<p><pre><code> “More often than not, she relies on charts, graphs
and quantitative analysis as a foundation for a
decision, particularly when it comes to evaluating
people … At a recent personnel meeting, she homes in
on grade-point averages and SAT scores to narrow a
list of candidates, many having graduated from Ivy
League schools, … One candidate got a C in macroeconomics.
“That’s troubling to me,” Ms. Mayer says.
“Good students are good at all things.”
</code></pre>
Kind of a stunning misconception right there. A person only needs to look in the mirror, to invalidate such an idea.
In my experience, being an entrepreneur is all about taking on and managing risk well. An entrepreneurial spirit almost enjoys risk. At a firm, you usually don't get much material risk exposure to manage, so entrepreneurial individuals end up seeking out opportunities that can give them a more direct handle on their risk exposure (and any subsequent rewards). More often than not, this means starting a company where you largely decide which risks you're comfortable accepting, and which risks you prefer to avoid. The thrill is in navigating those risks using your guile to deliver value much above the expected risk premia for your domain. I worked in an investment bank for a few years, but the risk environment was too restrictive for me to really make a mark (from a job security perspective also, I'd often see lifers get the boot, so never <i>really</i> felt comfortable, even though on paper I should have been). Thus I quit, started my own company, took on a great deal more risk, but still experienced more work satisfaction. I think what I like most is the ability to take your professional future by the horns without any artificial constraints holding me back. For me, what it comes down to is this: entrepreneurs despise restrictions, and modern companies can't seem to exist without them.
I have come to a conclusion: There are deductive style thinkers and there are inductive type thinkers. The deductive works from the abstract theory towards a proof of his reasoning. The inductive works from facts, and backwards to a theory or model.<p>The deductive 'type' can usually be a very good student and academic, but not so great as a practitioner. They can be very reliable within a very structured environment.<p>The inductive 'type' is usually better at doing things and learning from these and getting an intuition for how they work. They are not good at 'following' ideas and usual make horrible students and employees. They are pretty good at adapting in a more chaotic environment.<p>So the problem in tech (interviews)seems to me that the 'deductive types' get the best scores and signal themselves as being the 'brightest'. However in reality what you want in industry are 'doers' such as the 'inductive' type people ... but they are the ones failing at your ridiculous tests/puzzle questions.<p>Ideally a person should balance between the 2 modes (inductive and deductive) and be a master at almost everything.
This blog and the paper it's about remind me a lot of PG's "After Credentials." <a href="http://paulgraham.com/credentials.html" rel="nofollow">http://paulgraham.com/credentials.html</a> .<p>He uses "credentials" the way "resume" is used here. Large companies allocate compensation & power based on credentials, including those you get in-company like seniority and job title. Startups let you succeed and fail based on performance instead of this poxy proxy for it. He goes in depth into the "grades problem" that Mayer seems to exemplify and several commenters here brought up.<p>I think pg was optimistic about this topic in 2008, and this article relates to his larger vision of a "high-resolution" economy where un-credentialed entrepreneurship plays a larger role, and corporate-bureaucratic credentialism plays a smaller one.<p>We'll soon have 3-5 trillion dollar companies (unicorn-eating dragons, technically). They're less "old fashioned" in their credentialism, but they're credentialist nonetheless.<p>I'm with Paul though, we need to figure out ways of having the economy that is less abstract.
The most interesting point of the article to me is that fact that taxes above $100k were 70% - 90% until 1970. That seems like it nicely explains why income inequality and CEO salaries have increase since 1970. With a tax rate like that, you pretty much can't have much income inequality.
This takes a very heavy analytical approach to the reasons for seeking an entrepreneurship path. I think it misses the larger point - most people go into it for highly personal subjective reasons. Mine, and most I feel like are simply choosing to chase after the dream of making real money, enough to buy our freedom from the rat race and live life on our own terms.
One additional thing I would add to the article is that large companies have a harder time leveraging someone with multifaceted strengths, which the entrepreneurial route can better leverage. Large companies are about specialization and efficiency at scale for employees; their structure inherently has a harder time to get the most out of the the multiple strengths an entrepreneurial person likely possesses. Conversely, someone who is amazing at only one thing, eg software engineering, but lacks in leadership, sales, marketing, design, etc could have an amazing career in a large company but might have a harder time starting a company where there aren't already teams of people to compensate for his/her weaknesses.
Having been entrepreneurial itself becomes a signal that opens doors at companies -- even if the business fails. I don't know about hiring on and doing what you're told, but being the person who made sure it all happened -- including doing everything you haven't yet hired someone for. I've seen several folks who stepped out, failed at a business idea, and then stepped back into corporate at a higher level. Starting up a new company is like starting a new division. It signals that you can handle the complexity and diversity of responsibility. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/11/upshot/how-to-become-a-ceo-the-quickest-path-is-a-winding-one.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/11/upshot/how-to-become-a-ce...</a>
> No wonder the most successful Google products, other than search, have been acquisitions of startups not internal products: YouTube, Android, DoubleClick, Keyhole (Google Maps), Waze were started and run by entrepreneurs.<p>What about Gmail and Chrome?
