But it does apply to founders. Nearly everyone interviewed in Founders at Work remarked that constraints breed creativity. That focus is one reason startups can kick the ass of big corporations.
It's just that it's possible to overconstrain the solution as much as underconstrain it. In the early stages, there's so much work to do that if you try to add kids to the mix, you don't even attempt it. As the startup gets more developed (or if you start with a simple enough problem), the amount of work needed becomes manageable enough to juggle with family life.
Same goes for having a day job. It worked for Joshua Schacter, Pierre Omidyar, and Steve Wozniak, because the focus of having only so many hours available disciplined them to work on products they could do in those hours. And the economy was such that not many other people were working on those products, so they ended up dominating their niches. But it fails for many, many other entrepreneurs, because the problems they could solve within those constraints had already been solved by hundreds of other people.
Nearly everyone interviewed in Founders at Work remarked that constraints breed creativity.
That doesn't mean that they make you net better, though. If they did, you could prove by induction that the ideal strategy in a startup would be to work an arbitrarily small amount of time per day.
> If they did, you could prove by induction that the ideal strategy in a startup would be to work an arbitrarily small amount of time per day.
For a given startup, a particular limit on startup time might actually be optimal. But I think it's pretty likely that different startups are going to find different sets of constraints (regarding time, budget, or other areas) optimal.
In the early stages, there's so much work to do that if you try to add kids to the mix, you don't even attempt it.
This sentence resonated with me as a father of two. But on second thought, I realize, the root reason I do not attempt it (again, for now) is a lack of finances and stability, not a lack of time. I lack time because I have a day job, and I have a day job because I don't have the money to pursue my own business without incurring lots of debt.
The optimal solution, for me, would be to have 12 months salary saved up, and burn through that while starting my own business. And it wouldn't be a 'startup' by PG's definition--I've learned that control is more important to me than growing fast.
It's just that it's possible to overconstrain the solution as much as underconstrain it. In the early stages, there's so much work to do that if you try to add kids to the mix, you don't even attempt it. As the startup gets more developed (or if you start with a simple enough problem), the amount of work needed becomes manageable enough to juggle with family life.
Same goes for having a day job. It worked for Joshua Schacter, Pierre Omidyar, and Steve Wozniak, because the focus of having only so many hours available disciplined them to work on products they could do in those hours. And the economy was such that not many other people were working on those products, so they ended up dominating their niches. But it fails for many, many other entrepreneurs, because the problems they could solve within those constraints had already been solved by hundreds of other people.