I'm not sure the problem is with being a founder. Actually this can be a very stimulating experience in your life, and may even bring some economical boost that is not bad for stability.
I think the problem is with the culture of being founder: there is agreement that you can sacrifice almost everything for your work. It is not true. As long as you enjoy what you do, it's ok to work long hours at critical stages of your startup, but it is also ok to take pauses, go to drink with friends, and avoid the pressure in general.
Another thing that always makes me a bit suspicious is that "we are going to change the world". This is a good recipe for pressure. Maybe there is another way to take it, and is simply, I work without too expectations, I try to do my best, but well it's not a drama if this does not work as expected. I'm also worth as an individual, outside my work, outside the business.
Maybe we are building a too aggressive culture and this is the result? I think that "back to technology" should be the motto for the next 10 years.
This is literally a first world problem. In the US, we have a culture that encourages self-actualization. This is a double-edged sword. While this encourages individuals to achieve their dreams, it also puts pressure on them to do great things.
I think the key is to do what you want, and not what society pressures you into doing.
Well many people don't know what that great thing is, and never find it. Many feel they ought to want to do great things even if they don't really (if they could let themselves be free to think about it) and so are caught up in the game and setup to fail.
And our society is setup to tell you that luck has nothing to do with it. Our heroes are idolized as self-made people. And if you had only tried hard you actually might have made it. But you didn't. And why not?
Well actually, despite overtones of meritocracy and that failure is ok and you can start over and remake yourself, the true message of our culture is that you either got it or you don't.
Witness the obsession with the young founder. He's got it. Made millions in months. Why can't you? Because you don't got it.
But it's a problem of radical individualism and a problem of devaluing social context.
Again I am all for achieving great things. I don't think you can put in 100 hours of work a week for several years and still remain healthy. We may call that a mental health problem but the key issue is not mental but social.
Social, maybe. Perhaps we should just do a better job of teaching people that the highest productivity in mental tasks lies at the point of 38 hours per week. Anything more is folly. It might work in _very_ short bursts, but it causes more problems than it solves.
It's just like all nighters. Sure, you get more done tonight, but you're useless tomorrow. Trading 3 hours today for 8 hours tomorrow. Bravo! Good job!
Same goes for stuffing too much into a single week.
But here you are falling into the same trap that causes this problem in the first place, treating people as individual machines, assuming that the limits are to be solved with rules and guidelines.
The real problem is that social context matters and that devoting all one's time towards work for an extended period distorts that context. Coding in isolation (which to be fair is where we all bulk code) also distorts that context.
I usually put in far more than 38 hours a week. The reason I can do this is I work from home around my wife and kids. But I also put in less than 38 hours of heavy-lifting work (the rest is spent in smaller time parcels doing things like financial review, strategic planning, marketing, blogging--- yes I include that since it is part of my marketing--- etc).
To live is to work. But when work is devoid of non-work social context, i.e. where work and home life are separate, then one cannot merely work. This also has the effect of excluding women and all kinds of other problems.
> I think the problem is with the culture of being founder: there is agreement that you can sacrifice almost everything for your work.
Bingo. But let's talk about what that actually means for a second because I am not sure the root cause is depression or mental illness (I am not even sure that current American definitions of mental illness make sense). The root cause is exactly what you articulated.
When you give up everything else for your work, your work becomes your life. All of your friends are your work colleagues. You can't effectively meet family responsibilities, so your business must be your family. This can work for a time (few weeks here, a month there) and indeed every time I have started a significant project there has been a few weeks where that not only had to be done but was really beneficial to do.
I think one book that every founder should read is Victor Turner's "The Ritual Process" which addresses life and ritual among the Ndembo of Africa, and Turner uses this to discuss questions of liminality and initiation elsewhere. At that initial stage of a start-up, many commonalities can be found. Putting that time in for a few weeks on the part of all founders is important to the gelling of the team. I remember starting the LedgerSMB project, working late at night from my day job, spending very very little family time, and working with another developer who would work with me (programming, meetings discussing things) while his infant son was sleeping in his arms.
I am going through the same thing now, setting up a hosting business with another LedgerSMB developer and nearing the end of that initial "initiatory push." There is nothing wrong with that push. It's vital to give a new project or business form and get things of the ground, and it is vital for the initial team to gel.
But the problem is when that becomes normality, to be sustained indefinitely. At some point, we have to break through that liminal stage and re-integrate with the rest of our society. Otherwise we die inside a little at a time, and it is unsurprising that this physically takes the lives of some founders.
I think that "back to technology" should be the motto for the next 10 years.
Yes, I agree. I am really hoping to see a Flight to Substance. I am doubtful, however, because I think the "cool kids" malignancy-- the VC darlings, the investor in-crowd who all collude on terms-- has taken over the organism. I am very optimistic about the long-term future of the technological economy, but I think there's going to be some short-term bleeding and pain before we get there, because nothing good is going to happen until some established players are removed from power and they won't go down without a fight.
The "change the world" bullshit coming from most of these VC darlings is an excuse to underpay and exploit people, especially fresh college kids.
Bill Gates is fucking changing the world. Some build-to-flip IUsedThisToilet app that exists to get some idiot a hiring bonus along with his douchey PM job is not.
The problem is the tech industry went to a quantity over quality issue and made a 'good enough' quality that sells despite major bugs and flaws.
I think there should be a startup renaissance, to bringing quality back to technology. Like the woodworking rule of "measure twice, cut once" instead of the current "measure once, cut twice." or "don't measure and cut as many times as it takes to get the job done" that some seem to have.
When you do a job for quality, you take your time to make sure it is right and there isn't as much pressure. Sure you have a deadline, but if management agrees that more time should be given to do it right the first time, instead of rush it and put stress and pressure on the employee, it might avoid these suicides.
In a free market, nobody truly has power. If they suck, they just cease to matter and can safely be ignored. Only the _competition_ matters, and people who suck usually aren't the competition (if they are, they are easy pickings).
Now, none of this applies if we're talking about big business vendor/regulatory lock-in type situations, but that's not the part of the economy I think you're talking about.
So what makes you thnk that the current VC "organism" has "power" and that "nothing good is going to happen" until they are removed? I mean, why can't people just ignore them and go do things separately?
Perfect competition of that kind only exists in markets where the product is fungible and consumers can easily substitute suppliers. Participants in such a market are price takers as you describe. The VC market is more a case of monopolistic competition, or monopsonistic if you prefer.
The problem is that VCs don't really compete with each other at all. They co-fund a lot of deals and it's more important to them, in the long term, that they "get in on" the few blockbuster deals that exist every year, than it is that they make the best investments. So they're not going to piss off another VC who might have access to good deals. The result is that they end up colluding more than they compete, and the result is that entrepreneurs don't get fair terms, but terms set by a VC in-crowd.
They also compare notes on who they like and who they don't, and if you turn down a term sheet you're likely to have that VC pick up a phone and dry up interest in other VC firms that are supposed to be his competitors.
I think the problem is with the culture of being founder: there is agreement that you can sacrifice almost everything for your work. It is not true. As long as you enjoy what you do, it's ok to work long hours at critical stages of your startup, but it is also ok to take pauses, go to drink with friends, and avoid the pressure in general.
Another thing that always makes me a bit suspicious is that "we are going to change the world". This is a good recipe for pressure. Maybe there is another way to take it, and is simply, I work without too expectations, I try to do my best, but well it's not a drama if this does not work as expected. I'm also worth as an individual, outside my work, outside the business.
Maybe we are building a too aggressive culture and this is the result? I think that "back to technology" should be the motto for the next 10 years.