<i>Venture capital flourished when the tax rates plummeted in the late 1970s.</i><p>Yet business formation in the US is near a forty year low: <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/08/news/economy/us-startups-near-40-year-low/index.html" rel="nofollow">http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/08/news/economy/us-startups-nea...</a>
Obviously it varies but personally the major reason I tend towards working outside organisations is the "quality" of my endeavour.<p>Within an established organisation, even great ones, getting things done involves often involves internal machinations - "buy in" etc. The best people at large companies are experts at this.<p>As an entrepreneur, this skill helps make a sale, or raise funds. But its directly linked to the problem you are solving. Its "how do I make a thing that does X" VS "how do I make this thing do X".<p>Its purer. Its more interesting. Its easier to romanticise - and easier to pass that feeling on. Its also liberating to have complete freedom (for awhile!) and no-one to blame but yourself.
I knew some “entrepreneurs” from college who couldn’t land a job upon graduation. They’re prideful, so they sugarcoat their situation and justify why it is meaningful, when really the opportunity cost was zero. This isn’t a knock against all entrepreneurs. It’s the difference between “billionaires are dropouts” vs “dropouts are billionaires”. Ironically, one of those “entrepreneurs” said “I’m a C student, therefore all of you will end up working for me.” Last I heard, they were smuggling medicine in the legal-grayarea across borders.
"In this case the entrepreneurs know something potential employers don’t – that nowhere on their resume does it show resiliency, curiosity, agility, resourcefulness, pattern recognition, tenacity and having a passion for products."<p>Those aren't really signaled by asking coding questions either.
My own career is an example of this, by all accounts and measurements used in HR in the US I shouldn't be earning as much as I do or as successful or sort after in my field.<p>Its always a shock to colleagues when they ask where I went to college and my response is that I'm still on my gap year that started 15 years ago. When I go into the details of what happened throughout that period the bias towards college education disappears.<p>And the paper is correct, I fully understand that my skills on offer are on par or better than what any C-level or senior exec can offer, but I only realized this after a few years of interacting and working with these people.
<i>“I want to be my own boss.” “I love risk.” “I want flexible work hours.” “I want to work on tough problems that matter.” “I have a vision and want to see it through.” “I saw a better opportunity and grabbed it. …”</i><p>I've started several companies, and the reason was the same each time, I believed there was a market for an idea from which I could make money. Those other reasons never came into play. I suppose that starting a bussiness has different reasons for people who are already unhappy with their lives, but starting a business really shouldn't be undertaken to minimize stress and the number of working hours.
>> that explains a new theory of why some people choose to be entrepreneurs.<p>People don't 'choose' to be entrepreneurs - Choosing to be an entrepreneur is usually the first step but it doesn't make you an entrepreneur. It can take decades to reach the point where you can become one.<p>I've been trying for 10 years and I'm now only partially an entrepreneur in the sense that I earn a decent amount of passive income from a side business but I'm still also an 'employee' because I still have a day job too.<p>It takes a long time to build up the network that you need to become an entrepreneur.
There are plenty of highly talwnted people who work for existing companies vs start their own thing. The fact that big companies often acquire startups I think has less to do with caliber of talent and more the focus of that energy. You are asked to move some KPI OKR whatever. And you are evaluated on how much you move it on at least an annual basis. Successful startups often take many years to become valuable or product revenue. It's too risky for most companies to hold off evaluating for that long.
> At a recent personnel meeting, she homes in on grade-point averages and SAT scores to narrow a list of candidates, many having graduated from Ivy League schools, …One candidate got a C in macroeconomics. “That’s troubling to me,” Ms. Mayer says. “Good students are good at all things.”<p>No wonder Yahoo failed.
Is that (starting a company) not literally the definition of an entrepreneur?<p><a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=define+entrepreneur" rel="nofollow">https://www.google.com/search?q=define+entrepreneur</a><p>> a person who organizes and operates a business or businesses, taking on greater than normal financial risks in order to do so.
This does not consider the fact that only a small segment of the population is capable of being entrepreneurs - at least in tech, in the first place. In order to leave a cushy job and start a startup you must:<p>1)Be born in a country that's rich with local talent that you can hire. Or have the ability to move to such a country.<p>2)Be free of debt, either from student loans or mortgage<p>3)Have affluent friends or families(the paper rightly notes that most early funding comes from friends and family) - so affluent that they are willing to invest in something they know will possibly fail, as most startups do.<p>4)Be the right age - if you're starting a family or paying off a mortgage, it would be completely irrational to abandon a stable job.<p>When you consider all this, there are perhaps a few hundred thousand people for whom it would be wise to become an entrepreneur - and by this I don't mean a local store, but with ambitions to scale up.<p>All these factors could explain the charecteristics: Immigrants from Asia and Europe tend to be richer than the average population there much more educated. They are young and largely free of undergraduate debt. Similarly, people who grow up in affluent families(relative to the median family) probably already have seed money, fall-back options and security that failure doesn't mean homelessness. Not everyone has that luxury.<p>Looking at the most popular entrepreneurs in the world - Bill Gates, Zuckerberg and Spiegel all grew up in very rich homes, while Jobs grew up right in the heart of Silicon Valley. Kalncik lived 3 years without a salary and moved into his parents house for a long time.