The simple fact is that he'll burn out, sooner or later. That kind of energy can be initially compelling, but very few great leaders thrive without compassion and charisma.
There's a large element of the media that champions sociopathic tendencies. It's good for the HN types to visibly push back against it, even if every situation is different.
Sometimes it's good to cry it out with people. Hard to do that if you can't sign a contract ahead of time.
Do you know that the man in question is in fact autistic?
Austism and Aspergers are conditions that get casually assigned to geeks with eccentric or anomalous behaviours far too often. Given the degree to which the founder in question is functioning, it's medically unlikely that he has either condition.
Meanwhile, I believe that being averse to forming complex friend relationships combined with creating a culture of constant work (which many would describe as abusive) is sociopathic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopathy
You are just being argumentative. Autism is a condition, not a type of behaviour that you can opt-in to.
By your logic, anything someone does that is sufficiently abnormal qualifies as autistic. I guess I'd hope that you'd step away from this conversation and stop calling non-autistic people autistic. "Weird and frustrating" is probably more appropriate anyhow.
How is saying that non-autistic people have autistic traits any different than saying non-sociopaths have sociopathic traits? You're being hypocritical.
Certainly there are traits that are well established as being "autistic" and "sociopathic". This is the former, not the latter -- the latter is characterized by a more predatory or ambitious nature, which this guy seems to lack, at least by his own descriptions. It's morelike he doesn't see the point in socialization. Sociopaths, on the contrary, are very social.
And, despite the fact that you keep claiming I did so, I did not call him autistic, and the first time you accused me of calling him autistic, I said that wasn't true. I guess I'd hope I wouldn't have to tell you things twice.
While this is a worthwhile discussion, and I fundamentally agree with the points made by the article, I find it distasteful to see articles which isolate a specific person and publicly tell them how they should live their life. Not too long ago there was another article about how it was tragic that Patrick didn't use his skills for more ambitious projects.
The same points could be made without making the article gravitate around the personal life of Seth Priebatsch. If you are concerned about that person in particular, and would like to host an intervention, you can do so privately via email.
If people can't handle others publicly criticizing their lifestyle, they shouldn't bloviate about it to the New York Times or CNN. He willingly made that lifestyle a matter of public discourse.
I see this more as an attempt to prevent other Boston area people from idealizing his behavior. I admit he diluted his point by focusing on Priebatsch himself, but it doesn't make the point less valid.
That could be done with a title such as, "Mass media: stop glorifying entrepreneurs without a life". If you call it "Seth Priebatsch: Get a life" you are framing the discussion in a confrontational, ad hominem manner.
Different lifestyles work for different people. I know Seth -- he's energized and motivated by the work at hand. He's happiest when he's working.
That doesn't mean he doesn't know how to have fun. We were racing bicycles around Google Ventures just for kicks. He's also 21 -- he doesn't have a family he has to worry about. In fact, I'd say his employees and his company are his family.
I like work and life balance, but not everyone needs it. or sometimes you find your fun within your work.
I disagree that not everyone needs work/life balance. If you're a leader at a company, your employees count on you to make good decisions regarding their future. I don't think you can make reasonable decisions here if you spend all of your time working and thus lose the perspective one gains from an outside life.
Let's say that I'm an employee of yours and I have a pregnant wife. I wish to take off at 3 PM once a week to accompany her to the doctor. I make this pitch to you, my 21 year old CEO who lives at the office. If you're buried in the business all day, every day, could you comprehend how important something like this would be to me? Even if you did say yes, what would you think of my commitment to the company? Would you factor my behavior into your decisions about my future?
You may find great meaning within your work, but others will have much different priorities in their lives. I think you lose your ability to realize that with this sort of workload.
Everyone has work/life balance. The difference is exactly where each person draws a line between work and life. It seems that Seth prefers to include much of what we would think of as "work" as life.
