One of the biggest surprises for me when I went to work for a big corp was that people didn't actually work harder in startups than in large corporations. Perhaps there's a bit of sample bias; people at Google tend to work harder than at other big companies, at least according to my Noogler classmates who used to work at Adobe and Intuit. But I know people at Yahoo and IBM that work even harder than I do at Google, and I work about as hard at Google as when I was working with a YC startup. And yet they at IBM accomplish far less than we do at Google, and we at Google (on a person-for-person basis) accomplish far less than the average successful YC startup.<p>I've been trying to put my finger on why that is, and I think it all comes down to misallocation of resources. Over time, work becomes focused inwards at a large corporation, dedicated to supporting the inner world of the corporation instead of the outer world of the market. Without market discipline, decisions get made that seem logical to the decision-maker but are actually very pessimal from an efficiency standpoint. Some team might create an API that's a continual tax on its users, but without the ability to bypass it and use or write an alternative, there's no way around it. Or some VP may make a decision that seems sensible at a time, but mortgages future development, and without the ability for that initial project to fail and get completely reverted, you'll never arrive at the optimal solution.<p>Working hard is generally a necessary but not sufficient condition for success, and it's nowhere near a straight-line correlation. Far more important is to pay attention to <i>what</i> you're working on, and make sure that it's actually important. You can't succeed with zero hard work, but you can get much farther with a little smarts and little hard work than with a lot of hard work.