These two articles appear to refer to the same work, and/or mention the New Yorker piece:
http://www.inc.com/ilan-mochari/venerating-failure-celebrate-it-too-much.html http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/02/research-serial-entrepreneurs-arent-any-more-likely-to-succeed/ I think these are the two studies that are referred to in that piece: http://econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/90815/1/777058081.pdf http://www.people.hbs.edu/dscharfstein/Articles/Performance_Persistence_in_Entrepreneurship.pdf If I am selecting the right study (the latter one), then the success rates are 21% for first-timers, 22% for previously-failed entrepreneurs and 30% for previously successful entrepreneurs. So you are correct that they are "at the background level". Note that the more recent (2014) study was more negative about "second time lucky" entrepreneurs (actually, no-one does all that differently than novices in that study, except the "second time lucky" crowd, which does worse). The problem is with post-hoc analysis of failure, in my experience, is that you often just get to one error/reason for failure, and maybe not even the real one. At Sensory we had countless knock-backs along with occasional successes and when you were TTFO by a customer, no-one ever sent you a nice certificate that said "Here are the following 3 things that you did wrong, and fixing them would have been a necessary and sufficient condition for us to choose your product". Pretty much you got 1/3 of those, plus a couple other gripes that weren't decisive - at best. Sometimes you wouldn't get told anything. The only way you really understood what happened was when you got to a success - at that point, you can figure that everything more or less works for the customer (even some of the *successful *outcomes left us wondering "what on earth just happened there, anyhow?"). A lot of the time fixing the One Big Thing That's Wrong With Your Plan just gets you to the next One Big Thing That's Wrong With Your Plan. So I think it's really easy to stumble away from a mess having learned the wrong lesson, or no lesson at all. I've posted it before, but the closing lines of Burn After Reading are oft-quoted around our way (language NSFW): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQQdSwFgSec Matt: I liked the article, and I think trying to analyze success as well as failure is a great idea. Geoff. On Sunday, 15 June 2014 12:32:40 UTC+10, Alex North wrote: > > Very interesting, thanks Geoff. Particularly the actual data point that > past failure didn't improve chances of future success. If evidence accrues > for that it should change the impact calculations for demonstrated-mediocre > entrepreneurs. But what's the background failure rate? 80% doesn't seem > that high anyway. > > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Geoff Langdale <geoff.l...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> Interesting tidbits, here: >> >> http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2014/05/19/140519ta_ >> talk_surowiecki >> >> On top of this, there’s a widespread tendency to treat failure as a badge >>> of honor: “Fail fast, fail often” is a familiar mantra in Silicon Valley. >>> There’s now a regular FailCon, where people come to hear other >>> entrepreneurs tell about the hard times they endured and about how starting >>> a business and failing actually makes you more likely to succeed in the >>> future. It’s a comforting message, but the evidence suggests that past >>> failure really just predicts future failure. A 2009 study of venture-backed >>> firms found that entrepreneurs who had failed in the past were not much >>> more likely to succeed in new ventures than first-time entrepreneurs >>> were—some eighty per cent of those who had failed before failed again. A >>> later study of more than eight thousand German ventures came to an even >>> grimmer conclusion: founders who had previously failed were more likely to >>> fail than novices. >> >> >> Some interesting stuff in the article about overconfidence, too - worth >> considering in the light of the recent thread about founders and >> depression: >> >> And that’s because the fundamental characteristic of entrepreneurs isn’t >>> risk-seeking; it’s self-confidence. A 1997 study in the Journal of Business >>> Venturing found that entrepreneurs are overconfident about their ability to >>> prevent bad outcomes. They’re also overconfident about the prospects of >>> their business. A 1988 study in the same journal of some three thousand >>> entrepreneurs found that eighty-one per cent thought their businesses had >>> at least a seventy-per-cent chance of success, and a third thought there >>> was no chance they would fail—numbers that bear no relation to reality. A >>> recent paper called “Living Forever” notes that entrepreneurs are more >>> likely than other people to overestimate their life spans. >> >> >> No citations as it's just a talk piece. Not sure I buy it but an >> interesting perspective nonetheless. >> >> -- >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Silicon Beach >> Australia mailing list. Vist http://siliconbeachaustralia.org for more >> >> Forum rules >> 1) No lurkers! It is expected that you introduce yourself. >> 2) No jobs postings. You can use http://siliconbeachaustralia.org/jobs >> >> >> To post to this group, send email to >> silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> silicon-beach-australia+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en?hl=en >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Silicon Beach Australia" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to silicon-beach-australia+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com >> <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Silicon Beach Australia mailing list. Vist http://siliconbeachaustralia.org for more Forum rules 1) No lurkers! It is expected that you introduce yourself. 2) No jobs postings. You can use http://siliconbeachaustralia.org/jobs To post to this group, send email to silicon-beach-australia@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to silicon-beach-australia+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Silicon Beach Australia" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to silicon-beach-australia+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