I find most of these comments on HN especially funny because most of my non-HN friends would find this group of people positively anti-social. They would find the very notion of obsessively commenting on a startup site with a group of people who have never met pretty pathetic, to be honest. Their idea of socializing is getting drunk at a club and finding some hot girl to go home with for the night. Honestly, sometimes that's my idea of socializing, too. Does that make them more "social" than this crowd? No. Is HN's socializing any better? Of course not.
I'm really depressed at the amount of judgmental bullshit that this thread has to spawned, to be honest. People need to understand that others may not be like them and may not make the same life choices. Does that make their choices inherently worse? No. It may also mean that they have different goals. Given that Seth and his company seem to be doing OK it looks like his choices are working for the company and, moreover, he understands his market and his employees.
My remark may be dismissed as trolling, but seriously think about the scenario you are putting forward:
"Let's say that I'm an employee of yours and I have a pregnant wife. I wish to take off at 3 PM once a week to accompany her to the doctor. I make this pitch to you, my 21 year old CEO who lives at the office."
This is at a startup?
The early phase of a startup is short - within 2 years the company either takes off or dies. I really, seriously think that if you and your wife want to have children, you should get a job at a larger and more stable organization - its good for your kid, good for your wife, good for you. If you have a pregnant wife, you should not be working at a startup. Find something more stable and secure.
The scenario I put forward is my current scenario. My wife is due tomorrow (yippee!), I've been to nearly all of the doctor's appointments with her, and I'm cofounder of a startup that's doing quite well.
Sure, I put in plenty of hours, but I never forget the importance of work/life balance. My company is important, but it's not all important.
"nobody lays on their deathbed wishing they would have spent _less_ time with their family"
I keep seeing this idea repeated time after time, yet I've never seen any formal study of this issue. I know this idea has been asserted by some people with very large followings. Stephen Covey, in his book "The 7 Habits Of Highly Effective People" asserts nearly the identical sentiment that you've expressed here.
All I can say is, from what I've seen, this is just one of those things that varies a great deal from one family to another, and from one person to another. I know that both my mother and my father keenly felt the strain of having children, and both of them wished they'd had more time and money to advance their careers. My dad was lucky enough to be successful as a commercial photographer, but increasingly after he turned 50 he wondered why he never broke through to the top ranks of photography. He made good money but he never became famous. He thought, not unreasonably, that if he had less demands from his family, then he might have more money and energy to reach the top ranks of his field. When he was in his 70s he made several attempts to get into the top galleries in New York City, but he only had one small success in that regard. He died of cancer at the age of 79. Since I stayed with him every day during the last month of his life, I can tell you without a doubt that when he was on his deathbed he did wish that he had had more time for his career - a tradeoff that could only have been purchased by him spending less time with his family.
From what I can see, my dad is hardly an isolated case. When I talk to my friends, and to people older than myself, what I hear, again and again, is disappointment. Many people, perhaps most people, feel that they have somehow failed to live up to their true potential. At least among my friends, most feel that having kids has imposed a heavy sacrifice on them. I can not think of a single one of my friends who hasn't thought, at some point, that they might be much more successful if they did not have kids.
More than that, not everyone is happy with their family life. If you suggest that family life is always rewarding, in a country where 45% of all marriages end in divorce (I'm using the USA as an example here) then you are simply in denial of reality.
I think this is an issue that at least deserves a frank, honest discussion, especially on a forum like Hacker News, where we all expect honesty regarding the tradeoffs of the entrepreneurial life. This is not the right place for sentimental nonsense about the joyous wonders of family. This is a place for bluntness and honesty.
Your attitude about "buy enough downvotes to make this comment disappear forever" is really worrisome.
This is much better than your original comment which was muddied by a grand pronouncement about kids and startups. In this comment you acknowledge individual differences, and you take some conventional wisdom to task. In the former comment you jump up on a soap box and proclaim what people with kids should do.
So first off, as a #1 employee in a startup that had a baby right during the early stage, I'm living proof of the fallacy of your judgement. I pull off the work-life balance thing pretty well (stay-at-home mom helps a lot), and my effectiveness at work is not diminished. The fact is that commitments at home give me an ongoing sense of urgency that keeps my overall productivity up without inducing burnout the way 18-hour days do. And in any case, the variance between individuals is far greater than the variance between hours worked. You'd be a fool to hire lesser talent just because they're willing to work 80 hours a week.
