Building rocket-ships.
If you take all the commonalities of success you start to realize that the most-envied "rocket-ship" companies e.g. Microsoft, Facebook, Google, et al. they pushed their markets past the threshold and they competed in a highly competitive landscape with large incumbents. Now, these examples lead people to believe that success lies in the quality of people/vision, size of market, and/or speed of execution.
However, I think that none of these factors correlate to success, yet all of these factors make successful companies.
- Quality of people - the founders surround themselves with more talented people which renders themselves the least qualified.
- Quality of vision - companies change their direction a few times before they see any success.
- Size of market - initially, their markets were underdeveloped and they pushed it over the edge.
- Speed of execution - some of their competitors were innovating at a similar (sometimes faster) pace, but in "different" areas.
Instead, these companies focused on experimentation thus they constantly improved their product based on market demands and competitors' activities. Mostly, they learned from the industry's mistakes/successes, and reacted accordingly to align their actions with their visions. Also, they recruited rock-star advisors/investors who were extremely passionate about their potential growth. Their advisors created massive hype around them (which led to spectacular IPOs/financings).
Therefore, if you find intensely passionate people in an environment with overwhelming odds of failure but a promise of explosive growth you'll build rocketships. However, there needs to be a substantial amount of risk placed in people with hyperbolic visions in potentially massive markets that "do more faster" [1]. Where do you find that magic? Find people that love what they do in areas that excite you and work like all hell.
Next post: Getting over risk-phobia
Sources:
