reject all the experienced engineers from Google, Facebook and other fancy companies who don't give a damn about the product, regardless of how skilled they are.