Eugene.Adogla wrote:

"Its not the entrepreneur that fails, it is the business that fails" Mike Maples

A whole new way of looking at failure and its place within the Silicon Valley's entrepreneurial cultural matrix. Twelve very powerful words indeed!

I don't really agree that these are powerful words at all. In fact, I don't think that Mike in retrospect would entirely agree with his own statement. While he did state this, he also cited the notion that merely given too much money to work with, an entrepreneur, through bad and unnecessary decision making, could ultimately fail in his/her business plan even though the business plan itself may actually be an effective one. Often, I believe, the business fails as the result of the faults of the entrepreneur. Maybe not though.

Last edited by Zack.Arnold (2008-01-23 23:42:08)

Zack brings up an interesting point that Mike made.  I thought his idea that too much money is actually "toxic" for a startup was very interesting.  He argued that more money would allow the entrepreneur to continue pursuing failing opportunities longer than he/she would if there was a tighter amount of money guiding the decision-making.  This ties into the earlier posts about whether it's the entrepreneur or the business that fails- wouldn't a successful entrepreneur avoid a sink-hole endeavor (even if there was enough money to throw at it), or is too much money a 'circumstance' that can lead to the business itself failing, not because of the entrepreneur?

Contemplating what I have heard From Ron Conway and Mike Maple, I had a sudden epiphany: if you have great ideas, passion, and maybe a little bit of luck, you may find the success you dream of. However, if not, don't panic, learn from what you have done wrong, and the experience of failing can be priceless. As Mike Maples points out that Silicon Valley is a great place to start a business. As Stanford University students, we are really lucky to be able to pursue what we are truly passionate about. There are many others who cannot, do not have the opportunity to pursue what they really love to do. Therefore, giving up passions and go after certain "ideal" choices are stupid. Also, one's attitude when facing failures are also crucial in determining future. Nobody can always be the winner of games. Even Mike Maples has had some experience of investment failure (though he gets his money back), and that tells us that we all learn when we fail, which makes failure truly great. Without failure, success will not happen by itself.

I think the key to success for any entrepreneur is to distinguish a "good idea" from a "good opportunity". Nathan raises an excellent point in stating that startup failures shouldn't be blamed on an individual's capacity or potential, but I believe that failure can be attributed to the individual's decisions and actions he/she implemented. Entrepreneurs who want to avoid failure should definitely heed the advice given by Ron Conway: "Don't scale until you know it works." While there are external circumstances that can alter a company's trajectory, the entrepreneur and his/her team are the catalyst for success.

I also thought that it was interesting how Mike Maples mentioned how some companies fail because the entrepreneur fails by being inflexible. When entrepreneurs are starting a company, they have a vision of their product and their company but Mike was mentioning how entrepreneurs need to be able to morph to be successful. He mentioned how it is common for entrepreneurs to fail because they are resistance and won’t accept change and have a very defined vision. I thought this was very interesting because the COO of SanDisk, Sanjay Mehrota mentioned how he succeeded in helping SanDisk what it is today by focusing on his vision and sticking together with it when people told him to change it. I guess it’s two different perspectives at how companies can succeed.

I agree with most of the points people are making in response to Mike's comment.  But it also reminds me of something Ron Conway said about the importance of a certain chemistry between the entrepreneur(s) and the investors.  I think at one point he argued that it is very easy for them to screen for ideas and business plans just from looking at applications, but if there is not a good working relationship between the investor and the entrepreneurs, he is often hesitant to move forward.  This places much of the burden of success on the entrepreneur as opposed to the business plan.

It is also important to remember that 1/3 of the companies will fail and 1/3 will only barely break even.  So while there may be some cases of a company going under because of some poor business plans as Mike may or may not have implied, part of it is just the nature of the entrepreneurial world.

I thought Charles comment was on point about the how flexibility and a coherent vision can undoubtedly exist simultaneously and I also thought the reflection on funding was insightful.

I think that having both flexibility within maintaining a coherent vision is sometimes what has made a difference for businesses and entrepreneurs who might fail in one aspect of achieving their objectives,  but their flexibility to find another way to achieve their vision is what has led them to success. This is what a great entrepreneur does, maintains his or her values, while having the flexibility to shift strategy.