More to the point about this last comment, you're absolutely right to think about future regrets. Having a family is a big sacrifice, and it will not necessarily make you happy. On the other hand, slaving away at startups, even if you find financial success may not make you happy either. Today's media culture (of which silicon valley porn is a significant part these days) programs our ego with all kinds of beliefs about happiness: if I'm rich I'll be happy, if I'm famous I'll be happy, if my talent is recognized I'll be happy, but the belief doesn't make them true. The sad truth may be that nothing will make you happy, and you are destined to be miserable, or vice-versa. It may be that the greatest accomplishments require a certain discontent, and in fact you care more about the accomplishment than the happiness. It's a mess that you have to sort out for yourself. Anyone preaching how others should live their life is invested in a particular belief system that may or may not apply to you. When you are making these kinds of decisions I think deep soul searching is the only way to go. I wouldn't place too much stock in other people's regrets, because there's no way you can sort out the baggage underlying someone's stated beliefs to really get a read on how it might apply to you. Instead your only recourse is to go with your gut. This is the ultimate gift and curse of living in a free society.
I realize that my point is unpopular, however, it remains true: if you do not have children, then you will have more time for your startup.
The fact that this idea is unpopular does not make it untrue.
You can downvote it as much as you want, but it still remains true.
This is Hacker News. This is forum for bluntness and truthfulness when it comes to the entrepreneurial life. We should not shy away from a truth just because it makes us uncomfortable. This is a forum where we all expect frank conversations about the trade-offs that we face when we pursue the opportunities presented by a startup.
If you have children, then you will have less time for your startup. It's as simple as that.
First of all, you're talking right past my whole point and just restating your original point, which is pretty disrespectful of the time I put in crafting a balanced response.
You claim you want frank discussion, but then you reduce the whole debate to a time equation. The problem is that it's only as simple if you measure success by hours worked. As someone who has pulled many many 100 hour weeks, I can tell you that I'm more effective in 40 hours now then I used to be in 80. This may not be true for everybody (I'm not trying to tell anyone how to live their lives), but for me, I draw energy and inspiration from the downtime. I'm in touch with real human beings outside the echo chamber, giving me insight into building products that normal people will buy. When I get to the office, most of the time I know I have only until 6pm to get my todo list done. When I was single and working 100 hour weeks, it was easy to get caught on tangents, or work when over-tired, because hey I have 12 hours on Saturday and 12 hours on Sunday to catch up.
Limiting your work hours can be constraint that leads to increased creativity and effectiveness. It also creates a buffer when you really do need to put in extra effort to make a critical deadline. Time spent away from work lets your subconscious process things and come to more optimal solutions.
I'm not denying that there is a correlation between highly successful entrepreneurs and long work hours, but it's a fallacy to treat it as a causal relationship. How many people work 24/7 in silicon valley and never get anywhere? A lot more than you think because no one is telling their stories. The focus should be on efficiency, creative thinking, intelligence and above all persistence. It's possible to jeopardize all of those by forsaking work-life balance.
I'd like to buy enough upvotes to make this comment appear forever.
This is a fantastic post. I have found that at moments with friends and family when the happy platitudes are stripped away, whether through drunkenness, circumstance, or just plain frank discussion - this is the sentiment that often shows itself.
You would like for my comment to disappear forever? I find it worrisome that your attitude exists on Hacker News. This is suppose to be a forum for frank, honest discussions about the life of entrepreneurs. I think my point is valid: the early phase of a startup is uniquely stressful. That should not be the part of your life that overlaps with having a child. We are talking about maybe 2 or 3 years of your life, or maybe 4 at a stretch. Why not have kids before that, or after that? Why have kids just then, during what you know will be the most stressful years of your whole life? I'd be curious to know what your reasoning is. Of course, if you can buy enough down votes to make my comment disappear forever, then you won't need to address the point that I raise.
"We are talking about maybe 2 or 3 years of your life, or maybe 4 at a stretch."
