There's an idea that hard means you have to ruin yourself to succeed. This is reinforced culturally, in some situations if you don't portray that image, you get passed up.<p>That idea however doesn't always correlate with data. People who overwork becomes less effective and make poorer decisions than they would if they took care of themselves.<p>You can affect the rational side of that argument, by knowing when to set limits and knowing when it's important to break them. However, the cultural side of it is a more difficult nut to crack.<p>There's been a few stories recently about bankers, after the death of Moritz Erhardt. One of the interesting things about these stories to me is that the culture expects someone like an intern, who may not even be doing a considerable amount of actual work, to go through the motions, to be present all the time, to forego sleep and socializing. Not because it makes them more effective at their job, but because if they didn't someone else will prove that they will.<p>It's an symptom of the scarcity in the system. There are more people vying for a position than can attain it, so instead of a focus on performance, it's a performance of one-upmanship.<p>It's a similar scenario in start-ups. Most start-ups fail. Statistically it's going to happen. So you need to prove to investors, clients, partners, that you're better than those that fail. It doesn't matter if you have the best product on the block if everyone thinks you're likely to disappear off that block within the next couple of months. Success begets success, and so you put on your show. You show the others that unlike them, you can do it. You put in that time not because it makes your offering better, but because it shows to the rest of the world that you're doing it while they are not.
The bigger lesson here is not about hard vs easy but the dangerous facade that many startups create. As Joe says, it forces bad decision hurting the real, underlying business. I have seen that myself in VC funded companies I worked for. The company was too focused on creating the appearance of success (which they excelled at) even though it was fairly clearly undermining our ability to develop a real business.
The title reminds me Chris Dixon's "The default state of a startup is failure"<p><a href="http://cdixon.org/2012/05/18/the-default-state-of-a-startup-is-failure/" rel="nofollow">http://cdixon.org/2012/05/18/the-default-state-of-a-startup-...</a>
My question is: why are you doing a startup in the first place?<p>If it is to project a sense of coolness and accomplishment or to stroke your own ego you are doing it wrong. You may win a few popularity contests from time to time, but you won't build a successful business.<p>If you have a vision that you really believe in, then focus on that and forget about the other nonsense.
It's probably 'easy' if you've already made a bunch of successful startups, and have the confidence to know exactly what to do. Getting that skill set in the first place is quite difficult though.