I'm on startup #4 in 8 years. Every entrepreneur that I know is as hopelessly addicted to startups as I am. (Granted, there may be self-selection at work.)
Remember: Groupon going from $0 - $3B in two years is the exception. For every Andrew Mason, there are 10,000 chumps like me who spend 10 or 15 or 20 years at a startup. And the very nature of a startup means that you don't know when the "uniquely stressful" period is going to be over.
So the advice to have kids before or after some special 2-year Goldilocks zone strikes me as very naive. Your average startup is far too messy for that kind of precision life planning.
Because your comment reeks of "startup romanticism", not startup practice.
The most successful "Startup Guys™" that I know aren't the ones that spend 23 hours at the office and an hour commuting. They're the same guys that appreciate you staying late, but understand the importance of a life outside of their project and encourage you to get out of the office.
It is unhealthy for you and it is unhealthy for your company.
What's the point of being the boss if you can't take advantage of being the boss? Having enough money to live on an island is worthless if you don't get to spend any time on the island.
"Because your comment reeks of "startup romanticism", not startup practice."
Surely you realize that I could make the same kind of assertion about what you have written? I could write: "You comment reeks of sentimental notions about family life, not the actual reality of family life."
If you want to argue that all people, everywhere, enjoy their families then you are simply in denial of reality.
If you want to deny the fact that some people are deeply bitter about the sacrifices they have made for their children, then you are simply running away from the truth.
As for the startup romanticism that you mention, I've been working with startups since 2002, which is long enough to have some idea about what habits work over the long term, and what habits do not work over the long term. From what I've seen, it is a bad idea to have a child during the first 2 or 3 years of a startup. You can have kids before then, or after then, but not right during the most intense phase of the startup.
I agree with your point - not everyone needs work life balance; however, I think what the Author is saying is it's far from honorable to lead a company in that fashion. The culture of the company is largely influenced by the behavior of its leaders. If Seth's lifestyle is a point of pride it's likely to be poisonous in the longterm for the company.
That's true, but what I worry about is the implicit pressure for his employees to put in the same sort of hours. Not everyone can be productive for sixteen hours a day. Heck, I doubt that even Seth is productive for the full time that he's at the office. I wonder how much of his day goes to fixing the mistakes he made on the previous day.
At 21, males are still essentially boys. Physically we treat them as adults. But mentally we are still closer to boys. And when you're a programmer, and a boy, the computer is basically this big awesome multi-purpose toy you can make do all kinds of cool/weird/esoteric things, some on the screen, some in mindspace -- some of which we find that others will pay us millions of dollars to do. Bonus! It's easy to be obsessed with it under these conditions.
Seth Priebatsch: Love a life. Hey guys--I've had the pleasure of working with Seth. He's a stellar entrepreneur. He is intensely intelligent. He's a humble and thoughtful hacker. He's living a dream--enjoying what he does and working hard. And isn't that the special thing about geeking out today? We get to do the things we love to do. The things we stay home on a Friday night to hack at? It's a choice I make all the time and I love to hear Seth talk about it with a sense of passion. It doesn't have to be your choice--but it's one many of us make--and Seth gets my nod.
"Tunnel vision helps. Being a bit of a shit helps. A thick skin helps. Stamina is crucial, as is a capacity to work so hard that your best friends mock you, your lovers despair and the rest of your acquaintances watch furtively from the sidelines, half in awe and half in contempt" - Felix Dennis, Media Mogul
Give him a break, he's only 21. I mean, he wasn't allowed to drink an alcohol a year ago! I bet when your're a bit little older, you already know what it means to have a balanced life.
And yet the Macintosh was created under precisely these conditions. This is often how amazing things are created. It's not the only way, but it definitely can work.
Oh, its true that the Mac was created under these conditions, but I doubt that any of the creators would describe the experience as a pleasant one. Even the stories on Folklore.org (which highlight the most pleasant parts of the effort) contain a distinct undertone of tension as a reflection of the enormous amount of pressure being placed on the team by Steve Jobs.
Only after Mac got successful. If not, it won't be the best times of their lives.
Here's another bet: ask them if they want to do that again for at least 2 more times with different companies and unknown leaders, wonder if they'll take it.
Disagree, but anecdotally so. I look back with extreme fondness on a 5-month period of my life in 1998/1999 when I was working 80-hour weeks on a project that was ultimately doomed to market failure.
I learned a tremendous amount, and my team accomplished some truly great things that will forever occupy a warm spot in my memories.
Most of the people I worked with on this project agree heartily with this sentiment. You don't have to become an AAPL millionaire on a wildly successful project to make the process of creation something of great enjoyment.
Well, it also depends on your boss and your teammates. In my case, the boss wasn't exactly competent at .Net, but insisted on writing code anyway. What ended up happening is that we'd spend half of day n+1 reworking what the boss had written in the latter half of day n.
Personally, I think not being productive is the point of going to movies. One only has so many hours they can spend being productive before they become wrecks!
There's nothing great about being the Napoleon of CEOs. Get some proper rest. Enjoy the company of your friends and enhance those relationships. Get perspective on personal life before stress bites you in the ass.
There's no obvious indication that the CEO in question is under large amounts of stress. Generally, many founders who work this much do so in a state of flow, which is very much a non-stressful manner of working.
I look at our minds and bodies like a formula 1 car, you may not like it, but at some point you need to replenish. You can either do it in intelligent intervals that allow not to live with that lingering sense that you might blow up at any given moment. Or, you can push until everything starts to fail and you're forced to recover.
The question isn't whether we need to pause and recover, it's whether we'll choose to integrate that time into intelligent intervals that let you feel good along the way or hold out for one big boom the also happens to leave you feeling increasingly like garbage as you approach your limit.
Just look to the structure of ycombinator. It isn't 6, 9 or 12 months. Because nobody can sanely keep that level of intensity or pace for that long.
Plus, once you're far enough into life to have people and activities that allow you to come alive outside of work (even if you love your work), you do a disservice to both your professional and personal vision by ignoring those people over long periods of time.
1) Who cares if he's spending that much time doing it? If he loves it, that's all that matters. If everyone dedicated themselves like that to something that ignited their passion, the world would be better off in general.
2) I would assume that while he does probably work his ass off, there is a bit of exaggeration there. It's for the investors. They want to know they're investing their money in someone who is dedicated to the product and not afraid to bust ass and work long hours. I'm sure he does, but the glorifying of it is probably to retain investor confidence.
It's a bit odd that the best idea Seth Priebatsch's ever had is to add a game layer to the world. If he were to apply his talents to a real business problem not only would he make substantially more money, he'd change the world. Don't get me wrong, Scvngr is a neat idea, but it's like creating a baking soda volcano for a science fair project when you're capable of demonstrating cold fusion. Hopefully he'll tackle something big after he exits this company.
As an aside; I have no idea what he should do next. I just hope that he can solve a bigger problem in his lifetime than the one he's working on.
Matt Douglas (the author) is CEO of http://punchbowl.com/ whose users have a life. It makes sense for him to have a lifestyle that helps him relate to his users. How big a part do you think the lifestyle of your users should play in optimizing the work-life balance of founders?
I'm looking forward to discussing this and other topics with Boston-area hackers at today's meetup.
The post makes sense, and we should not be putting people like him on a pedestal. It's in bad taste to call out someone specifically. He is not the only one who does this, and this article can be generalized to any over zealous leader. I feel bad for him for missing out on so much in life, and he's young - there's no reason to knock a young kid when he's down. Eventually it will catch up to him.
Some of our best ideas come from when we are away from the computer totally engaged in something other than work. I think Seth and others will ultimately learn this.
Dude, stfu and get back to work. I mean really, who tells someone else how to run their business? If it works for him, it works for him, and that's that.
There's a large element of the media that champions sociopathic tendencies. It's good for the HN types to visibly push back against it, even if every situation is different.
Sometimes it's good to cry it out with people. Hard to do that if you can't sign a contract ahead of time.